Unemployment rises to 8.2%

gimmesometruth27

EdsonNascimento wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

How does that make any sense (other than to the satirical political cartoon folks)?

i know this was a dig at me. yes or no, would you argue against the assertion that the gop would rather just sink the ship to eliminate the captain??

Oh, there's no doubt the GOP wants the GOP to win the next election. But, isn't that the same for the Donkeys? Aren't they doing things to keep their Ass in office?

gop controlled house-

votes held to repeal affordable care act- 33

votes held on obama's jobs bill- 0

you tell me who is fucking things up.

EdsonNascimento

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

gop controlled house-

votes to repeal affordable care act- 33

you tell me who is fucking things up.

Why won't the Senate at least vote on one of those 33 repeals that have been approved by the House? I mean, it should be quick an over. Why not simply put it to vote, and it can be put to rest?

gimmesometruth27

EdsonNascimento wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

gop controlled house-

votes to repeal affordable care act- 33

you tell me who is fucking things up.

Why won't the Senate at least vote on one of those 33 repeals that have been approved by the House? I mean, it should be quick an over. Why not simply put it to vote, and it can be put to rest?

because it would never pass in the senate.

here is a new plan...

how about we waste more time this session debating it and voting on it in the house?

oh wait...

EdsonNascimento

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

Why won't the Senate at least vote on one of those 33 repeals that have been approved by the House? I mean, it should be quick an over. Why not simply put it to vote, and it can be put to rest?

because it would never pass in the senate.

here is a new plan...

how about we waste more time this session debating it and voting on it in the house?

oh wait...

Ok. You're probably right. But, then why send a tax bill disguised as a politically motivated unsustainable "jobs" bill that you know won't pass?

We should skip the whole process and guess which bills will and won't pass and only send those that will pass. Not sure how we'd do that, but let's try that.

Or, we can simply have one side of Congress vote on the bill the other side passed 33 times and be done with it. Obviously, the House wants it real bad. So, why not just throw them a bone and vote it down?

gimmesometruth27

EdsonNascimento wrote:

Obviously, the House wants it real bad. So, why not just throw them a bone and vote it down?

because if the senate votes it down, they will slightly amend it and then they will vote on it for a 34th and then 35th and then 36th time. they need to move on to other business.

EdsonNascimento

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

Obviously, the House wants it real bad. So, why not just throw them a bone and vote it down?

because if the senate votes it down, they will slightly amend it and then they will vote on it for a 34th and then 35th and then 36th time. they need to move on to other business.

Ok. But, that's the process. You're upset they voted down a bill you liked. That's part of the process. At least they had the balls to vote on it.

gimmesometruth27

EdsonNascimento wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

Obviously, the House wants it real bad. So, why not just throw them a bone and vote it down?

because if the senate votes it down, they will slightly amend it and then they will vote on it for a 34th and then 35th and then 36th time. they need to move on to other business.

Ok. But, that's the process. You're upset they voted down a bill you liked. That's part of the process. At least they had the balls to vote on it.

the did not vote on the jobs bill....

i'm pissed that they keep wasting valuable time on the affordable care act...

EdsonNascimento

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

because if the senate votes it down, they will slightly amend it and then they will vote on it for a 34th and then 35th and then 36th time. they need to move on to other business.

Ok. But, that's the process. You're upset they voted down a bill you liked. That's part of the process. At least they had the balls to vote on it.

the did not vote on the jobs bill....

i'm pissed that they keep wasting valuable time on the affordable care act...

You are correct. I mis-spoke on that. But, they have finished their vote on ACA, they can now debate the other bill. If like the Senate, they decide not to vote on it, I guess that's ok by your standard.

Personally, I prefer both sides of Congress debate and vote on both bills. Though if I were the House, I'd be tired of taking the higher road after a while as well. Why doesn't King Reid let the entire Senate decide whether to put the ACA to rest or not? 33 votes by the House would seem to be a very strong indication that one side of Congress believes this motion to be somewhat important.

Cosmo

General question to everyone... What is more important to you, your job or your health?

inlet13

Cosmo wrote:

General question to everyone... What is more important to you, your job or your health?

