January 1, 2013

"Under the agreement, tax rates would jump to 39.6 percent from 35 percent for individual incomes over $400,000 and couples over $450,000..."

"... while tax deductions and credits would start phasing out on incomes as low as $250,000, a clear win for President Obama, who campaigned on higher taxes for the wealthy."

Is that a "clear win"? Good lord, whatever happens, the NYT will spin it as a win for Obama. I thought his number was $250,000 for couples, and now, it's way up at $450,000. That should be called a clear compromise. How hard it must be for the Republicans to compromise, when even clear compromises are declared clear wins for the other side.

130 comments:

Mitchell the Bat said...

Looks like it's time to print more money.

Unknown said...

Gee. I dunno. Wait around. Let's see how the other side spins their clear compromise

Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
bpm4532 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
CWJ said...

All is Obama. Yesterday's Yahoo headline and story correctly spoke of Biden and senate leaders hashing out a deal. The accompanying photo - the sage and blissfull countenance of Obama. I wanted to shout "you did nothing."

AllenS said...

Compromise? Why even participate? Who would want their fingerprints on this? This certainly isn't going to do anything about our current deficit. Why be part of it?

Rusty said...

And yet nothing has changed except those that are being targeted for punishment now know who they are. They will now engage in behavior that will make them less of a target.
The healthcare tax will all on everyone. Well 47% of those of us actually paying taxes. And they too will engage in behavior to lessen that burden , if they can.
There is nothing in this that promotes economic growth.
In fact. Just the opposite.

Humperdink said...

The fat lady has yet to hum a few bars. That would be the House.

edutcher said...

Barry blinked, yet again; of course, this is what you get when you entrust the negotiations to Halo Joe.

PS Breitbart notes it's the third time Joe's had to step in after Choom stepped in it.

Phil 3:14 said...

Math is the clear loser.

bpm4532 said...

I retracted my earlier comment. It was a democrat victory. Obama didn't get his $800 billion for free, only $600 billion, and almost no cuts to spending.

It's clear no one wants to cut spending. It's clear taxes will have to go up massively on everyone to even try to pay current and future obigations, but it won't be enough.

On the road to serfdom.

CWJ said...

Why are the single and couple thresholds only $50K apart? What is the political calculus here? Is it that 800 for couples is too high for the demogogues, or is it that 225 would snag too many dem voting singles?

pm317 said...

But the deductions and credits are being phased out for those earning $250,000.. so that is a tax increase.. with that interpretation Obama clearly won.

Seriously, what is this obsession of his with tax hike?

TML said...

Since when do wrenches "gum" up works? Are they Gummi Wrenches? That's a terrible bit of writing there. Surprised it didn't cause conniptions when read.

Rusty said...


Seriously, what is this obsession of his with tax hike?


Control

Rusty said...

TML said...
Since when do wrenches "gum" up works? Are they Gummi Wrenches? That's a terrible bit of writing there. Surprised it didn't cause conniptions when read.


I think they meant to allude to -"a spanner(wrench) in the works."- but fucked it up.
One way the luddites would stop production at the mills was to drop a wrench in the gearing.

sinz52 said...

From what I'm seeing, the GOP conservatives believe that this deal represents a caving in by the GOP leadership--meaning a victory for Obama.

And so they oppose this deal--just like they opposed every other attempt to strike a deal going all the way back to 2011.

The GOP conservatives have a perfect track record: Every deal they refused to go along with--the 2011 deal that Obama was negotiating, Boehner's Plan B--has been followed by a deal that was even worse.

sinz52 said...

From what I'm seeing, the GOP conservatives believe that this deal represents a caving in by the GOP leadership--meaning a victory for Obama.

And so they oppose this deal--just like they opposed every other attempt to strike a deal going all the way back to 2011.

The GOP conservatives have a perfect track record: Every deal they refused to go along with--the 2011 deal that Obama was negotiating, Boehner's Plan B--has been followed by a deal that was even worse.

TML said...

Rusty, I totes understood what they were trying to say. But objected to the verb "gum". As if they'd poured molasses or honey in the gears. Rather than use the aphorism correctly, the broke it apart and couldn't think of a verb that suggested what happens when hardened steel is tossed into meshing and moving gears. Seizing? No, that's the intransitive sense. Doesn't work. Maybe flippping it:

Old:

However, new wrenches were gumming up the machinery.

New:

However, new wrenches were causing machinery to seize.

Ahhhh..."jamming". That'd work. And it's so close to gumming. Maybe that's what they meant? Have to delete "up" of course.

Phil 3:14 said...

Hmm, I seem to lose a lot of my comments when using my ASUS tablet

NotquiteunBuckley said...

In all seriousness, the fact that it is hard(er) for the dumb party to compromise should tend to indicate that it is easy to not compromise, to say "fuck it" and walk away.

But they can't.

Stupid, as well as being the biggest spenders in the history of the world.

