Conserving, celebrating, and contributing to the excellence that is Western Civilization.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
A Turning Point In The Dismantling Of America
Thomas Sowell, at Investor's Business Daily gives even more bad news.
I linked to the print-friendly version, but there was one excellent comment in the original - 'Next up, amnesty, because re-electing Democrats is a job Americans just won't do.'
On a related note: I have heard how Stupak cannot get his executive order -- for a President to be able to issue an executive order to undo a standing law would make us a dictatorship.
However, on the bright side: Glenn Beck sounded surprisingly optimistic yesterday. While he did not use the words, I think it could be said that he compared the vote on Sunday to the "shot heard around the world" that began the Revolutionary War. His optimism comes from the fact that most of our opposition in this battle is with crooked, greedy politicians and with people who feel that they are too important to actually do anything and should be provided everything they have. His comments were refreshing and gave me hope.
While I understand Dr. Sowell's point, I think he, and others, may be misunderstanding the anger in the American people. A Democratic Congress apparently said on TV that Americans will forget about this whole thing by November. Considering all of the suits being brought by the states, considering all the trumpeting the Dems will do to show how wonderful they are coupled with their further pushes, and considering that the taxes are to begin immediately, I don't think we are going to forget that soon.
I don't know how much faith I have left in the American system to right itself(no pun intended). We seem to have hit that point where the people have realized they can write themselves checks from the treasury.
Yep, hiring 18,000 new IRS workers is a stroke of genius! Why, that's enough for each of us to have our own personal agent! Just think of the "personal touch" when they bang on your door at 3 AM demanding to see your insurance papers.
Matt's comment above hits the nail on the head. These are the talking points, people.
It's comforting to talk to people already are on common ground with, and it's useless to talk to "hard cases".
The interesting class of folks is "everybody else".
I don't go around telling people "I'm a Tea Partier, and here's why you should be one too".
I like to talk to nice, conventionally liberal, casually progressive, otherwise normal middle class people who feel some disquiet about what's going on, and do my level best to jack up that disquiet. Obliquely, and without polemic. Solidarity expressed as cynicism about, and ridicule of, The Powers That Be - and eliciting recognition of the fact that Obama et al aren't our friends.
Lotsa folks who don't consider themselves "rich" are still finding out Obama thinks that they are.
Lotsa folks who value Freedom - even just in the sense of keeping "the Man" off their back - are still waking up to the fact that the needle is moving in the wrong direction, and that Barack is all talk and no game on that front.
Lewy said: "I don't go around telling people "I'm a Tea Partier, and here's why you should be one too"."
Aw, shucks, you've ruined this carefully drawn image I had of you! Dang.
Your approach is the only one that will work, now, to ameliorate this new huge patchwork creation. All this talk about "revolution" in streets yada yada is more comedy than anything workable. The idea that Sarah Palin "scares" anybody is laughable. If SCOTUS were to over-turn it en' mass I'd be stunned.
There are aspects to this patchwork monstrosity that can be "made the best of" by deliberate excision piece by piece.
One example is the absurd "VAT" excise tax on medical devices at the wholesale level. Not a new idea for excises taxes, but where no excise tax is remotely called for, it is outright theft. So you know, the federal excise tax on gallons of motor fuel sold are collected precisely that way, at the wholesale level. The "ultimate vendor," in IRS terminology, pays the tax, it is already in the pump price to the customer. If, by some slim chance, a customer is exempt due to specific provision in the law, that customer will have to file a quarterly return with the IRS to be reimbursed. Even the federal government's fleet of cars and equipment pays the tax unless their use is exempt under special provisions, and the Feds pay an expensive NGO to administer their fuel credit card program, do the returns, and so forth.
I'm not guessing, I was the "authorizing offical" for 4 states of my old agency's fuel use operations, and I had a fiduciary responsibility (means I was personally responsibile) for any unpaid bills, or unresolved tax refunds, to boot. It took 6 months plus after I retired on buyout to resolve $10k in open accounts, plus 2 lawyers and considerable angry invective from me, both to US Bank and to USACE Finance Center.
It is a piece of shit procedure...making every single person a de facto "authorizing official." It was implemented in the mid-1990's to eliminate the IRS need to chase down individual retailers for the taxes. No intended benefit to the customer was intended. Period.
Another example is the "fee" (tax) on insurance companies based upon their volume of coverage. Those are both direct taxes on anyone, whether they pay taxes or not, because they will be added to pricing at retail...no matter if you earn over $200k or not.
The bill is chock a block full of the articles of conspicuous bullshit and each will require individual attention. The polemic screamers and hsyterical demegouges will do nothing but send up dust, no impact. My known antipathy for Palin not with standing, she was/is a tax evader herself...evasion means you avoided by intentional act or ommission. When she runs off at the mouth it is no different that if I fed my dogs baked beans for a month...same output.
Now is not the time for hysteria, it is time for methodical dissembly of egregious pieces.
Here's another summary of what the Health Care Bill provides, or not...LINK ...and a rough list of cost changes, taxes, fees, etc., for some aspects of coverage.
Okay, so I was just watching some demonstrators against Ann Coulter (and don't get me wrong, I can't stand her - she's so abrasive that I just can't watch/listen to her, even though I freely admit she does her homework).
Anyway, one of the people shouting "NO MORE HATE SPEECH!"was wearing a Palestinian scarf.
I don't dislike her, she's too over the top for my tastes (like Hannity). But I'm frickin' sick of the double standard.
