Fiscal Cliff ... Here it comes!

JC29856

JC29856 wrote:

Bronx Bombers wrote:

At the end of the day democrats can blame the republicans but as the leader of this country the whole fiscal cliff is all on Obama. If he had any leadership skills whatsoever this would've been resolved already.

With less than a week to go he showed there is no urgency on his part to come up with a solution. He should have never taken a vacation for Christmas instead he should've remained in Washington and worked to resolve this issue.

He spent the first term blaming Bush for the 2008 financial crisis even though it was policies implemented by clinton that ultimately caused the collapse of the financial sector which caused the crisis. Now it looks like he's going to do the same for his second, blame others instead of working to find solutions.

He has shown zero accountability throughout his first term. He is truly a amateur who is shown time and time again that he is unqualified for this job.

and yet more democratic and republican masturbation...

I am sure that it will happen, politicians care about one thing and one thing only RETAINING POWER/CONTROL.

As they arrived for a much-hyped meeting with the President last Friday afternoon, Speaker of the House John Boehner spotted House Majority Leader Harry Reid approaching just steps from the Oval Office. According to "multiple sources," Boehner pointed his finger at Reid and without any other fanfare said, "Go fuck yourself." When Reid asked him what he was talking about, Boehner simply repeated his curse and moved on.

To be fair to Boehner, just hours earlier Reid had called him a dictator on the floor of the Senate, telling the whole country in a widely-televised speech that the Speaker cared more about protecting his job than doing what was right for the American people.

why is BOehNER so angry? truth hurt?
how is gReid any different than BOehNER? "The reflection in the mirror comforts the hypocrite"

JC29856

EdsonNascimento wrote:

JC29856 wrote:

the us debt, the us deficit, the debt ceiling has never effected a public or private business decision, never. if someone has an example please provide it.

example: the owner of a grocery store decided not to open another store in the next town because he/she thought the us deficit was too high
a contractor thought is was a good idea to purchase a plot of land and build 12 condos on it because the us debt is skyrocketing

has the us debt, deficit or ceiling ever effected a personal decision? how so?
i will wait to sell and buy my next home until the us deficit improves

It doesn't directly effect anything. But, thank you for showing why we keep voting the same people in to do the same stupid stuff.

Do you think the Gov't can keep borrowing and printing money unabated and have no effect on the economy? I'll simplify it for you to a very basic economic concept:

If there are more dollar bills floating around is each individual one worth more or less than it was previously?

did u at least see my point? all this talk, debate and energy spent on federal deficit, budgets, debt ceiling and etc dont mean a damn thing to most americans, so why all the hype?

"we" speak for yourself and the rest of the "gullible and naive" voting public
its pretty apparent what borrowing and printing money does to the economy...take a look around
to obvious to answer
i think the difference between our opinions is that you for some reason think the "gov't" "lawmakers" and the fed work for the people to better the country and i think otherwise.

EdsonNascimento

JC29856 wrote:

did u at least see my point? all this talk, debate and energy spent on federal deficit, budgets, debt ceiling and etc dont mean a damn thing to most americans, so why all the hype?

"we" speak for yourself and the rest of the "gullible and naive" voting public
its pretty apparent what borrowing and printing money does to the economy...take a look around
to obvious to answer
i think the difference between our opinions is that you for some reason think the "gov't" "lawmakers" and the fed work for the people to better the country and i think otherwise.

First - I don't think the last. I think they are supposed to, but this latest round once again proves they don't. Though, in fairness, we are unwilling to take the medicine that's necessary. So, in the end, who's to blame? Folks "celebrating" no tax increase while their next paychecks will be at least 2% lighter than their last ones. I wonder how many folks will wonder why that is.

To your first point - there are actions that would impact things directly. For example, if the mortgage deduction were done away with, housing prices would fall preciptiously, and directly impact inventories. Now, that sounds bad except houses are still overpriced relative to their actual value BECAUSE of the mortgage deduction. So, folks make decisions without knowing how legislative action effects it. But, they are making decisions none the less.