If I were forced to choose - I guess I'd say my health.

However, a job provides me AND my family with the means to stay healthy (stable housing, education, eat well, exercise, etc.) AND health insurance. So, I wouldn't say they are mutually exclusive whatsoever.

I think I know where you're going though and I'd say I think it's important to differentiate between health and health insurance. They aren't even similar concepts.

If you were to ask what's more important to me? My job (without health insurance) or my health insurance (without my job)? I wouldn't hesitate to say my job because I know I could pay for health insurance on an open market (yet admittedly at a higher rate) out of my salary and have money left to support my family and stay healthy.

That's my take.

Cosmo

inlet13 wrote:

Cosmo wrote:

General question to everyone... What is more important to you, your job or your health?

If I were forced to choose - I guess I'd say my health.

However, a job provides me AND my family with the means to stay healthy (stable housing, education, eat well, exercise, etc.) AND health insurance. So, I wouldn't say they are mutually exclusive whatsoever.

I think I know where you're going though and I'd say I think it's important to differentiate between health and health insurance. They aren't even similar concepts.

If you were to ask what's more important to me? My job (without health insurance) or my health insurance (without my job)? I wouldn't hesitate to say my job because I know I could pay for health insurance on an open market (yet admittedly at a higher rate) out of my salary and have money left to support my family and stay healthy.

That's my take.

...
Thanx for that. And just to let you know, i'm not baiting... it is an honest question.
Your job is important because it is tied to your access to health care. Without your employer provided group insurnace, you would be forced to either, purchase individual health insurance at a high rate or go without.
That is the problem with the system... health coverage and employment are tied together. We are all one lay-off, outsourcing, company closure from losing access to the health care we have been relying on to always be there.
Do we want this to continue?

inlet13

Cosmo wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

Cosmo wrote:

General question to everyone... What is more important to you, your job or your health?

If I were forced to choose - I guess I'd say my health.

However, a job provides me AND my family with the means to stay healthy (stable housing, education, eat well, exercise, etc.) AND health insurance. So, I wouldn't say they are mutually exclusive whatsoever.

I think I know where you're going though and I'd say I think it's important to differentiate between health and health insurance. They aren't even similar concepts.

If you were to ask what's more important to me? My job (without health insurance) or my health insurance (without my job)? I wouldn't hesitate to say my job because I know I could pay for health insurance on an open market (yet admittedly at a higher rate) out of my salary and have money left to support my family and stay healthy.

That's my take.

...
Thanx for that. And just to let you know, i'm not baiting... it is an honest question.
Your job is important because it is tied to your access to health care. Without your employer provided group insurnace, you would be forced to either, purchase individual health insurance at a high rate or go without.
That is the problem with the system... health coverage and employment are tied together. We are all one lay-off, outsourcing, company closure from losing access to the health care we have been relying on to always be there.
Do we want this to continue?

Government mismanages everything it weaves it's tentacles into. I don't see any reason to think "more" government involvement will make things better than the status quo. More money into a government enforced monopolies will only increase prices, resulting in higher costs. However, I do agree that our country should try find ways in which we could have more affordable insurance purchased through the free market for those without jobs or jobs that cover insurance. In the long run, I don't see why we shouldn't be able to purchase insurance individually - outside of our jobs.

As is - there's no doubt costs are too high. I'd blame a few things -

1) Government involvement in health care, particularly through government sponsored healthcare monopolies
2) Government money printing - The Fed ... basic inflation
3) Over use of high-tech (or generally more expensive) products
4) Over use of drugs that provide short-term fixes, not long-term solutions - due to pharma profiteering and patents
5) Maybe most importantly - right now -there's limited competition

On another note, I don't think anyone should be "forced" to subsidize medical costs of other individuals. I do think progress could be made by lessening government involvement and encouraging competition amongst providers. That's how costs (prices) come down.