I was watching O'Reilly interview a spokeswoman from the U of Ontario and he had her hemming and hawing, it was pathetic...I wish I had the transcript...
O'Reilly pretty much drives me up the wall with his interrupting and he's so arrogant!
But I was glad he kept asking Congressman Weiner who was going to enforce the law re: people who won't buy ins. policies and Weiner just got really nasty (while never answering the question). He asked him about 6 times.
I prefer Cavuto's style, persistent but gentlemanly.
I like O'Reilly, but he does interrupt ALLOT. Weiner is either dense or a charlatan; I thought he was going to blow his cork! When he turned his head away from the camera in a snit, he reminded me of our two year old granddaughter. Noah and I both laughed.
Lady Red....O'Reilly made a fool of himself with his IRS pursuit issues with Weiner. Turn his head? Hell I'd have just stood up and left.
I would have thought O'Reilly knnew more about IRS mechanisms...as it is, it appears I've forgotten more about it than he ever knew.
Interupting is a tactic used when someone isn't giving you back what you want to hear. O'Reilly's opinion on the IRS issue would be appropriate for a Talking Points Memo, but not for an interview. If you ask a question you should accept the answer you get, or at least hear it, then disect it.
O'Reilly was disappointing tonight. There is a difference between civil infraction and criminal infraction. He knows that.
Florie....Weiner answered the question. Also, the question was pointless nonsense. The "fine" for non-compliance will come as a reduction of the standard deduction of itemized deductions, and likley havew a form filed by the Ins Co similar to W-2's or 1090's.
The purpose of the mandate is to prevent people from waiting until they're ill or injured to buy insurance. Insurance, literally, doesn't work that way.
The IRS already oversees health care deductions of various kinds, as well as pre-tax income health care payments. It is only natural that they would be the overseer of a health care mandate.
What would work better, a wholly new massive bureaocracy? As I said above, O'Reilly disappointed tonight.
I'm not happy with the bill, but I humbly suggest there are facets far more worthy of addressing than the IRS. See this list of features.
Of course we could host our own blog but then we would need a webmaster and none of us are masters of the web so that ain't going to happen anytime soon!
Ari, the raw data for the Recent Comments sidebar is pulled from the Atom (RSS) comment feed, which _mostly_ keeps right up with the comments, but _sometimes_ falls behind... I've seen it fall behind by an hour at one point.
I believe this is due to nature of Google's data storage tier - which you, as a database guy, would find fascinating. Read up on "BigTable".
Fay (and everyone) - I have a slightly longer term plan, which I'm still investigating the feasibility of.
Blogspot isn't so bad, it's the comment system which is limited. It can be hacked up a bit (as I've demonstrated), but it has fundamental limitations.
Blogspot also allows third party comment plug ins. But these (DISQUS, IntenseDebate, etc) aren't all that, either. They have features we don't care about, and are missing others that we like.
Writing a third party comment plug in system seems do-able to me - it's a fairly simple example of a "web app".
And Google has a service called "Apps Engine" - it's like blogspot for general web apps (in fact the domain is called "appspot").
I'm thinking that using "appspot" would give us (er, well, me, unless Ari wants to help with the data model) total control over the comment posting functionality - implementing the goodies to which we had become accustomed - while still avoiding a dedicated web-host/webmaster set up.
There's other benefits: you basically get like a quarter of a server a day (which is _plenty_), but if by some weird fluke we get Instalanched, we automatically use up to 20 servers at once - without configuring, and (if the 'lanche is short enough) without paying.
Also, there's the possibility that other folks (say, with hosted WordPress blogs) who see our comment system and like it, could clone it and set up their own.
While this will take some time, I should know whether or not it is feasible, and how long it will take, in a month or so.
Aridog, I know how it's going to work, I listened to Weiner's response. But we just have to agree to disagree because I thought Weiner should have admitted that the IRS is the agency that will "enforce" the fine. He-just-would-not-do-that. I think everyone knows that the penalty for non-compliance is not criminalized. But let's face it, they are hiring 16,000+ more agents to, I don't know how to word it..."apply" the penalty to people who won't sign on. That's a concern, no?
Well, concerning taste, there is no dispute. O'Reilly drives me crazy but I occasionally enjoy his show when I'm not swearing at the screen, lol!
I see what you're saying re: it makes sense that they would be the responsible agency and, no, I would NOT want to see another leaden bureaucracy to handle it. OK, that said, why do they need 16,000+ new agents for the changes in the tax laws in this new steaming pile of a bill? Why aren't the relevent portions of the tax code just amended? I would suppose because it is no deduction, it's a tax cleverly disguised as a fine. Isn't that how they are getting around the whole "commerce" problem?
Well, I probably have that wrong but thanks for that link, Aridog, it's loaded with good information, I bookmarked it.
"The purpose of the mandate is to prevent people from waiting until they're ill or injured to buy insurance. Insurance, literally, doesn't work that way."
The fine is expected to be about $800.00 a year. Insurance is expected to be several thousand dollars a year. The fine is designed to keep people from not buying "insurance" until they need it how? The fine is really designed to make it appear that the government is trying to prevent people from not buying insurance until they need it -- while encouraging people to do just that. Then, when people do need it, insurance companies are required to provide them coverage for "pre-existing" conditions. Obviously insurance companies will not be able to afford this and will end up going out of business – exactly what the Democrats have in mind.
