Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: OzmO on August 07, 2012, 10:00:53 AM
-
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/WashingtonPost/Content/Blogs/the-fix/StandingArt/Screen%20shot%202012-08-02%20at%2010.45.36%20AM.png?uuid=wDXfbNyyEeGOQ0o8Q3VQSg)
http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/251551.page (http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/251551.page)
-
how many of those jobs by Reagan and other POTUS's were in Government ?
Also, are we comparing total terms of other POTUS's to Obama's ~ 3 years in office
not saying that Obama's record is good but let's not leave out the details - first he had to stop the hemoraging of jobs
btw - Carter did 10 million in 4 years - that's probably the best record of all
-
how many of those jobs by Reagan and other POTUS's were in Government ?
Also, are we comparing total terms of other POTUS's to Obama's ~ 3 years in office
not saying that Obama's record is good but let's not leave out the details - first he had to stop the hemoraging of jobs
btw - Carter did 10 million in 4 years - that's probably the best record of all
-
in the last 3 recessions the POTUS has been able to grow government jobs as a way to not only shore up the jobs created figure but also to stimulate the private sector job growth (i.e. more goverenment employees = more dollars to spend in the private sector = more demand = stimulation of job growth in the private sector)
the only POTUS who hasn't done this is Obama
I also can't think of any POTUS who came into office with a collapse of the global credit markets or anything similar to what Obama faces when he got in office
-
in the last 3 recessions the POTUS has been able to grow government jobs as a way to not only shore up the jobs created figure but also to stimulate the private sector job growth (i.e. more goverenment employees = more dollars to spend in the private sector = more demand = stimulation of job growth in the private sector)
the only POTUS who hasn't done this is Obama
I also can't think of any POTUS who came into office with a collapse of the global credit markets or anything similar to what Obama faces when he got in office
-
is this your response to the fact that the last three POTUS's who faced a recession (and none faced anything like Obama) were able to grow the government payroll as a means to get out of recession
btw - when Reagan got in office it was after Jimmy Carter had created 10 million jobs in 4 years
when Obama got to office we were literally hemoraging jobs and the entire global credit market and economy was melting down
just a slight bit of diffference there but I know even that simple level of nuance is probably well beyond your ability to understand or even acknowledge
-
in the last 3 recessions the POTUS has been able to grow government jobs as a way to not only shore up the jobs created figure but also to stimulate the private sector job growth (i.e. more goverenment employees = more dollars to spend in the private sector = more demand = stimulation of job growth in the private sector)
the only POTUS who hasn't done this is Obama
I also can't think of any POTUS who came into office with a collapse of the global credit markets or anything similar to what Obama faces when he got in office
According to the OPM, the federal government has added jobs every year that Obama has been in office: http://www.opm.gov/feddata/historicaltables/totalgovernmentsince1962.asp (http://www.opm.gov/feddata/historicaltables/totalgovernmentsince1962.asp)
Now I understand that states, and especially local governments, have probably been hit hard by lower property values driving their property tax revenues down, but can you really blame that for the job losses? That would represent just a fraction of the jobs lost during the recession.
If your side of the story is true, the best course of action for the federal government would be to cut spending on wasteful programs like unemployment benefits and cut taxes. That would give more leeway for state and local governments to tax and borrow more OR it would be expansionary for the private sector.
-
Not to mention that your understanding of economics is awful. Government jobs shore up the private sector? Pleeeaaaase. ::)
Where do you think the government gets its money if not the private sector?
-
Not to mention that your understanding of economics is awful. Government jobs shore up the private sector? Pleeeaaaase. ::)
Where do you think the government gets its money if not the private sector?
Straw is a hard left Krugmanite.
-
According to the OPM, the federal government has added jobs every year that Obama has been in office: http://www.opm.gov/feddata/historicaltables/totalgovernmentsince1962.asp (http://www.opm.gov/feddata/historicaltables/totalgovernmentsince1962.asp)
Now I understand that states, and especially local governments, have probably been hit hard by lower property values driving their property tax revenues down, but can you really blame that for the job losses? That would represent just a fraction of the jobs lost during the recession.
If your side of the story is true, the best course of action for the federal government would be to cut spending on wasteful programs like unemployment benefits and cut taxes. That would give more leeway for state and local governments to tax and borrow more OR it would be expansionary for the private sector.
Howie - you're disqualified from getting any of my time until I can determine if you actually understand how something as simple as a Health Savings account works. If you can't understand this then why would I waste my time with you on more complicated topics
You can go to this thread and respond or I'll repeat the question here and you can respond
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=432980.50
Simple test - if I put 3000 into my HSA account in a given year and then purchase either zero, 100, or 1000 dollars of aspirin with non-HSA dollars does my tax liablity for that year change in any way due to that purchase
I'll even give you the answer
The answer is NO it does not change because my tax saving is determined by the dollars deposited into the HSA and any purchase of aspirin using non-HSA dollars can never change that (again - sales tax is irreleven because even items paid for with HSA dollars could be subject to sales tax depending on the item being purchased)
What is your answer ?