In 2014 Republicans will have spent more money in 4 years than any other group ever. They will, as idiots, say it wasn't their fault and they didn't actually spend it.

They will proclaim their impotence as a reason to support them, and members of the dumb ass party will do just that out of fear.

AprilApple said...

Tax hikes beyond what is fair is basic theft.

pbAndjFellowRepublican said...

It looks like pm is right. The clear win was that the cons did give in on some taxes for folks at the 250M level. How could that not be considered a clear win.

Likewise, the cons had a clear win because the payroll tax is going up. Taxes on non-job-creators are good. At least they're good for cons when the revenues pile up surpluses that can be traded for IOUs, and then the funds can pay for other budget items, therefore allowing more tax cuts for the job creators.

The con argument is very persuasive: Job Creators--Regressive taxes (e.g. taxes that start at--Takers--dollar one and go to zero a bit--Job Creators--above 100 are good. JOB CREATORS!!11!!!!!1!!!






NotquiteunBuckley said...

GOP 2014: We won't spend more than any group in the history of history again, but it will happen under our watch because we are unBuckley.

AprilApple said...

I predict that these tax hikes, coupled with the new Obamacare tax hikes, will hurt the economy. I predict higher unemployment, more pink slips, and higher rates of homelessness as a result.

It's free!

AprilApple said...

Obamacare taxes will force many businesses to cut back on their labor force.

garage mahal said...

Three more fiscal cliffs crises over the next 3 months: debt ceiling, sequester, continuing resolution. What an awesome way to run a government!

EDH said...

Income-based phase-outs of deductions are effectively marginal tax rate increases.

I'll be interested to see what the marginal tax rate increase is starting at $125k each for two-income couples.


bpm4532 said...
It's clear taxes will have to go up massively on everyone to even try to pay current and future obigations, but it won't be enough.


A tax rate increase on on the more affluent is a necessary predicate to justify a truly huge increase in consumption taxes on the masses.

Washington looks at the middle class as Willy Sutton looked at banks...

"Becaase that's where the money is."

AllenS said...

I predict that in coming years, the government will take control over everyone's 401K. They won't confiscate the money, but spend the money, and write IOU's in it's place. Just like they're doing with Social Security money. They have no choice because of the deficts they are running. It's the only cash stash left.

Rusty said...

TML said...
Rusty, I totes understood what they were trying to say. But objected to the verb "gum". As if they'd poured molasses or honey in the gears. Rather than use the aphorism correctly, the broke it apart and couldn't think of a verb that suggested what happens when hardened steel is tossed into meshing and moving gears. Seizing? No, that's the intransitive sense. Doesn't work. Maybe flippping it:

Old:

However, new wrenches were gumming up the machinery.

New:

However, new wrenches were causing machinery to seize.

Ahhhh..."jamming". That'd work. And it's so close to gumming. Maybe that's what they meant? Have to delete "up" of course.

Yeah. Missed that.
Gumming up the works would imply sabotage or neglect, I suppose.
"sabotage"
Ha! A wooden shoe in the works!
In any event. Economically we're still screwed.

Hagar said...

Yes, Garage, and your man is on the bridge.

Franklin said...

The fuckers that voter for this traitor asked for it - i say we let them have it and figure out how to pay for it.


Guns, ammo, and canned goods - these are a few of my favorite things.

O Ritmo Segundo said...

It goes to show just how tight the frozen, vise-like death grip was of failed and dysfunctional Republican ideas on the American policy discussion.

Hammond X Gritzkofe said...

All is proceeding as I expected. An ex-post-facto 'last minute deal', arrived at *after* the legal last minute, mostly providing no meaningful solution, taking more from the folks actually working, giving more to the folks not working, and (to paraphrase the WSJ) with the expected result being to keep economic growth rate depressed.

I blame the credulous voters who elected this crew of clowns to congress, loaned them the power, and did not monitor performance.

It is simply insane to expect the 'leadership' who created this problem to arrive at a meaningful solution.

AJ Lynch said...

None of the two parties' long serving pols in the Imperial City has ever shown they have the guts to cut spending. So I must quote DBQ "We are so fucked".

And Happy New Year to all!

Hagar said...

Does anyone believe that McConnell had a sudden inspiration, called Joe Biden, and the two of them then "led the negotiations to avoid the fiscal cliff," independent of and ignoring the President, the Senate Majority Leader, and the House?

And of course, the House has not been heard from yet. There are rumors John Boehner has not been able to get a majority of his caucus to go along with this.
So, he can block a vote, or he can let the vote go ahead and pass "in a bi-partisan way."
This will be another great "victory" for Obama in Waahington politics, but likely to cause a great deal of disgust around the country - and not just from Republicans.

So far, this has degenerated into a fight over symbols and party politics, and nothing has been done to solve the real problems seeeen from either side.

Michael Haz said...