Excuse me; there was just a story on the news here saying that anyone who is against the health care program is responsible for the death threats and obscene messages going being made against Democrats. That's right, disagree with them, and you are personally responsible for the actions of a few whack jobs. As Rush said yesterday, you get those kind of things when you play in that league. He said he gets that kind of thing all of the time -- he just figures it comes with the territory, or, as he puts it, you get that kind of thing when you "play in this league." Do I approve of such actions? No. But just look at how Nazi Germany cracked down on Jews after the burning of the Reichstag. What they are getting at is to make it illegal to criticize the government. And, except for Hawaii, the U.S. does not even grow bananas.
Thanks for your input, aridog. I thought Weiner was evasive and O'Reilly interrupted too much. We do agree that the entire interview was a disappointment.
Question for whoever wants to tackle it; aridog's link says:
"There are 32 million uninsured people. Major coverage expansion begins in 2014. When fully phased in, 92% of eligible non-elderly Americans would have coverage, compared with 81% today."
For all these trillions of dollars, why isn't EVERYONE covered? Who are the unlucky 8%?
Florie said: "I thought Weiner should have admitted that the IRS is the agency that will "enforce" the fine."
O'Reilly was clearly implying "enforcement" meant jack booted thugs chasing you down...and Weiner, wisely, did not bite. He turned his head instead of hurling invective....I'd have been far less charitable, and based upon O'Reilly's stance, I suspect I've forgotten more about IRS code than he knows...but I know he knows better. It was a "pose" not a "position."
O'Reilly's framing of the question was equivalent to: "Have you stopped beating your wife and kids? Yes or No?" That's called "testifying" by the interogator, and is BS. It was a childish stunt. Dang, I've "taken the fifth" myself, before the Chief Judge of the Circuit Court (the major case and criminal court) here, to avoid giving such an answer. And I was upheld by the judge.
As for ammending tax code, Congress just did that with the health care legislation. IRS Code is based upon multiple acts of Congress, over time, not just the authorizing law for the agency's existance...it is not a singular piece of legislation. I realize not everyone knows that. Almost everything onnerous in IRS code came from Congress, not the IRS per se. Add to that, much of IRS onnerous behavior is due to critical understaffing for a decade or more now....which fosters ignorance within and arbitrary actions.
Lady Red said: "For all these trillions of dollars, why isn't EVERYONE covered? Who are the unlucky 8%?"
Horray!! Lady Red wins first prize for noticing the first thing I noticed cockeyed in the bill.
There are many others as well that defy common sense.
One Hint: An excise tax on medical devices collected from the wholesale level or higher, thus allegedly not taxing the "retail" consumer. Hello?! Ding Ding! Think about that beauty!
RadioMattM said: "The fine is designed to keep people from not buying "insurance" until they need it how? The fine is really designed to make it appear that the government is trying to prevent people from not buying insurance until they need it -- while encouraging people to do just that. Then, when people do need it, insurance companies are required to provide them coverage for "pre-existing" conditions. Obviously insurance companies will not be able to afford this and will end up going out of business – exactly what the Democrats have in mind."
That is a valid point, without doubt. My remark was on the ostensible theory, not the screwed up effect. Most definitely, that needs to be fixed if the bill stands.
Using the theory that, until changed, we are adrift in the boat we're in now, the "fix" will have to be a "fine" equivalent to the average premium for a taxed indiviual or family, with fine funds going directly to support the exchange prerogatives....maybe even include a provision for assignemtn to a risk pool if you don't comply, so that you have insurance even if you think you don't need it.
These are not tactics I personally advocate or not...they are framed to fit the "boat we're in now." If the boat changes, then new framework. Boils down to simple math....which the bill, at present ignores, as you say...very possibly with the ulterior motive you infer....which I am on record as NOT favoring, thanks to my familiarity with VA Health Care's eligibility priority system....that evolved from promise to rationing over time.
"Employers are hit with a fee if the government subsidizes their workers' coverage. The $2,000-per-employee fee would be assessed on the company's entire work force, minus an allowance."
I would think most large businesses would find it more cost effective to pay the $2,000 per employee fee, and not bother with health insurance at all.
By the time you add up the employer's share of the premium, the cost of yearly check-ups for employees (and other health-related benefits), the in-house accounting costs, and the management fees, $2,000 might be a bargain.
Lady Red said: "I would think most large businesses would find it more cost effective to pay the $2,000 per employee fee"
B!ngo again! It is a problem with the bill very similar to what RadioMattM raised. And it may likely have the same intent RMM infered.
The devil is in the details of this huge clusterforking, essentially written by Pelosi, Frank, and Waxman, with some mods by Reid and company.
I provided the link that I did to stir debate...and it's working. I was stunned a decent concise ennumeration of details was published by one of our local rags. To ameliorate the "boat we are adrift in at present" will require precise bit by bit changes, if possible. Once they "gamed" Stupak, the fix was in on all of it.
So... we've essentially agreed (or proxy agreed because the congress was elected by people voting for them to vote for us by proxy) to a stupendous raise in taxes, more IRS oversight (because I really want one more area for the IRS to look into when we get audited... and we WILL, because thanks to a crazy-ass MIL, funky accounting by the gov't that pays AFG for TDYs and expenses, etc., our shit looks very strange), and the incredible deepening of our national debt for...
wait for it...
an additional 11% of people in America to be forced to pay for health care insurance
Is that worth it to people? Anyone?
