Mr President, I've seen enough or why yes I am still blaming Bush

I'm congratulating him for having the balls to take on the issue when other presidents promised to and never did.

As I said it would probably work against him in this upcoming election because there is no solution to this problem (that isn't going to hurt) so his health care program is fuel to be used against him during campaigning. But I also don't think it will be his downfall.

 

Semantics and labeling in politics . . . both sides do it.

Explain why you think the money you make is all your money and none of it the gov'ts.

 

It isn't semantics. Just like I said, a business can't claim unobtainable revenue as a "cost". That is ridiculous. If you want to play that game, we should show all lost revenue due to a slow economy as a "cost" incurred by Obama.

 

They can, just don't call it unobtainable revenue. People are unwilling to pay for services like they did in the past (because they can't afford it). The business charges them the same price and never collect on the unpaid balance knowing the customer isn't going to pay the unpaid balance and writes it off as a loss.

Basically charge customers the same price knowing that price is unobtainable and write off the difference that is unobtainable as a loss.

How that applies to this gov't thread I don't know. But for business, it is all about how you characterize things (I'm guessing like politics).

 

Who is this they you speak of? I don't know how you missed understanding my post but I'll try one more time.

The Democrats did not have a filibuster proof Senate for 14 weeks or ever as they never had 60 Senators on board who would vote the same way on virtually anything. Claiming that they did is either being ignorant or purposely misleading.

STOMP

 

No... but if I see to them at a 50% discount it certain does. It is called a sale.

 

Good grief... that you're trying to pass off the health care BS that passed as some sort of example of the Dems mighty filibuster proof Senate You are classic!

Because everyone knew they didn't have close to the votes, they didn't propose anything close to what they wanted (SPHC). It was a massive compromise from the get go only to be distorted until the various in pocket health care opposition from both sides could look down their noses at it as something that should have been aborted.

STOMP

 

What in the world are you talking about? That still isn't a loss for the business (necessarily, unless you're selling for less than it cost you). It is just reduced revenue. Clearly you don't own your own business.

 

No, no it isn't. Unless of course, you're ok with going to jail. You can't just decide what you want to call a "loss" or a "cost" for your business.

 

If you're a business & you're offering certain customers a promo of 50% off your normal rates as a way to spur business, you damn well better be keeping track of who is on the promo & how much your promo is costing you. That's basic marketing/accounting.

The the .gov is basically saying "We are giving you a reduced tax rate that is x% below the sticker rate for y amount of years. This will cost $z amount of dollars in lost revenue over that period". The tax reduction was suppose to be temporary, it was not suppose to be permanent, but it practically is now permanent. If the tax cuts were written into tax law permanently, then yes you could say the .gov is no longer entitled to list the tax cut as a "cost". But the gist of the program was a temporary promo to spur growth, which it didn't really do as practically all of the growth of the last decade can be attributed to the fraud known as the housing market.

Also your concept of money fails the simple chicken & egg test. You need the USA to get the money that you spend in the USA. Without taxes, there is no USA. Yes I know in Libertopia there is the gold standard & fiat currency is evil, but good luck finding any decent country that matches those fiduciary values.

 

The same could be said of taxes as there never seems to be a good time to raise taxes. If it's good times then we can't raise taxes because it will kill the good times & if it's bad times, then we can't raise taxes because that'll make the bad times last longer...

I am also not sure of what big budget untouchable programs were added during the "Good Times" of the last decade. The two biggest programs that we accumulated were the wars & tax cuts, both of which I am in favor of getting rid of!

 

With taxes at a given rate, if you decide to lower them... you are encuring the cost in the form of reduced income. I don't really give a shit what you want call it.

 

so instead of conceding the filibuster proof Senate talking point you were propping up as fact was actually transparent BS, you've just moved on to the next one.

though I follow politics, right about now I'm reminded why I usually don't bother to discuss them here.

STOMP

 

That still isn't a "cost" or "loss" that can be claimed by the business. Again, it is decreased revenue. Why is this so hard to understand? It's "basic marketing/accounting."

 

And notice how difficult it is to get rid of those programs? Yeah, that was the point.

 

Yeah, clearly you're still confused. Tell the IRS that you want to claim reduced income as a business "loss" to write off. Let me know what they think of that, as they're throwing you in jail.