ObamaCare: Most of the Employed will not qualify for 'family subsidies'.

[Moses]

I'm from the government and I'm here to help ya!



Federal Rule Limits Aid to Families Who Can’t Afford Employers’ Health
Coverage
By ROBERT PEAR
Published: January 30, 2013

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration adopted a strict definition of
affordable health insurance on Wednesday that will deny federal financial
assistance to millions of Americans with modest incomes who cannot afford
family coverage offered by employers.

In deciding whether an employer’s health plan is affordable, the Internal
Revenue Service said it would look at the cost of coverage only for an
individual employee, not for a family. Family coverage might be
prohibitively expensive, but federal subsidies would not be available to
help buy insurance for children in the family.

The policy decision came in a final regulation interpreting ambiguous
language in the 2010 health care law.

Under the law, most Americans will be required to have health insurance
starting next year. Low- and middle-income people can get tax credits to
help them pay premiums, unless they have access to affordable coverage
from an employer.

The law specifies that employer-sponsored insurance is not affordable if a
worker’s share of the premium is more than 9.5 percent of the worker’s
household income. The I.R.S. said this calculation should be based solely
on the cost of individual coverage, what the worker would pay for
“self-only coverage.”

“This is bad news for kids,” said Jocelyn A. Guyer, an executive director
of the Center for Children and Families at Georgetown University. “We can
see kids falling through the cracks. They will lack access to affordable
employer-based family coverage and still be locked out of tax credits to
help them buy coverage for their kids in the marketplaces, or exchanges,
being established in every state.”

In 2012, according to an annual survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation,
total premiums for employer-sponsored health insurance averaged $5,615 a
year for single coverage and $15,745 for family coverage. The employee’s
share of the premium averaged $951 for individual coverage and more than
four times as much, $4,316, for family coverage.

Under the I.R.S. rule, such costs would be considered affordable for a
family making $35,000 a year, even though the family would have to spend
12 percent of its income for full coverage under the employer’s plan.

The tax agency proposed this approach in August 2011 and made no change in
the definition of “affordable coverage” despite protests from advocates
for children and low-income people and many employers. Employers did not
want to be required to pay for coverage of employees’ dependents. But they
said that family members should have access to subsidies so they could buy
insurance on their own.

However, that would have increased costs to the government, which would
have been required to spend more on subsidies.

Paul W. Dennett, senior vice president of the American Benefits Council,
which represents many Fortune 500 companies, said: “Individuals who do not
have affordable family coverage should be eligible for premium tax credits
in the exchange. The final rule does not provide that.”

Under the law, people who go without insurance will generally be subject
to tax penalties. In a separate proposed regulation issued on Wednesday,
the Internal Revenue Service said that the uninsured children and spouse
of an employee would be exempt from the penalties if the cost of coverage
for the entire family under an employer’s plan was more than 8 percent of
household income.

Bruce Lesley, the president of First Focus, a child advocacy group, said:
“The administration recognizes that the cost of family coverage will be
unaffordable for many families. They will not have to pay the penalty. But
that will not be much of a consolation to families who cannot get health
insurance for their kids.”

The 2010 health care law extended Medicaid to many childless adults and
others who were previously ineligible. The Supreme Court said the
expansion of Medicaid was an option for states, not a requirement as
Congress had intended.

Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of health and human services, said
Wednesday that she wanted to use her discretion to prevent the imposition
of tax penalties on certain uninsured low-income people in states that
choose not to expand Medicaid.

A rule proposed by her department would guarantee an exemption from the
penalties for anyone found ineligible for Medicaid solely because of a
state’s decision not to expand the program. The administration said this
was “an appropriate use of the hardship exemption.”

About 20 states are expected to expand Medicaid; governors in other states
are opposed or uncommitted. Many illegal immigrants, prisoners and members
of certain religious groups opposed to the acceptance of insurance
benefits will also be exempt from penalties if they forgo coverage, the
administration said.

The Congressional Budget Office predicts that 30 million people will be
uninsured in 2016 and that 6 million of them will pay penalties.