I seriously don't get it. There have been multiple times AF Family has had to go without health insurance for various reasons, but we never had no access to health care. I always saw it as a trade off. When we were too poor to afford insurance (college), if we needed something we went to the sliding scale clinic and sat on our butts all day until they could see us.
It's a trade off - all things in life are. You either pay the money or you pay the time. And seeing as I went to college in BF nowhere and knew of three sliding scale clinics there (plus the one in my parents town that is even further in BF nowhere, and doesn't even have a damn Greyhound Station) - I can't figure out who the people who don't have access to health care are.
Whatevs, my kids are going to start out life with hundreds of thousands in governmental debt. Yay them! Is it worth it?
florrie - it's a neat thing to throw into conversation. :)
The best boxing coach we have (IMHO) is a former Olympian, though. From Nigeria. His classes are killer, and he's not particularly easy to understand, but he knows how to get results. And he's very professional, doesn't sit around and shoot the shit constantly. He's improved my technique by light years (not that is saying much, I'm not great).
He also seriously loves teaching the kids, I think. He gets good results with them, and they listen, but he never yells. He seems to be very African in his relationships with them, and it works wonders.
"That is a valid point, without doubt. My remark was on the ostensible theory, not the screwed up effect. Most definitely, that needs to be fixed if the bill stands."
You are assuming that this was a mistake. I don't think it is. That is exactly what they had in mind. There is no way insurance companies can stay in business under those circumstances – and that is why they did it. That is how Obama got Kucinich to go along with the bill. Kucinich wanted single payer. Obama told him, "Look. there is no way we could get that right now. But we wrote the bill in such a way that insurance companies will not be able to survive -- leaving us with the single payer system." Kucinich said, "Ohhhhh. I get it. I'm on board."
There is no mistake about this. They may have made a mistake in leaving out the part about children immediately being covered for pre-existing conditions (that helps the American people -- that's of no importance to them), but they certainly did not make a mistake when it comes to their plan about having control over whether we live or die.
AFW: I think the best thing would be to get back to a time when people could pay for most of what they need in medical care. Insurance should only be for catastrophic stuff.
I once tried (unsuccessfully) to sell health insurance. You could buy a catastrophic plan, and you could buy a "covers everything" plan. The "everyday" portion topped out at about $20,000 -- at which point the catastrophic plan kicked in. The "covers everything" plan cost three or four times what the catastrophic only plan cost, even though the catastrophic plan covered up to a million dollars.
The reason is that catastrophic plans are hardly used. Everyday plans get hammered. Got a bleeding hangnail? Go to the doctor. He won’t do anything more than you could have done at home, but what they hey -- insurance will pay for it.
Oh, I understand that completely, Matt. I've seen many people avail themselves of health care they didn't really need because it was free.
My parents had to "pay off" my brother because they didn't have insurance when my mom got pregnant with him. And he was born over 2 months early, too. So we didn't "own" him until he was, like, 12.
RadioMattM said: "You are assuming that this was a mistake. I don't think it is. That is exactly what they had in mind."
I am not assuming anything. I believe what you say is very likely true. The numbers just don't add up much of any other way.
I posted the link I did to see how many things would be noticed and brought up. The excise tax on medical devices (of all kinds mind you) is another wedge in the door.
AFW siad: "So we didn't "own" him until he was, like, 12."
Oh, man, I wish I'd had that bit of "leverage" over my younger brother...I could have threatened him with "we're gonna give you back" along with other de rigueur mind games.
On a related note: I have heard how Stupak cannot get his executive order -- for a President to be able to issue an executive order to undo a standing law would make us a dictatorship.
ReplyDeleteHowever, on the bright side: Glenn Beck sounded surprisingly optimistic yesterday. While he did not use the words, I think it could be said that he compared the vote on Sunday to the "shot heard around the world" that began the Revolutionary War. His optimism comes from the fact that most of our opposition in this battle is with crooked, greedy politicians and with people who feel that they are too important to actually do anything and should be provided everything they have. His comments were refreshing and gave me hope.
While I understand Dr. Sowell's point, I think he, and others, may be misunderstanding the anger in the American people. A Democratic Congress apparently said on TV that Americans will forget about this whole thing by November. Considering all of the suits being brought by the states, considering all the trumpeting the Dems will do to show how wonderful they are coupled with their further pushes, and considering that the taxes are to begin immediately, I don't think we are going to forget that soon.
I don't know how much faith I have left in the American system to right itself(no pun intended). We seem to have hit that point where the people have realized they can write themselves checks from the treasury.
ReplyDeletewhile that may be true, many of them have started to feel the hand picking their pockets while yhey write themselves that check from the treasury.
ReplyDeleteThey have also noticed the way the govenment buldozes its way into everyone's lives in the process.
Yeah, I can't wait until the IRS gets in on this act! I mean, that was the best idea EVAH!
ReplyDeleteYep, hiring 18,000 new IRS workers is a stroke of genius! Why, that's enough for each of us to have our own personal agent! Just think of the "personal touch" when they bang on your door at 3 AM demanding to see your insurance papers.
ReplyDeleteI'm all verklempt...
Hey, they're creating jobs!
ReplyDeleteOr...something...
/do I even need to post that sarcasm tag
Matt's comment above hits the nail on the head. These are the talking points, people.
ReplyDeleteIt's comforting to talk to people already are on common ground with, and it's useless to talk to "hard cases".
The interesting class of folks is "everybody else".
I don't go around telling people "I'm a Tea Partier, and here's why you should be one too".