The facts are that the "compromise" plan voted by the Senate last night includes $1 of spending reduction for each $41 of new tax revenue. It ADDS at least $7.9 TRILLION to the national debt.

How is this in any way good for America (regardless of your political affiliation)?

Out of control spending is not halted. The federal government will continue its out-of-control spending, borrowing and money printing. There is no federal budget for the fifth consecutive year, even though law requires that the Senate introduce a budget bill annually.

This bill solved nothing. It merely made America's near-term economic collapse more inevitable.

McTriumph said...

Taxes on all Americans went up at midnight to the Clinton rates, the Obama tax rates expired. When and if the republican House passes the Biden / McConnell senate deal, the republicans will be voting for a tax cut for all, but those in the "evil" 1%.
Obama wins and loses on the $400,000 limit, he wanted $250,000 to define "the rich". I wonder how NE pols are going to explain this to their "rich" continuants in those blue states.

O Ritmo Segundo said...

Does this mean that Mitch McConnell's head will retract back into his turtle-like neck for good?

AJ Lynch said...

McTriumph:

Don't kid yourself. It was the Dem senators in those NE states,like Shumer, who asked for the higher income ceiling because they say $250K does not mean you are rich in states like NY.

McTriumph said...

Obama is so narcissistic or stupid that he confuses politics and good policy. If I'm wrong, the he is a Marxist revolutionary.

McTriumph said...

AJ Lynch
That was my point.

rehajm said...

He got a marginal tax rate increase, without having to make any real concessions on spending. Democrats deserve to spike the football today.

His next order of economic business will be to find a way to make additional transfer payments to California to help them avoid going t.u. in the next 12 months. Expect to hear much more about stimulus and infrastructure spending, while Republicans make additional concessions to pray the Democrats go easy on them in the midterms.

ricpic said...

Where's the beef? Where are the spending cuts? Spending cuts? There are no spending cuts in a socialist state. Which is to say we have been recaptured by the European elite - in the guise of our own home grown Europeanized elite - from which the first Americans fled. It truly is the death of the last best hope.

O Ritmo Segundo said...

Good point, McTriumph! Obama should follow the Republican example of always having to get things to move in his direction instead!

Oh, wait...

Maguro said...

There will be no spending cuts as long as interest rates are close to zero. The real fun begins when rates go up and the government has to make a choice between spending cuts and devaluation.

Jay said...

garage mahal said...

Three more fiscal cliffs crises over the next 3 months: debt ceiling, sequester, continuing resolution. What an awesome way to run a government!


Obama has been "running the government" for years.

Yet you keep voting for Democrats.

Idiot.

McTriumph said...

ritmo
The politics can be spun to the determent of the republicans, no doubt, but that doesn't translate in to good policy. Do you really think the republican base is going to evacuate over this, considering the alternative? Besides this was all theater, wait for what's coming down the pike, the markets won't be able to ignore that.

Michael Haz said...

Serious question for the liberal commenters here: How is this a good deal for our country? Never mind any political bumperstickering, how is this a good thing for America?

McTriumph said...

Maguro

All one has to do is read a book on the history of money to know what the end game will be.

O Ritmo Segundo said...

The Republicans are dividing more rapidly than Grover Norquist can say "pledge". It occurred in 2006 and 2008. What 2010 represents is too soon to tell. But seeing as how their "retention" of the House came with a half million vote deficit to what their opposition got, that's not a very resounding victory for them.

The division is taking place because some Republicans actually have enough brains to recognize the lowered popularity that this represents and the toxicity to their "brand" of fixating on the philosophy of rape and believing that the 1980s were a magical decade of political-economic transcendence whose policies should be frozen into all governments for all time whatever the the situation.

O Ritmo Segundo said...

Geez Michael - if you don't know by now then it's a good bet you won't listen going forward.

O Ritmo Segundo said...

(10:48 comment was a response to McTriumph)

O Ritmo Segundo said...

Oh, and Happy New Year, BTW. ;-)

Lem said...

The NYT can allways go for another spin.

McTriumph said...

RITMO

"philosophy of rape", says it all, go FUCK YOURSELF!

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Who cares what the bozos in Congress do anymore. Work under the table. Use cash. Barter and trade. Stock up now on the necessities before prices skyrocket. Do whatever you can to survive. The end.

O Ritmo Segundo said...

And your unhinged response to a very appropriate description of the mess that Akin, Mourdoch and the rest of their ilk got themselves into says it all, McTriumph.

Keep it up.

O Ritmo Segundo said...

And keep expecting to lose.

O Ritmo Segundo said...

Thanks Bunny. It's good to know that you care and I don't doubt that you're a decent financial advisor/planner. But given your previous predictions of race wars I think I'll discard the more apocalyptic fascinations of your ideas for what the future holds.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

And by the way.....We ARE so screwed

Back of the Dumbplumber's tee shirts printed almost two years ago. The shirts are getting worn out. Time to get some more printed up :-)

O Ritmo Segundo said...

