Paul Ryan Discussion

  • Thread starter Thread starter Al_Moritz
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Mitt Romney will release 2011 tax return by Oct. 15, campaign says
Mitt Romney will release his complete 2011 tax return by Oct. 15 and possibly sooner, but that will be the Republican presidential challenger’s final disclosure, his campaign said Sunday.
Romney received a filing extension from the Internal Revenue Service, and Oct. 15 – 22 days before Election Day – is the extended deadline.
“We have said as soon as they’re ready we’re going to release them,” Romney campaign adviser Ed Gillespie said in an interview on “Fox News Sunday.” “And I believe they’ll be ready before that.”
“They’re being finalized. There’s a lot of forms that have to come in from other entities that the governor doesn’t have control over,” Gillespie added.
boston.com/politicalintelligence/2012/08/19/mitt-romney-will-release-tax-return-oct-campaign-says/kKlsaCXnl1WwlJOTQLfVCI/story.html
 
I can think of one reason not to release his tax returns. I suspect the returns are rather complex, consisting of a lot more pages than a 1040. The Dems would love to spend the rest of the campaign going line by line through his tax return using every line item to vilify him in some way. It would eat up the balance of the campaign. A good change of subject for them.
 
In view of the current administration’s pro-abortion, anti-life, pro-gay marriage record and its clampdown on religious liberty which threatens to shut down Catholic institutions, I don’t see how any Catholic could vote for it’s re-election. And Ryan’s budget plan at least has a chance of keeping the nation from falling off a debt cliff, whereas the current administration seems to have little inclination to prevent that catastrophe.
 
I keep thinking about one fundamental question. One that has not yet been answered.

Mr. Romney has asked over and over that the American voter trust him re what is in his tax returns.

Why is Mr. Romney willing to continue to endure the scathing criticism he is facing, rather than to release the tax returns? His answer that the reason he won’t release more is that he would face scathing criticism just makes no sense. Nothing can be worse than what he has been going through. Unless there really is something devastating–financial or otherwise–in the returns.

Trust but verify.

63% of American voters apparently agree. They want to see the tax returns. So do I.
 
I keep thinking about one fundamental question. One that has not yet been answered.

Mr. Romney has asked over and over that the American voter trust him re what is in his tax returns.

Why is Mr. Romney willing to continue to endure the scathing criticism he is facing, rather than to release the tax returns? His answer that the reason he won’t release more is that he would face scathing criticism just makes no sense. Nothing can be worse than what he has been going through. Unless there really is something devastating–financial or otherwise–in the returns.

Trust but verify.

63% of American voters apparently agree. They want to see the tax returns. So do I.
Why?
I think what we are seeing is Americans are far more concerned about why Obama took 718 billion dollars out of Medicare to fund Obamacare than how many years of tax returns Romney releases.

Why
 
I keep thinking about one fundamental question. One that has not yet been answered.

Mr. Romney has asked over and over that the American voter trust him re what is in his tax returns.

Why is Mr. Romney willing to continue to endure the scathing criticism he is facing, rather than to release the tax returns? His answer that the reason he won’t release more is that he would face scathing criticism just makes no sense. Nothing can be worse than what he has been going through. Unless there really is something devastating–financial or otherwise–in the returns.

Trust but verify.

63% of American voters apparently agree. They want to see the tax returns. So do I.
I don’t care about Romney’s tax return. I care more about the Obama unemployment rate (too high), the Obama deficit (too high), the Obama gas prices (too high). You might care more about Romney’s tax return, but I suspect that most Americans care more about getting the economy back on track, our fiscal situation back from the brink, and having a sound energy policy that does more than give hundreds of millions to failing companies that turn around and donate to the Obama campaign. Like I’ve been saying, Obama dreads a campaign on the actual issues - he will lose. So he needs to make personal attacks on Romney. If I were Romney I wouldn’t release his tax records until Obama releases his academic records - Obama seems to be hiding something there. Then the clammor for Romney releasing his tax return would stop because Obama obviously doesn’t want to release his academic records. Then the campaign would be about the issues and Obama would lose.

Ishii
 
Personally, I think this whole Ayn Rand thing is totally overblown by those on the left with a two-fold agenda. One, to defame Paul Ryan, and two, by extension, to undermine Catholicism.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with reading material and extracting the good, and leaving the bad. I do not see anything to be concerned about with this at all.

God bless.