I like to talk to nice, conventionally liberal, casually progressive, otherwise normal middle class people who feel some disquiet about what's going on, and do my level best to jack up that disquiet. Obliquely, and without polemic. Solidarity expressed as cynicism about, and ridicule of, The Powers That Be - and eliciting recognition of the fact that Obama et al aren't our friends.
Lotsa folks who don't consider themselves "rich" are still finding out Obama thinks that they are.
Lotsa folks who value Freedom - even just in the sense of keeping "the Man" off their back - are still waking up to the fact that the needle is moving in the wrong direction, and that Barack is all talk and no game on that front.
Keep ringing the bell.
"Lotsa folks who don't consider themselves "rich" are still finding out Obama thinks that they are."
ReplyDeleteTell it, brother.
Lewy said: "I don't go around telling people "I'm a Tea Partier, and here's why you should be one too"."
ReplyDeleteAw, shucks, you've ruined this carefully drawn image I had of you! Dang.
Your approach is the only one that will work, now, to ameliorate this new huge patchwork creation. All this talk about "revolution" in streets yada yada is more comedy than anything workable. The idea that Sarah Palin "scares" anybody is laughable. If SCOTUS were to over-turn it en' mass I'd be stunned.
There are aspects to this patchwork monstrosity that can be "made the best of" by deliberate excision piece by piece.
One example is the absurd "VAT" excise tax on medical devices at the wholesale level. Not a new idea for excises taxes, but where no excise tax is remotely called for, it is outright theft. So you know, the federal excise tax on gallons of motor fuel sold are collected precisely that way, at the wholesale level. The "ultimate vendor," in IRS terminology, pays the tax, it is already in the pump price to the customer. If, by some slim chance, a customer is exempt due to specific provision in the law, that customer will have to file a quarterly return with the IRS to be reimbursed. Even the federal government's fleet of cars and equipment pays the tax unless their use is exempt under special provisions, and the Feds pay an expensive NGO to administer their fuel credit card program, do the returns, and so forth.
I'm not guessing, I was the "authorizing offical" for 4 states of my old agency's fuel use operations, and I had a fiduciary responsibility (means I was personally responsibile) for any unpaid bills, or unresolved tax refunds, to boot. It took 6 months plus after I retired on buyout to resolve $10k in open accounts, plus 2 lawyers and considerable angry invective from me, both to US Bank and to USACE Finance Center.
It is a piece of shit procedure...making every single person a de facto "authorizing official." It was implemented in the mid-1990's to eliminate the IRS need to chase down individual retailers for the taxes. No intended benefit to the customer was intended. Period.
Another example is the "fee" (tax) on insurance companies based upon their volume of coverage. Those are both direct taxes on anyone, whether they pay taxes or not, because they will be added to pricing at retail...no matter if you earn over $200k or not.
The bill is chock a block full of the articles of conspicuous bullshit and each will require individual attention. The polemic screamers and hsyterical demegouges will do nothing but send up dust, no impact. My known antipathy for Palin not with standing, she was/is a tax evader herself...evasion means you avoided by intentional act or ommission. When she runs off at the mouth it is no different that if I fed my dogs baked beans for a month...same output.
Now is not the time for hysteria, it is time for methodical dissembly of egregious pieces.
//Rant mode off.
Lewy, your approach is brilliant.
ReplyDelete"Now is not the time for hysteria, it is time for methodical dissembly of egregious pieces."
ReplyDeleteI agree wholeheartedly, aridog.
Here's another summary of what the Health Care Bill provides, or not...LINK ...and a rough list of cost changes, taxes, fees, etc., for some aspects of coverage.
ReplyDeleteOkay, so I was just watching some demonstrators against Ann Coulter (and don't get me wrong, I can't stand her - she's so abrasive that I just can't watch/listen to her, even though I freely admit she does her homework).
ReplyDeleteAnyway, one of the people shouting "NO MORE HATE SPEECH!"was wearing a Palestinian scarf.
I was like, "Really? Are you serious?"
Sheesh. I'm watching a clip of the protests as we speak. What idiots.
ReplyDeleteI don't like Coulter either, but give me a break.
{insert eye-roll here}
SRSLY, lady red.
ReplyDeleteCoulter makes some very good points. Sometimes she gets caught up in making jabs for the sale of making jabs, but she does have some good information
ReplyDeleteI don't dislike her, she's too over the top for my tastes (like Hannity). But I'm frickin' sick of the double standard.
ReplyDeleteI was watching O'Reilly interview a spokeswoman from the U of Ontario and he had her hemming and hawing, it was pathetic...I wish I had the transcript...
O'Reilly pretty much drives me up the wall with his interrupting and he's so arrogant!
ReplyDeleteBut I was glad he kept asking Congressman Weiner who was going to enforce the law re: people who won't buy ins. policies and Weiner just got really nasty (while never answering the question). He asked him about 6 times.
I prefer Cavuto's style, persistent but gentlemanly.
Here's a link...be sure to watch through when he asks her "why can't she say that on campus?". It's worth the wait :-)
ReplyDeleteIt's the main video
I like O'Reilly, but he does interrupt ALLOT. Weiner is either dense or a charlatan; I thought he was going to blow his cork! When he turned his head away from the camera in a snit, he reminded me of our two year old granddaughter. Noah and I both laughed.
ReplyDeleteCavuto is awesome.
Lady Red....O'Reilly made a fool of himself with his IRS pursuit issues with Weiner. Turn his head? Hell I'd have just stood up and left.