It's ok. That's what your sect was saying 80 years ago to FDR after what the Republican Coolidge and Hoover administrations did.

It doesn't play out all that favorably for conservative politics. When do you think they will learn, and stop with the intentional boom-and-bigger-bust incentives and the laziness when it comes to any answers for anyone but themselves?

Perhaps they can't help it.

McTriumph said...

RITMO
You do know there have been Gyno books by doctors that have theorized and argued this? They have since been proven wrong, science theories get proven wrong every day. I can only speak for Atkins, he was wrong on the science, it wasn't based on his belief system. He won a three way primary against two opponents, that both out polled Sen. McCaskill, she spent over a million dollars running Atkins primary adverts. Does that mean the Senator supports Atkins' bad rape science? No, it means she is a scumbag.

Phil 3:14 said...

Three more fiscal cliffs crises over the next 3 months: debt ceiling, sequester, continuing resolution. What an awesome way to run a government!

OWN IT!

And I see that after brief assent into humanity the old Ritmo has returned.

Danno said...

Remember, this is only the Senate. The House may pass something slightly different and the differences may need to be worked out in Conference Committee. - just sayin

O Ritmo Segundo said...

MCTRIUMPH (I guess I'll reciprocate the screaming caps form of address. Perhaps it means urgency rather than rudeness):

I'll try digesting your comment in little pieces - which shouldn't be hard given how short it already is. But the link was to the electoral fate of seven, seven, Republican candidates who happened to give a lot of comment to a topic that most Americans seem to have made up their moral minds about.

Perhaps there is some legitimate, interesting, if completely removed and esoteric point in whatever they were all trying to say. But I think the conclusion that Americans made up their minds about the utility and practical decency of any of it is hard to deny.

AprilApple said...

An excellent article on the reality of the income inequality gap created by our government.

Danno said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
O Ritmo Segundo said...

I think you meant "ascent", Phil.

I'll try to argue cogently with anyone who cares to reciprocate. Sometimes I'll make strident points. Sometimes more calm ones. And none of this guarantees who I'll agree with or who I won't. It's just how reasoned discussions go.

O Ritmo Segundo said...

Oh boy! I can hear the bands right outside my window.
Singing that song about a "four-leaf clover".

What fun!

The Godfather said...

This has nothing to do with policy, deficits, spending, taxes, or anything else except: the 2014 election, and the BIG DEAL, the 2016 election.

Obama wants Republicans either (1) on record supporting increased taxes; or (2) publicly held responsible for the coming recession. He may get both wishes.

House Republicans who vote for higher taxes risk being challenged in their primaries, and the primary winner, weakened, risks losing to the Democrat in competitive districts. If this happens in enough districts, the Republicans lose control of the House (and they will have no chance of gaining control of the Senate), so Obama will have a free hand in his last two years in office.

If House Republicans don't vote for higher taxes, and the economy goes south, as it likely will REGARDLESS OF ALL THIS POSTURING ON THE CLIFF, the Democrats can count on the press to blame the Republicans, not Obama, for the recession, and they will be punished in the 2014 election. Again, Obama will have a free hand in his last two years in office.

The same considerations apply to the debt ceiling issue and all spending issues that are coming up in the next few months.

I really fear that no one on the Republican side has the foresight to avoid the traps Obama is setting.

The Godfather said...

This has nothing to do with policy, deficits, spending, taxes, or anything else except: the 2014 election, and the BIG DEAL, the 2016 election.

Obama wants Republicans either (1) on record supporting increased taxes; or (2) publicly held responsible for the coming recession. He may get both wishes.

House Republicans who vote for higher taxes risk being challenged in their primaries, and the primary winner, weakened, risks losing to the Democrat in competitive districts. If this happens in enough districts, the Republicans lose control of the House (and they will have no chance of gaining control of the Senate), so Obama will have a free hand in his last two years in office.

If House Republicans don't vote for higher taxes, and the economy goes south, as it likely will REGARDLESS OF ALL THIS POSTURING ON THE CLIFF, the Democrats can count on the press to blame the Republicans, not Obama, for the recession, and they will be punished in the 2014 election. Again, Obama will have a free hand in his last two years in office.

The same considerations apply to the debt ceiling issue and all spending issues that are coming up in the next few months.

I really fear that no one on the Republican side has the foresight to avoid the traps Obama is setting.

n.n said...

Disparate impact by design never respects individual dignity.

This compromise does not address a progressive demand for instant gratification: material, physical, and ego.

Rusty:

The most productive, whether through legitimate or illegitimate means, will discover or manufacture a way around this nonsense. The least productive, whether by chance or choice, will discover a war around this nonsense. The moderately productive, the middle class, will compensate for this nonsense through increased "productivity" and suffering progressive dysfunction. Redistributive change is a tax on the moderately productive's labor and life. An empowered middle class is an anathema to left-wing regimes.