-Paul
 
Rand Paul
Paul Ryan
Ayn Rand

Easy to get the names screwed up. The politicians need to be careful.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with reading material and extracting the good, and leaving the bad. I do not see anything to be concerned about with this at all.
Nothing wrong at all. Many people have read Ayn Rand. But does a politician have to make a big deal about it? Did it buy him anything?
 
At core, I do not understand why Mr. Obama will not release his school records. He is asking us to re-elect him to the highest office in the country.
By definition, this is a position of “Trust.”
It was Ronald Reagan who said, “Trust, but Verify.”
Re his school records, Mr. Obama has said, “Trust me.”
Release the school records, Mr. Obama.
Then we can move on to other issues
Thank you for the compliment, Robert. I’m afraid I may have to disagree with you again. Are school records comparable to tax returns? IOW, what would school records show about a candidate for President, except that he was not such a good student? Or, in Obama’s case, are you referring to the birther argument related to his birth certificate, which I believe he DID produce but was still rejected by some Republicans? Is it that the school records might offer further proof whether Obama was born in the US? I’m not sure what you mean exactly by referring to Obama’s school records. Further, is it customary for Presidential candidates to reveal their school records? I honestly don’t know; maybe it is. I do know that all candidates reveal their tax returns, however. Why do think that is so? Perhaps to reveal whether they are honest with respect to their finances and have obeyed the tax laws since this is considered important if one is running for the highest office in the country.

This is my final word on the topic. The thread is about Paul Ryan, not Mitt Romney.
 
I agree. People tend to diversify their investments and some of these investments may be in foreign instruments. This is common sense.

Also, when you have a system that is hostile to success and very uncertain, most everyone would keep their money offshore.
Are you calling the U.S. economic system hostile to success??? Really??? Seriously???
 
The notion that Obama gutted Medicare to pay for the Affordable Care Act is a red herring:

Here’s what the conservative Forbes.com fact checkers found:

Obamacare’s Medicare cuts don’t harm seniors’ health benefits

“Mitt Romney’s Medicare ad is dishonest and hypocritical,” claims Obama campaign spokeswoman Lis Smith. “The savings his ad attacks do not cut a single guaranteed Medicare benefit.”

This is a deeply misleading statement by the campaign. It’s true that the Obamacare Medicare cuts don’t make any changes to the Medicare insurance benefit, which means that the health-care services covered by the Medicare insurance plan are technically unchanged. But Obamacare’s Medicare cuts are bluntly structured, in ways that will harm seniors’ access to care.

Obamacare’s Medicare cuts don’t harm seniors’ health benefits

“Mitt Romney’s Medicare ad is dishonest and hypocritical,” claims Obama campaign spokeswoman Lis Smith. “The savings his ad attacks do not cut a single guaranteed Medicare benefit.”

This is a deeply misleading statement by the campaign. It’s true that the Obamacare Medicare cuts don’t make any changes to the Medicare insurance benefit, which means that the health-care services covered by the Medicare insurance plan are technically unchanged. But Obamacare’s Medicare cuts are bluntly structured, in ways that will harm seniors’ access to care.

Of the $716 billion in cuts, $415 billion come in the form of “updates to fee-for-service payment rates,” a euphemism for reducing Medicare’s payments to doctors and hospitals. But what happens when you reduce payments to doctors? Doctors stop being willing to see Medicare patients. And if you can’t actually get a doctor’s appointment, what does it really matter what your insurance plan covers on paper?

We already see this happening in the Medicaid program, where sick and injured children can’t get appointments to deal with urgent medical conditions, because Medicaid so severely underpays doctors relative to private insurers. By the end of this decade, under Obamacare, Medicare reimbursement rates are set to fall below those of Medicaid.

The Obama administration’s own Medicare actuary, Richard Foster, has explained that the Obamacare Medicare cuts could make unprofitable 15 percent of hospitals serving Medicare patients. “It is doubtful that many [hospitals and other health care providers] will be able to improve their own productivity to the degree” necessary to accommodate the cuts, Foster has written. “Thus, providers for whom Medicare constitutes a substantial portion of their business could find it difficult to remain profitable, and, absent legislative intervention, might end their participation in the program (possibly jeopardizing care for beneficiaries. [Our] simulations…suggest that roughly 15 percent of [hospitalization] providers would become unprofitable within the 10-year projection as a result of the [spending cuts].”

