This is my political sacred place. A place for this "1MormonDemocrat" who currently lives in Utah to breathe...aaah, relief! Thanks for visiting! I would love to see your comments!
Had an interesting conversation with a business owner I wanted to share with you. Key has him approved for a $2.2 million construction of a new location of his company that would employ 60 new people. He said he had previously calculated the cost of the Affordable Care Act to his company would be approximately $250,000 a year. His profits are $350,000 a year which amounts to a 71% tax on his profits. He said he can't justify the expansion anymore. He is canceling the expansion now because he can't afford the debt payments of his new location if his profits drop to $100,000. Seems to be a battle between two competeing interests - do you get some people insurance that don't have it or do you create 60 new jobs? Not only is he no longer hiring 60 people in Utah but there are many contractors and subcontractors that would have kept several construction workers employed for 6 months while the building was constructed. I admit, tough one.
But certainly adds some credibility to what the GOP said in the campaign that the Affordable Care Act is a jobs killing bill. Agreed? I know Dems would love to do both - create jobs and get people insured, but using this one example, of which I know of others, it doesn't sound like the AFA can do both. Oddly I have never heard a Dem on the campaign trail trying to sell the greater good of the bill by saying, "Yes, the AFA may cost the economy some jobs. We did it acknowleding that we may lose jobs because we feel like getting uninsured people insurance is a greater good here." Why didn't we ever hear that? Just some honestly would have been refreshing...unpopular during a campaign, but refreshing.
Was this man you are referring to...using "math he does as a Republican to make himself feel better" when he said the AFC would cost him 71% of his profits?! YES!!! I finally got to use that! Most definitely the best thing ever aired on Fox News! :)
I only had a second to read this...bc ironically we have to enroll again for our health insurance (due tonight). :) I am sorry to hear about this man choosing not to move forward with expansion. So he does not want to insure his workers? That is what I read between the lines...In that case, that is the only reason there would be a penalty (or tax)...and it is guys like this that have created so many problems for millions of Americans who are in so much debt over healthcare they will never pay it off in their lifetime...OR these people die bc they cannot afford life saving health care treatment. Which is more important to you? Some guy who thinks that his profits are more important than providing health care for his employees or potentially saving millions of lives? I have a friend who's best friend's husband was a hard worker--they were middle to lower middle class (blue collar jobs) but he suddenly past away (she didn't say how...but it sounded like a car accident) this friend of hers sought health care since she no longer was covered under her husband's employment... but before she could get on a health care plan she was diagnosed with cancer...no providers would cover her. She could not afford treatment. She passed away in her apartment...probably alone. These are the stories I am concerned with. Those Utahans who could have benefited from this man's expansion of his business is a shame. But I am confident that once the fear subsides, and employers realize that providing healthcare for their employees benefits them as well...then life can move on and people will expand their businesses. Another example is Bryson's boss...he always puts his employees first. And bc of this he has loyal employees who work hard for him and they do better and better every year with more and more jobs (work coming in) and bigger profits. Not to mention all the hiring he has done this year alone. Maybe this man could learn something about that from Bryson's boss. This is my favorite article about Affordable Care Act...but there are others out there that are good informants, too. http://pubs.aarp.org/aarptm/20121011_PR/?pg=13&pm=2&u1=friend#pg13
No, he didn't use Fox News math on that one. He and I used the "Health Care Reform Act: Critical Tax and Insurance Ramification for You, Your Business, and Your Clients" written by Carla Gordon, CFP, CPA, MSFS. Maybe you have read it too?
Just in case you hadn't, simply because he is going to experience a $250,000 annual cost doesn't mean he is going to get a penalty due to not providing insurance. Maybe you weren't aware, in order to avoid the tax penalties associated with it, the employer must provide affordable coverage. Affordable is defined as he must pay for at least 60% of the coverage AND the employees premiums cannot cost more then 9.5% of their annual pay. Either way, the AFA will result in a $250,000 cost to him. The calculation of the penalty has nothing to his profits. Therefore, when we calculate the tax percentage impact, all I did was take his annual cost (via penalty or providing insurance, whichever is less) and divided it by his profits. Maybe you know a different way? I got 71% cost/tax to him.