Saint Croix said...

We hit our debt ceiling yesterday.

Our last debt ceiling fight was in 2011. So we'll have a debt ceiling fight in 2013, 2014, and 2016. Yay!

Our national debt is $16.3 trillion.

That's up $6 trillion or so since Obama took office. Apparently the "plan" is to escalate our debts faster and faster.

Our unfunded liabilities are $84 trillion.

So, assuming we start breeding again, and get our population up to 400 million, every man, woman and child will each owe $210,000 dollars.

Awesome. Got to love socialism.

Saint Croix said...

Total net worth of the Forbes 400: $1.7 trillion.

Hey, that's a good start!

Only $82.7 trillion to go.

ricpic said...

I'll try to argue cogently...Sometimes I'll make strident points. Sometimes more calm ones.

Montana Urban Schmendrik starts each day smelling the finger he's just extracted from his ass crack and finding it sweet...so sweet.

campy said...

I really fear that no one on the Republican side has the foresight to avoid the traps Obama is setting.

Of course not. The best thing they could do is disband the party and resign from office en masse.

wyo sis said...

It looks like no one "won" anything. What a waste of everyone's time and money.
Do politicians really count this as a victory for anyone?

Chip S. said...

garage mahal said...
Three more fiscal cliffs crises over the next 3 months: debt ceiling, sequester, continuing resolution. What an awesome way to run a government!

You're right; it's ridiculous.

And it all happens b/c the president has never submitted a budget proposal that recognizes the debt problem at all, and the Senate refuses to negotiate w/ the House to send a coherent budget to the president.

The House is performing its constitutional duty. The Senate and the president are not.

It seems clear that this president prefers to operate w/o a budget, precisely b/c of the opportunities for recurring crises that give him the opportunity to score cheap political points.

Why, exactly, is this guy still in campaign mode? Doesn't that seem strange?

X said...

in essence, democrats are tax hikes. that's all they care about, it's all they will ever care about. from this premise, everything they do makes sense.

Saint Croix said...

Market capitalization of the New York Stock Exchange: $14 trillion.

Now we're cooking with gas. I've just reduced our national debt down to $68 trillion.

Just had to seize control of every corporation on the New York Stock exchange. Hey, math is easy!

Oh, crap, every man, woman and child still owes $170,000 in unfunded liabilities.

No, wait. Print more money!

I knew I could solve it.

Ritmo Re-Animated said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ritmo Re-Animated said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
O Ritmo Segundo said...

Our unfunded liabilities are $84 trillion.

Thanks for the partisan report from a Senate minority committee that looks at projected future outlays while ignoring future revenue, St. Croix. That's sure to illuminate the discussion!

O Ritmo Segundo said...

We can project future expenditures but in the future there will never be any revenue, ever.

How can we make the math work out if we keep going along with the Democrats' insistence to look at both the parts with the plus signs, as well as the parts with the minus signs!

It's just not fair, dammit!

Wahhhhhhh!

Chip S. said...

Point well taken, Ritmo. But you also know that projected SS and Medicare--especially Medicare--spending grow at a much faster rate than projected revenues, which is what the concern about deficits is primarily about.

Broomhandle said...

It's a joke either way. I don't know anyone who makes over $200,000 a year who doesn't have an accountant/adviser/lawyer whose purpose is to keep that income out of the government's pockets. It's all dumbshow until the crash. You'd have to be insane to think otherwise.

Ritmo Re-Animated said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
O Ritmo Segundo said...

There are serious ways that the president's discussed of bringing down the cost of Medicare. Also, the ACA brings down the overall cost-curve of health care, which will help the American economy.

Which brings us to the other point: When will Republicans ever agree to cutting from the $700 billion of defense spending that dwarfs China's $89 b? And the next eight on the list are the U.K., France, Japan, Russia (at $53 b), Saudi Arabia, Germany, India and Brazil (in decreasing size of defense budgets all the way down to Brazil's $37 b). The expenditures of actual or potential rivals I've listed.

When, Chip?

Yes, we have a spending problem. A huge spending problem. A $700 billion spending problem.

Are Republicans just completely against the idea of ever having allies abroad? What the hell gives with this kind of a budget?

Ron Paul's right. Nations rot from the empires they build abroad.

Let's re-build the country from within, first.

Chip S. said...

When will Republicans ever agree to cutting from the $700 billion of defense spending...

I don't know much about military spending, but I'm certainly inclined to question why we spend so much. I will say that to the extent that we spend a lot in order to substitute capital for labor, it could be money well spent. But I agree that it's hard to see why we have to spend so much more than anyone else.

As for Medicare costs, you and I have already debated the extent to which cost savings are going to result from OCare. Going beyond that, I'll simply say that there are only two basic ways to reduce future Medicare spending: expand the supply of health-care providers (e.g., making it easier for entry of new hospitals) or ration health care by non-price means.

