this liz fowler stuff is crazy. boy do i love DC and corportatists.

jerseyhoya wrote:

pacino wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

pacino wrote:i heard a pretty good line on Up with Chris Hayes on Sunday...why do means-testing on the end of medicare/SS when you can just do it up top, i.e. taxation and obliterating the cap, since the former gets so little savings and the latter gets much more 'revenue', which seems to be the choice word around DC right now.

Because raising the marginal tax rates on middle and upper middle class people by 12.4% is a terrible idea.

why exactly should money over 110,000 be exempt from taxation?

It's supposed to be an insurance program where you get money back for what you pay into it. The program is already strongly progressive in its payment structure.

it is not like medicare where as you make more you continue to get taxed. medicare is an insurance program. SS does not have some 'pool' where you put YOUR money. when you retire, they decide how much you will make and then they give you money that other people are currently paying. it is not your money. you are paying tax now to support people now. it's not a savings account. SS is more welfare-esque than medicare.

also, people would not decide to make less money to avoid paying the tax. they would simply try to make more money. if you make less money, you do not take home more money.

jerseyhoya wrote:It's supposed to be an insurance program where you get money back for what you pay into it. The program is already strongly progressive in its payment structure.

you're confusing Social Security's design with Medicare's design.

No health benefits arrangement assumes "you get money back for what you pay into it". The distribution of health care expense is wildly skewed; 1% of any large population accounts for 33%+ of the group's health costs, and well over half of a group routinely accounts for less than 5% of its costs. People can and do go decades without incurring health expenses that generate a benefit-paying claim against any public or private sector health benefit plan design.

There's no solid 'common sense' justification for capping the 'premium base' of medicare at any particular dollar figure.

DeMint's quitting

let/the sun shine
let/the sun shine in

the senate's loss is...well, Heritage's loss, too

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:It's supposed to be an insurance program where you get money back for what you pay into it. The program is already strongly progressive in its payment structure.

you're confusing Social Security's design with Medicare's design.

No health benefits arrangement assumes "you get money back for what you pay into it". The distribution of health care expense is wildly skewed; 1% of any large population accounts for 33%+ of the group's health costs, and well over half of a group routinely accounts for less than 5% of its costs. People can and do go decades without incurring health expenses that generate a benefit-paying claim against any public or private sector health benefit plan design.

There's no solid 'common sense' justification for capping the 'premium base' of medicare at any particular dollar figure.

I'm talking about Social Security.

bad week for Club for Growth loons

SC probably has some sort of primogeniture rule for handing over DeMint's seat to someone even more loathsome

jerseyhoya wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:It's supposed to be an insurance program where you get money back for what you pay into it. The program is already strongly progressive in its payment structure.

you're confusing Social Security's design with Medicare's design.

No health benefits arrangement assumes "you get money back for what you pay into it". The distribution of health care expense is wildly skewed; 1% of any large population accounts for 33%+ of the group's health costs, and well over half of a group routinely accounts for less than 5% of its costs. People can and do go decades without incurring health expenses that generate a benefit-paying claim against any public or private sector health benefit plan design.

There's no solid 'common sense' justification for capping the 'premium base' of medicare at any particular dollar figure.

I'm talking about Social Security.

good. In hindsight, you probably should have said so

Social Security is an insurance program where people pay money in with the expectation of getting money back and is strongly progressive in its payment structure. Why would you think I was talking about Medicare?

jerseyhoya wrote:Social Security is an insurance program where people pay money in with the expectation of getting money back and is strongly progressive in its payment structure. Why would you think I was talking about Medicare?

because the post you replied to, without qualification, addressed Medicare/SS:

Pacino wrote:i heard a pretty good line on Up with Chris Hayes on Sunday...why do means-testing on the end of medicare/SS when you can just do it up top, i.e. taxation and obliterating the cap, since the former gets so little savings and the latter gets much more 'revenue', which seems to be the choice word around DC right now.

keep those interesting questions coming!

Political Math (@politicalmath) tweeted at 6:30 PM on Thu, Dec 06, 2012:
It's weird how loyal the GOP is to rich liberals. It's like Dems fighting for the rights of evangelical Christians

What does this mean

The people at political math are morons.

unemployment down to 7.7

we're doing it

YE

cool to see all the conservatives downplaying and nitpicking the number, still. the election been done over, guys

Honestly, hasn't it been clear now for a long time that many, if not most, conservatives would rather see the country struggle if it means they have a chance to be in power again?

#patriotism

I don't really here anyone offering this interpretation, but Obama received a post-election bounce in his approval ratings, as it typical. They diminished rather quickly, but have since returned, with the Realclear average at +7. While you can't draw a direct line between that figure and support for any particular policy, it's not insane to infer that Obama is winning the budget debate.

hey Jeff - Jeff Sessions. No one cares about you and your Alabammy cracker ass, okay? Now sit down and shut up

td11 wrote:Political Math (@politicalmath) tweeted at 6:30 PM on Thu, Dec 06, 2012:
It's weird how loyal the GOP is to rich liberals. It's like Dems fighting for the rights of evangelical Christians

What does this mean

Everyone knows that all Dems (well, the white ones at least) are godless commies.

JFLNYC wrote:Honestly, hasn't it been clear now for a long time that many, if not most, conservatives would rather see the country struggle if it means they have a chance to be in power again?

#patriotism

#CountryFirst

Playing Devil's advocate - if you stipulate the premise that the country would be much better off under conservative government, then I think it makes a certain amount of pragmatic sense to try to make things worse temporarily to (hopefully) ensure that the liberals are out of power as quickly as possible so that the healing can begin.

phatj wrote:Playing Devil's advocate - if you stipulate the premise that the country would be much better off under conservative government, then I think it makes a certain amount of pragmatic sense to try to make things worse temporarily to (hopefully) ensure that the liberals are out of power as quickly as possible so that the healing can begin.

I suppose it'd be much easier to accomplish if the country hadn't actually seen it happen quite unsuccessfully for 6+ years when Bush was elected in 2000.