That's a helluva revision in program cost.......

Obamacare program costs $50,000 for every American who gets health insurance | Daily Mail Online

And a starkly different headline from the same report.......

Obamacare cost to be 20% less than forecast, budget office says - LA Times

Or instead of comparing a right-wing publication to a left-wing publication and leaving everybody else to try to sort the context, you could include the appropriate quote from the first page of the CBO report:


Basically? The Mail is comparing the projected costs for 2010-2019 and with the projected costs for 2016-2025 and going HA IT'S COSTING MORE while the LA Times is comparing what remains of the original projection (through 2019) with the CBO's projection through 2019 currently and going "huh, that outlay is actually going to be 20% less during that period than originally proposed."

It isn't apples to apples. The LA Times is pulling its headline almost directly from the first page of the CBO while the Daily Mail is going sensationalistic and ignoring all sorts of context in making its claim.

Beyond just showing how much it takes to be considered in the 1%, it also has another graphic showing the growing economic growth/wealth disparity. I get this trend is not all Obama's fault and likely started from GWB tenure but is still troubling as its happening on his watch.

Some of this wealth gap is likely deserved (I've done well since the Great Recession officially ended) but don't think it explains most of the disparity. Article didn't explain why it was happening -- what policies may be causing this etc.

Here’s how much it takes to join your state’s 1% - MarketWatch

It is pretty clear that the disparity started expanding back during Reagan's first term when the top marginal tax rate was slashed from 70% to 50%, then further to 28% in his second term.

Too bad, I think it would have been an interesting race but probably right decision for him, family and the GOP to let someone new have a shot.

Log In - The New York Times
.

Way to go Obama. That traitor that you traded terrorists for has again left to go with the Taliban. How you could have stood there and called this guy a hero shows your lack of character and your lack of common sense. You are a traitor and should be dealt as one.

I really don't think that anyone expected any different tbh. They knew that these guys were in it to win it. I'd also venture to guess that they have some sort of tracking device in them and that might be waiting to see just where and who they turn up with.

I'm so confused by your (as usual) nonsense post. Are you saying that the American soldier left to join the Taliban? Or are you saying some of the people we traded for him are trying to rejoin the Taliban? If the latter, then duh. If you think they aren't tracking these dudes, than you are a fool and should be dealt as one (whatever that means).

Nothing you typed makes any sense except maybe to Sarah Palin (recent speech woes).

I have no idea what the last three posts are about.

Bowe Bergdahl, I'm guessing.

Edit: Further, I'm assuming it's related to this: http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/bow...aliban-n296416

But...

FU TRAITOR!

Wait. Did we just have someone call for Obama's execution?

In a sane world this would shitcan his presidential run.

People should be free to make the choices that they want, but they have to understand that when I call them stupid fucking idiots that they need to own that moniker too.

But he also said this beforehand:

People who don't vaccinate their children should be publicly flogged. I guess it's just that most parents weren't alive when polio, small pox, and all these diseases infected thousands upon thousands and the average life expectancy was 10-15 years less.

Parents should make their own decisions, but we should treat health workers like criminals.

So, for kids that aren't vaccinated, are they allowed in public schools? I know in my area, you have to present proof of vaccination to enroll your kids in school to begin with. I just wasn't sure if that was a law, or if there are ways around it, or what.

Vaccines should be required unless there is a medical exemption. States like Mississippi do not even allow exemptions based upon religious grounds.

Obama released his $3.901 billion budget proposal today. Obama 2015 budget: $3.9 trillion - POLITICO.com

Nothing but a wish list.

Why not? I mean it isn't like any budget he was going to propose would go anywhere in a GOP House & Senate, so why not send a wish budget over there? It'd, at least, be a good place to start negotiating.

Fun quote from Savage on measles, shifts the blame away from the anti-vaccine crowd:

“Measles had been nearly eradicated until about 15 years ago. When Clinton busted our border with Mexico, the floodgates were opened to infected migrants. Measles, TB, even malaria is returning! This is a form of medical genocide.”