When unemployment is nearly 8%, I am certain there is a different side of the same argument you just gave that the 60 people would like to make. I am quite certain many of those potential hires that would fill the 60 positions would be glad to do so without insurance if it meant they could begin paying the bills.
I am not disputing the value of protecting the health interests of citizens of the US. Sometimes I think you think I don't want to insure people. As withe everything, it is mearly an acknowledgement that there are competing priorities. With the long term unemployment problems we have, I simply wonder if now is the time to motivate employers to choose between these competing priorities - insure workers or hire more workers? No doubt, both current and prospective employees have a valid argument for their personal interests.
But please don't read between the lines with your blue sunglasses on. To suggest he "doesn't want to insure" his workers is not accurate. I suspect he is moving forward with providing insurance for his employees. We (America) just need to be aware that by him choosing to incur $250,000 more in costs to insure his employees, he will not have the cash capacity for me to continue approving him to fund his $2.2 million expansion - resulting in 60 Utah's needing to wait longer to find employment.
I hope that helped you better understand the other side of the situations that are happening right now - which impact families who are looking for a job.
My primary disappointment in the AFA and the DNC and related politicians is that while GOP folks wanted to address the facts during the campaign that the AFA would cost jobs, no one on the DNC or related politicians were willing to acknowledge that publically. Certainly they were aware that such an acknowledgement during the campaign may have cost them valuable votes in swing states. Maybe it would not have. We won't know.
I think this may be a sound example of the labled "fear tactics" that you suggested the GOP leaders feed us. Many of your comments suggest you think the GOP wants to continue to allow insurance companies to deny coverage due to pre-existing conditions, that we want lifetime maximums, and that we want American's to continue to be uninsured. If you feel this way, can you appreciate why I may feel like we have a bit of a "pot" and "kettle" issue here? The GOP has supported those provisions. I think our objective is to do all of this in a way that doesn't impact employers ability to hire people. Again, I hope that makes sense of why we are concerned. Please don't think we are concerned because we don't want those great things.
Firstly...the only "GOP" that has supported pre-existing conditions..is ROMNEY! Through word! Not his own website or platform. I am happy to hear you are in favor of such things...but the fact is that there is no proof that the Republicans have any sort of agenda to change or reform health care...only just the opposite. I have never heard a Democrat Representative say that republicans as a whole are against healthcare reform...only thing I have heard is that Romney would repeal Obamacare--and that was not only from Dem's but the horse's mouth himself. The proof is in the pudding...or in this case votes and laws passed or lack thereof. As far as the Fox News quote...that was for fun! I don't mean to imply you do the sort of math that ridiculous man on Fox does! haha. So it was only a joke. Forgive me. As far as big business and whether or not this client falls into that or small business I do not know--seems like if it is an expansion of that magnitude he would not be small business by definition. Though I feel that health care reform benefits everyone by lowering health care costs, I am more informed on how it benefits small businesses. And everything about health care reform would benefit small businesses--the employees and the owners. Here is just one of 100's of articles (including AARP which I already linked you to) which agree that health care reform is not only essential but good for small businesses. This is an informative article: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/small-business-outlook-obamas-2nd-termTo me there are a vast amount of changes that need to be done with healthcare...not only pre-existing conditions and others, but the cost of healthcare is an extreme burden on employers and individuals...we spend more than other countries on healthcare, yet less are covered and more do not receive ANY health care...even basic preventative care. As far as big businesses who don't want to change bc they are too greedy or fearful of it...this is an article that might appeal more to them: http://www.bizjournals.com/bizjournals/washingtonbureau/2012/11/07/business-ready-to-work-with-obama-to.html?page=all