At the end of the day, a lot of people forget what I pointed out in my original post - health insurance is not health. Insurance (including health insurance) is meant to measure "risk". Health insurance is meant to supplement a stream a revenue devoted to an individual if they are unfortunately stricken with high medical costs. In order to benefit from your purchase, you will need to have had paid in. The unfortunate reality is those who are higher risk should pay more for "insurance" simply because they are higher risk. They SHOULD NOT pay more for a procedure or treatment. This is another area that is causing problems.

Cosmo

inlet13 wrote:

Government mismanages everything it weaves it's tentacles into. I don't see any reason to think "more" government involvement will make things better than the status quo. More money into a government enforced monopolies will only increase prices, resulting in higher costs. However, I do agree that our country should try find ways in which we could have more affordable insurance purchased through the free market for those without jobs or jobs that cover insurance. In the long run, I don't see why we shouldn't be able to purchase insurance individually - outside of our jobs.

As is - there's no doubt costs are too high. I'd blame a few things -

1) Government involvement in health care, particularly through government sponsored healthcare monopolies
2) Government money printing - The Fed ... basic inflation
3) Over use of high-tech (or generally more expensive) products
4) Over use of drugs that provide short-term fixes, not long-term solutions - due to pharma profiteering and patents
5) Maybe most importantly - right now -there's limited competition

On another note, I don't think anyone should be "forced" to subsidize medical costs of other individuals. I do think progress could be made by lessening government involvement and encouraging competition amongst providers. That's how costs (prices) come down.

At the end of the day, a lot of people forget what I pointed out in my original post - health insurance is not health. Insurance (including health insurance) is meant to measure "risk". Health insurance is meant to supplement a stream a revenue devoted to an individual if they are unfortunately stricken with high medical costs. In order to benefit from your purchase, you will need to have had paid in. The unfortunate reality is those who are higher risk should pay more for "insurance" simply because they are higher risk. They SHOULD NOT pay more for a procedure or treatment. This is another area that is causing problems.

...
Government HAS to do something because the Private Sector has proven it WON'T do anything.

inlet13

Cosmo wrote:

...
Government HAS to do something because the Private Sector has proven it WON'T do anything.

Well, I'd say the private sector hasn't been really been running insurance (privately) for quite some time.

Also, you keep forgetting insurance is not medicine, nor is it healthcare. It's insurance. So, I'm not quite sure what you want to happen here via the private market. Please spell that one out.

Cosmo

inlet13 wrote:

Cosmo wrote:

...
Government HAS to do something because the Private Sector has proven it WON'T do anything.

Well, I'd say the private sector hasn't been really been running insurance (privately) for quite some time.

Also, you keep forgetting insurance is not medicine, nor is it healthcare. It's insurance. So, I'm not quite sure what you want to happen here via the private market. Please spell that one out.

...
Sorry.
Clarification: Health Care is doctors and hospitals and shit. It isn't that.
It is ACCESS to Health Care via "Health Care providers", i.e. "Insurance companies".
...
I was under the impression that most people understood the difference. In the future... I will try to spell it out so you don't get lost in the terms. Access to Health Care... not Health Care itself.

inlet13

Cosmo wrote:

inlet13 wrote:

Cosmo wrote:

...
Government HAS to do something because the Private Sector has proven it WON'T do anything.

Well, I'd say the private sector hasn't been really been running insurance (privately) for quite some time.

Also, you keep forgetting insurance is not medicine, nor is it healthcare. It's insurance. So, I'm not quite sure what you want to happen here via the private market. Please spell that one out.

...
Sorry.
Clarification: Health Care is doctors and hospitals and shit. It isn't that.
It is ACCESS to Health Care via "Health Care providers", i.e. "Insurance companies".
...
I was under the impression that most people understood the difference. In the future... I will try to spell it out so you don't get lost in the terms. Access to Health Care... not Health Care itself.

Couple things:

Insurance does not = access.

- Just because you have insurance, does not mean you can easily see a specific doctor.

- Not having insurance coverage is not the same as not having ready access to healthcare. Why would a doctor turn down a patient that would pay out of pocket on the spot?

Regardless of how you'd like to continue to debate the topic, for God know's what reason, you're not correct that they are identical terms, nor (in my opinion) are they even really synonymous.