He continued: “These illegal migrants may have a greater resistance to these illnesses owing to the fact they live in the midst of the infecting organisms. Our population is nearly ‘virgin’ to these infectious organisms. The killer flu raging through our population, measles, TB are all the result of this anti-American government.”

Read more at Savage: Disneyland measles part of Obama’s ‘medical genocide’

Show's he's learning. Don't send over a budget with compromise already built in.

Relevant: Migrant kids better vaccinated than U.S. kids, but Fox News stokes ‘germ’ fears anyway

But that isn't anywhere near good enough for a governor who wants to be President. Compare what he said to Obama,

My biggest fear is that vaccinations will become another partisan issue. So far the anti-vaxers are mostly upper class liberals, but I'd bet we'll hear more on the right now that Obama is clearly pro-vaccination.

Another GOP candidate is pro-choice:

This is not true for Ohio. You can get around it.

Most places allow exemptions, be it religious, medical, or what not. For my kids in day care, the ones I've gone to (affiliated with the university or other accrediting bodies) you need a a verified Georgia Immunization form. For our public school, the requirements varied from county to county, but there are ways around it (not everyone can actually get a vaccine).

But none of the real issues with vaccines seem founded. I mean the side effects are rare, there are no known connections to cancer/autism/etc, but the risk of getting something is real. Now I actually believe that some vaccines should be optional (eg rotovirus) and some can be given later (like HepB and HPV), but there are some I think we should, as a country, have nationally mandated. I don't mind your dumb choices when it comes to eating McDs every day, or driving without your seatbelt on, let Darwin do his thing. But vaccines are something that are for the common good and affect people who can't yet make their own choices.

So, speaking of politicians speaking of vaccines ;)

Obama supports vaccines now — but pandered to anti-vaxxers in 2008 - Vox

And that's stupid, too.

I like the Budget, with both the one time 14% tax on overseas held money by corporations, and then a 19% ongoing overseas held money.. too much money is being moved out of the country.

Agreed. They ought to stop making it so necessary, starting with a reasonable budget with realistic & worthwhile spending.

Instead, the war on success continues, I'm hard pressed to begrudge anyone for finding means to combat it.

Yeah taxes on the low end of post WW2 average and lower than most of the developed world really make it hard on the people with assets.

Who will think about the rich?

And Rand Paul makes three:


edit: It's even worse. Paul seems to buy the vaccine/autism link:

CNBC Now on Twitter: "BREAKING: FCC to forbid firms from slowing Internet traffic, regulate them like utility in new rules expected to be announced Thursday - DJ"

BREAKING: FCC to forbid firms from slowing Internet traffic, regulate them like utility in new rules expected to be announced Thursday - DJ

Maybe he can create a medical board that certifies the imaginary link between vaccines and autism.

I know I'll get blasted but I have two friends and both of their sons were totally normal and then changed after the vaccinations. I can't say they were the cause but to deny watching normal kids go to autistic ones happening after them is to deny facts. My own belief is that it is caused more by chemicals in our foods or something like that and they then react with something in the vaccines rather than the vaccines themselves. There's a small part of me that wonders not about the vaccines so much as getting too many of them within a short span of time. I would never not vaccinate my children but it was enough that in the cases of their other children my friends either did not vaccinate or chose to space the vaccinations out much more.

I agree that the schedule is aggressive, but most people can work with their doctors to put some off. Our son was sick for his 16 month check-up and he needed more vaccines when we finally got him in. Talked with the doctor and we thought giving him some that he missed was fine, and waiting a few months to "catch up" would be great. As I mentioned above, I can't think of a good reason to give a 1 year old a HepB vaccine (maybe one or two) but the odds of them contracting it are REALLY Low. That's a vaccine you can get when you are older. Also, the rotavirus infects so few people each year, it's almost silly to take it (20-50 deaths per year), but it can cause extensive morbidity and the "risk" of the vaccine probably does not outweigh the reward.

As a liberal, I am still disappointed to see the Dems wait until they have no power in Congress before proposing a liberal budget for show.

Have to give Carson credit for this.