I do agree the market reaction last week and now today is silly. But, that's what the markets do. Why they even went down in the first place is beyond me. We all knew something like this was getting passed. It's also why folks like Warren Buffet are wealthy beyond our imagination. I'm guessing he made a billion over the last week watching stupid people abandon the market knowing full well they'd want back in. He probably won on both ends.

SPEEDY MCCREADY

EdsonNascimento wrote:

JC29856 wrote:

did u at least see my point? all this talk, debate and energy spent on federal deficit, budgets, debt ceiling and etc dont mean a damn thing to most americans, so why all the hype?

"we" speak for yourself and the rest of the "gullible and naive" voting public
its pretty apparent what borrowing and printing money does to the economy...take a look around
to obvious to answer
i think the difference between our opinions is that you for some reason think the "gov't" "lawmakers" and the fed work for the people to better the country and i think otherwise.

First - I don't think the last. I think they are supposed to, but this latest round once again proves they don't. Though, in fairness, we are unwilling to take the medicine that's necessary. So, in the end, who's to blame? Folks "celebrating" no tax increase while their next paychecks will be at least 2% lighter than their last ones. I wonder how many folks will wonder why that is.

The average American family is going to be be missing $40 a week from their paychecks? The average american family is going to be missing $160 a month? Thats a car payment, thats 2 weeks worth of groceries. Yet, like you said, many are celebrating.

Thats both Mom and Dad working, each making $50K a year.

JC29856

off topic but....
just one question for perspective if you would? please rank the following in order of greatest to least effecting current housing prices. there are no right or wrong sequences

mortgage deduction
current underwater mortgages
fed interest rates
current foreclosures or in process foreclosures
shadow inventory held by banks
fed foreclosure to rental program
bank bulk sales to investors

Shawshank

This country has become absolutely moronic in it's thinking. People praise and applaud these fools for increasing spending and increasing their taxes. People praise and applaud these fools for requiring them to be insured which is probably the most laughable one of them all. "But I can't be denied for pre-existing condition"...yes, and you also can't control the premiums you'll have to pay. So have fun being at the mercy of insurance corporations. EVERYONE (not just the evil rich) will be hit hard in the coming years, and yet the people are almost giddy about it. As a nation that has allowed itself to be placed in this position, we deserve everything we get.

JC29856

Shawshank wrote:

This country has become absolutely moronic in it's thinking. People praise and applaud these fools for increasing spending and increasing their taxes. People praise and applaud these fools for requiring them to be insured which is probably the most laughable one of them all. "But I can't be denied for pre-existing condition"...yes, and you also can't control the premiums you'll have to pay. So have fun being at the mercy of insurance corporations. EVERYONE (not just the evil rich) will be hit hard in the coming years, and yet the people are almost giddy about it. As a nation that has allowed itself to be placed in this position, we deserve everything we get.

when did "we" control insurance premiums? when werent "we" at the mercy of the insurance corporations? what year did the shift in power take place?

you are absolutely correct when you say... we deserve everything we get.

Jason P

kenny olav wrote:

All over? Well it's been fun watching my government barely fulfill one of it's most basic duties.

But wait... Reports say this won't be last fiscal cliff we face!



Seriously, this could become a trend. Awesome!

I had to play Orion after seeing ol Cliffy .... :(

know1

Shawshank wrote:

This country has become absolutely moronic in it's thinking. People praise and applaud these fools for increasing spending and increasing their taxes. People praise and applaud these fools for requiring them to be insured which is probably the most laughable one of them all. "But I can't be denied for pre-existing condition"...yes, and you also can't control the premiums you'll have to pay. So have fun being at the mercy of insurance corporations. EVERYONE (not just the evil rich) will be hit hard in the coming years, and yet the people are almost giddy about it. As a nation that has allowed itself to be placed in this position, we deserve everything we get.

Great point. I would call our Congress/Government a complete joke, but I don't find it funny. These people are evil and their screwing us all over. ALL OF US. And it's ALL OF THEM that are doing it.