Sarah Kliff cited a study yesterday that showed that every $1,000 that a hospital lost in Medicare reimbursements was associated with a 6-8 percent increase in mortality rates from heart attacks. John Goodman pointed out in the Wall Street Journal that Obamacare’s coverage expansion will not be accompanied by an increase in the supply of doctors, which will lead doctors to focus their time on the privately-insured patients who pay them the best.

APOTHEFACT CONCLUSION: Seniors’ benefits won’t change on paper. But they will change in reality, because fewer and fewer doctors will accept their insurance.
 
The notion that Obama gutted Medicare to pay for the Affordable Care Act is a red herring:

Here’s what the conservative Forbes.com fact checkers found:

Obamacare’s Medicare cuts don’t harm seniors’ health benefits

“Mitt Romney’s Medicare ad is dishonest and hypocritical,” claims Obama campaign spokeswoman Lis Smith. “The savings his ad attacks do not cut a single guaranteed Medicare benefit.”

This is a deeply misleading statement by the campaign. It’s true that the Obamacare Medicare cuts don’t make any changes to the Medicare insurance benefit, which means that the health-care services covered by the Medicare insurance plan are technically unchanged. But Obamacare’s Medicare cuts are bluntly structured, in ways that will harm seniors’ access to care.

Obamacare’s Medicare cuts don’t harm seniors’ health benefits

“Mitt Romney’s Medicare ad is dishonest and hypocritical,” claims Obama campaign spokeswoman Lis Smith. “The savings his ad attacks do not cut a single guaranteed Medicare benefit.”

This is a deeply misleading statement by the campaign. It’s true that the Obamacare Medicare cuts don’t make any changes to the Medicare insurance benefit, which means that the health-care services covered by the Medicare insurance plan are technically unchanged. But Obamacare’s Medicare cuts are bluntly structured, in ways that will harm seniors’ access to care.

Of the $716 billion in cuts, $415 billion come in the form of “updates to fee-for-service payment rates,” a euphemism for reducing Medicare’s payments to doctors and hospitals. But what happens when you reduce payments to doctors? Doctors stop being willing to see Medicare patients. And if you can’t actually get a doctor’s appointment, what does it really matter what your insurance plan covers on paper?

We already see this happening in the Medicaid program, where sick and injured children can’t get appointments to deal with urgent medical conditions, because Medicaid so severely underpays doctors relative to private insurers. By the end of this decade, under Obamacare, Medicare reimbursement rates are set to fall below those of Medicaid.

The Obama administration’s own Medicare actuary, Richard Foster, has explained that the Obamacare Medicare cuts could make unprofitable 15 percent of hospitals serving Medicare patients. “It is doubtful that many [hospitals and other health care providers] will be able to improve their own productivity to the degree” necessary to accommodate the cuts, Foster has written. “Thus, providers for whom Medicare constitutes a substantial portion of their business could find it difficult to remain profitable, and, absent legislative intervention, might end their participation in the program (possibly jeopardizing care for beneficiaries. [Our] simulations…suggest that roughly 15 percent of [hospitalization] providers would become unprofitable within the 10-year projection as a result of the [spending cuts].”

Sarah Kliff cited a study yesterday that showed that every $1,000 that a hospital lost in Medicare reimbursements was associated with a 6-8 percent increase in mortality rates from heart attacks. John Goodman pointed out in the Wall Street Journal that Obamacare’s coverage expansion will not be accompanied by an increase in the supply of doctors, which will lead doctors to focus their time on the privately-insured patients who pay them the best.

APOTHEFACT CONCLUSION: Seniors’ benefits won’t change on paper. But they will change in reality, because fewer and fewer doctors will accept their insurance.
How is it a red herring? This fact check confirmed what the Republicans have been saying…

God bless.

-Paul
 
Personally, I think this whole Ayn Rand thing is totally overblown by those on the left with a two-fold agenda. One, to defame Paul Ryan, and two, by extension, to undermine Catholicism.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with reading material and extracting the good, and leaving the bad. I do not see anything to be concerned about with this at all.

God bless.

-Paul
I agree and couldn’t care less whether Paul Ryan read and likes Ayn Rand’s individualistic economic philosophy. His appreciation of her writing shows an inquisitive mind (although it was typical reading for his adolescent generation) and has nothing to do with his Catholic beliefs. In my view, it’s a non-issue.
 
