B.O.H. has shifted his focus to the economy (albeit just to point out how much more debt he'll add to the USA coffers), while McCain continues to focus on Iraq and national security. So what are the headlines today?
The Free & Liberal Press is claiming that the focus of the presidential campaign has shifted to the economy. Funny how the press goes along in this game, isn't it?
Anyway, let's just point out some obvious hyp-O-crisies.
-- The nation's spending and revenue (Tax) budgets and policies are enacted through Congress.
-- Congress is currently controlled - in both Houses -by the Party of SuperDelegates
-- B.H.O. is blaming Republican President GW Bush for the economic woes of this country.
Huh? Let's look at the facts.
What economic atrocities have Bush and the Republicans wrought on the USA?
-- GW Bush wants to increase oil drilling in the USA, which would ultimately increase oil supply. (Economics for Dummies note: increasing demand without increasing supply will lead to an increase in price. If you increase supply, you either reduce price, or maintain price while satisfying increased demand.)
-- GW Bush wants to reduce taxes, which would provide American families with more funds to pay for groceries, heating oil, and mortgage payments.
-- GW Bush called for a one-time tax rebate to try to stimulate the economy immediately.
What have the SuperDelegate representatives recommended?
-- B.H.O. wants to increase taxes on the upper-middle class incomes (as well as the upper-class incomes, which would include his wife's, I suppose), thus decreasing the amount of funds available for these families to pay for groceries, heating oil, and mortgage payments.
-- B.H.O. wants to institute a tax on oil companies. (Economics for Dummies note: a tax imposed on a business will ultimately be passed on to its customers. So, by instituting an additional tax on oil companies, B.H.O. will be increasing gas prices even more.)
-- The Party of the SuperDelegates has tried to stimulate the economy by passing the... ummm... by recommending passage of... uh..er... Well, they must be thinking about doing something, right?
So, to summarize... GW Bush and the Republicans want to try to reduce oil prices, reduce taxes, and put more money back into the pockets of the citizens of this great country. B.H.O. and the Party of SuperDelegates want to increase taxes, increase oil and gas prices, and figure that inaction is the best political action this year.
Which party is imposing their economic will on the country?
(Hint: The Party of the SuperDelegates has been in control of Congress during these challenging economic times. What have they done for you?)
-- Submitted by R Wellesley
Showing posts with label taxes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label taxes. Show all posts
Monday, June 9, 2008
Monday, September 17, 2007
HillaryCare 2008
Let us today bask in the glow of affordable universal health care, as proposed by the esteemed Senator from "New York"... (for a copy of the plan, feel free to visit the "Fables and Bedtime Stories" section of your local library)
“Today as we strive for a new beginning to the 21st century, I believe that everyone — every man, woman and child — should have quality, affordable health care in America,” Mrs. Clinton said. “We can no longer tolerate the injustice of a system that shuts out nearly one in six Americans.”
Well, I do agree that the health care system in this country is broken. Too much paperwork, high costs, too much power out of the hands of the people who seek healthcare... so let's start out by saying "We're with you so far, Hillary! Don't let us down!"
In a speech at a hospital here, as she campaigned for the Democratic presidential nomination, Mrs. Clinton said she would pay for the ($101 billion!!) plan partially by ending Republican-backed tax cuts for people earning $250,000 or more,...
You're starting to lose me, Hillary. While I don't favor granting special privileges to citizens based on their income levels, I don't really believe that the solution to any national problem is "eliminate tax cuts". And just how much of the $101 billion would you gain through higher taxes on people making the arbitrarily-chosen $250k per year or more?
...as well as by netting billions of dollars in savings by reorganizing the health care system. ..
OK, I'm hanging by a thread, dear Senator from "New York". Reorganizing the health care system? Aside from a nebulous reference to a reorganization (What the heck does that mean? Doctors answer the phone, while lower-paid receptionists dole out medical advice?), let's look at what happens when corporations reorganize. They usually invoke additional charges (i.e., Higher Costs) when they reorganize. And "reorganization" is usually done through a series of maneuvers - when exactly will we start to see these so-called reorganization savings? In my lifetime, or my not-yet-born grandchild's lifetime?