Shawshank

JC29856 wrote:

when did "we" control insurance premiums? when werent "we" at the mercy of the insurance corporations? what year did the shift in power take place?

Never. But we did have a choice of providing or not providing...obtaining or not obtaining. So now if a company wants to charge you a $2,500 premium because you had kidney stones 3 years ago, there's nothing stopping them and you will buy it or pay the penalties. Sounds like a great time to be in the insurance business. :roll:

JC29856

Shawshank wrote:

JC29856 wrote:

when did "we" control insurance premiums? when werent "we" at the mercy of the insurance corporations? what year did the shift in power take place?

Never. But we did have a choice of providing or not providing...obtaining or not obtaining. So now if a company wants to charge you a $2,500 premium because you had kidney stones 3 years ago, there's nothing stopping them and you will buy it or pay the penalties. Sounds like a great time to be in the insurance business. :roll:

agree, total bs but this is obamacare, nothing to do with "fiscal cliff"
there was nothing stopping the insurance companies from only covering the healthy, nothing stopping them from denying coverage to those that are covered. most of those that filed bankruptcy due to health cost had coverage! but again this is obamacare, health insurance reform, which is old news

JimmyV

Shawshank wrote:

Never. But we did have a choice of providing or not providing...obtaining or not obtaining. So now if a company wants to charge you a $2,500 premium because you had kidney stones 3 years ago, there's nothing stopping them and you will buy it or pay the penalties. Sounds like a great time to be in the insurance business. :roll:

Had our annual benefits meeting a few weeks back. Premiums went up 6.7%. We were told this represents "a slight increase" over last year. In a few months we will begin annual performance reviews. A good one of those will win you a 3% salary increase. By my math that is less than half of a "slight increase."

Health insurance companies never fail to remind me of the mob. "Fuck you, pay me."

EdsonNascimento

JimmyV wrote:

Shawshank wrote:

Never. But we did have a choice of providing or not providing...obtaining or not obtaining. So now if a company wants to charge you a $2,500 premium because you had kidney stones 3 years ago, there's nothing stopping them and you will buy it or pay the penalties. Sounds like a great time to be in the insurance business. :roll:

Had our annual benefits meeting a few weeks back. Premiums went up 6.7%. We were told this represents "a slight increase" over last year. In a few months we will begin annual performance reviews. A good one of those will win you a 3% salary increase. By my math that is less than half of a "slight increase."

Health insurance companies never fail to remind me of the mob. "Fuck you, pay me."

Good math. Except your insurance prem is less than your salary. So, if you health benefit contribution is 12% of your salary, less than half you salary increase goes toward that, while you are still ending up with higher net salary (not to mention the fact that your TAKE HOME pay is effected even less b/c your contribution is pre-tax).

Or, in other words, 6.7% of $6,000 ($402) is much less than 3% of $50,000 ($1,500).

Or, who would you like to pay for your health insurance? And, couldn't you say the same about car insurance, your mortgage lender, the Federal Gov't, so on and so forth?

JimmyV

EdsonNascimento wrote:

JimmyV wrote:

Shawshank wrote:

Never. But we did have a choice of providing or not providing...obtaining or not obtaining. So now if a company wants to charge you a $2,500 premium because you had kidney stones 3 years ago, there's nothing stopping them and you will buy it or pay the penalties. Sounds like a great time to be in the insurance business. :roll:

Had our annual benefits meeting a few weeks back. Premiums went up 6.7%. We were told this represents "a slight increase" over last year. In a few months we will begin annual performance reviews. A good one of those will win you a 3% salary increase. By my math that is less than half of a "slight increase."

Health insurance companies never fail to remind me of the mob. "Fuck you, pay me."

Good math. Except your insurance prem is less than your salary. So, if you health benefit contribution is 12% of your salary, less than half you salary increase goes toward that, while you are still ending up with higher net salary (not to mention the fact that your TAKE HOME pay is effected even less b/c your contribution is pre-tax).

Or, in other words, 6.7% of $6,000 ($402) is much less than 3% of $50,000 ($1,500).