ReplyDeleteI would have thought O'Reilly knnew more about IRS mechanisms...as it is, it appears I've forgotten more about it than he ever knew.
Interupting is a tactic used when someone isn't giving you back what you want to hear. O'Reilly's opinion on the IRS issue would be appropriate for a Talking Points Memo, but not for an interview. If you ask a question you should accept the answer you get, or at least hear it, then disect it.
O'Reilly was disappointing tonight. There is a difference between civil infraction and criminal infraction. He knows that.
Florie....Weiner answered the question. Also, the question was pointless nonsense. The "fine" for non-compliance will come as a reduction of the standard deduction of itemized deductions, and likley havew a form filed by the Ins Co similar to W-2's or 1090's.
ReplyDeleteThe purpose of the mandate is to prevent people from waiting until they're ill or injured to buy insurance. Insurance, literally, doesn't work that way.
The IRS already oversees health care deductions of various kinds, as well as pre-tax income health care payments. It is only natural that they would be the overseer of a health care mandate.
What would work better, a wholly new massive bureaocracy? As I said above, O'Reilly disappointed tonight.
I'm not happy with the bill, but I humbly suggest there are facets far more worthy of addressing than the IRS. See this list of features.
That's weird. My comment to Florie posts, but doesn't appear in the side bar?
ReplyDeleteAh ha...so NOW it posts in the side bar right after I said it didn't. Kill the Grue!!
ReplyDeleteBear with us Aridog, we're just a baby blog.
ReplyDeleteBlogspot sometimes behaves in childish ways over which we have no control.
imgw:"http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y128/aridog/surprised_baby_2.jpg"
ReplyDeleteWell I see you mastered the art of posting pictures!
ReplyDeleteOf course we could host our own blog but then we would need a webmaster and none of us are masters of the web so that ain't going to happen anytime soon!
ReplyDeleteAnyhoo, I'm away to my bed right now. So goodnight to the random person/s who may have dropped in!
ReplyDeleteAri, the raw data for the Recent Comments sidebar is pulled from the Atom (RSS) comment feed, which _mostly_ keeps right up with the comments, but _sometimes_ falls behind... I've seen it fall behind by an hour at one point.
ReplyDeleteI believe this is due to nature of Google's data storage tier - which you, as a database guy, would find fascinating. Read up on "BigTable".
Fay (and everyone) - I have a slightly longer term plan, which I'm still investigating the feasibility of.
Blogspot isn't so bad, it's the comment system which is limited. It can be hacked up a bit (as I've demonstrated), but it has fundamental limitations.
Blogspot also allows third party comment plug ins. But these (DISQUS, IntenseDebate, etc) aren't all that, either. They have features we don't care about, and are missing others that we like.
Writing a third party comment plug in system seems do-able to me - it's a fairly simple example of a "web app".
And Google has a service called "Apps Engine" - it's like blogspot for general web apps (in fact the domain is called "appspot").
I'm thinking that using "appspot" would give us (er, well, me, unless Ari wants to help with the data model) total control over the comment posting functionality - implementing the goodies to which we had become accustomed - while still avoiding a dedicated web-host/webmaster set up.
There's other benefits: you basically get like a quarter of a server a day (which is _plenty_), but if by some weird fluke we get Instalanched, we automatically use up to 20 servers at once - without configuring, and (if the 'lanche is short enough) without paying.
Also, there's the possibility that other folks (say, with hosted WordPress blogs) who see our comment system and like it, could clone it and set up their own.
While this will take some time, I should know whether or not it is feasible, and how long it will take, in a month or so.
Aridog, I know how it's going to work, I listened to Weiner's response. But we just have to agree to disagree because I thought Weiner should have admitted that the IRS is the agency that will "enforce" the fine. He-just-would-not-do-that. I think everyone knows that the penalty for non-compliance is not criminalized. But let's face it, they are hiring 16,000+ more agents to, I don't know how to word it..."apply" the penalty to people who won't sign on. That's a concern, no?
ReplyDeleteWell, concerning taste, there is no dispute. O'Reilly drives me crazy but I occasionally enjoy his show when I'm not swearing at the screen, lol!
Yes, I'm batty.
And, lady red, he does interrupt allot.
:-) You naughty girl.
I see what you're saying re: it makes sense that they would be the responsible agency and, no, I would NOT want to see another leaden bureaucracy to handle it. OK, that said, why do they need 16,000+ new agents for the changes in the tax laws in this new steaming pile of a bill? Why aren't the relevent portions of the tax code just amended? I would suppose because it is no deduction, it's a tax cleverly disguised as a fine. Isn't that how they are getting around the whole "commerce" problem?
ReplyDeleteWell, I probably have that wrong but thanks for that link, Aridog, it's loaded with good information, I bookmarked it.
Aridog said:
ReplyDelete"The purpose of the mandate is to prevent people from waiting until they're ill or injured to buy insurance. Insurance, literally, doesn't work that way."
The fine is expected to be about $800.00 a year. Insurance is expected to be several thousand dollars a year. The fine is designed to keep people from not buying "insurance" until they need it how? The fine is really designed to make it appear that the government is trying to prevent people from not buying insurance until they need it -- while encouraging people to do just that. Then, when people do need it, insurance companies are required to provide them coverage for "pre-existing" conditions. Obviously insurance companies will not be able to afford this and will end up going out of business – exactly what the Democrats have in mind.