Carson? As in the butler at Downton Abbey? :)

They give the first part of the HepB vaccine at birth

No, not blasted, because the original fear came from a real article published in a real medical journal. But the journal has admitted it was fooled and retracted the article. Many still believe it and autism rates are higher than they were in the past. Somewhere, there's a smoking gun, but it seems more than unlikely that it's vaccines. And the potential harm of not vaccinating is real.

Nice for Hillary to jump in with a jibe. I think this will be a topic that comes up during the debates and somewhat problematic for Christi and Paul to find that balanced and nuance point to view to satisfy both sides.

Haven't seen any surveys but are significant/majority of GOP base anti-vaccine proponents? I would not have thought so?

Chris Christie, Rand Paul under fire for vaccine remarks | Fox News

Remember the schedule was developed to ensure as many vaccinations as possible. Lots of kids don't see the doctor regularly, so the first few well baby appointments are the best chance to do full vaccinations. If you see the doctor regularly, almost every doctor will accommodate delaying some vaccines.

This is such a stupid comment. People used to die, en masse, to the many diseases for which we now have vaccines. You don't just shrug and say it's an individual's choice. You show some fucking leadership and explain why it's for the common good.

If there's a war on success, it kinda looks like success is winning:

Exactly. These schedules aren't designed for people like those of us here at FOFC who tend to be good about health care, especially for our children.

These schedules are designed for the huge numbers of people who aren't going to be as careful as we are, or can't be. Read the fact sheet from the WHO and it's easy to see why it's a good reason to do this:


And no, I'm not talking about transmission via childhood sexual abuse, though clearly that's a deeply unfortunate problem. Given the methods of transmission described above, it's relatively easy to see how young children are especially susceptible to exposure and contraction. The vaccine makes a ton of sense, even (perhaps especially) in areas with low infection rates.

To be fair, we also have a much cleaner and healthier environment. Having measles in a room filled with lead paint and asbestos was probably a more dangerous combination

Random Obama thought, what's he going to do after 2016? He'll still a pretty young guy. It's hard to imagine him just retiring and laying low for decades, or even just having the Jimmy Carter elder statesman role. Could he go back into politics in some capacity? Will he be our first former president entertainment celebrity who guest hosts SNL and makes movie cameos?

I'd guess he'll do something like the Clinton Global Initiative.

Sen. Tillis has had it with hand washing.


Aside from the obvious whathefuckery, how can he not realize that requiring companies to advertise would be a more burdensome regulation than hand washing?

Sarcasm... try looking it up....

SCOTUS!

You don't seriously think he's going to relinquish power peacefully? Why do you think FEMA has been prepping so many body bags, yo.

I love how hard you are working for your side, but no.

GOP senator: Let restaurants ‘opt out’ of handwashing after toilet to ‘reduce regulatory burden’


So, no, it was sarcasm. It was something he'd be ok with, but it was more to illustrate a bigger point.

Probably a bit lower-key, though. Obama's, if not an actual introvert, certainly much, much less of an extrovert than Clinton.

So he doesn't like mandatory regulations and his solution is to make them voluntary, except for this new mandatory regulation he came up with that forces businesses to disclose.

I have a very smart PHD friend who has spoken a lot about vaccines and autism. He said the biggest issue is that a child's brain develops to where autism becomes detectable at around 18 months - which also coincides with numerous vaccines for most kids. His stance is that is mostly hereditary and the act of getting a vaccine doesn't seem to impact whether a kid is diagnosed with Autism. But, he also says that if people are concerned, they can space out those vaccines into the 24-32 month timeframe when more brain development has occurred.

"The Market Will Take Care of That"

Sarcasm....

Here's a dollar, go buy a clue.

Basically saying that a business is not going to stay in business if they don't enforce it. Try reading between the lines a bit.

IDIOTS trying to make something out of nothing.

D******** F****** M****

Darwinism for companies. Don't enforce the rule and have to tell the market that you don't. You go out of business. Pretty easy to understand... What company is actually going to think this is a good idea and decide to not enforce the policy?

Once again,


That's not sarcasm.