I realize like I stated in a previous post...we all have different perspectives. You and I will never agree on this matter...and if you would care to share any further info on it, please do. But I believe it is the right thing to do. I have researched it and I think that in the long term Americans will not only benefit from better health, but businesses and health care providers will expand...jobs will open up. And the "richer" parts of the world will no longer scoff at our inability to take care of one another. it is discouraging that so many seem to indicate that it is a small number of people without insurance...it is NOT a small number...as you yourself implied. Do you not think our society is motivated by greed? I do. I think that it will be a tough road...but it is worth a try to change some aspects of business...especially when it comes to the health and well being of our fellow Americans. In addition, Do you not think that we will face the consequences from being such a greedy society? I think if we have learned anything from the past...from scripture...it is that when we are corrupt...we receive the consequences. Nothing will protect us from our own greed and corruption. I realize you are a numbers guy...and I am anxious to talk about this in a few years...for now all we can do is disagree and throw out our thoughts about what this change will mean to businesses and Americans. And in closing, I don't understand how you come up with your projected numbers when there is not definitive information as of yet. It still has to be decided. Oh and welcome back! haha. If you are attempting to be a Debbie Downer...misery loves company, right? Than just know...nothing can bring me down! I am still thrilled that President Obama kept his seat. Aside from the fact that I could never trust Romney from the stunts he pulled this election year...President Obama has the right compassion, the right agenda, and the right motivation to get our country where we all want to be! FOUR MORE YEARS!!!!
Sounds like your incessant need for fact checking may have overlooked the nearly 1,000 pages of IRS regulations written by the Department of the Treasury regarding the AFA which are, contrary to your thoughts, "definitive information." Well, it carries the weight of law - that is definitive enough for me. Once you have a chance to read up on the topic, we can continue in a well informed dialogue.
I am glad you heard most of the same things I did during the campaigns - Romney said he would repeal AND REPLACE the AFA and you also heard him say he would keep those provisions but do so in a manner that wouldn't impact jobs. Sounds like you missed the "replace" part and focused on the "repeal" part you noted above. He has talked about using an accountable plan concept in his "replace" component in which we ensure the users of health care are tied financially to their choices - i.e. smokers, not their employers, pay a higher premium for the insurance. The moment you insulate people from their choices (by not tying cost to behavior) is the moment you lose an opportunity to really drive down the cost of care...or if not drive down, transfer the cost to those that use it. I do not support non-accountable plans, such as the AFA.
Yes, on a macro scale, I do believe society is motivated by greed. I don't think tax laws will change that. I think changing the people is the medicine. The greedy will just find loop holes. They always have and they always will.
I can and do embrace four more years of an Obama presidency. It's a love of country that drives that embracement. Disagreements aside, I know his motivations are sincere to do the best thing for the country. I hope both of our parties can be more successful in compromise centered on what will create jobs. Our economy needs it. As I have studied the numbers upside and down, getting the true unemployment rate, including those who are not counted in the 7.9% because they have stopped looking for work, down to pre-recession levels has the most meaningful impact on tax revenues and deficit reduction then any other solution considered by either side. It's jobs people, jobs. Now is the time to seriously consider any law and regulation being passed or that has been passed and ask, "does this help or hinder job growth?" We need balance - but I petition Washington that when in doubt, tip the scale towards jobs over any other special or social interests.
And I think my return to the blog may be short lived. But final thought...if we just water down all you have just said, I read between the lines that you side with insuring uninsured Americans over creating jobs for unemployed Americans. Given a choice, sounds like you would pick insurance and not side with jobs. Again, both worthy goals. It comes down to timing and priorities because as we have seen today, often it is hard to do both at the same time.
