Jump to content

How will Obama pay for all the stuff he's promising?


Perfessor

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 207
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members
Do you really want your healthcare handled by the same folks who brought you the $27,000 screwdriver? Because that's the quality of services you can expect.



That's my point.

So. Our defense is being handled by the same people who are too dumb to run healthcare. I feel so much safer. :p

Either the gov't can't run anything large, which means our military is {censored}ed. Or. It can run a large operation, thus invalidating the argument that it would be impossible for our gov't to properly handle universal healthcare.

You can't have it both ways. Right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Every expense is built into cost.



I know I just mean like are they calculating wages only or are they taking into consideration payroll taxes directly, as we were talking about sticking it to the consumer for most/all taxes the company would incur... I donno. Kinda redundant I guess. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • CMS Author

I know I just mean like are they calculating wages only or are they taking into consideration payroll taxes directly, as we were talking about sticking it to the consumer for most/all taxes the company would incur... I donno. Kinda redundant I guess.
:)

 

Everything everything. If the cost isn't passed on, it implies the company is operating at a loss, which can't happen long without the company ceasing to exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
nO.



Maybe.



If he gives me his bass, maybe.
;)



*poached from bass superhero movie script being developed*

CraigV: "Freeze sucka. Your life or your bass! :evil:"

scene: Funkee1 enters with mask (Marcus) and cape (Liberace) wielding a Genz-Bezn Shuttle Destructo Amp.

Funkee1: "I'll save you!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Everything everything. If the cost isn't passed on, it implies the company is operating at a loss, which can't happen long without the company ceasing to exist.

 

 

Yeah in theory that's true. I was just doing an 1120 return so just looking at the expense line items and thought about it, although it doesn't really matter cause it's still a netting figure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • CMS Author

That's my point.


So. Our defense is being handled by the same people who are too dumb to run healthcare. I feel so much safer.
:p

Either the gov't can't run anything large, which means our military is {censored}ed. Or. It can run a large operation, thus invalidating the argument that it would be impossible for our gov't to properly handle universal healthcare.


You can't have it both ways. Right?

 

You stated the government can't run the military efficiently (citing the 27K tools as example). Yet you figure the government is a-okay fine to run our healthcare. How so?

 

I'm saying that the government *is* too inefficient to run healthcare. It's too inefficient to run the military too. Not too dumb. You're the one who chose that word. But we don't really have the choice of having the military run by private enterprise. We do have the choice of keeping our healthcare private, and addressing the things that are wrong with it. Why must that always be a government thing?

 

Who is presently in government service that has the solutions to healthcare's problems? The job doesn't exist, so the answer is, "nobody". So where's that person going to come from? You guessed it....the private sector. Someone is currently doing a good job in private healthcare, and that person will get tapped on the shoulder to be part of fixing healthcare. Only trouble is, it'll cost us all a lot more to have that person do the job from DC.

 

Taking a system that costs too much and putting it in the hands of the government....what part of that makes any sense at all?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Everything everything. If the cost isn't passed on, it implies the company is operating at a loss, which can't happen long without the company ceasing to exist.



Well, depends on if you're talking about GAAP or tax too... ;) You can have plenty of cash left over at the end of the year and still show a loss that you can utilize going forward and back. C-corps are just limiting anyway. I'm not a fan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • CMS Author

 

*poached from bass superhero movie script being developed*


CraigV: "Freeze sucka. Your life or your bass! :evil:"


scene: Funkee1 enters with mask (Marcus) and cape (Liberace) wielding a Genz-Bezn Shuttle Destructo Amp.


Funkee1: "I'll save you!"

 

 

Kindness: Oh thank you!!

 

Funkee1: No problemo dude!!

 

Kindness: However, my back seems to be a little achy now, from you saving me and all. I think it was negligent of you to pick me up like that. Either pay me now, or I'll see you in court!!

 

Funkee1: Damn! Sued again!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • CMS Author

Well, depends on if you're talking about GAAP or tax too...
;)
You can have plenty of cash left over at the end of the year and still show a loss that you can utilize going forward and back. C-corps are just limiting anyway. I'm not a fan.

 

Don't complicate it!! It's simple....money in vs money out. If costs rise, they are either passed on to the consumer or the company ceases to be profitable, and goes away....either voluntarily through sale or merger, or by bankruptcy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Don't complicate it!! It's simple....money in vs money out. If costs rise, they are either passed on to the consumer or the company ceases to be profitable, and goes away....either voluntarily through sale or merger, or by bankruptcy.

 

 

Period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Don't complicate it!! It's simple....money in vs money out. If costs rise, they are either passed on to the consumer or the company ceases to be profitable, and goes away....either voluntarily through sale or merger, or by bankruptcy.



I know you're right I was just thinking of that b/c we were discussing tax liabilities that arise and who they finally get dumped on. That, and payroll taxes don't change (at least only rarely) anyhow so it's a non issue.

I think too much about S-Corps and Partnerships, for small biz's, where paper losses every year are awesome. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
Kindness: Oh thank you!!


Funkee1: No problemo dude!!


Kindness: However, my back seems to be a little achy now, from you saving me and all. I think it was negligent of you to pick me up like that. Either pay me now, or I'll see you in court!!


Funkee1: Damn! Sued again!!



And I walk away with my money and my bass. *bitchslap* :thu:

On a serious note, I have a permanent disability that has required several surgeries to address, but not correct, due to a routine medical procedure I had as a child that didn't go as planned. There was never a single thought in my family to sue the doctors. Any decent human being knows that mistakes occur as a matter of normal course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

...snip...

 

 

 

You've got it backwards my friend.

 

J. said he believed in universal health care in principle. But. Believed the gov't couldn't efficiently run an operation like that.

 

All I was saying was that the military is run by the same gov't that seems to be too inefficient to run health care. Thus by that logic, our military must be inefficient. And. Since the idea of health care is good, but inefficiency is the reason for not having it, then wouldn't the military need to be scrapped?

 

That's it. I wasn't espousing a belief, I was merely trying to poke holes in an argument I feel has no merit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

All I was saying was that the military is run by the same gov't that seems to be too inefficient to run health care. Thus by that logic, our military must be inefficient. And. Since the idea of health care is good, but inefficiency is the reason for not having it, then wouldn't the military need to be scrapped?




I see your logic here and kinda follow it, but military v. federally-run and funded healthcare isn't the same, league, ballpark, or sport. :)

If you think our military is efficiently run and budgeted, I have some oceanfront villas to sell you... ;) Plus it's something that's been in place for a pretty darned long time, not something that's starting up from ground zero with no funding. It'd be a hard sell to get rid of it. Plus the military is funded by corporate taxes and borrowed funds. Your PIT's pay little to none of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...