I'm a net/net guy. My comment is aimed more at the people jumping off the ledge over something that we really know nothing about as well as the "gotcha" world we live in now.

 

If the new plan works and ultimately is good for the country and me, I'm cool with it. If I get taxed on one end but overall save money, why should I be upset? Why should anyone be upset?

 

RE: changing his mind/flip flopping/etc. A. We need to wait to see if he actually does change his mind. B. We need to look at the entire plan before we determine if its good for us or not.

 

If its good for us AND he taxes us on the benefits are you going to complain?

 

Does anyone expect any President to not change any of his campaign pledges? That would be naive.

 

Look at it from this point of view then: What was his chief campaign pledge?? That the tax liability upon anyone making under $250,000 would go down?

 

If this measure passes, then where is that campaign pledge??

I'm a net/net guy. My comment is aimed more at the people jumping off the ledge over something that we really know nothing about as well as the "gotcha" world we live in now.

 

If the new plan works and ultimately is good for the country and me, I'm cool with it. If I get taxed on one end but overall save money, why should I be upset? Why should anyone be upset?

 

RE: changing his mind/flip flopping/etc. A. We need to wait to see if he actually does change his mind. B. We need to look at the entire plan before we determine if its good for us or not.

 

If its good for us AND he taxes us on the benefits are you going to complain?.

Because we don't elect politicians to do for what is good for us as individuals. We elect them to do what is good for the country as a whole, but first and foremost to defend the Constitution

Does anyone expect any President to not change any of his campaign pledges? That would be naive.

The problem with our American political system is that we expect and endorse our elected leaders to lie to us.

Because we don't elect politicians to do for what is good for us as individuals. We elect them to do what is good for the country as a whole, but first and foremost to defend the Constitution

 

The problem with our American political system is that we expect and endorse our elected leaders to lie to us.

 

 

The first part is an interesting persective. From what I read here, most people vote EXACTLY for what is good for us as individuals. They expect that what is good for them as individuals is good for the country as a whole. That applies no matter what camp you fall into.

 

As to electing the President to defend the Constitution, I disagree to some degree. I feel the Judicial Branch defends the Constitution. I honestly don't elect officials for that purpose.

 

And to the last point, I don't think any representative form of government has survived without being eventually viewed that way.

Because we don't elect politicians to do for what is good for us as individuals. We elect them to do what is good for the country as a whole, but first and foremost to defend the Constitution

 

The problem with our American political system is that we expect and endorse our elected leaders to lie to us.

 

What part of "good for the country and me" did you miss?

I'm a net/net guy. My comment is aimed more at the people jumping off the ledge over something that we really know nothing about as well as the "gotcha" world we live in now.

 

If the new plan works and ultimately is good for the country and me, I'm cool with it. If I get taxed on one end but overall save money, why should I be upset? Why should anyone be upset?

 

RE: changing his mind/flip flopping/etc. A. We need to wait to see if he actually does change his mind. B. We need to look at the entire plan before we determine if its good for us or not.

 

If its good for us AND he taxes us on the benefits are you going to complain?

 

Does anyone expect any President to not change any of his campaign pledges? That would be naive.

Give me one way that greatly increasing the tax liability of most tax paying cititzens in this country will be better for this country?

Look at it from this point of view then: What was his chief campaign pledge?? That the tax liability upon anyone making under $250,000 would go down?

 

If this measure passes, then where is that campaign pledge??

 

Again, if the entire plan ends up being better than where we are now I'm OK with it. Campaign pledges are made at a fixed point in time. I'm not naive enough to think that situations do not change. I also realize that we get to choose every 4 years. If a President doesn't do well , he's out. If he does well and at the same time breaks pledges, I'm good with him/her.

 

I didn't have a problem with GHWB when he broke his pledge on taxes. I didn't necessarily like it but I didn't get all up in arms about the fact that he had pledged not to. That's , again, naive.

 

"Big picture" should be what we're worried about and not tick for tack tally keeping.

Give me one way that greatly increasing the tax liability of most tax paying cititzens in this country will be better for this country?

 

It will give more money to the clowns in D.C. so they can get a negative ROI but still be able to claim in the next election cycle that they accomplished giving health care insurance to the masses. Even if it means making the system in place now, slower, more costly, and lower quality.

Give me one way that greatly increasing the tax liability of most tax paying cititzens in this country will be better for this country?

 

First of all, "greatly increasing" is not accurate.

 

Secondly, its one component of an overall "dollars in your pocket" calculation.

 

The President includes this reform in his economic package as he sees it as a win financially for me and you. Unlike many on here who can't wait to criticize without seeing the REAL and FINAL package, I choose to wait to see the details and the results.