True. I have an incessant need to fact check...what is with Republicans hating fact checking!? haha. I do this only bc I do not trust politicians. Is that a bad thing? I have referred to that IRS gov link and read many but not all of the News releases. As to greed...that is a state of mind in which nothing can CURE from the human race...but eliminating loopholes which do not benefit society-- (namely excluding charitable donations) but closing those that do not benefit growth or America should be closed. Both candidates spoke to this this election. There are definite things that can be done to right the situation we are in. It comes down to this...you believe in trickle down effect I do not...I believe in building up the middle class. I do not think that health care and jobs are mutually exclusive. We will all witness the TRUE effects down the road. I don't care to go into what Romney said and the facts that were lacking thereof on HIS OWN website or platform...BC he lost. It doesn't matter. Move on and move forward. I suggest all of America do that! You say you want to do that and then you keep spitting out campaign sound bites! haha. ACA: I know what the law proposes but not all the details are ironed out or perfect but it is the right thing to do--no going back now---thankfully. I know what is wrong with our society...I know that the President in office is the right man for the job. End of story. We will never have the same perspective. Timing and priorities are important...and that is why the President made the risky decision...the one that many other elected men and women were too scared to try in the past when it was also important--if not now, it may never happen! Health care reform is NECESSARY! It isn't a matter of special or social needs. It is necessary, not just for the few things that ensure coverage to some more people...but to ensure reduction in the spiraling out of control health care costs! We will never agree. Obviously. But I appreciate that you can say you support 4 more years and I hope we all hold our Representatives responsible. I firmly believe there is hope in them coming together now that their jobs are not at risk and there is no road block of politics in the near future. I think they can all get to work. Boehner saying today that there needs to be tax revenue and that it is essential, is promising and I think that some entitlement programs reformed/cut when stapled to a plan which includes increasing taxes on the wealthy and closing loopholes is a possible way to help the "fiscal cliff" crisis. I hope it happens! I know that this sort of tax code has worked in this country's history and it can work again. We should do all possible things to help our situation. Priorities and timing...right? I also know that the President has a lot of ideas to help businesses and everyone agrees that small businesses are the key focus right now--so let's hope the GOP no longer acts on personal agenda and they got the message clearly sent from Americans this Tues. We will see if both Boehner and the President can lead and deliver on not only taxes...but all other reforms and deficit reduction plans...etc. I have expectations. We all should have expectations. I too love this country. We can end on that agreed statement. :) Cheers to moving forward with a love of this great country!
Wow, it has been a while.
ReplyDeleteHad an interesting conversation with a business owner I wanted to share with you. Key has him approved for a $2.2 million construction of a new location of his company that would employ 60 new people. He said he had previously calculated the cost of the Affordable Care Act to his company would be approximately $250,000 a year. His profits are $350,000 a year which amounts to a 71% tax on his profits. He said he can't justify the expansion anymore. He is canceling the expansion now because he can't afford the debt payments of his new location if his profits drop to $100,000. Seems to be a battle between two competeing interests - do you get some people insurance that don't have it or do you create 60 new jobs? Not only is he no longer hiring 60 people in Utah but there are many contractors and subcontractors that would have kept several construction workers employed for 6 months while the building was constructed. I admit, tough one.
But certainly adds some credibility to what the GOP said in the campaign that the Affordable Care Act is a jobs killing bill. Agreed? I know Dems would love to do both - create jobs and get people insured, but using this one example, of which I know of others, it doesn't sound like the AFA can do both. Oddly I have never heard a Dem on the campaign trail trying to sell the greater good of the bill by saying, "Yes, the AFA may cost the economy some jobs. We did it acknowleding that we may lose jobs because we feel like getting uninsured people insurance is a greater good here." Why didn't we ever hear that? Just some honestly would have been refreshing...unpopular during a campaign, but refreshing.
