OMG! It's the Fiscal Cliff!

[glatt]

The electorate has short memories. If this gets resolved in January, then by November election time, nobody will remember much at all. And if the elections are a year or two from now, it won't matter at all.

[Lamplighter]

Agreed.
Just look how we've completely forgotten Wecanseerussia ??? and Anyonebut ??? (whatever their names)

[infinite monkey]

Anyonebut Thethismostfukedup.

But that's MISTER Anyonebut Thethismostfukedup to you.

[Lamplighter]

Thx to M. Doubleentendre

PS: that Knock knock Sundae was the best pun of the month

[infinite monkey]

Thanks, buddy.

[SamIam]

Originally Posted by Griff

This is where left and right use different language and think about things very differently. To those of us on the right a subsidy is when you get something not when the Feds fail to take something.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities is non-partisen. The link I gave above gives a pretty exhaustive analysis of the effect of the tax break on health insurance thing. (does calling it a "tax break" make you feel more comfortable?) If this is a subject that deeply concerns you, it's worth the read. They discuss a number of possible scenarios. For example:

Based on the income of the taxpayer. Under this variant, only people with incomes above a certain threshold would face taxation on their employer’s contributions to the cost of their health insurance. For example, in one version estimated by CBO, the tax exclusion would be phased out for single persons with incomes above $80,000 and married couples with incomes above $160,000. CBO estimates that this option would raise $182 billion over five years and $552 billion over ten years. An alternative would be to use the income thresholds at which eligibility for Roth Individual Retirement Accounts begins to phase out — $105,000 for individuals and $166,000 for couples in 2009.

Coming from the Right, how do you feel about the proposal above?

[Griff]

It makes more sense as a progressive proposal.

[piercehawkeye45]

Here is a side-by-side view of Bowles-Simpon's, Obama's, and Republican's plan.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/...charts/265901/

Note: I would just post the image but I would have to reduce the size and I don't feel like doing that now...

[ZenGum]

Originally Posted by infinite monkey

Anyonebut Thethismostfukedup.

But that's PRESIDENT Anyonebut Thethismostfukedup to you.

FIFY

[BigV]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Here is a side-by-side view of Bowles-Simpon's, Obama's, and Republican's plan.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/...charts/265901/

Note: I would just post the image but I would have to reduce the size and I don't feel like doing that now...

this is done.

[SamIam]

Originally Posted by Griff

It makes more sense as a progressive proposal.

In other words, you consider it more about some progressive agenda rather than a legitmate proposal to extend health care coverage to lower income Americans while keeping down costs?
If the latter, what would constitute a more reasonable compromise?

Just curious.

[Griff]

No, I think if they do tax the value of an employer health plan it must be a progressive tax because a lot of folks work shit jobs just for the coverage.

[SamIam]

Thank you for clearing that up for me. And I have to agree.

[classicman]

"The truth is that everybody has to pay more taxes, not just the rich."
Howard Dean

"Beating up on "the rich" is a politically-convenient ploy for the moment, but the math doesn't lie:
Taxing only the upper echelons of income earners and small businesses would reap an insufficient pittance in the final analysis.
The government's unsustainable spending will soon require many more people to pay their "fair share" to the federal government.
Some voters who are currently on board with the Left's soak-the-rich crusade will one day (perhaps soon) discover that they themselves are the new "rich," with of their livelihood and income suddenly in Big Government's crosshairs. Dean is at least doing everyone a favor by serving notice early. He is very enthusiastic about middle class tax increases and deep defense cuts, but very protective of all other spending."

[Ibby]

Yep. I actually agree. We need to rethink how we constitute "rich" in America. +250,000 is far too high a top bracket, we need to spend HALF of what we are on defense, and we need to spend MORE on infrastructure and social safety nets.
I don't think that's a controversial opinion at all on the left.