-
Distractions - you can't talk about the issues can you? Learning from your Messiah, Barack Hussein Obama?
But okay dude, allow me to explain this to you with simple math, since you're apparently too dense to use your own mind:
Annual Income $50,000
Addition to HSA $5,000
Medical Expenses $5,000
Non-Medical Spending $45,000
Now say that the government decides to stop allowing you to use your HSA for all medical expenses; now you can only use your HSA for half of your medical expenses. Your point is that your tax bill won't change if you'll continue putting $5,000 into your HSA, which is true. But now you have $2,500 in additional medical expenses that are not tax deductible and thus will have to come out of your regular $45,000 income. That means that in order to keep your tax bill the same, you'll have to spend less on other things OR save less (outside of your HSA) in order to be able to afford that $2,500 in non-deductible medical expenses. So either way the tax change takes a bite out of your budget.
Annual Income $50,000
Addition to HSA $5,000
HSA Medical Expenses $2,500
Non-HSA Medical Expenses $2,500
Non-Medical Spending $42,500
-
Distractions - you can't talk about the issues can you? Learning from your Messiah, Barack Hussein Obama?
But okay dude, allow me to explain this to you with simple math, since you're apparently too dense to use your own mind:
Annual Income $50,000
Addition to HSA $5,000
Medical Expenses $5,000
Non-Medical Spending $45,000
Now say that the government decides to stop allowing you to use your HSA for all medical expenses; now you can only use your HSA for half of your medical expenses. Your point is that your tax bill won't change if you'll continue putting $5,000 into your HSA, which is true. But now you have $2,500 in additional medical expenses that are not tax deductible and thus will have to come out of your regular $45,000 income. That means that in order to keep your tax bill the same, you'll have to spend less on other things OR save less (outside of your HSA) in order to be able to afford that $2,500 in non-deductible medical expenses. So either way the tax change takes a bite out of your budget.
Annual Income $50,000
Addition to HSA $5,000
HSA Medical Expenses $2,500
Non-HSA Medical Expenses $2,500
Non-Medical Spending $42,500
why would I waste time with you when you lack the ability to understand even VERY basic stuff
you're the same guy who claimed to prepare your own tax returns yet were unaware of the box at the top of page 1 of the 1040 where you can check a box to put $3 toward the funds for financing a presidential compaign. You blamed Turbotax for your lack of knowledge and then got pissed off because you thought it came out of your refund even though the box clearly states that your choice does not effect your refund or your tax liability. That was my first clue that you really didn't have even a basic knowledge normal tax stuff.
I'm guessing you're a 15 old who has never filed a tax return. Either that or you're incredibly careless or back to my first assumption that you really just can't understand even the most basic stuff about taxes
-
why would I waste time with you when you lack the ability to understand even VERY basic stuff
you're the same guy who claimed to prepare your own tax returns yet were unaware of the box at the top of page 1 of the 1040 where you can check a box to put $3 toward the funds for financing a presidential compaign. You blamed Turbotax for your lack of knowledge and then got pissed off because you thought it came out of your refund even though the box clearly states that your choice does not effect your refund or your tax liability. That was my first clue that you really didn't have even a basic knowledge normal tax stuff.
I'm guessing you're a 15 old who has never filed a tax return. Either that or you're incredibly careless or back to my first assumption that you really just can't understand even the most basic stuff about taxes
-
you constantly repost the same charts
do you even know how labor participation is calculated
did you notice it stared going to down as soon at Bush got in office and really fell off a cliff in 2008 (the last year of the Bush administration in case you had forgotten)
How to you stop a free fall that has been building in momemtum for 8 years and more importantly what does this have to do with Howie inability to understand even the most basic things about taxes
-
you constantly repost the same charts
do you even know how labor participation is calculated
did you notice it stared going to down as soon at Bush got in office and really fell off a cliff in 2008 (the last year of the Bush administration in case you had forgotten)
How to you stop a free fall that has been building in momemtum for 8 years and more importantly what does this have to do with Howie inability to understand even the most basic things about taxes
LOL - blame bush!
-
LOL - blame bush!
Obama wanted to be the man, he won, so he needs to act like the man and quit pointing fingers. He was elected to congress, unless he wasn't doing his job, he knew what the situation was. He still choose to run for POTUS, excuses are like assholes, everybody has one
-
LOL - blame bush!
you're the one who posted this chart and it what I've said is clearly seen on the chart
-
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/WashingtonPost/Content/Blogs/the-fix/StandingArt/Screen%20shot%202012-08-02%20at%2010.45.36%20AM.png?uuid=wDXfbNyyEeGOQ0o8Q3VQSg)
http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/251551.page (http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/251551.page)
= abject failure. (Talking about Obama.)
