Thursday, June 7, 2012
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
The Republican Way: Steal from the Poor, Give To The Rich
The Republican Way: Steal from the Poor, Give To The Rich
So what do the poor in America have that the rich are in need of, and willing to steal? Think about your answer for a short while. This is simply a talking point that democrats and liberals use to frighten voters of lower income.
In the video posted in the above article there is discussion about oil company subsidies. Actually the federal government does not directly pay subsidies to oil companies. What is called a subsidy in this context is actually a tax deduction that "all" manufacturing firms can take for investigating in equipment used in the production process of any company, including P&G, Ford, GE, or any other company in a manufacturing business.
In order to incentivize reinvestment of profits into manufacturing, the government allows any company to deduct a portion of the dollars invested from their taxes. Big oil is not doing anything that any other company is not permitted to do in this regard.
Do you think most voters know and understand this? Of course not. Because most voters do not read and investigate claims made by politicians in the public debate. They hear sound bites which are made to convince them to vote a particular way.
Did you know that the state and federal governments take more money from the sale of a gallon of gasoline than the oil companies that produce it do? Big oil companies make less than $0.07 per gallon of gasoline profits, and the taxes on a gallon are approximately $0.48. Does anyone tell you this? And the amount of tax deductions big oil takes for manufacturing is less than the federal government spends in a few hours each day of the year.
So what do the poor in America have that the rich are in need of, and willing to steal? Think about your answer for a short while. This is simply a talking point that democrats and liberals use to frighten voters of lower income.
In the video posted in the above article there is discussion about oil company subsidies. Actually the federal government does not directly pay subsidies to oil companies. What is called a subsidy in this context is actually a tax deduction that "all" manufacturing firms can take for investigating in equipment used in the production process of any company, including P&G, Ford, GE, or any other company in a manufacturing business.
In order to incentivize reinvestment of profits into manufacturing, the government allows any company to deduct a portion of the dollars invested from their taxes. Big oil is not doing anything that any other company is not permitted to do in this regard.
Do you think most voters know and understand this? Of course not. Because most voters do not read and investigate claims made by politicians in the public debate. They hear sound bites which are made to convince them to vote a particular way.
Did you know that the state and federal governments take more money from the sale of a gallon of gasoline than the oil companies that produce it do? Big oil companies make less than $0.07 per gallon of gasoline profits, and the taxes on a gallon are approximately $0.48. Does anyone tell you this? And the amount of tax deductions big oil takes for manufacturing is less than the federal government spends in a few hours each day of the year.
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Nobody Asked Me
Nobody asked me how to solve the cost of health care and health insurance, but I have an answer.
History:
Employers lobbied congress during the depression to provide health insurance as an employee benefit because they could not offer pay increases due to wage controls. Congress authorized employers to take tax deductions for providing employee health care plans. And so, many employers continue to this date to provide health care insurance to their employees and take a tax deduction for doing so. If your employer provides health care insurance you probably are grateful for it, utilize it, and are generally happy for it, though your share of the cost has increased over time. Your boss still takes a tax deduction for his share of the cost, but you cannot do so.
Under this model the cost of providing health and medical care to people is not paid for by the recipients of the services. Generally speaking, when the recipient of products and services is also paying for it, costs for those products and services is lower. This is because the payor demands more for his money, and is more thoughtful and cautious when making spending decisions. When a third party pays for services, the recipient does not care how much it costs.
Ask yourself, when someone buys you dinner do you eat the higher priced menu items? If some pays for your vacation, do you spend their money with the same degree of caution your would your own, or do you simply care less?
Proposal:
Congress should pass a law that provides for the following. First, stop authorizing this type of employer paid benefit plan and remove the tax deduction for it. Second, pass along the savings to the employer directly to employee pay checks. Third, allow individuals to shop for health insurance the same way they do car, home and life insurance.
If you go to the doctor under the current model, and he tells you you need a test or procedure, you simply schedule it and someone else pays for it. If you are told to get an MRI on your knee, do you call around and ask what various providers charge for an MRI? Or do you go to the provider your doctor tells you to go to? If you wreck your car, you get three bids and decide which shop will perform the repairs. Why? Because you will be paying your car insurance bill, and the rate is set by the cost of repairing your car.
Cost/Benefits:
The cost of health care will eventually go down because patients will have more control over the amount and type of care they receive and pay for. When it comes out of your pocket, you're more concerned about how and how much gets spent.
The suggestion I make for purchasing health insurance is to let people buy their own, set their own limits, deductibles and schedules of what gets paid, and let them pay the related premium and take a certain level of risk they are willing to take. That works very well to control costs, but some who are hit with that catastrophy won't have a policy to cover it.
If that catastrophy happens there are choices to be made. As a matter of policy we must be willing to make hard choices. Those include, allowing service providers to provide the service at reduced pricing or free of charge, or rejecting services or requests for service.