She also said she would press insurance companies and drug companies to focus on providing lower cost care — while at the same time, she said, she would ban insurance companies from turning down people for insurance because of health status or pre-existing health conditions.
OK, you've totally lost me now, Hillary. While I'm not a healthcare expert, my understanding is that people with health issues will increase overall costs to be borne by insurance companies (akin to car insurance companies that insure accident-prone drivers). So, the challenge for the health insurance companies becomes... (1) more government intervention, most likely leading to more paperwork, additional regulation, and more administrative people to handle these requirements; (2) increased healthcare pool coverage (more people to insure, including people with existing conditions), likely to increase the costs of providing health care in total and on average; and (3) reduce your costs for providing health care.
How do the companies lower costs? I think they could either only provide coverage to people without pre-existing coverage (NOT ALLOWED -- Hillary), reduce administrative staff and costs (NOT LIKELY -- government control/intervention), or reduce doctor salaries and/or staffing.
Hmm...maybe Hillary's plan really is to replace the doctors with lower-paid receptionists...
(Source of article: The New York Times)
-- Submitted by R. Wellesley
“Today as we strive for a new beginning to the 21st century, I believe that everyone — every man, woman and child — should have quality, affordable health care in America,” Mrs. Clinton said. “We can no longer tolerate the injustice of a system that shuts out nearly one in six Americans.”
Well, I do agree that the health care system in this country is broken. Too much paperwork, high costs, too much power out of the hands of the people who seek healthcare... so let's start out by saying "We're with you so far, Hillary! Don't let us down!"
In a speech at a hospital here, as she campaigned for the Democratic presidential nomination, Mrs. Clinton said she would pay for the ($101 billion!!) plan partially by ending Republican-backed tax cuts for people earning $250,000 or more,...
You're starting to lose me, Hillary. While I don't favor granting special privileges to citizens based on their income levels, I don't really believe that the solution to any national problem is "eliminate tax cuts". And just how much of the $101 billion would you gain through higher taxes on people making the arbitrarily-chosen $250k per year or more?
...as well as by netting billions of dollars in savings by reorganizing the health care system. ..
OK, I'm hanging by a thread, dear Senator from "New York". Reorganizing the health care system? Aside from a nebulous reference to a reorganization (What the heck does that mean? Doctors answer the phone, while lower-paid receptionists dole out medical advice?), let's look at what happens when corporations reorganize. They usually invoke additional charges (i.e., Higher Costs) when they reorganize. And "reorganization" is usually done through a series of maneuvers - when exactly will we start to see these so-called reorganization savings? In my lifetime, or my not-yet-born grandchild's lifetime?
She also said she would press insurance companies and drug companies to focus on providing lower cost care — while at the same time, she said, she would ban insurance companies from turning down people for insurance because of health status or pre-existing health conditions.
OK, you've totally lost me now, Hillary. While I'm not a healthcare expert, my understanding is that people with health issues will increase overall costs to be borne by insurance companies (akin to car insurance companies that insure accident-prone drivers). So, the challenge for the health insurance companies becomes... (1) more government intervention, most likely leading to more paperwork, additional regulation, and more administrative people to handle these requirements; (2) increased healthcare pool coverage (more people to insure, including people with existing conditions), likely to increase the costs of providing health care in total and on average; and (3) reduce your costs for providing health care.
How do the companies lower costs? I think they could either only provide coverage to people without pre-existing coverage (NOT ALLOWED -- Hillary), reduce administrative staff and costs (NOT LIKELY -- government control/intervention), or reduce doctor salaries and/or staffing.
Hmm...maybe Hillary's plan really is to replace the doctors with lower-paid receptionists...
(Source of article: The New York Times)
-- Submitted by R. Wellesley
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)