I agree and couldn’t care less whether Paul Ryan read and likes Ayn Rand’s individualistic economic philosophy. His appreciation of her writing shows an inquisitive mind (although it was typical reading for his adolescent generation) and has nothing to do with his Catholic beliefs. In my view, it’s a non-issue.
Precisely, meltzerboy, and bolding mine. Not only was it typical reading, virtually every adolescent in every generation believes he or she has “discovered” the secrets to the universe – temporarily, haha – because that’s what that stage is all about: exposure, and the continuation of trends begun in earlier adolescence to swing “wildly” from intellectual school to intellectual school. It is part of the natural intellectual instability of that time period, and also part of this phase of “trying on” ideas.

Raise your hand, CAF’ers, if you never once in your own adolescence were “guilty” of latching on to one utopian idea or another, and/or “deciding” you had solved all the problems of the universe, and/or resorted to a superficial philosophy of one form or another.

The whole national discussion is childish and diversionary, and it neither inspires me to vote for the ticket nor discourages me from doing so. Nor should it do either for any other voter. Ayn Rand is dead. Won’t be a Cabinet member or chief of staff. Not in anybody’s dreams and not even as a wish-fulfillment.
 
It’s not that the “government” (our elected lawmakers) should “act like Jesus,” but it should be driven by compassion and do no harm to its citizens.
And there are many good people who see this ‘compassion’ as hurting the american family, the individual, and negatively impacting business and job growth …
A budget that puts massive military spending, or handouts to the rich, above the needs of the old or the infirm is corrupt.
This is just undocumented blather - that compassionate spending you mentioned above is greater then the military spending … and the first role of the federal government is to defend the citizens - its primary purpose is not to dictate how social spending it to be allocated …
There’s no religious context there at all, except that men (and women) of good conscience (ie, the Bishops) have spoken out against the Ryan budget.
Many women and men of good conscience who work every day to solve homelessness, poverty and other social ills like addictions and assistance to the elderly have spoken out*** in favor*** of the Ryan plan … and it was not “the Bishops” that spoke out against the Ryan plan - two Bishops - only two - speaking only for themselves and not against the enire plan … just as many Bishops have spoken in support of Ryan :)

And one wonders why the same people who want to trump the words of these two Bishops :confused: can totally ignore the plurality of Bishops and Church teaching on Abortion, Euthanasia,Traditional Marriage … 🤷
The GOP, or most Republicans, have no problem rationalizing the situation to benefit their real overlords–corporate America.
Broad brush accusations like this accomplish what exactly …

I personally know many of those mean republicans who work with and support food pantries, help families struggling to pay their rent, their medical bills, etc … they help people find jobs - they truly care, seeing CHrist in the other and putting their faith into practice
 
Thank you for the compliment, Robert. I’m afraid I may have to disagree with you again. Are school records comparable to tax returns? IOW, what would school records show about a candidate for President, except that he was not such a good student? Or, in Obama’s case, are you referring to the birther argument related to his birth certificate, which I believe he DID produce but was still rejected by some Republicans? Is it that the school records might offer further proof whether Obama was born in the US? I’m not sure what you mean exactly by referring to Obama’s school records. Further, is it customary for Presidential candidates to reveal their school records? I honestly don’t know; maybe it is. I do know that all candidates reveal their tax returns, however. Why do think that is so? Perhaps to reveal whether they are honest with respect to their finances and have obeyed the tax laws since this is considered important if one is running for the highest office in the country.

This is my final word on the topic. The thread is about Paul Ryan, not Mitt Romney.
I think his tax returns are as inconsequential as the school records/transcripts, unless he did something illegal. I highly doubt that, because the IRS would be going after him right now. If you are worried about honesty regarding taxes, then people can be equally worried about honesty on school records. And, you may have noticed that school records/performance were a big deal to people during the Bush years for some reason. It is hypocritical for Democrats to now consider them a minor thing.
 
The notion that Obama gutted Medicare to pay for the Affordable Care Act is a red herring:

Here’s what the conservative Forbes.com fact checkers found:

Obamacare’s Medicare cuts don’t harm seniors’ health benefits

“Mitt Romney’s Medicare ad is dishonest and hypocritical,” claims Obama campaign spokeswoman Lis Smith. “The savings his ad attacks do not cut a single guaranteed Medicare benefit.”