-
you're the one who posted this chart and it what I've said is clearly seen on the chart
And it totally fell off the cliff once Ratlosi and Dingy Harry took over and once Obamugabe got elected its never ceased.
Bush may have made the mess, but obama has no plans or answers himself and can't work with even his own party to get anything productive done.
-
And it totally fell off the cliff once Ratlosi and Dingy Harry took over and once Obamugabe got elected its never ceased.
Bush may have made the mess, but obama has no plans or answers himself and can't work with even his own party to get anything productive done.
of course because 8 years of free fall with increasing momentum could have been stopped and reversed on a dime, especially considering how much priority the Repubs gave to helping improve the job market by cooperating with the Obama administration
-
of course because 8 years of free fall with increasing momentum could have been stopped and reversed on a dime, especially considering how much priority the Repubs gave to helping improve the job market by cooperating with the Obama administration
you make a great point here. 33, your response?
-
Straw Man - since you're turning it into a personal thing: care to explain this (http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=435534.msg6243847#msg6243847) away? Or do you simply use distractions because you couldn't find your ass with flashing pointers showing you the way?
But okay dude, allow me to explain this to you with simple math, since you're apparently too dense to use your own mind:
Annual Income $50,000
Addition to HSA $5,000
Medical Expenses $5,000
Non-Medical Spending $45,000
Now say that the government decides to stop allowing you to use your HSA for all medical expenses; now you can only use your HSA for half of your medical expenses. Your point is that your tax bill won't change if you'll continue putting $5,000 into your HSA, which is true. But now you have $2,500 in additional medical expenses that are not tax deductible and thus will have to come out of your regular $45,000 income. That means that in order to keep your tax bill the same, you'll have to spend less on other things OR save less (outside of your HSA) in order to be able to afford that $2,500 in non-deductible medical expenses. So either way the tax change takes a bite out of your budget.
Annual Income $50,000
Addition to HSA $5,000
HSA Medical Expenses $2,500
Non-HSA Medical Expenses $2,500
Non-Medical Spending $42,500
-
of course because 8 years of free fall with increasing momentum could have been stopped and reversed on a dime, especially considering how much priority the Repubs gave to helping improve the job market by cooperating with the Obama administration
See: Depression of 1920-21.
The economy does turn on a dime if given the proper stimulus: freedom.
-
See: Depression of 1920-21.
The economy does turn on a dime if given the proper stimulus: freedom.
I see so we just need some more freedom like they did back then
after you answer my question regarding the health savings account maybe you tell us what "freedom" you are talking about
-
so dubya created more jobs then obama then?
hmmmm.......
-
Here is the original source of this chart with comments
http://politicalmathblog.com/?p=1819
I'm not familiar with this site but from this single item they seem non-partisan (i.e. they don't seem to favor Obama and don't seem to favor Repubs either - just seem to be providing graphics and explaining how they arrrived at their conclusion)
This chart was also republished here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/president-obamas-job-creation-problem--in-one-chart/2012/08/02/gJQA58tsRX_blog.html
with some good online comments such as this one:
Here's some political reality, all of the president's went until Sep. 30, of their first year under the budget signed by the previous president. That is where the clock starts. Clinton lost 2 million private sector jobs in his last signed budget year. Dubya lost 8 million. The figures for Clinton should be lower, the figures for Dubya should be negative (6 million less). The figures for president Obama should be plus 3 million.
For those unable to do math believe this chart. Bush Sr. in 4 years created 4.4 million is at 7.5%, Carter in 4 years created 10 million with a lower population having the same 7.5%. Idiots may be fooled but this American can do simple math
-
so dubya created more jobs then obama then?
hmmmm.......
shit yeah. borrowing trillions from the chinese to fund 2 elective wars was HELLA good for business.
it was only sustainable for 5-6 years... and in 2008, everything collapsed because he was cutting input (taxes) while increasing spending (war). Then you toss in the compound interest on that shit... and voila, you have a 2nd depression.
Obama inherited it, and it has gotten better, according to WIlliard Romney.
-
shit yeah. borrowing trillions from the chinese to fund 2 elective wars was HELLA good for business.
it was only sustainable for 5-6 years... and in 2008, everything collapsed because he was cutting input (taxes) while increasing spending (war). Then you toss in the compound interest on that shit... and voila, you have a 2nd depression.
Obama inherited it, and it has gotten better, according to WIlliard Romney.
Oh man................ ::)
-
Oh man................ ::)
Don't bother, 240 is running short on troll material.
-
shit yeah. borrowing trillions from the chinese to fund 2 elective wars was HELLA good for business.
it was only sustainable for 5-6 years... and in 2008, everything collapsed because he was cutting input (taxes) while increasing spending (war). Then you toss in the compound interest on that shit... and voila, you have a 2nd depression.