Curious what this healthcare topic has to do with the thread tho...

Cosmo

inlet13 wrote:

Couple things:

Insurance does not = access.

- Just because you have insurance, does not mean you can easily see a specific doctor.

- Not having insurance coverage is not the same as not having ready access to healthcare. Why would a doctor turn down a patient that would pay out of pocket on the spot?

Regardless of how you'd like to continue to debate the topic, for God know's what reason, you're not correct that they are identical terms, nor (in my opinion) are they even really synonymous.

Curious what this healthcare topic has to do with the thread tho...

...
Read the 7 or 8 messages prior to my initial question about jobs and health care... er, "access to affordable health care"... the one about the law being a 'Job Killer' and adding to or continuing the unemployment rate.
Come on, man... try to keep up.

PJ_Soul

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

How does that make any sense (other than to the satirical political cartoon folks)?

i know this was a dig at me. yes or no, would you argue against the assertion that the gop would rather just sink the ship to eliminate the captain??

Not that you're asking me, but of COURSE that's what they're trying o do. It's been their primary goal, at the expense of the welfare of the entire population of the US. And people want to vote for THAT?? Crazy. Just crazy.

Bronx Bombers

The U.S. would lose 710,000 jobs and economic output would decline by 1.3 percent, or $200 billion, if tax cuts for high earners are allowed to lapse, said a report prepared for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other supporters of the tax breaks.

The study by Ernst & Young LLP supports Republican efforts to extend all of the George W. Bush-era tax cuts set to expire at the end of the year. President Barack Obama called on Congress last week to pass a one-year extension of tax cuts for married couples making less than $250,000 a year while letting rates rise for higher earners.

“The higher tax rates will have significant adverse economic effects in the long run: lowering output, employment, investment, the capital stock and real after-tax wages when the resulting revenue is used to finance additional government spending,” wrote the report’s authors, Robert Carroll and Gerald Prante.

In addition to the Chamber of Commerce, the largest U.S. business lobby, the report was issued on behalf of the Independent Community Bankers of America, the National Federation of Independent Business and the S Corporation (SCI) (SCI) Association.

‘Long Run’
The report’s authors said they used an Ernst & Young economic model to examine the “long run” effects of an increase in the top tax rates. The report didn’t give details on when the job and economic losses would occur, although an end note said two-thirds to three-fourths of the long-run effect would occur within a decade.

If Congress doesn’t act, all individual income tax rates will increase in 2013, as would rates on capital gains, dividends and estates. Republicans want to extend the current rates for a year and overhaul the U.S. tax code.

A Senate Democratic proposal would extend the tax cuts for income of individuals under $200,000 and married couples under $250,000. The top rates on dividends and capital gains would increase to 23.8 percent from 15 percent and the top rate on estates would go up to 45 percent from 35 percent.

Democrats maintain that high-income taxpayers can afford to pay more to help reduce the budget deficit. The Obama administration disputed the study, saying it gets “the president’s tax cuts wrong” and employs “flawed assumptions.”

‘Ignoring the Benefits’
In a post on the White House website, Amy Brundage, a spokeswoman, said the study “fallaciously assumes that the tax cuts are used to finance additional spending, ignoring the benefits of what the president actually proposed, which was to use the revenue as part of a balanced plan to reduce the deficit and stabilize the debt.”

Republicans say raising anyone’s taxes isn’t worth the economic harm they say would result.

“Our economy is still struggling under President Obama’s policies, and his massive tax hike will only make things tougher,” U.S. House Speaker John Boehner, an Ohio Republican, said in a statement. “It’s one of the worst possible ideas at one of the worst possible times for families and small businesses.”

Representative Dave Camp, a Michigan Republican and chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, called for “comprehensive tax reform that will provide the certainty these entrepreneurs need.”

‘Double Down’
“Rather than double down on tax hikes that will make it harder to get America back to work, it is time to stop the tax hike -- for all taxpayers,” Camp said in a statement.

Representative Sander Levin of Michigan, the top Democrat on the Ways and Means panel, said the report is flawed because it makes alternative assumptions that revenue from higher tax rates could be used to finance a higher level of government.