This is a deeply misleading statement by the campaign. It’s true that the Obamacare Medicare cuts don’t make any changes to the Medicare insurance benefit, which means that the health-care services covered by the Medicare insurance plan are technically unchanged. But Obamacare’s Medicare cuts are bluntly structured, in ways that will harm seniors’ access to care.

Obamacare’s Medicare cuts don’t harm seniors’ health benefits

“Mitt Romney’s Medicare ad is dishonest and hypocritical,” claims Obama campaign spokeswoman Lis Smith. “The savings his ad attacks do not cut a single guaranteed Medicare benefit.”

This is a deeply misleading statement by the campaign. It’s true that the Obamacare Medicare cuts don’t make any changes to the Medicare insurance benefit, which means that the health-care services covered by the Medicare insurance plan are technically unchanged. But Obamacare’s Medicare cuts are bluntly structured, in ways that will harm seniors’ access to care.

Of the $716 billion in cuts, $415 billion come in the form of “updates to fee-for-service payment rates,” a euphemism for reducing Medicare’s payments to doctors and hospitals. But what happens when you reduce payments to doctors? Doctors stop being willing to see Medicare patients. And if you can’t actually get a doctor’s appointment, what does it really matter what your insurance plan covers on paper?

We already see this happening in the Medicaid program, where sick and injured children can’t get appointments to deal with urgent medical conditions, because Medicaid so severely underpays doctors relative to private insurers. By the end of this decade, under Obamacare, Medicare reimbursement rates are set to fall below those of Medicaid.

The Obama administration’s own Medicare actuary, Richard Foster, has explained that the Obamacare Medicare cuts could make unprofitable 15 percent of hospitals serving Medicare patients. “It is doubtful that many [hospitals and other health care providers] will be able to improve their own productivity to the degree” necessary to accommodate the cuts, Foster has written. “Thus, providers for whom Medicare constitutes a substantial portion of their business could find it difficult to remain profitable, and, absent legislative intervention, might end their participation in the program (possibly jeopardizing care for beneficiaries. [Our] simulations…suggest that roughly 15 percent of [hospitalization] providers would become unprofitable within the 10-year projection as a result of the [spending cuts].”

Sarah Kliff cited a study yesterday that showed that every $1,000 that a hospital lost in Medicare reimbursements was associated with a 6-8 percent increase in mortality rates from heart attacks. John Goodman pointed out in the Wall Street Journal that Obamacare’s coverage expansion will not be accompanied by an increase in the supply of doctors, which will lead doctors to focus their time on the privately-insured patients who pay them the best.

APOTHEFACT CONCLUSION: Seniors’ benefits won’t change on paper. But they will change in reality, because fewer and fewer doctors will accept their insurance.
Accountable Care Organisations will be created in ObamaTax. Doctors and hospitals running them. Many elderly who with out ObamaTax can choose a physician might find themselves under the Accountable Care Organisations with a physician who might not want them to use a specialist they would of otherwise used because of financial incentive

24% are 14 million who will be impacted my medicare advantage cuts

Because ObamaTax reduces payment to medicare advantage plans that will force insurers to withdraw plans from some markets, cut back extra benefits to the elderly or in some rural places these cuts might force beneficiaries with no option but the traditional program because cuts may force all existing medicare advantage program out

Enacted in 2003 medicare drug benefit provides insurance coverage for each year below $2700 and above $6154. Gap between the 2 is called donut hole. ObamaTax increases the $2700 limit

Because of ObamaTax many elderly will end up using higher cost products with no major change in the quality of care because the CBO has said the increasing of the limit in ObamaTax will raise per prescription costs

Medicare cuts in ObamaTax effect the elderly by cutting medicare advantage payment rates by 2017 an average of $3700 for every person. 27% below what recipients would receive with out ObamaTax. If they lose $3700 annually in Medicare from 65 years old until their death at 78 they would lose $44000 in benefits and medicare spending would increase $25 billion with ObamaTax

ObamaTax 15 member bureaucrat unelected board will likely impact the elderly’s health care because they will look at health care records, and how many quality years you have left and if they believe you have few quality years and the cost of a treatment is high you may get rationing
 
The notion that Obama gutted Medicare to pay for the Affordable Care Act is a red herring:

Here’s what the conservative Forbes.com fact checkers found:

Obamacare’s Medicare cuts don’t harm seniors’ health benefits

“Mitt Romney’s Medicare ad is dishonest and hypocritical,” claims Obama campaign spokeswoman Lis Smith. “The savings his ad attacks do not cut a single guaranteed Medicare benefit.”