We can all see where the Dems want to take us, I think.

bagoh20 said...

Accomplishes nothing
Hurts the economy
Ignores the problem
Makes Obama a winner

Great plan!

O Ritmo Segundo said...

I'll simply say that there are only two basic ways to reduce future Medicare spending: expand the supply of health-care providers (e.g., making it easier for entry of new hospitals)

FYI - One of the biggest proponents of ACA were the hospitals, since they saw a much greater influx of the pool of clients and business to grow off of. This, in turn, translates into more efficient operations as the growth in customers gives them the scale to treat each one at less cost. Ultimately, it's a very virtuous cycle. Don't forget the price of our inefficient deliver-of-care system relative to every other modern country. People want to justify why we spend so much more per capita and get so little out (comparatively) in return, but ultimately, those numbers can't be denied.

or ration health care by non-price means.

Your first point provides more meat to address. But the previous system of rationing by the means of how healthy (or even foresighted) your customer is wasn't moral. We've done away with the pre-existing exclusions and the rationing they amounted to, with or without the bipartisan support the Republicans promised us that such measures would have enjoyed.

There will be a "rationing", I suppose you could say, of sorts, occurring with the amount devoted to marketing. But once the exchanges are implemented, along with better baseline coverage standards, the amount that insurance companies put into marketing won't need to be as great anyway.

NotquiteunBuckley said...

Military spending has a multiplying benefit of $2.9 spread throughout the economy for every $1 spent.

So if hate poor people you want to cut our military because you are a bad person with no morals and a high level of stupidity.

Because science you backwoods honkies.

Jay said...

O Ritmo Segundo said... Also, the ACA brings down the overall cost-curve of health care, which will help the American economy.


HA HA HA HA

HA HA HA HA

HA HA HA HA

HA HA HA HA

HA HA HA HA

IT does no such thing, you silly, ignorant clown.

Jay said...

Yes, we have a spending problem. A huge spending problem. A $700 billion spending problem.


Hey fuckhead,
Social Security outlays are greater than $700 billion per year.

Of course you can't talk about that.

Pussy.

NotquiteunBuckley said...

Excuse me, but that figure is 2.943, not 2.9.

So you people are even worse than I thought, and I thought you were pretty fucking horrible.

Jay said...

O Ritmo Segundo said... Also, the ACA brings down the overall cost-curve of health care, which will help the American economy.

Which of course is supported by the fact that health insurance premiums are increasing by double digit percentages, and under the ACA federal spending on health care rises every single year.

Idiot.

Chip S. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Chip S. said...

This, in turn, translates into more efficient operations as the growth in customers gives them the scale to treat each one at less cost. Ultimately, it's a very virtuous cycle.

I realize that this argument is made by some serious people, but it's fallacious nevertheless.

The argument confuses external and internal scale effects. If there were such an internal scale effect, hospitals would cut their prices in order to attain the scale of operation that would generate the lower costs. Only external scale effects (i.e., an increase in the number of patients at other hospitals lowers the costs of any particular hospital) have the impact you describe--which is not a "cycle", btw. The standard example of an external effect is that of a rail line that is extended to a new area when the volume of potential shipments gets large enough. I don't know of any such examples w.r.t. hospitals.

The related confusion b/w the average costs and the marginal costs of hospitals has resulted in the preposterous "certificate of need" requirement for building a new hospital. The premise is that increased availability of MRIs makes each MRI more expensive--which is patently ridiculous. It's one of the causes of rising health-care costs, as supply does not expand very much in the face of higher demand.

O Ritmo Segundo said...

Chip -

Explain, in economic terms, why countries with better access to coverage and better outcomes spend significantly less per capita than we do and why that is a bad thing.

Or else I guess we can watch the sputtering vulgarian "Jay" reveal how much of a "pussy" "fuckhead" he is while cowering in fear of how the only potentially significant military rival of China will somehow squash us with their $89 billion defense budget.

Saint Croix said...

Thanks for the partisan report from a Senate minority committee that looks at projected future outlays while ignoring future revenue, St. Croix. That's sure to illuminate the discussion!

Okay. Here is what the government is saying about our future obligations.

As of the most recent Trustees' report in April, the net present value of the unfunded liability of Medicare was $42.8 trillion. The comparable balance sheet liability for Social Security is $20.5 trillion.

So the government is acknowledging $63 trillion in unfunded liabilities, Ritmo. And, as Chip points out, the government has severely underestimated Medicare costs in the past.

Why aren't these horrible numbers a part of the debate? Because the government keeps this debt off the books!

Since liberals like you are suspicious of corporations, and think we have to keep an eye on them, corporations are required to keep all their debts on their balance sheet.

Governments, on the other hand, require no accountability from themselves. So they really do not talk about all our future debts.

See WSJ article for excellent discussion.