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
Law Student Demands Free Contraceptives
Ms. Sandra Fluke made statements in Washington DC concerning her use of contraceptives, and the need for Georgetown University to pay for her contraceptives. Rush Limbaugh called her a slut, and then apologized for the comment. Ms. Fluke wants Limbaugh fired, even though he is self employed. I guess he is to fire himself. She claims his comments are tantamount to violence against women. His show is produced by him and syndicated. It has the largest listening audience of any radio program in the USA.
Recent decisions by HHS Secretary Sebelius mandate Catholic institutions, of which Georgetown University is one, must cover, with no co-pay, contraceptives. This violated church teachings which were clearly stated in Pope Paul VI Humanae Vitae, 1968, that artificial birth control is both unnatural and immoral.
Ms. Fluke claims to spend $3000 annually on birth control. For the life of me I cannot comprehend why anyone other than her should pay for her conception-free sex life. So, even though Ms. Fluke is not an employee of GU, but a student, this catholic institution should violate catholic beliefs and provide her with contraceptives. So much for the first amendment of the US Constitution which garentees freedom of religion.
Friday, February 17, 2012
98% of Catholic Women Use Contraception. Really?
Actually this is not quite true as evidenced by the actual report from the Guttenmacher Institute. Guttennacher released a report in April 2011, on findings of a survey regarding use of contraception among women of Christian religions, including Catholics. If you pay attention to the debate over President Obama's ruling on religious organizations providing contraceptive care to employees, you would have heard that 98% of catholic women use contraception other than natural family planning.
This blog post refutes that report and provides insight into just how Guttenmacher came to their conclusion.
Here is a brief summary of how Guttenmaher set up the survey to scew the data.
1) They didn’t count anyone that wasn’t a Catholic woman between the ages of 15-44. Obviously, that eliminates everyone that might be too old or too young to be having sex. But, it also eliminates tens of millions of people who are not too old to be having sex.
2) They didn’t count anyone who was pregnant. Obviously, the vast majority of these people were not using contraception.
3) They didn’t count anyone who just gave birth. Obviously, the vast majority of these people were not using contraception.
4) They didn’t count anyone who hadn’t had sex in the last three months. No, this doesn’t just eliminate ugly people. It eliminates every non-married person who is listening to the Catholic church enough to not have sex outside of marriage. In other words, the most likely group to be listening to the Catholic church about contraception.
5) They didn’t count anyone who was trying to get pregnant, or was indifferent to becoming pregnant. In other words, they eliminated the single most likely group to avoid contraception.
6) They didn’t count anyone who was having sex, trying to avoid pregnancy, but also not using a specific contraception method. I guess this would be the good ol’ “pull-n-pray”—which, incidentally–isn’t as religious as it sounds.
7) Two out of every five women in the survey were so incredibly Catholic that they either attended church services “less than once a month” or “never.” Never?
To summarize:
The study asked a bunch of Catholic women who are both 1) regularly having sex and 2) trying not to get pregnant, whether they’re using contraception. How did you not get 100% on that question? I mean—what are your other options in that situation? Specifically searching out people who are medically sterile? Buying the Cialis mailing list and trying to find guys with ED? Punching dudes in the groin before you hook up?
This blog post refutes that report and provides insight into just how Guttenmacher came to their conclusion.
Here is a brief summary of how Guttenmaher set up the survey to scew the data.
1) They didn’t count anyone that wasn’t a Catholic woman between the ages of 15-44. Obviously, that eliminates everyone that might be too old or too young to be having sex. But, it also eliminates tens of millions of people who are not too old to be having sex.
2) They didn’t count anyone who was pregnant. Obviously, the vast majority of these people were not using contraception.
3) They didn’t count anyone who just gave birth. Obviously, the vast majority of these people were not using contraception.
4) They didn’t count anyone who hadn’t had sex in the last three months. No, this doesn’t just eliminate ugly people. It eliminates every non-married person who is listening to the Catholic church enough to not have sex outside of marriage. In other words, the most likely group to be listening to the Catholic church about contraception.
5) They didn’t count anyone who was trying to get pregnant, or was indifferent to becoming pregnant. In other words, they eliminated the single most likely group to avoid contraception.
6) They didn’t count anyone who was having sex, trying to avoid pregnancy, but also not using a specific contraception method. I guess this would be the good ol’ “pull-n-pray”—which, incidentally–isn’t as religious as it sounds.
7) Two out of every five women in the survey were so incredibly Catholic that they either attended church services “less than once a month” or “never.” Never?
To summarize:
The study asked a bunch of Catholic women who are both 1) regularly having sex and 2) trying not to get pregnant, whether they’re using contraception. How did you not get 100% on that question? I mean—what are your other options in that situation? Specifically searching out people who are medically sterile? Buying the Cialis mailing list and trying to find guys with ED? Punching dudes in the groin before you hook up?
Thursday, February 16, 2012
A failure of imagination put Metro on wrong track - HUMAN EVENTS
A failure of imagination put Metro on wrong track - HUMAN EVENTS
Cincinnati's street car planners should read this article and hoepfully make chanes to existing plans. I doubt they have considered the points Mr. Barone raised.
Cincinnati's street car planners should read this article and hoepfully make chanes to existing plans. I doubt they have considered the points Mr. Barone raised.
Thursday, February 9, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)