Excuse me; there was just a story on the news here saying that anyone who is against the health care program is responsible for the death threats and obscene messages going being made against Democrats. That's right, disagree with them, and you are personally responsible for the actions of a few whack jobs. As Rush said yesterday, you get those kind of things when you play in that league. He said he gets that kind of thing all of the time -- he just figures it comes with the territory, or, as he puts it, you get that kind of thing when you "play in this league." Do I approve of such actions? No. But just look at how Nazi Germany cracked down on Jews after the burning of the Reichstag. What they are getting at is to make it illegal to criticize the government. And, except for Hawaii, the U.S. does not even grow bananas.
Thanks for your input, aridog. I thought Weiner was evasive and O'Reilly interrupted too much. We do agree that the entire interview was a disappointment.
ReplyDeleteI'm going to check out your link now. :)
Isn't imposing a 10% sales tax on indoor tanning RACIST? After all, only white people need tanning booths.
ReplyDeleteimg:"http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt358/redhawkclan/shutup.jpg"
Seriously though, there is lots of good information at the link.
Question for whoever wants to tackle it; aridog's link says:
ReplyDelete"There are 32 million uninsured people. Major coverage expansion begins in 2014. When fully phased in, 92% of eligible non-elderly Americans would have coverage, compared with 81% today."
For all these trillions of dollars, why isn't EVERYONE covered? Who are the unlucky 8%?
Florie said: "I thought Weiner should have admitted that the IRS is the agency that will "enforce" the fine."
ReplyDeleteO'Reilly was clearly implying "enforcement" meant jack booted thugs chasing you down...and Weiner, wisely, did not bite. He turned his head instead of hurling invective....I'd have been far less charitable, and based upon O'Reilly's stance, I suspect I've forgotten more about IRS code than he knows...but I know he knows better. It was a "pose" not a "position."
O'Reilly's framing of the question was equivalent to: "Have you stopped beating your wife and kids? Yes or No?" That's called "testifying" by the interogator, and is BS. It was a childish stunt. Dang, I've "taken the fifth" myself, before the Chief Judge of the Circuit Court (the major case and criminal court) here, to avoid giving such an answer. And I was upheld by the judge.
As for ammending tax code, Congress just did that with the health care legislation. IRS Code is based upon multiple acts of Congress, over time, not just the authorizing law for the agency's existance...it is not a singular piece of legislation. I realize not everyone knows that. Almost everything onnerous in IRS code came from Congress, not the IRS per se. Add to that, much of IRS onnerous behavior is due to critical understaffing for a decade or more now....which fosters ignorance within and arbitrary actions.
Lady Red said: "For all these trillions of dollars, why isn't EVERYONE covered? Who are the unlucky 8%?"
ReplyDeleteHorray!! Lady Red wins first prize for noticing the first thing I noticed cockeyed in the bill.
There are many others as well that defy common sense.
One Hint: An excise tax on medical devices collected from the wholesale level or higher, thus allegedly not taxing the "retail" consumer. Hello?! Ding Ding! Think about that beauty!
The medical devices taxation was the third thing that caught my eye. The increased cost won't be passed on to the consumer? Right. Gotcha.
ReplyDeleteRadioMattM said: "The fine is designed to keep people from not buying "insurance" until they need it how? The fine is really designed to make it appear that the government is trying to prevent people from not buying insurance until they need it -- while encouraging people to do just that. Then, when people do need it, insurance companies are required to provide them coverage for "pre-existing" conditions. Obviously insurance companies will not be able to afford this and will end up going out of business – exactly what the Democrats have in mind."
ReplyDeleteThat is a valid point, without doubt. My remark was on the ostensible theory, not the screwed up effect. Most definitely, that needs to be fixed if the bill stands.
Using the theory that, until changed, we are adrift in the boat we're in now, the "fix" will have to be a "fine" equivalent to the average premium for a taxed indiviual or family, with fine funds going directly to support the exchange prerogatives....maybe even include a provision for assignemtn to a risk pool if you don't comply, so that you have insurance even if you think you don't need it.
These are not tactics I personally advocate or not...they are framed to fit the "boat we're in now." If the boat changes, then new framework. Boils down to simple math....which the bill, at present ignores, as you say...very possibly with the ulterior motive you infer....which I am on record as NOT favoring, thanks to my familiarity with VA Health Care's eligibility priority system....that evolved from promise to rationing over time.
From aridog's link:
ReplyDelete"Employers are hit with a fee if the government subsidizes their workers' coverage. The $2,000-per-employee fee would be assessed on the company's entire work force, minus an allowance."
I would think most large businesses would find it more cost effective to pay the $2,000 per employee fee, and not bother with health insurance at all.
By the time you add up the employer's share of the premium, the cost of yearly check-ups for employees (and other health-related benefits), the in-house accounting costs, and the management fees, $2,000 might be a bargain.
Matt made a good point about the individual fine as well. It's cheaper NOT to comply. Weird.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the "death threats" go, trying to pin that nonsense on the tea party crowd is pretty lame.
If the threats actually occurred, I hope the FBI catches the whackos and throw them in the slammer.
Lady Red said: "I would think most large businesses would find it more cost effective to pay the $2,000 per employee fee"
ReplyDeleteB!ngo again! It is a problem with the bill very similar to what RadioMattM raised. And it may likely have the same intent RMM infered.
The devil is in the details of this huge clusterforking, essentially written by Pelosi, Frank, and Waxman, with some mods by Reid and company.