This is a deeply misleading statement by the campaign. It’s true that the Obamacare Medicare cuts don’t make any changes to the Medicare insurance benefit, which means that the health-care services covered by the Medicare insurance plan are technically unchanged. But Obamacare’s Medicare cuts are bluntly structured, in ways that will harm seniors’ access to care.

Obamacare’s Medicare cuts don’t harm seniors’ health benefits

“Mitt Romney’s Medicare ad is dishonest and hypocritical,” claims Obama campaign spokeswoman Lis Smith. “The savings his ad attacks do not cut a single guaranteed Medicare benefit.”

This is a deeply misleading statement by the campaign. It’s true that the Obamacare Medicare cuts don’t make any changes to the Medicare insurance benefit, which means that the health-care services covered by the Medicare insurance plan are technically unchanged. But Obamacare’s Medicare cuts are bluntly structured, in ways that will harm seniors’ access to care.

Of the $716 billion in cuts, $415 billion come in the form of “updates to fee-for-service payment rates,” a euphemism for reducing Medicare’s payments to doctors and hospitals. But what happens when you reduce payments to doctors? Doctors stop being willing to see Medicare patients. And if you can’t actually get a doctor’s appointment, what does it really matter what your insurance plan covers on paper?

We already see this happening in the Medicaid program, where sick and injured children can’t get appointments to deal with urgent medical conditions, because Medicaid so severely underpays doctors relative to private insurers. By the end of this decade, under Obamacare, Medicare reimbursement rates are set to fall below those of Medicaid.

The Obama administration’s own Medicare actuary, Richard Foster, has explained that the Obamacare Medicare cuts could make unprofitable 15 percent of hospitals serving Medicare patients. “It is doubtful that many [hospitals and other health care providers] will be able to improve their own productivity to the degree” necessary to accommodate the cuts, Foster has written. “Thus, providers for whom Medicare constitutes a substantial portion of their business could find it difficult to remain profitable, and, absent legislative intervention, might end their participation in the program (possibly jeopardizing care for beneficiaries. [Our] simulations…suggest that roughly 15 percent of [hospitalization] providers would become unprofitable within the 10-year projection as a result of the [spending cuts].”

Sarah Kliff cited a study yesterday that showed that every $1,000 that a hospital lost in Medicare reimbursements was associated with a 6-8 percent increase in mortality rates from heart attacks. John Goodman pointed out in the Wall Street Journal that Obamacare’s coverage expansion will not be accompanied by an increase in the supply of doctors, which will lead doctors to focus their time on the privately-insured patients who pay them the best.

APOTHEFACT CONCLUSION: Seniors’ benefits won’t change on paper. But they will change in reality, because fewer and fewer doctors will accept their insurance.
Accountable Care Organisations will be created in ObamaTax. Doctors and hospitals running them. Many elderly who with out ObamaTax can choose a physician might find themselves under the Accountable Care Organisations with a physician who might not want them to use a specialist they would of otherwise used because of financial incentive

Because ObamaTax reduces payment to medicare advantage plans that will force insurers to withdraw plans from some markets, cut back extra benefits to the elderly or in some rural places these cuts might force beneficiaries with no option but the traditional program because cuts may force all existing medicare advantage program out

Enacted in 2003 medicare drug benefit provides insurance coverage for each year below $2700 and above $6154. Gap between the 2 is called donut hole. ObamaTax increases the $2700 limit

Because of ObamaTax many elderly will end up using higher cost products with no major change in the quality of care because the CBO has said the increasing of the limit in ObamaTax will raise per prescription costs

Medicare cuts in ObamaTax effect the elderly by cutting medicare advantage payment rates by 2017 an average of $3700 for every person. 27% below what recipients would receive with out ObamaTax. If they lose $3700 annually in Medicare from 65 years old until their death at 78 they would lose $44000 in benefits and medicare spending would increase $25 billion with ObamaTax

ObamaTax 15 member bureaucrat unelected board will likely impact the elderly’s health care because they will look at health care records, and how many quality years you have left and if they believe you have few quality years and the cost of a treatment is high you may get rationing
 
Are you calling the U.S. economic system hostile to success??? Really??? Seriously???
When you have people like Romney or corporations like Apple who keep their money offshore, they do it for good reason.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top