Or, who would you like to pay for your health insurance? And, couldn't you say the same about car insurance, your mortgage lender, the Federal Gov't, so on and so forth?

My point wasn't that the health insurance increase was of a higher dollar amount than my pay raise. It was that today 6.7% is being pushed as a slight increase, whereas in a few months 3% will suddenly be a significant increase. And whereas my auto insurance and fixed-rate mortgage stay largely constant from year to year, only my health insurance increases regularly between 6% and 12%. This has been the case here for years, long before Obamacare. Maybe it is a symptom of Romneycare, but I really believe it is more likely just that Harvard Pilgrim knows it can get away with these increases.

Fuck you, pay me. And oh by the way, we are rejecting your claim.

EdsonNascimento

JimmyV wrote:

My point wasn't that the health insurance increase was of a higher dollar amount than my pay raise. It was that today 6.7% is being pushed as a slight increase, whereas in a few months 3% will suddenly be a significant increase. And whereas my auto insurance and fixed-rate mortgage stay largely constant from year to year, only my health insurance increases regularly between 6% and 12%. This has been the case here for years, long before Obamacare. Maybe it is a symptom of Romneycare, but I really believe it is more likely just that Harvard Pilgrim knows it can get away with these increases.

Fuck you, pay me. And oh by the way, we are rejecting your claim.

My point was - a higher % on a lower amount is still, generally, a lower amount. %ages are funny things.

Obamacare never addressed it's original stated goal - bend the cost curve.

So, I don't get the complaint that premiums are rising. Health expenditures continue to rise. So, insurance covering them will continue to rise.

This tax deal is no different. At every turn, Obama fails to address the REAL problem - the COST of things. It's easy to say pre-existing conditions. It's easy to tax someone else. It's hard to address spending.

JimmyV

EdsonNascimento wrote:

JimmyV wrote:

My point wasn't that the health insurance increase was of a higher dollar amount than my pay raise. It was that today 6.7% is being pushed as a slight increase, whereas in a few months 3% will suddenly be a significant increase. And whereas my auto insurance and fixed-rate mortgage stay largely constant from year to year, only my health insurance increases regularly between 6% and 12%. This has been the case here for years, long before Obamacare. Maybe it is a symptom of Romneycare, but I really believe it is more likely just that Harvard Pilgrim knows it can get away with these increases.

Fuck you, pay me. And oh by the way, we are rejecting your claim.

My point was - a higher % on a lower amount is still, generally, a lower amount. %ages are funny things.

Obamacare never addressed it's original stated goal - bend the cost curve.

So, I don't get the complaint that premiums are rising. Health expenditures continue to rise. So, insurance covering them will continue to rise.

This tax deal is no different. At every turn, Obama fails to address the REAL problem - the COST of things. It's easy to say pre-existing conditions. It's easy to tax someone else. It's hard to address spending.

That a higher percentage on a lower amount is still a lower amount has very little to do with my point. I was comparing wording and spin, not dollars.

The rest is just blaming Obama to blame Obama because Obama is there to be blamed. Same shit, different thread.

EdsonNascimento

JimmyV wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

JimmyV wrote:

My point wasn't that the health insurance increase was of a higher dollar amount than my pay raise. It was that today 6.7% is being pushed as a slight increase, whereas in a few months 3% will suddenly be a significant increase. And whereas my auto insurance and fixed-rate mortgage stay largely constant from year to year, only my health insurance increases regularly between 6% and 12%. This has been the case here for years, long before Obamacare. Maybe it is a symptom of Romneycare, but I really believe it is more likely just that Harvard Pilgrim knows it can get away with these increases.

Fuck you, pay me. And oh by the way, we are rejecting your claim.

My point was - a higher % on a lower amount is still, generally, a lower amount. %ages are funny things.

Obamacare never addressed it's original stated goal - bend the cost curve.

So, I don't get the complaint that premiums are rising. Health expenditures continue to rise. So, insurance covering them will continue to rise.

This tax deal is no different. At every turn, Obama fails to address the REAL problem - the COST of things. It's easy to say pre-existing conditions. It's easy to tax someone else. It's hard to address spending.