You're right. It's stupidity. Let's reduce the "burden" on the side of the equation that has all the money, power, "personhood", can set the legal barriers and conditions on every transaction, uses the patent office like fuck doll, so on and so forth.

Reducing the "burden" on big business will just fuck over the little guy even more, if that's even possible. The first moves before I'm willing to reduce any burdens for business requires (1) no more forced arbitration; (2) consumer bill of rights; (3) eliminating the concept of corporate personhood. Once the little guy is protected from big business, then I'm more than willing to try to protect big business from the Government. Until then fuck corporate stooges like Thom Tillis.

Wrong thread, but I'll play!

R?

Dooooooont fffstop mubelievin?

Nicely played.

This I think more than idiots.

I agree.

So you're a fan of burdensome regulation now?

Sarcasm or not, Tillis is proposing a mentality where you remove one regulation and replace it with another regulation. And, critically, this other regulation, being a one-size-fits-all solution, is to require overcommunication of every business rule said business decides to enforce or not.

Where does that mentality end, exactly? Conservatives have whined about new food labeling laws (with calorie counts and whatnot). The regulatory regime Tillis suggests would require that a company clearly delineate the entire supply chain for each component of a food they create and sell.

He's saying we have to change mentality. Instead of setting rules and having people follow them, we just require full and complete disclosure of pretty much everything and ask that people make up their own minds. Sounds great in theory, likely grinds to a halt in practice.

"We have opted out of the policy to disclose what policies we are opting out of."

Yup, next logical step ...

Remember, the tax brackets in the old days used to be much more granular than they are today. The top tax bracket today is $450K in 2015 money, the top bracket in 1921 (for instance) was $12.1M in today's money. They did have a bracket for people making $450K (in 2015 money!) and perhaps that will clue us in a little better on who's getting taxed more.

THE HISTORY OF TAXES: Here's How High Today's Rates Really Are - Business Insider

This graph CLEARLY shows that it was in "fact" the rich people of 1921 who were getting hammered. But were they really? In 1921, reaching that 73% barrier meant you had to make $12.1M in today's money. Very, very view people ever made that much money in 1921. We're talking only the richest oil and industrial age baron's.

Here's an article that describes the type's of people that make a million dollars in today's day and age -->

How Many People Earn More than $1,000,000 Per Year In the United States?



In 1921, the top tax bracket was indeed 73%. As stated, you had to be making $12.1 million dollars a year (in today's money to reach that bracket).

How do you calculate this? Use a simple inflation calculator to help out, of course--> DollarTimes.com | Inflation Calculator

In 1921, the 40% bracket was intended for people who were making $800,000 per year.

In 1921, for people making $450,000 a year (in 1921 dollars), the taxes was actually around 25-26%.

The jump from 35% to 40% for people making $450K a year is actually moving away from 1921 levels, not towards them, as the chart suggests. Although this graph does a great job of guiding us to the conclusion that we have plenty of room for growth in taxes, I find it a bit misleading for the argument being made.

That's been part of the plan of the wealthy. The fewer tax brackets there are the more people get caught in the top bracket. There's no reason why we couldn't add a bracket at 1mil or 5mil or 100mil, other than that would make it more difficult to build a coalition against that taxation.

For example, when Reagan took office there were seventeen tax brackets and now there are seven.

edit: In the early sixties there were over twenty brackets. And in 1940 there were thirty-one brackets!

I will note it is somewhat telling that Dutch compares 1921 tax brackets with todays. What about the 1963 tax brackets when taxes were at 90%? Then (using Dutch's Business Insider link), $200,000 would hit 90% - that's $1,547,294.12 today. So anything made over $1.5mil today would be taxed at 90%.

What about the 40% barrier in 1963.... anything over $14,000 dollars in 1963 was charged at 43%. $14,000 in 1963 equals $108,310.59 today.

So moving the top tax bracket from 35% to 40% actually moves us closer to 1963 tax rates but not nearly close enough.

43% taxes in 1953 tax tables was anything over $12,000, which is $106,398.20 today. I dunno about you, but I think the 1950s/60s economy is a better model to model than the 1920s economy.