Was this man you are referring to...using "math he does as a Republican to make himself feel better" when he said the AFC would cost him 71% of his profits?! YES!!! I finally got to use that! Most definitely the best thing ever aired on Fox News! :)
DeleteI only had a second to read this...bc ironically we have to enroll again for our health insurance (due tonight). :) I am sorry to hear about this man choosing not to move forward with expansion. So he does not want to insure his workers? That is what I read between the lines...In that case, that is the only reason there would be a penalty (or tax)...and it is guys like this that have created so many problems for millions of Americans who are in so much debt over healthcare they will never pay it off in their lifetime...OR these people die bc they cannot afford life saving health care treatment. Which is more important to you? Some guy who thinks that his profits are more important than providing health care for his employees or potentially saving millions of lives? I have a friend who's best friend's husband was a hard worker--they were middle to lower middle class (blue collar jobs) but he suddenly past away (she didn't say how...but it sounded like a car accident) this friend of hers sought health care since she no longer was covered under her husband's employment... but before she could get on a health care plan she was diagnosed with cancer...no providers would cover her. She could not afford treatment. She passed away in her apartment...probably alone. These are the stories I am concerned with. Those Utahans who could have benefited from this man's expansion of his business is a shame. But I am confident that once the fear subsides, and employers realize that providing healthcare for their employees benefits them as well...then life can move on and people will expand their businesses. Another example is Bryson's boss...he always puts his employees first. And bc of this he has loyal employees who work hard for him and they do better and better every year with more and more jobs (work coming in) and bigger profits. Not to mention all the hiring he has done this year alone. Maybe this man could learn something about that from Bryson's boss. This is my favorite article about Affordable Care Act...but there are others out there that are good informants, too. http://pubs.aarp.org/aarptm/20121011_PR/?pg=13&pm=2&u1=friend#pg13
ReplyDeleteNo, he didn't use Fox News math on that one. He and I used the "Health Care Reform Act: Critical Tax and Insurance Ramification for You, Your Business, and Your Clients" written by Carla Gordon, CFP, CPA, MSFS. Maybe you have read it too?
ReplyDeleteJust in case you hadn't, simply because he is going to experience a $250,000 annual cost doesn't mean he is going to get a penalty due to not providing insurance. Maybe you weren't aware, in order to avoid the tax penalties associated with it, the employer must provide affordable coverage. Affordable is defined as he must pay for at least 60% of the coverage AND the employees premiums cannot cost more then 9.5% of their annual pay. Either way, the AFA will result in a $250,000 cost to him. The calculation of the penalty has nothing to his profits. Therefore, when we calculate the tax percentage impact, all I did was take his annual cost (via penalty or providing insurance, whichever is less) and divided it by his profits. Maybe you know a different way? I got 71% cost/tax to him.
When unemployment is nearly 8%, I am certain there is a different side of the same argument you just gave that the 60 people would like to make. I am quite certain many of those potential hires that would fill the 60 positions would be glad to do so without insurance if it meant they could begin paying the bills.
I am not disputing the value of protecting the health interests of citizens of the US. Sometimes I think you think I don't want to insure people. As withe everything, it is mearly an acknowledgement that there are competing priorities. With the long term unemployment problems we have, I simply wonder if now is the time to motivate employers to choose between these competing priorities - insure workers or hire more workers? No doubt, both current and prospective employees have a valid argument for their personal interests.
But please don't read between the lines with your blue sunglasses on. To suggest he "doesn't want to insure" his workers is not accurate. I suspect he is moving forward with providing insurance for his employees. We (America) just need to be aware that by him choosing to incur $250,000 more in costs to insure his employees, he will not have the cash capacity for me to continue approving him to fund his $2.2 million expansion - resulting in 60 Utah's needing to wait longer to find employment.
I hope that helped you better understand the other side of the situations that are happening right now - which impact families who are looking for a job.
My primary disappointment in the AFA and the DNC and related politicians is that while GOP folks wanted to address the facts during the campaign that the AFA would cost jobs, no one on the DNC or related politicians were willing to acknowledge that publically. Certainly they were aware that such an acknowledgement during the campaign may have cost them valuable votes in swing states. Maybe it would not have. We won't know.
I think this may be a sound example of the labled "fear tactics" that you suggested the GOP leaders feed us. Many of your comments suggest you think the GOP wants to continue to allow insurance companies to deny coverage due to pre-existing conditions, that we want lifetime maximums, and that we want American's to continue to be uninsured. If you feel this way, can you appreciate why I may feel like we have a bit of a "pot" and "kettle" issue here? The GOP has supported those provisions. I think our objective is to do all of this in a way that doesn't impact employers ability to hire people. Again, I hope that makes sense of why we are concerned. Please don't think we are concerned because we don't want those great things.