Obama inherited it, and it has gotten better, according to WIlliard Romney.
hahah thats reaching even for you cracker jack.
-
Distractions - you can't talk about the issues can you? Learning from your Messiah, Barack Hussein Obama?
But okay dude, allow me to explain this to you with simple math, since you're apparently too dense to use your own mind:
Annual Income $50,000
Addition to HSA $5,000
Medical Expenses $5,000
Non-Medical Spending $45,000
Now say that the government decides to stop allowing you to use your HSA for all medical expenses; now you can only use your HSA for half of your medical expenses. Your point is that your tax bill won't change if you'll continue putting $5,000 into your HSA, which is true. But now you have $2,500 in additional medical expenses that are not tax deductible and thus will have to come out of your regular $45,000 income. That means that in order to keep your tax bill the same, you'll have to spend less on other things OR save less (outside of your HSA) in order to be able to afford that $2,500 in non-deductible medical expenses. So either way the tax change takes a bite out of your budget.
Annual Income $50,000
Addition to HSA $5,000
HSA Medical Expenses $2,500
Non-HSA Medical Expenses $2,500
Non-Medical Spending $42,500
WRONG
this is what I've been telling you all along
your tax bill at the end of the year will be EXACTLY the same regardless of how you spend your non-HSA dollars
you seem to get this point but then you say, in your example, that if you have an additional $2500 in expenses that it somehow changes your tax bill and this is not correct
I don't know how to make this any more clear to you
The tax savings is triggered soley by the HSA deposit and it doesn't matter how you spend the rest of your money. At the end ofthe year you have the very same tax liability.
It does not matter if you spent that $2500 or Advil or Beer - your tax bill DOES NOT CHANGE
It really seems you don't understand how income tax is calculated
That's the only explanation and the scary part (for you) is that you claim to do your own taxes
btw - totally irrelevent to the argument or the conclusions but no one is talking about the govt suddenly deciding that you can only use your HSA dollars to pay half of your medical expenses. Why would they even care since you already got your tax savings by virtue of your deposit ?. What they have said is that you can only use HSA $'s for legitimate medical expenses as prescribed or incurred by a doctor and you can't use them to buy asprin or some other OTC expense. They no doubt did this to prevent abuse and use of tax deferred dollars for non medical expenses (hint - there is no way the govt is going to be able to track how you spend every dollar so they are putting so rules in place to prevent abuse). For example, without this rule I could have taken tax deferred dollars and purchased creatine, protein powder etc...
-
is anyone here saying the boom of the 2002 to 2004 wasn't due to war spending?
-
Guys that chart is crap.
ATM machines were not as prevalent prior to the Obama years. Also, up until Obama took office, Somali pirates were not rummaging about on the high seas promoting murder and mayhem.
Obama has had a difficult time. You are not being fair.
-
Straw Man - I don't know if I suck at communicating or if you suck at reading, but either way it ends up with you misconstruing my argument.
My point is that in order to have the same tax bill under the situation we're discussing, your newly non-deductible medical expenses would have to replace an equal amount of other spending in your budget. This is a simple problem of budget limitations.
Look at these two again:
Case 1
Annual Income $50,000
Addition to HSA $5,000
Medical Expenses $5,000
Non-Medical Spending $45,000
Case 2
Annual Income $50,000
Addition to HSA $5,000
HSA Medical Expenses $2,500
Non-HSA Medical Expenses $2,500
Non-Medical Spending $42,500
See the difference? In Case 2, you have to displace other spending in your budget if you want to keep the same tax bill. In the end, it's all the same: the government taking a bigger bite out of your budget.
-
is anyone here saying the boom of the 2002 to 2004 wasn't due to war spending?
Yeah. Me.
First of all, on an empirical basis, your argument is incorrect for the simple reason that the federal deficit has increased in absolute, real terms as well as a percent of GDP yet the economy now is weaker than it was during the boom then.
Secondly, increased government spending does not increase economic wealth, but diminish it by taking up funds that could be used in the private sector.
Thirdly, the only theory of the business cycle which adequately explains almost every boom-bust cycle in history is the Austrian theory of the business cycle, which pins the blame on easy credit policies perpetuated by government.
-
so dubya created more jobs then obama then?
hmmmm.......
Are jobs natural?
-
Are jobs natural?
Unemployment is unnatural.
-
Unemployment is unnatural.
Not if you are a welfare parasite and tax sponge.
-
Straw Man - I don't know if I suck at communicating or if you suck at reading, but either way it ends up with you misconstruing my argument.
My point is that in order to have the same tax bill under the situation we're discussing, your newly non-deductible medical expenses would have to replace an equal amount of other spending in your budget. This is a simple problem of budget limitations.