That a higher percentage on a lower amount is still a lower amount has very little to do with my point. I was comparing wording and spin, not dollars.

The rest is just blaming Obama to blame Obama because Obama is there to be blamed. Same shit, different thread.

But, you can say 6.7% is slight and 3% is significant. Now, I have no idea what your salary is to make those sorts of judgments, so maybe in your instance the point is well taken. But just labeling a % one or another without knowing the basis is typically what the media does. To me, a 6.7% increase in health care premium IS slight as some are seeing 10%-20% increases in their premiums. And 3% salary increase is significant, as normal is 1% to 2% and "tops" is about 4% in an office setting. So, those labels are NOT spin. They reflect the relative value of the 2 items being discussed.

JimmyV

EdsonNascimento wrote:

But, you can say 6.7% is slight and 3% is significant. Now, I have no idea what your salary is to make those sorts of judgments, so maybe in your instance the point is well taken. But just labeling a % one or another without knowing the basis is typically what the media does. To me, a 6.7% increase in health care premium IS slight as some are seeing 10%-20% increases in their premiums. And 3% salary increase is significant, as normal is 1% to 2% and "tops" is about 4% in an office setting. So, those labels are NOT spin. They reflect the relative value of the 2 items being discussed.

The 6.7% increase this year is only described as slight because it follows a 12% bump last year and an 11% bump the year before. I know of no other industry besides the health insurance racket that could get away with these price increases year after year. Not one.

EdsonNascimento

JimmyV wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

But, you can say 6.7% is slight and 3% is significant. Now, I have no idea what your salary is to make those sorts of judgments, so maybe in your instance the point is well taken. But just labeling a % one or another without knowing the basis is typically what the media does. To me, a 6.7% increase in health care premium IS slight as some are seeing 10%-20% increases in their premiums. And 3% salary increase is significant, as normal is 1% to 2% and "tops" is about 4% in an office setting. So, those labels are NOT spin. They reflect the relative value of the 2 items being discussed.

The 6.7% increase this year is only described as slight because it follows a 12% bump last year and an 11% bump the year before. I know of no other industry besides the health insurance racket that could get away with these price increases year after year. Not one.

Gas?

And, it's not the Insurance Industries fault. It's regulation and cost increases. I won't go into more detail or bore you to death. But, suffice it to say, every time the gov't insists something is covered, the utilization and price of that item all of a sudden shoots up. I don't quite get all this insurance industry hatred. If you understood the mechanics, you would understand more where the pressure lies. Sure, there are "fat cats," or whatever you'll come up with. But, the majority of the premium is the cost of the goods and services.

JimmyV

EdsonNascimento wrote:

JimmyV wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

But, you can say 6.7% is slight and 3% is significant. Now, I have no idea what your salary is to make those sorts of judgments, so maybe in your instance the point is well taken. But just labeling a % one or another without knowing the basis is typically what the media does. To me, a 6.7% increase in health care premium IS slight as some are seeing 10%-20% increases in their premiums. And 3% salary increase is significant, as normal is 1% to 2% and "tops" is about 4% in an office setting. So, those labels are NOT spin. They reflect the relative value of the 2 items being discussed.

The 6.7% increase this year is only described as slight because it follows a 12% bump last year and an 11% bump the year before. I know of no other industry besides the health insurance racket that could get away with these price increases year after year. Not one.

Gas?

And, it's not the Insurance Industries fault. It's regulation and cost increases. I won't go into more detail or bore you to death. But, suffice it to say, every time the gov't insists something is covered, the utilization and price of that item all of a sudden shoots up. I don't quite get all this insurance industry hatred. If you understood the mechanics, you would understand more where the pressure lies. Sure, there are "fat cats," or whatever you'll come up with. But, the majority of the premium is the cost of the goods and services.

But gas prices fluctuate and do come down as often as often as they go up. Is gas too expensive? Maybe, but drive across the street or down the road in search of a better deal. I don't really have a practical alternative to health insurance through my employer. Fuck you, pay me.