ReplyDeleteFirstly...the only "GOP" that has supported pre-existing conditions..is ROMNEY! Through word! Not his own website or platform. I am happy to hear you are in favor of such things...but the fact is that there is no proof that the Republicans have any sort of agenda to change or reform health care...only just the opposite. I have never heard a Democrat Representative say that republicans as a whole are against healthcare reform...only thing I have heard is that Romney would repeal Obamacare--and that was not only from Dem's but the horse's mouth himself. The proof is in the pudding...or in this case votes and laws passed or lack thereof.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the Fox News quote...that was for fun! I don't mean to imply you do the sort of math that ridiculous man on Fox does! haha. So it was only a joke. Forgive me.
As far as big business and whether or not this client falls into that or small business I do not know--seems like if it is an expansion of that magnitude he would not be small business by definition. Though I feel that health care reform benefits everyone by lowering health care costs, I am more informed on how it benefits small businesses. And everything about health care reform would benefit small businesses--the employees and the owners. Here is just one of 100's of articles (including AARP which I already linked you to) which agree that health care reform is not only essential but good for small businesses. This is an informative article: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/small-business-outlook-obamas-2nd-termTo me there are a vast amount of changes that need to be done with healthcare...not only pre-existing conditions and others, but the cost of healthcare is an extreme burden on employers and individuals...we spend more than other countries on healthcare, yet less are covered and more do not receive ANY health care...even basic preventative care.
As far as big businesses who don't want to change bc they are too greedy or fearful of it...this is an article that might appeal more to them: http://www.bizjournals.com/bizjournals/washingtonbureau/2012/11/07/business-ready-to-work-with-obama-to.html?page=all
I realize like I stated in a previous post...we all have different perspectives. You and I will never agree on this matter...and if you would care to share any further info on it, please do. But I believe it is the right thing to do. I have researched it and I think that in the long term Americans will not only benefit from better health, but businesses and health care providers will expand...jobs will open up. And the "richer" parts of the world will no longer scoff at our inability to take care of one another. it is discouraging that so many seem to indicate that it is a small number of people without insurance...it is NOT a small number...as you yourself implied.
DeleteDo you not think our society is motivated by greed? I do. I think that it will be a tough road...but it is worth a try to change some aspects of business...especially when it comes to the health and well being of our fellow Americans.
In addition, Do you not think that we will face the consequences from being such a greedy society? I think if we have learned anything from the past...from scripture...it is that when we are corrupt...we receive the consequences. Nothing will protect us from our own greed and corruption. I realize you are a numbers guy...and I am anxious to talk about this in a few years...for now all we can do is disagree and throw out our thoughts about what this change will mean to businesses and Americans. And in closing, I don't understand how you come up with your projected numbers when there is not definitive information as of yet. It still has to be decided. Oh and welcome back! haha. If you are attempting to be a Debbie Downer...misery loves company, right? Than just know...nothing can bring me down! I am still thrilled that President Obama kept his seat. Aside from the fact that I could never trust Romney from the stunts he pulled this election year...President Obama has the right compassion, the right agenda, and the right motivation to get our country where we all want to be! FOUR MORE YEARS!!!!
Sounds like your incessant need for fact checking may have overlooked the nearly 1,000 pages of IRS regulations written by the Department of the Treasury regarding the AFA which are, contrary to your thoughts, "definitive information." Well, it carries the weight of law - that is definitive enough for me. Once you have a chance to read up on the topic, we can continue in a well informed dialogue.
ReplyDeleteHere is the link to the IRS.gov site:
http://www.irs.gov/uac/Affordable-Care-Act-of-2010:-News-Releases,-Multimedia-and-Legal-Guidance
I am glad you heard most of the same things I did during the campaigns - Romney said he would repeal AND REPLACE the AFA and you also heard him say he would keep those provisions but do so in a manner that wouldn't impact jobs. Sounds like you missed the "replace" part and focused on the "repeal" part you noted above. He has talked about using an accountable plan concept in his "replace" component in which we ensure the users of health care are tied financially to their choices - i.e. smokers, not their employers, pay a higher premium for the insurance. The moment you insulate people from their choices (by not tying cost to behavior) is the moment you lose an opportunity to really drive down the cost of care...or if not drive down, transfer the cost to those that use it. I do not support non-accountable plans, such as the AFA.