Look at these two again:
Case 1
Annual Income $50,000
Addition to HSA $5,000
Medical Expenses $5,000
Non-Medical Spending $45,000
Case 2
Annual Income $50,000
Addition to HSA $5,000
HSA Medical Expenses $2,500
Non-HSA Medical Expenses $2,500
Non-Medical Spending $42,500
See the difference? In Case 2, you have to displace other spending in your budget if you want to keep the same tax bill. In the end, it's all the same: the government taking a bigger bite out of your budget.
the answer is you suck at communicating and still don't understand the basics of income taxes
how exactly does the 2500 in spending with non-HSA dollars INCREASE your tax liability
let's use your same example but let's at least use the correct HSA contribution which for an individual under 55 is 3100
Your gross wages are 50,000 and you put 3100 into your HSA leaving you 46,900 in taxable wages
explain to me exactly how your taxes on that 46,900 will change if you have 2500 in expense for non-allowable OTC medication
Try to keep in mind that your taxable wages of 46,900 NEVER CHANGES regardless of whether you spend the 2500 on aspirin or whether you spend it on beer and pot or whether you put it in a savings account (and in this case we'll ignore the taxes on your interest income)
-
you make a great point here. 33, your response?
8 years of free fall? The economy was in "free fall" for 8 YEARS? You believe that was a "great point?"
Yeah....the entire nation was in a fully collapsing free fall for an entire 8 years when Obama took office. Nearly a decade of pure plummeting economic collapse..."increasing in momentum," i.e., ACCELERATING the entire time.
-
is anyone here saying the boom of the 2002 to 2004 wasn't due to war spending?
There wasn't a boom. Both 2002 and 2004 were in the middle of our 8 year economic free-fall, remember?
-
8 years of free fall? The economy was in "free fall" for 8 YEARS? You believe that was a "great point?"
Yeah....the entire nation was in a fully collapsing free fall for an entire 8 years when Obama took office. Nearly a decade of pure plummeting economic collapse..."increasing in momentum," i.e., ACCELERATING the entire time.
the chart he was referring to was not the GDP but the labor participation rate.
The chart 333 posted showed it peaked at just above 67% in early late 1999/early 2000 and then began to drop. I stabalized right around 66% and then "fell off a cliff" starting in 2008. You've got to keep the scale in mind. It peaked just above 67% and the chart which ends at the beginning of 2011 shows it at 63.5%. You will also notice the it temporarily moved up in mid 2009, no doubt as the stimulus $'s started to work.
-
the chart he was referring to was not the GDP but the labor participation rate.
The chart 333 posted showed it peaked at just above 67% in early late 1999/early 2000 and then began to drop. I stabalized right around 66% and then "fell off a cliff" starting in 2008. You've got to keep the scale in mind. It peaked just above 67% and the chart which ends at the beginning of 2011 shows it at 63.5%. You will also notice the it temporarily moved up in mid 2009, no doubt as the stimulus $'s started to work.
You said "of course because 8 years of free fall with increasing momentum could have been stopped and reversed on a dime."
If you're saying now that the free fall started in 2008, then "keep the scale in mind" regarding whether or not it could have been "stopped and reversed on a dime," because a one-year free fall could have been stopped....and the stimulus package was sold to the public for this exact purpose.
-
You said "of course because 8 years of free fall with increasing momentum could have been stopped and reversed on a dime."
If you're saying now that the free fall started in 2008, then "keep the scale in mind" regarding whether or not it could have been "stopped and reversed on a dime," because a one-year free fall could have been stopped....and the stimulus package was sold to the public for this exact purpose.
LOLPWNT.
-
You said "of course because 8 years of free fall with increasing momentum could have been stopped and reversed on a dime."
If you're saying now that the free fall started in 2008, then "keep the scale in mind" regarding whether or not it could have been "stopped and reversed on a dime," because a one-year free fall could have been stopped....and the stimulus package was sold to the public for this exact purpose.
I said it started to go down in 2000 and really fell of a cliff in 2008 (when the huge job losses started under Bush)
I said keep the scale in mind because we're talking about a range of just over 67% to just under 63% which is where the chart stopped. Even though this particular chart looks horrible we're still talking about a labor participation rate that still near the historical average for the past 20 years. I thought you would understand what I meant by scale (it is a chart afterall) but I can see now that you did not understand that
Here's a longer term chart:
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000?years_option=specific_years&include_graphs=true&to_year=2010&from_year=1948
now maybe you can comprehend what I meant by the word "scale"
the scale has nothing to do with the fact that the figure had been heading down for 10 years and picked up speed in 2008 as the global economy started to tank.