I'd argue that solely comparing tax rates to 1921 rates is the solely misleading argument here.

(All inflation numbers calculated through CPI Calculator: CPI Inflation Calculator )

About that Obama vaccines comment...

News Outlets Drive Out-Of-Context Obama Comment On Vaccines Into 2016 Conversation

Sure, and then the 70's happened...

Great post, Dutch. I don't necessarily agree with the entirety of your argument (and don't have the time to refute/argue it now), but I definitely appreciate the thought that went into it.

I appreciate you saying that, flere!

I think all that goes to show is that the overall top brackets have been capped to a much lower income level than they were historically. I might say that we need to look at the percentage of actual people captured by each tax bracket in order to compare it historically and to find the effectiveness of the rates. Cross check it to the percent of overall revenue generated from each bracket and then you might get a better view of comparative rates and where they really ought to be.

It's interesting but not that useful. In 1921 the modern income tax had only been around for 8 years (there had been income taxes prior to this, but they were ruled unconstitutional). In 1921, the US wasn't a modern nation yet. Things like the highway system hadn't been established yet. 35% of homes had electricity. The percentage of people who lived in cities had JUST exceeded the percentage of people living on farms. So comparing today's rates to an agrarian, pre-electricity, pre-highway society isn't very useful.

Let's look at the tax brackets from something post-WW2, considered the "golden age" of the USA. The brackets were quite stable from 1950 to 1960, so we can generalize over that decade and compare it to now.

The top bracket in 1950 is $400,000 and over - about $4,000,000 today - and is at 85%. That's not very useful though and I don't recommend going back to that. But the upper-middle class brackets were quite stiff back then. $28,000 in 1950 was taxed at whopping 42% and that's only the equivalent of $279,000 today (33% and with more deductions). That's a massive difference and it only goes up from there. If you earned the equivalent of $400k in 1950 your top marginal rate was 50%.

Now I would argue that's too high. The Laffer curve is a real thing at higher tax brackets. While it's laughable to hear Republicans spout off about how reducing taxes from 30% to 25% somehow equals more total tax collection - there's not an independent economist in the world who believes that shit - it does work at rates above 60% or so.

I'd just like a return to something approximating Reagan's 1981 taxes. Someone making $16,000 in 1981 (about $44k in today's world) would be on the hook for a maximum of 22%. Someone making $35,200 (about $95k today) is on the hook for a maximum of 39%. $60k in 1981 ($163k today) is looking at a maximum rate of 49%. When you compare those rates versus what we have today, you can see why the government runs such a large deficit. There's simply not enough money coming in.

After quite a bit of tax cuts on the upper bracket during the 60s, driving it down to 70%... did you not even read your link?

And as Blackadar stated, even in Reagan's 1981 taxes, the rate was basically the same in middle values - and only after the recovery was in full swing did taxes drop even further (in 1986 and 1988)

Well the entire Congress (OK maybe 95%) are in that bracket, have friends in that bracket, and have most of their big contributors in that bracket. Don't see them working too hard to add brackets to make any of them pay more. My disdain would be aimed at everyone involved though I will give the Democrats credit for creating the illusion that they are aghast that those additional brackets don't exist and can't be created when they have actually had the power to do so fairly recently if they really wanted.

I may also add that in 1987, the first year after the Tax Reform Act of 1986, the top rate was slashed to 38.5%, which is higher than today's top tax rate, and applied to all income made over $45,000 - which in today's money would be $93,777.46.

So looking at 2013 federal tax spending (Your 2013 Federal Taxpayer Receipt | The White House) 25% to defense and 25% to health. it seems that most of our tax money is being used on people who have been or are contributing to the economy.

It seems most of the people receiving government money in some way give a lot of it back in their own payroll and sales tax. I wonder what is the net gain/loss of this massive government spending?

If your point is that government is captured by wealthy interests that fund campaigns, you'll get no argument from me.

And yet we still have a $2,400 annual limit on individual contributions to individual candidates.

