Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire. (Obama's promise to televise health care negotiations)

Yeah, big tactical error by the democrats. No wonder they are now having a difficult time with this issue.

Does anybody know if they make the assumtion that the same number of people will continue to carry these "cadillac" plans once the tax goes into effect in order to develop their revenue estimates?

It seems like those people would have the most flexibility to cancel their plans and just pay for their liposuction and Botox injections out of pocket.

For all of you who are not concerned about this because it doesn't effect you, all I will say is just look at the cost of healthcare relative to inflation, and figgure out how long it will be until your plan is a "cadillac".

 

Correct me if I am wrong, but did not Obama blast McCain over McCain's inclusion of taxing "Cadillac" plans in his vision of health care reform. Did not Obama also blast Hillary over her mandatory coverage provision? Would Obama now sign a heath care bill that includes these two evils he campaigned against? I am surprised such a bright person as Obama would be so behind the curve compared to both Hillary and McCain.

 

So please tell me, why did you suggest that the democrats weren't calling a tax a tax when they were calling it a tax? Was it a diversionary tactic?

1. I'm sorry you think that telling the truth is a "tactical error" for politicians.

2. Yes, I suspect that in every tax model, understanding that taxes have an effect on people's behavior, that they factor that in.

3. You see, apparently you are one of them, but I am not a person who judges what government does on rank self-interest. I do not have a cadillac health plan -- not even close, but I oppose this plan. In fact, if it must be paid for I would be more in favor on increasing taxes for the upper brackets, even though that would adversely impact me.

 

It was a joke, based on an earlier post in the thread about how things are less popular when they are called a tax.

It is when it comes to democrats and taxes. Things like "financial crisis responsibility fee" go over much better.

http://www.forbes.com/2010/01/14/ob...ss-beltway-tax.html?feed=rss_business_beltway

"We want our money back, and we're going to get it. And that's why I'm proposing a Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee "

But there is no correlation between the entities who received the money and those that will have to give it "back", raising an interesting new definition to getting something back. Banks that took no TARP money will be subject to this ta.... er fee, and the auto industry that took billions, wil not be subject to it.

You would think so, but lowballing this estimate would be an easy way to hide some of the costs of this proposal, this administartion has used the rose colored galsses in the past when discussing their proposals.

Well good for you. If you support that, why don't you just make a donation to the federal treaury in the amount that you think you should be taxed. If you could get all the lefties in the entertainment industry to do the same, we should be able to pay for this plan no problem.

 

That's not a joke. a joke stretches a truth. This was just stupid.

Every bank benefitted from the bailout, if not directly, then indirectly.

REally, tell me when they've used rose colored glasses. Because I think everyone is surprised that we have gotten as much tarp money back so quickly,

I don't make donations to the federal treasury because I want to give as little of my money as possible to blackwater.

 

I point out how Obama indeed skirted the use of the word tax with his use of the term "financial crisis responsibility fee" which is a truth. Then I stretched that truth to say that I was suprised that they allowed people to call the tax on health care benifits a tax and made up my own "excess coverage surcharge" to kind of poke fun at "financial crisis responsibility fee". That seem like your formula for a joke to me.

Well if you believe thew bailout was actually necessary to save the entire economy from collapsing, then you could use that same logic to argue that everyone benifitted from the bailout indirectly, so we should use a broad based tax to recoup the money.

On the other hand if you want to argue specifics, it is quite possible that by saving certain banks, it prevented some of the more stable banks from taking over their customers, and those banks were actuall harmed by TARP.

And why exactly are the banks singled out to pay back money that went to the auto industry? To be consistent shouldn't Ford pay it back since they have the money but GM and Chrysler don't, by your logic Ford must have benfited "indirectly" as part of the auto industry.

When the presented their Budget.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/23/obama.deficit/

So you think if you give more money to the government, for some reason that action would directly cause more money to go to blackwater?

OK, So why don't all the lefties form a non-profit and collect all the money that all these rich liberals say they are "undertaxed" and start a corporation that will provide low cost healthcare to the poor, so the government doesn't have to do it? You can hit up warren Buffet first, and make him give you that difference between his rate and his secretaries, that's gotta be good for a few million to get you started.

 

Did you miss the 20th century? That's not how the banking system works, that's not what happened.

 

1. Because "rich" liberals like myself think that there is an appropriate role for government and that the private sector can not effectively or efficiently provide certain kinds of services.

2. Because "rich" liberals give to lots of causes, and money is a finite resource.