We can project future expenditures but in the future there will never be any revenue, ever

You think we're going to be able to tax $63 trillion out of the American people?

When will Republicans ever agree to cutting from the $700 billion of defense spending...

You're embarrassing yourself. Do the math. (Hint: add some zeroes).

O Ritmo Segundo said...

Which of course is supported by the fact that health insurance premiums are increasing by double digit percentages, and under the ACA federal spending on health care rises every single year.

Idiot.


Then stop exempting yourself from participating in the exchanges, you fuckheaded, idiotic POOOSSSYYY!!

Chip S. said...

Explain, in economic terms, why countries with better access to coverage and better outcomes spend significantly less per capita than we do and why that is a bad thing.

I disagree w/ your factual premises, for reasons I've stated before. The effectiveness of a health-care system is properly measured not by average life expectancy but by life expectancy conditional on being sick. By that measure, the US clearly has the best health-care system in the world.

I see no reason to emulate other countries when the ones that have single-payer are moving away from it and the two-tiered systems that other countries have don't seem politically feasible in a country obsessed w/ "equality".

O Ritmo Segundo said...

By that measure, the US clearly has the best health-care system in the world.

By that measure (and I'm not sure where you got your stat) the U.S. also does the best job at making its population sick in the first place.

I think there is an inherent conflict in a society that separates the value in the prevention of illness from the equation. Please find me a physician or any HCP who believes that a pound of prevention is worth an ounce of cure.

O Ritmo Segundo said...

I see no reason to emulate...

To emulate... tens of millions or upwards of a fifth to a fourth of the population uninsured?

Yes, those other countries you mention don't see a reason to emulate that, either.

Chip S. said...

Ritmo, I think that studies have pretty much rejected the hypothesis that more preventive practices would improve health outcomes.

One reason why life expectancy numbers aren't better in the US. I believe, is that we have a lot more homicides and motor vehicle deaths per capita than other countries (but I'm too lazy to source these things today, as I'm still recovering from last night).

O Ritmo Segundo said...

Ritmo, I think that studies have pretty much rejected the hypothesis that more preventive practices would improve health outcomes.

I'm sorry there's not a nicer way to say this, but: What bullshit you speak of. Although "Jay" might approve and find the language too nice.

Cite your pro-mass consumption of cigarettes, liquor and trans-fatty hamburgers medical studies.

The other point may be true but this one is so far off the mark I can't believe you would find it fit to state.

Chip S. said...

...upwards of a fifth to a fourth of the population uninsured?

I don't give a shit about people who are uninsured b/c they choose not to buy catastrophic coverage. Before OCare, that stuff was pretty cheap.

I do care about people w/ pre-existing conditions who lose their insurance b/c they lose their jobs. That's why I'm in favor of the kinds of "high-risk pools" that something like 37 states operated pre-OCare. I wouldn't even object to establishing a federal high-risk pool.

These are things that are easy to do and don't have the considerable downside of OCare.

O Ritmo Segundo said...

These are things that are easy to do and don't have the considerable downside of OCare.

Which begs the question of why they didn't get done.

I'm sorry, but to paint every uninsured as willfully so and minimize the toll taken by pre-existing clauses (and don't forget lifetime coverage caps) is cheap, unserious propaganda.

Chip S. said...

Great. Now you made me track down a source:

Although some preventive measures do save money, the vast majority reviewed in the health economics literature do not.

Of course quitting smoking is a behavioral choice that reduces the risk of lung cancer, but I don't see what that has to do w/ OCare. My reference was to preventive treatments.

Jay said...

O Ritmo Segundo said...


I'm sorry there's not a nicer way to say this, but: What bullshit you speak of.


Oh shock, the silly fuckhead reveals her ignorance yet again.

Only 20 percent of those regularly used preventive measures are “cost saving,” reducing costs while improving the quality of health, the research found. The rest tend to buy improved health care but do so at a cost. The chart below maps out how much we need to invest in preventive care to gain one additional quality-adjusted life year, or QALY, a standard public health measure that captures both improved longevity as well as higher quality of life:


Stunning.

O Ritmo Segundo said...

Chip, the idea that decent, affordable premiums for those who needed them were once as common as cheap oil in Dubai is ridiculous.

Chip S. said...

to paint every uninsured as willfully so

Don't twist my words. That is not what I said.

Do you happen to have reliable stats showing the breakdown of the uninsured in terms of age and health status? I've never seen one, but the very goddam premise that mandatory insurance would reduce premiums was based on the idea that healthy people weren't buying coverage.

O Ritmo Segundo said...

Chip, as long as Jay wants to infect the thread, you can argue with it instead.

It doesn't even know my gender, while confidently ascribing one to me, and yet pontificates on my supposed ignorance.

It can fuck itself and wallow in the political irrelevance that it represents.

Jay said...

O Ritmo Segundo said...

Chip, the idea that decent, affordable premiums for those who needed them were once as common as cheap oil in Dubai is ridiculous.