-
I said it started to go down in 2000 and really fell of a cliff in 2008 (when the huge job losses started under Bush)
I said keep the scale in mind because we're talking about a range of just over 67% to just under 63% which is where the chart stopped. Even though this particular chart looks horrible we're still talking about a labor participation rate that still near the historical average for the past 20 years. I thought you would understand what I meant by scale (it is a chart afterall) but I can see now that you did not understand that
Here's a longer term chart:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Labor_Participation_R ate_1948-2011.svg
now maybe you can comprehend what I meant by the word "scale"
the scale has nothing to do with the fact that the figure had been heading down for 10 years and picked up speed in 2008 as the global economy started to tank.
No...your exact post was (in its entirety),
of course because 8 years of free fall with increasing momentum could have been stopped and reversed on a dime, especially considering how much priority the Repubs gave to helping improve the job market by cooperating with the Obama administration
-
No...your exact post was (in its entirety),
did it stop on a dime and reverse and go back up
Is that what you think I said?
-
did it stop on a dime and reverse and go back up
Is that what you think I said?
Are you retarded?
Here...in simple form:
It was NOT an 8 year free fall
It WAS a 1 year free fall
The STIMULUS was supposed to REVERSE the 1 year free fall
The stimulus failed and the 1 year free fall was NOT STOPPED ON A DIME
You argued that an 8 year free fall couldn't be stopped on a dime.
The truth is that it was a 1 year free fall that was SUPPOSED to be stopped on a dime by the stimulus, but wasn't.
-
Are you retarded?
Here...in simple form:
It was NOT an 8 year free fall
It WAS a 1 year free fall
The STIMULUS was supposed to REVERSE the 1 year free fall
The stimulus failed and the 1 year free fall was NOT STOPPED ON A DIME
You argued that an 8 year free fall couldn't be stopped on a dime.
The truth is that it was a 1 year free fall that was SUPPOSED to be stopped on a dime by the stimulus, but wasn't.
maybe you missed my original post or should learn to read:
You said "of course because 8 years of free fall with increasing momentum could have been stopped and reversed on a dime."
If you're saying now that the free fall started in 2008, then "keep the scale in mind" regarding whether or not it could have been "stopped and reversed on a dime," because a one-year free fall could have been stopped....and the stimulus package was sold to the public for this exact purpose.
did I say it was in "free fall" for 8 years?
I said it started to go down and was building momentum for 8 years not that it was "free falling" for eight years
Is arguing semantics and not understanding the written word the best you've got?
you constantly repost the same charts
do you even know how labor participation is calculated
did you notice it stared going to down as soon at Bush got in office and really fell off a cliff in 2008 (the last year of the Bush administration in case you had forgotten)
How to you stop a free fall that has been building in momemtum for 8 years and more importantly what does this have to do with Howie inability to understand even the most basic things about taxes
-
maybe you missed my original post or should learn to read:
did I say it was in "free fall" for 8 years?
I said it started to go down and was building momentum for 8 years not that it was "free falling" for eight years
Is arguing semantics and not understanding the written word the best you've got?
YES!
You're fucking quote is "8 years of free fall with increasing momentum."
You said it was "8 years of free fall" and during those "8 years of free fall" there was "increasing momentum."
Saying something existed for "8 years" means it was in existence for those 8 years. That's exactly what you said.
And it's not arguing "semantics." What you're proposing is "pragmatics," which I'm also not arguing. I'm quoting your entire post word for word, not interpreting any particular word or phrase in any manner what-so-ever. So yes, I suppose using the exact wording of your post in its entirety is the "best I've got."
Regardless, you're apparently no longer arguing that it was in free fall for 8 years--only "free falling" for a year.
In that case, I would argue that expecting a one-year free fall to "stop on a dime" is well within the range of reasonable expectation....and that's exactly what the STIMULUS was sold as....and failed to do.
You can't argue both sides.
If you want to argue that it was an "8 year free fall" and that's why it couldn't be reversed quickly, I will argue that it wasn't an "8 year free fall" (and it seems you agree with this).
If you want to argue that it couldn't be stopped on a dime, then I will argue that it was a one-year free fall (which you agree) and the STIMULUS was supposed to stop and reverse it. If you want to argue that the stimulus did reverse the one year free fall....and things are peachy-keen now....I'll just agree too disagree, because I don't believe the economy is better today than it was when the stimulus was enacted.
-
YES!
You're fucking quote is "8 years of free fall with increasing momentum."
You said it was "8 years of free fall" and during those "8 years of free fall" there was "increasing momentum."
Saying something existed for "8 years" means it was in existence for those 8 years. That's exactly what you said.
And it's not arguing "semantics." What you're proposing is "pragmatics," which I'm also not arguing. I'm quoting your entire post word for word, not interpreting any particular word or phrase in any manner what-so-ever. So yes, I suppose using the exact wording of your post in its entirety is the "best I've got."
Regardless, you're apparently no longer arguing that it was in free fall for 8 years--only "free falling" for a year.