I provided the link that I did to stir debate...and it's working. I was stunned a decent concise ennumeration of details was published by one of our local rags. To ameliorate the "boat we are adrift in at present" will require precise bit by bit changes, if possible. Once they "gamed" Stupak, the fix was in on all of it.
clusterforking, tee hee
ReplyDeleteI appreciate what you've posted on this, Aridog. I'm also surprised that much written is not merely cheerleading for the legislation.
BTW, I'm anxious to hear Pelosi, etal condemn the nutjobs that FIRED A GUN into Cantor's office window.
Florrie, I just heard about the shot fired at Cantor's office window. Not good.
ReplyDeleteNuts, and more nuts. :(
So... we've essentially agreed (or proxy agreed because the congress was elected by people voting for them to vote for us by proxy) to a stupendous raise in taxes, more IRS oversight (because I really want one more area for the IRS to look into when we get audited... and we WILL, because thanks to a crazy-ass MIL, funky accounting by the gov't that pays AFG for TDYs and expenses, etc., our shit looks very strange), and the incredible deepening of our national debt for...
ReplyDeletewait for it...
an additional 11% of people in America to be forced to pay for health care insurance
Is that worth it to people? Anyone?
I seriously don't get it. There have been multiple times AF Family has had to go without health insurance for various reasons, but we never had no access to health care. I always saw it as a trade off. When we were too poor to afford insurance (college), if we needed something we went to the sliding scale clinic and sat on our butts all day until they could see us.
It's a trade off - all things in life are. You either pay the money or you pay the time. And seeing as I went to college in BF nowhere and knew of three sliding scale clinics there (plus the one in my parents town that is even further in BF nowhere, and doesn't even have a damn Greyhound Station) - I can't figure out who the people who don't have access to health care are.
Whatevs, my kids are going to start out life with hundreds of thousands in governmental debt. Yay them! Is it worth it?
Aaaaaand, this should do me for boxing class #2 today. Heavy bag target identified.
ReplyDeleteI've got a 4:00 with Riddick Bowe, ya'll.
No, really. I do. He teaches at my gym. :)
Hey, that's pretty cool, afw!
ReplyDeleteflorrie - it's a neat thing to throw into conversation. :)
ReplyDeleteThe best boxing coach we have (IMHO) is a former Olympian, though. From Nigeria. His classes are killer, and he's not particularly easy to understand, but he knows how to get results. And he's very professional, doesn't sit around and shoot the shit constantly. He's improved my technique by light years (not that is saying much, I'm not great).
He also seriously loves teaching the kids, I think. He gets good results with them, and they listen, but he never yells. He seems to be very African in his relationships with them, and it works wonders.
Aridog said:
ReplyDelete"That is a valid point, without doubt. My remark was on the ostensible theory, not the screwed up effect. Most definitely, that needs to be fixed if the bill stands."
You are assuming that this was a mistake. I don't think it is. That is exactly what they had in mind. There is no way insurance companies can stay in business under those circumstances – and that is why they did it. That is how Obama got Kucinich to go along with the bill. Kucinich wanted single payer. Obama told him, "Look. there is no way we could get that right now. But we wrote the bill in such a way that insurance companies will not be able to survive -- leaving us with the single payer system." Kucinich said, "Ohhhhh. I get it. I'm on board."
There is no mistake about this. They may have made a mistake in leaving out the part about children immediately being covered for pre-existing conditions (that helps the American people -- that's of no importance to them), but they certainly did not make a mistake when it comes to their plan about having control over whether we live or die.
Kanani at The Kitchen Dispatch has an excellent post up about this bill. Her husband is a surgeon, and a servicemember.
ReplyDeletehttp://kitchendispatch.blogspot.com/2010/03/why-i-hate-health-care-reform.html
Lady Red said: "Who are the unlucky 8%?"
ReplyDeleteThe Amish.
Sheesh woman, pay more better attention would ya!
AFW: I think the best thing would be to get back to a time when people could pay for most of what they need in medical care. Insurance should only be for catastrophic stuff.
ReplyDeleteI once tried (unsuccessfully) to sell health insurance. You could buy a catastrophic plan, and you could buy a "covers everything" plan. The "everyday" portion topped out at about $20,000 -- at which point the catastrophic plan kicked in. The "covers everything" plan cost three or four times what the catastrophic only plan cost, even though the catastrophic plan covered up to a million dollars.
The reason is that catastrophic plans are hardly used. Everyday plans get hammered. Got a bleeding hangnail? Go to the doctor. He won’t do anything more than you could have done at home, but what they hey -- insurance will pay for it.
Oh, I understand that completely, Matt. I've seen many people avail themselves of health care they didn't really need because it was free.
ReplyDeleteMy parents had to "pay off" my brother because they didn't have insurance when my mom got pregnant with him. And he was born over 2 months early, too. So we didn't "own" him until he was, like, 12.
RadioMattM said: "You are assuming that this was a mistake. I don't think it is. That is exactly what they had in mind."
ReplyDeleteI am not assuming anything. I believe what you say is very likely true. The numbers just don't add up much of any other way.
I posted the link I did to see how many things would be noticed and brought up. The excise tax on medical devices (of all kinds mind you) is another wedge in the door.
AFW siad: "So we didn't "own" him until he was, like, 12."
ReplyDeleteOh, man, I wish I'd had that bit of "leverage" over my younger brother...I could have threatened him with "we're gonna give you back" along with other de rigueur mind games.
Ari, you are right. We could spend days hashing out everything this bill going to ram down our throats.
ReplyDelete