 

So, as I said, IF this one piece of the reform package comes true (ie I pay more taxes ) BUT the other pieces of the package result in a net result of me having more money in my pocket (less health care expense minus my increased taxes) then , again, I'm good.

 

Now, if you want to break down the entire package and explain it to the rest of us , have at it. Otherwise, you would come across as reactionary which I'm sure is not your goal.

Again, if the entire plan ends up being better than where we are now I'm OK with it. Campaign pledges are made at a fixed point in time. I'm not naive enough to think that situations do not change. I also realize that we get to choose every 4 years. If a President doesn't do well , he's out. If he does well and at the same time breaks pledges, I'm good with him/her.

 

I didn't have a problem with GHWB when he broke his pledge on taxes. I didn't necessarily like it but I didn't get all up in arms about the fact that he had pledged not to. That's , again, naive.

 

"Big picture" should be what we're worried about and not tick for tack tally keeping.

 

What government run program currently would make you think that they are capable of producing a better "product" than we currently have now?

I'll respond to you, since you were kind enough to respond without overt sarcasm. :thumb:

 

Sometimes I wonder if there are ideas that are proposed to get people riled up enough to get involved. For instance, maybe people will bombard their Washington representatives with e-mails, phone calls & letters to oppose this. Then, that forces them to consider some other options.

 

Politics, IS a game, you know.

I'll agree, it's a game, but I doubt stuff like this is presented as an incentive to get people involved, it's more like dropping different amounts of sodium in water to see how bad the reaction will be. The least amount wins.

 

In either case, I fired off another email to Gus, Mel, and Bill this morning.

First of all, "greatly increasing" is not accurate.

 

Secondly, its one component of an overall "dollars in your pocket" calculation.

 

The President includes this reform in his economic package as he sees it as a win financially for me and you. Unlike many on here who can't wait to criticize without seeing the REAL and FINAL package, I choose to wait to see the details and the results.

 

So, as I said, IF this one piece of the reform package comes true (ie I pay more taxes ) BUT the other pieces of the package result in a net result of me having more money in my pocket (less health care expense minus my increased taxes) then , again, I'm good.

 

Now, if you want to break down the entire package and explain it to the rest of us , have at it. Otherwise, you would come across as reactionary which I'm sure is not your goal.

 

Can you provide an example of where government has provided this type of "net result" for you in the past?

First of all, "greatly increasing" is not accurate.

 

Secondly, its one component of an overall "dollars in your pocket" calculation.

 

The President includes this reform in his economic package as he sees it as a win financially for me and you. Unlike many on here who can't wait to criticize without seeing the REAL and FINAL package, I choose to wait to see the details and the results.

 

So, as I said, IF this one piece of the reform package comes true (ie I pay more taxes ) BUT the other pieces of the package result in a net result of me having more money in my pocket (less health care expense minus my increased taxes) then , again, I'm good.

 

Now, if you want to break down the entire package and explain it to the rest of us , have at it. Otherwise, you would come across as reactionary which I'm sure is not your goal.

How will my expense go down?

First of all, "greatly increasing" is not accurate.

 

Secondly, its one component of an overall "dollars in your pocket" calculation.

 

The President includes this reform in his economic package as he sees it as a win financially for me and you. Unlike many on here who can't wait to criticize without seeing the REAL and FINAL package, I choose to wait to see the details and the results.

 

So, as I said, IF this one piece of the reform package comes true (ie I pay more taxes ) BUT the other pieces of the package result in a net result of me having more money in my pocket (less health care expense minus my increased taxes) then , again, I'm good.

 

Now, if you want to break down the entire package and explain it to the rest of us , have at it. Otherwise, you would come across as reactionary which I'm sure is not your goal.

Sorry, but I'm screaming now. It's easier to pick out the bad seeds before they're mixed with the good ones.

The first part is an interesting persective. From what I read here, most people vote EXACTLY for what is good for us as individuals. They expect that what is good for them as individuals is good for the country as a whole. That applies no matter what camp you fall into.

 

As to electing the President to defend the Constitution, I disagree to some degree. I feel the Judicial Branch defends the Constitution. I honestly don't elect officials for that purpose.

 

And to the last point, I don't think any representative form of government has survived without being eventually viewed that way.

As a sworn in member of the executive branch, which I am (like President Obama), I know that he and I took an oath to defend the Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic.

 

It would be best for me for my specific income range to pay 0 taxes, but I know that is not what is best for the country (although I do lean towards anarchy at times ).

What part of "good for the country and me" did you miss?

 

The entire part. My fault

How will my expense go down?

 

The concept (from my limited understanding) is that if the govt is an option for folks like me and you (however NOT MANDATORY) then our current providers will have to be more competitive. How will they be more competitive? Right. Premiums go down. More stuff gets covered. A multitude of possibilities that do not exist today due to the strong lobby in DC.