“The president has made clear this revenue should be used for deficit reduction,” Levin said in a statement.

Asked about the report, House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer of Maryland said few, if any, Democrats with whom he has spoken have qualms about letting the tax rates for high earners lapse at year’s end.

The House plans to vote on extending the Bush-era tax cuts the week of July 30. Second-ranking Senate Democrat Dick Durbin of Illinois said that chamber is likely to vote on its plan the week of July 23.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-0 ... amber-says

inmytree

Bronx Bombers wrote:

The U.S. would lose 710,000 jobs and economic output would decline by 1.3 percent, or $200 billion, if tax cuts for high earners are allowed to lapse, said a report prepared for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other supporters of the tax breaks.

The study by Ernst & Young LLP supports Republican efforts to extend all of the George W. Bush-era tax cuts set to expire at the end of the year. President Barack Obama called on Congress last week to pass a one-year extension of tax cuts for married couples making less than $250,000 a year while letting rates rise for higher earners.

“The higher tax rates will have significant adverse economic effects in the long run: lowering output, employment, investment, the capital stock and real after-tax wages when the resulting revenue is used to finance additional government spending,” wrote the report’s authors, Robert Carroll and Gerald Prante.

In addition to the Chamber of Commerce, the largest U.S. business lobby, the report was issued on behalf of the Independent Community Bankers of America, the National Federation of Independent Business and the S Corporation (SCI) (SCI) Association.

‘Long Run’
The report’s authors said they used an Ernst & Young economic model to examine the “long run” effects of an increase in the top tax rates. The report didn’t give details on when the job and economic losses would occur, although an end note said two-thirds to three-fourths of the long-run effect would occur within a decade.

If Congress doesn’t act, all individual income tax rates will increase in 2013, as would rates on capital gains, dividends and estates. Republicans want to extend the current rates for a year and overhaul the U.S. tax code.

A Senate Democratic proposal would extend the tax cuts for income of individuals under $200,000 and married couples under $250,000. The top rates on dividends and capital gains would increase to 23.8 percent from 15 percent and the top rate on estates would go up to 45 percent from 35 percent.

Democrats maintain that high-income taxpayers can afford to pay more to help reduce the budget deficit. The Obama administration disputed the study, saying it gets “the president’s tax cuts wrong” and employs “flawed assumptions.”

‘Ignoring the Benefits’
In a post on the White House website, Amy Brundage, a spokeswoman, said the study “fallaciously assumes that the tax cuts are used to finance additional spending, ignoring the benefits of what the president actually proposed, which was to use the revenue as part of a balanced plan to reduce the deficit and stabilize the debt.”

Republicans say raising anyone’s taxes isn’t worth the economic harm they say would result.

“Our economy is still struggling under President Obama’s policies, and his massive tax hike will only make things tougher,” U.S. House Speaker John Boehner, an Ohio Republican, said in a statement. “It’s one of the worst possible ideas at one of the worst possible times for families and small businesses.”

Representative Dave Camp, a Michigan Republican and chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, called for “comprehensive tax reform that will provide the certainty these entrepreneurs need.”

‘Double Down’
“Rather than double down on tax hikes that will make it harder to get America back to work, it is time to stop the tax hike -- for all taxpayers,” Camp said in a statement.

Representative Sander Levin of Michigan, the top Democrat on the Ways and Means panel, said the report is flawed because it makes alternative assumptions that revenue from higher tax rates could be used to finance a higher level of government.

“The president has made clear this revenue should be used for deficit reduction,” Levin said in a statement.

Asked about the report, House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer of Maryland said few, if any, Democrats with whom he has spoken have qualms about letting the tax rates for high earners lapse at year’s end.

The House plans to vote on extending the Bush-era tax cuts the week of July 30. Second-ranking Senate Democrat Dick Durbin of Illinois said that chamber is likely to vote on its plan the week of July 23.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-0 ... amber-says

says the Chamber of Commerce, the largest U.S. business lobby

shocking...just shocking, the largest business lobby would be against the bush tax cuts expiring...