Yes that was my point. And in my opinion Congress has around 5 members with integrity/character and of those 3 of them feel like their should be less taxes so that leaves 2 for your coalition. Which means you would need 217 more votes in the House, 50 more in the senate, and that doesn't even count Obama's veto. :)

The mistake you make is that all Democrats share(d) the same policy goals. That's true of Republicans, as well. To a lesser extent, but still true.

On the other hand, tax increases are anathema to Republicans. Voting to raise taxes would get any Republican Senator primaried out by the temporarily embarrassed millionaires that make up the primary voting base.

To the extent that the Democrats had any real power to raise taxes since January, 2009, it was in allowing the Bush cuts to sunset. They briefly had 60 votes in the Senate, but the key word there is "briefly." Coleman litigated the Minnesota seat, leaving the state without a Representative until Franken prevailed in court and assumed office in July 2009; between January and July, the Democrats had only 59 Senate votes.

In August, Senator Kennedy passed away, and was replaced ultimately by Scott Brown, albeit with a Democratic appointee keeping the seat warm for Brown in the interim between August and January.

That was their window. Six weeks of a 60-seat majority before Senator Kennedy passed. The period between August 25, 2009 and February 2010, when Scott Brown took Kennedy's seat from the Democratic-appointed placeholder.

In the middle of the Great Recession.

That would have required either the political will by all 60 Democrats to raise taxes in the midst of high unemployment - recall the drumbeat by the opposition that raising taxes, ever, will cost millions of jobs and leave us all homeless and starving - or else serious horse trading to ensure no Democrats defected, or threatened to.

Ben Nelson used that to his advantage, if you'll recall. Being the 60th Democrat enabled him to extract concesions (later rolled back) that enabled Nebraska and Nebraska alone to accept the Medicaid expansion without it costing them a dime, ever (as opposed to the 10% contributions which would have been required of the other 49 states after three years).

They lost the House in 2010, and taxation bills must originate from the House. That means no matter what their majority in the Senate going forward, increased taxes were a non-starter.

So that's your argument - that if the Democrats wanted to raise taxes, they should have done so when the economy was fragile, and that it's just too damn bad if now that the economy is recovering, they don't actually control the purse strings anymore.

Whatever you think of the efficacy of tax increases, the notion that they could have done anything, given the political realities that existed during the brief time they had that power, is a spurious one.

If the GOP base was just millionaires, then half of the votes from the last election-and on average-are millionaires?

I'm not in favor of more taxes. I'm in favor of less spending (quite a bit at the federal level), going back to giving states more control instead of the federal government, and implementing a flat or fair/VAT/consumption-based tax system federally.


I'm confused--didn't the previous congress raised taxes already (capital gains tax increasing from 15% to 20%; ACA tax on unearned income on incomes over $250,000 (?)? I'm waiting for the day for a constitutional challenge to the US tax/fee system in regards to citizens and corporations that live abroad or give up their citizenship. The discussion of tax brackets are better when looking at effective tax rates.

US earned income is taxed...it's money earned outside of the country that isn't being brought in.

The process is being abused by moving IP to low tax jurisdictions before the IP generates revenues (and thus the tax associated with the move is minimal). The US parent then pays the foreign subsidiary a royalty for use of the IP. The royalty is an expense for the US parent which lowers there taxable income. The end result is a portion of the income that is earned from U.S. revenues is moved to the foreign entity where it is not taxed by the U.S. (until the income is repatriated).

I don't blame companies for doing it since as long as it's legal, but I have no problem with closing this tactic. It's a complex problem.

I agree with Obama but he probably could have worded the high horse statement better.

Obama at Prayer Event: Christians did terrible things, too | Fox News

Steve Benen on Twitter: "Face it: if Romney produced numbers like these, RNC would be organizing parades in his honor http://t.co/dQ0t4FJrOx http://t.co/ohhkjuSWAZ"

Yep.

I think this chart provides even more data, although it's a bit dated now. (EDIT: Can you find the cherry-picked data that the liberals are presenting to their web-sites and journalists and has subsequently now been posted here as unbiased information?)