In that case, I would argue that expecting a one-year free fall to "stop on a dime" is well within the range of reasonable expectation....and that's exactly what the STIMULUS was sold as....and failed to do.
You can't argue both sides.
If you want to argue that it was an "8 year free fall" and that's why it couldn't be reversed quickly, I will argue that it wasn't an "8 year free fall" (and it seems you agree with this).
If you want to argue that it couldn't be stopped on a dime, then I will argue that it was a one-year free fall (which you agree) and the STIMULUS was supposed to stop and reverse it. If you want to argue that the stimulus did reverse the one year free fall....and things are peachy-keen now....I'll just agree too disagree, because I don't believe the economy is better today than it was when the stimulus was enacted.
instead of changing my quote and pretending I said something I didn't why not just show my quote
here it is again
If you're going to put quotation marks around something then make sure it's exactly what I said and not what you think I said
look at your words above in quotation marks and then show me where you see them in that order in my quote below
you constantly repost the same charts
do you even know how labor participation is calculated
did you notice it stared going to down as soon at Bush got in office and really fell off a cliff in 2008 (the last year of the Bush administration in case you had forgotten)
How to you stop a free fall that has been building in momemtum for 8 years and more importantly what does this have to do with Howie inability to understand even the most basic things about taxes
-
instead of changing my quote and pretending I said something I didn't why not just show my quote
here it is again
If you're going to put quotation marks around something then make sure it's exactly what I said and not what you think I said
look at your words above in quotation marks and then show me where you see them in that order in my quote below
Holy shit, I clicked "quote" ON YOUR POST to reply to it. I quoted the entire post exactly as you worded it. I didn't change a single letter.
I didn't "quote" you, I replied to your post and included your entire post, word-for-word.
I'm honestly fucking weirded out right now. I didn't interpret anything in any way. I copied the post you made on page one of this thread, word for word. I didn't even "right click" copy and paste it....I REPLIED to the post by clicking "quote" on the upper right hand corner of your post so that it my post would be a unique reply to your exact post in its entirety.
AGAIN, here is YOUR ENTIRE POST, word-for-word...an exact replica of your original post without a single word altered in any form what-so-ever.
of course because 8 years of free fall with increasing momentum could have been stopped and reversed on a dime, especially considering how much priority the Repubs gave to helping improve the job market by cooperating with the Obama administration
It is:
quote author=Straw Man
topic=435534.msg6243929#msg6243929 date=1344366386
It's on the first fucking page of this thread....
-
Holy shit, I clicked "quote" ON YOUR POST to reply to it. I quoted the entire post exactly as you worded it. I didn't change a single letter.
I didn't "quote" you, I replied to your post and included your entire post, word-for-word.
I'm honestly fucking weirded out right now. I didn't interpret anything in any way. I copied the post you made on page one of this thread, word for word. I didn't even "right click" copy and paste it....I REPLIED to the post by clicking "quote" on the upper right hand corner of your post so that it my post would be a unique reply to your exact post in its entirety.
AGAIN, here is YOUR ENTIRE POST, word-for-word...an exact replica of your original post without a single word altered in any form what-so-ever.
It is:
quote author=Straw Man
topic=435534.msg6243929#msg6243929 date=1344366386
It's on the first fucking page of this thread....
that's all it takes to get you "weirded" out
I see you're referring to my second post and when I went back and looked I thoughtyou were referring to my first post
my mistake - sorry to have accused you of changing my quote
what exactly is it about the labor utilization rate that troubles you so much
Did you look at my other post where I mentioned the scale of the chart
Did you look at the longer term chart
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000?years_option=specific_years&include_graphs=true&to_year=2010&from_year=1948
Is your beef that I said it started to go down when Bush got in office and fell off a cliff in 2008 and then later typed 8 years of free fall (again - my mistake in not recognizing which quote you were referring to)
-
Doison is clearly outmatched in the wits department here. In fact, all of us are.
Straw's otherworldly talent for linguistic interpretation and his deadly use of the bold function to emphasize particular words are too much for Doison to handle.
Doison, give up while you can.
-
the answer is you suck at communicating and still don't understand the basics of income taxes
how exactly does the 2500 in spending with non-HSA dollars INCREASE your tax liability
let's use your same example but let's at least use the correct HSA contribution which for an individual under 55 is 3100
Your gross wages are 50,000 and you put 3100 into your HSA leaving you 46,900 in taxable wages
explain to me exactly how your taxes on that 46,900 will change if you have 2500 in expense for non-allowable OTC medication
Try to keep in mind that your taxable wages of 46,900 NEVER CHANGES regardless of whether you spend the 2500 on aspirin or whether you spend it on beer and pot or whether you put it in a savings account (and in this case we'll ignore the taxes on your interest income)
Clearly you are fucking retarded because you bolded the parts of my post which point out that I'm analyzing under the assumption that you put the same amount of money away into your HSA. Do you just not understand the concept of a budget restraint?