Prove it, ass clown.

Jay said...

O Ritmo Segundo said...

It doesn't even know my gender


Um, you're a pussy, little girl.

Chip S. said...

Chip, the idea that decent, affordable premiums for those who needed them were once as common as cheap oil in Dubai is ridiculous.

Wrong. I know for a fact that in 2008 a single male in his late 20s could buy catastrophic coverage in CA for 50 bucks a month. About the price of a gym membership.

I also know for a fact that in 2010 such a person could buy more elaborate coverage in NY (b/c state law disallowed mere catastrophic coverage) for $200 a month.

O Ritmo Segundo said...

Chip - "Jay" is bringing needed sanity, civility and reason to the political dialogue you seek. Please enjoy its company.

BTW, it seems to represent a combination between a barbarian and a troll. I say one should just choose a single pre-modern, Middle Earth persona and go with it. Trying for combinations between the two doesn't work very well.

Jay said...

O Ritmo Segundo said...


It can fuck itself and wallow in the political irrelevance that it represents.


I'm not the one so breathlessly asserting silly bon mots such as:
the ACA brings down the overall cost-curve of health care, which will help the American economy.

Which reveals an ignorance and gullibility that is comical.

Jay said...

O Ritmo Segundo said...

Chip - "Jay" is bringing needed sanity, civility and reason to the political dialogue


You're the one typing easily debunked lies you silly little girl.

O Ritmo Segundo said...

Wrong. I know for a fact that in 2008 a single male in his late 20s...

Well, Chip, I'm sure that "Jay" will agree with this (not talking about twenties but forties or fifties, but whatever) without even looking it up and as we all know he is just the sort of spokesperson for taking conservative ideas seriously that your side needs.

Please make sure to take awful good care of it, and provide it with a bowl of kibble and water at regular intervals, and located within the radius provided by the chain you keep it tethered to.

دردشة ومنتديات عراقنا said...

thanks
شات عراقنا
دردشة عراقنا
جات عراقنا
شلة عراقنا
عراقنا
شات العراق
دردشة عراقية
شات كيكه
دردشة عبدالله
جات
دردشة
منتدى دردشة عراقنا
منتدى عراقنا

Alex said...

My taxes aren't going up, so I don't give a shit. Let the rich pay their fair share.

section9 said...

As Obama and Bernanke rush pell mell towards a Weimar Reality-Based Community, I'd like to recommend that everyone head to their nearest Home Depot (or Lowe's, as the case may be) and stock up on wheelbarrows to carry the Reichsmarks, er, dollars you will need to buy a loaf of bread when the hyperinflation hits.

Bob said...

Just when you think the political elite cannot get more stupid, they prove you wrong. Tax increases and more spending - Jesus Christ! Just pile on the stupid...

Bob said...

Alex, here's hoping the house shoots this deal down so maybe you will give a shit and can start paying your fair share.

Andy Freeman said...

> Thanks for the partisan report from a Senate minority committee that looks at projected future outlays while ignoring future revenue, St. Croix

The unfunded liabilities are liabilities that we've already incurred. Presumably we'll continue to promise folks SS, medicare and the like. Even if future revenues cover those future promises, we're still short the money to pay the current unfunded liabilities.

If we stop promising folks SS, medicare, and the like, we'll still need revenues to pay for those promises.

As Samuleson said, SS is a ponzi scheme. It works as long as there are enough suckers coming in the bottom. Unfortunately, "enough" is growing faster than the actual growth in suckers.

Sloanasaurus said...

I am still troubled as to why this is being seen as a huge Democrat victory and Republican defeat. There were $3 trillion in expiring tax cuts on the table. In 2001, democrats opposed all these cuts. They were expiring only because Republicans never had the votes to pass them to begin with. Now today, Democrats support 80% of them... but yet that is somehow a republican defeat? Obviously everything is relative. But if you look at the long game. Republicans have clearly won the tax war began by Reagan in the 1980s.

With the new permanent tax rates, the feds will be lucky to get 19% GDP in revenue. How is that a victory for Democrats? You can't sustain a welfare state on 19% GDP revenue. Moreover, the wealthy tax payers will soon enough figure out how to defer and avoid the higher tax rate.

If you want a permanent welfare state you have to tax the middle class more.

Now the spending wars begin.

Richard Simpkins said...

The lopsided House vote is what makes it a clear win for Obama. If the majority of the majority had liked the deal enough to vote for it, then I would call it a more even compromise. Clearly the House GOPers did NOT feel like it contained enough for them to call it a compromise.

دردشة ومنتديات عراقنا said...

thanks
شات عراقنا
دردشة عراقنا
جات عراقنا
شلة عراقنا
عراقنا
شات العراق
دردشة عراقية
شات كيكه
دردشة عبدالله
جات
دردشة
منتدى دردشة عراقنا
منتدى عراقنا