Yes, on a macro scale, I do believe society is motivated by greed. I don't think tax laws will change that. I think changing the people is the medicine. The greedy will just find loop holes. They always have and they always will.
I can and do embrace four more years of an Obama presidency. It's a love of country that drives that embracement. Disagreements aside, I know his motivations are sincere to do the best thing for the country. I hope both of our parties can be more successful in compromise centered on what will create jobs. Our economy needs it. As I have studied the numbers upside and down, getting the true unemployment rate, including those who are not counted in the 7.9% because they have stopped looking for work, down to pre-recession levels has the most meaningful impact on tax revenues and deficit reduction then any other solution considered by either side. It's jobs people, jobs. Now is the time to seriously consider any law and regulation being passed or that has been passed and ask, "does this help or hinder job growth?" We need balance - but I petition Washington that when in doubt, tip the scale towards jobs over any other special or social interests.
And I think my return to the blog may be short lived. But final thought...if we just water down all you have just said, I read between the lines that you side with insuring uninsured Americans over creating jobs for unemployed Americans. Given a choice, sounds like you would pick insurance and not side with jobs. Again, both worthy goals. It comes down to timing and priorities because as we have seen today, often it is hard to do both at the same time.
ReplyDeleteTrue. I have an incessant need to fact check...what is with Republicans hating fact checking!? haha. I do this only bc I do not trust politicians. Is that a bad thing? I have referred to that IRS gov link and read many but not all of the News releases.
ReplyDeleteAs to greed...that is a state of mind in which nothing can CURE from the human race...but eliminating loopholes which do not benefit society-- (namely excluding charitable donations) but closing those that do not benefit growth or America should be closed. Both candidates spoke to this this election. There are definite things that can be done to right the situation we are in.
It comes down to this...you believe in trickle down effect I do not...I believe in building up the middle class. I do not think that health care and jobs are mutually exclusive. We will all witness the TRUE effects down the road. I don't care to go into what Romney said and the facts that were lacking thereof on HIS OWN website or platform...BC he lost. It doesn't matter. Move on and move forward. I suggest all of America do that! You say you want to do that and then you keep spitting out campaign sound bites! haha.
ACA: I know what the law proposes but not all the details are ironed out or perfect but it is the right thing to do--no going back now---thankfully. I know what is wrong with our society...I know that the President in office is the right man for the job. End of story. We will never have the same perspective. Timing and priorities are important...and that is why the President made the risky decision...the one that many other elected men and women were too scared to try in the past when it was also important--if not now, it may never happen! Health care reform is NECESSARY! It isn't a matter of special or social needs. It is necessary, not just for the few things that ensure coverage to some more people...but to ensure reduction in the spiraling out of control health care costs! We will never agree. Obviously.
But I appreciate that you can say you support 4 more years and I hope we all hold our Representatives responsible. I firmly believe there is hope in them coming together now that their jobs are not at risk and there is no road block of politics in the near future. I think they can all get to work. Boehner saying today that there needs to be tax revenue and that it is essential, is promising and I think that some entitlement programs reformed/cut when stapled to a plan which includes increasing taxes on the wealthy and closing loopholes is a possible way to help the "fiscal cliff" crisis. I hope it happens! I know that this sort of tax code has worked in this country's history and it can work again. We should do all possible things to help our situation. Priorities and timing...right? I also know that the President has a lot of ideas to help businesses and everyone agrees that small businesses are the key focus right now--so let's hope the GOP no longer acts on personal agenda and they got the message clearly sent from Americans this Tues. We will see if both Boehner and the President can lead and deliver on not only taxes...but all other reforms and deficit reduction plans...etc. I have expectations. We all should have expectations.
I too love this country. We can end on that agreed statement. :) Cheers to moving forward with a love of this great country!