-
Doison is clearly outmatched in the wits department here. In fact, all of us are.
Straw's otherworldly talent for linguistic interpretation and his deadly use of the bold function to emphasize particular words are too much for Doison to handle.
Doison, give up while you can.
Savage sarcasm, you're last few posts have had me cracking up.
Carry on.
-
Doison is clearly outmatched in the wits department here. In fact, all of us are.
Straw's otherworldly talent for linguistic interpretation and his deadly use of the bold function to emphasize particular words are too much for Doison to handle.
Doison, give up while you can.
bfd - I didn't know which quote he was referring to
when I noticed my mistake I admitted it and apologized
that's what adults do
still no answer back as to why he cares so much about the labor utilization rate
-
bfd - I didn't know which quote he was referring to
when I noticed my mistake I admitted it and apologized
that's what adults do
still no answer back as to why he cares so much about the labor utilization rate
you voted for obama and still not have apologized for that tragic error.
-
Clearly you are fucking retarded because you bolded the parts of my post which point out that I'm analyzing under the assumption that you put the same amount of money away into your HSA. Do you just not understand the concept of a budget restraint?
I bolded the parts of your quotes where you kept saying the in order to keep your tax bill the same you have to change your spending
how you spend your non-HSA dollars never changes your tax bill
do you understand that or not?
You seem to both understand it and not understand it in the same sentence
Straw Man - since you're turning it into a personal thing: care to explain this (http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=435534.msg6243847#msg6243847) away? Or do you simply use distractions because you couldn't find your ass with flashing pointers showing you the way?
But okay dude, allow me to explain this to you with simple math, since you're apparently too dense to use your own mind:
Annual Income $50,000
Addition to HSA $5,000
Medical Expenses $5,000
Non-Medical Spending $45,000
Now say that the government decides to stop allowing you to use your HSA for all medical expenses; now you can only use your HSA for half of your medical expenses. Your point is that your tax bill won't change if you'll continue putting $5,000 into your HSA, which is true. But now you have $2,500 in additional medical expenses that are not tax deductible and thus will have to come out of your regular $45,000 income. That means that in order to keep your tax bill the same, you'll have to spend less on other things OR save less (outside of your HSA) in order to be able to afford that $2,500 in non-deductible medical expenses. So either way the tax change takes a bite out of your budget.
Annual Income $50,000
Addition to HSA $5,000
HSA Medical Expenses $2,500
Non-HSA Medical Expenses $2,500
Non-Medical Spending $42,500
-
you voted for obama and still not have apologized for that tragic error.
I only apologize for things I've actually done wrong not thing you imagine
-
how you spend your non-HSA dollars never changes your tax bill
THAT'S MY FUCKING POINT YOU RETARD.
With the reduction of what is tax-deductible, you have two choices:
1. Put less in your HSA and pay more in taxes.
-OR-
2. Keep your tax bill the same by putting the same amount in your HSA, but reduce spending on non-medical items because you'll have to move medical spending on non-deductible items into your regular budget. It's called a budget restraint: you don't have an unlimited amount to spend so you have to make choices.
The point is that either way its the government taking a bite out of your budget, the only difference being that one way is direct (taxation) and one indirect (changing your utility-maximizing behavior through the threat of taxation).
-
THAT'S MY FUCKING POINT YOU RETARD.
With the reduction of what is tax-deductible, you have two choices:
1. Put less in your HSA and pay more in taxes.
-OR-
2. Keep your tax bill the same by putting the same amount in your HSA, but reduce spending on non-medical items because you'll have to move medical spending on non-deductible items into your regular budget. It's called a budget restraint: you don't have an unlimited amount to spend so you have to make choices.
The point is that either way its the government taking a bite out of your budget, the only difference being that one way is direct (taxation) and one indirect (changing your utility-maximizing behavior through the threat of taxation).
your budget is not your tax bill
if you put the maximum into your HSA (as in my original example and yours) then your tax bill never changes and how you spend your non-HSA dollars never effects your tax bil
do you agree with that point?
-
your budget is not your tax bill
if you put the maximum into your HSA (as in my original example and yours) then your tax bill never changes and how you spend your non-HSA dollars never effects your tax bil
do you agree with that point?
Yes. I have stated that repeatedly. Do you understand that if you keep your tax bill the same, you end up getting a bigger bite out of your budget because you have to replace non-deductible medical spending with non-medical spending in your regular budget?
-
Yes. I have stated that repeatedly. Do you understand that if you keep your tax bill the same, you end up getting a bigger bite out of your budget because you have to replace non-deductible medical spending with non-medical spending in your regular budget?
that is correct but you originally characterized the minor change in HSA rules as a tax increase which it is not