[Joe Cooper]

Moses <Moses.of.t...@gmail.com-DESPAM> wrote in
news:ked08...@news1.newsguy.com:

> I'm from the government and I'm here to help ya!

Kool! Please increase my middle class taxes after promising not to. Reveal
your inner obama.

--
Enjoy Internet Privacy And Anonymity: http://hidemyass.com/vpn/r6995:5/

Obama to Top Brass: Will you fire on American Citizens?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzT6X3_Bg9o

[deadrat]

On 1/31/13 1:42 PM, Joe Cooper wrote:
> Moses <Moses.of.t...@gmail.com-DESPAM> wrote in
> news:ked08...@news1.newsguy.com:
>
>> I'm from the government and I'm here to help ya!
>
> Kool! Please increase my middle class taxes after promising not to. Reveal
> your inner obama.
>

Economic losers like you won't see their income taxes go up. Not to worry.

[Joe Cooper]

deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote in
news:Xfednby5u9wPRZfM...@giganews.com:

How proggie of you. Here, by the way, is how American families are
getting screwed by Empty Chair - bend over, you'll get yours soon:

(CNSNews.com) – In a final regulation issued Wednesday, the Internal
Revenue Service (IRS) assumed that under Obamacare the cheapest health
insurance plan available in 2016 for a family will cost $20,000 for the
year.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/irs-cheapest-obamacare-plan-will-be-
20000-family

PS: Only 212 days until National Empty Chair Day - will you be ready?
http://www.squidoo.com/national-empty-chair-day

[deadrat]

On 2/1/13 11:45 AM, Joe Cooper wrote:
> deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote in
> news:Xfednby5u9wPRZfM...@giganews.com:
>
>> On 1/31/13 1:42 PM, Joe Cooper wrote:
>>> Moses <Moses.of.t...@gmail.com-DESPAM> wrote in
>>> news:ked08...@news1.newsguy.com:
>>>
>>>> I'm from the government and I'm here to help ya!
>>>
>>> Kool! Please increase my middle class taxes after promising not to.
>>> Reveal your inner obama.
>
>> Economic losers like you won't see their income taxes go up. Not to
>> worry.
>
> How proggie of you. Here, by the way, is how American families are
> getting screwed by Empty Chair - bend over, you'll get yours soon:
>
> (CNSNews.com) – In a final regulation issued Wednesday, the Internal
> Revenue Service (IRS) assumed that under Obamacare the cheapest health
> insurance plan available in 2016 for a family will cost $20,000 for the
> year.

This is apparently from an example that the IRS gave about how to
calculate the penalty for not having insurance. Is there anything you
won't believe if it fits your pre-conceptions?

The penalty is capped at 2.5% of the amount over the filing limit. The
family in the example had an income of $120K, so the penalty would be
paid on about $100K and would be about $2500.

Still think a bronze plan will cost $20K?
>
> http://cnsnews.com/news/article/irs-cheapest-obamacare-plan-will-be-
> 20000-family

Ya get outside the bubble.
<snip/>

[hal lillywhite]

On 1 feb, 13:33, deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
> On 2/1/13 11:45 AM, Joe Cooper wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote in
> >news:Xfednby5u9wPRZfM...@giganews.com:
>
> >> On 1/31/13 1:42 PM, Joe Cooper wrote:

> >>> Moses <Moses.of.the.bibl...@gmail.com-DESPAM> wrote in

> >>>news:ked08...@news1.newsguy.com:
>
> >>>> I'm from the government and I'm here to help ya!
>
> >>> Kool! Please increase my middle class taxes after promising not to.
> >>> Reveal your inner obama.
>
> >> Economic losers like you won't see their income taxes go up.  Not to
> >> worry.
>
> > How proggie of you. Here, by the way, is how American families are
> > getting screwed by Empty Chair - bend over, you'll get yours soon:
>
> > (CNSNews.com) – In a final regulation issued Wednesday, the Internal
> > Revenue Service (IRS) assumed that under Obamacare the cheapest health
> > insurance plan available in 2016 for a family will cost $20,000 for the
> > year.
>
> This is apparently from an example that the IRS gave about how to
> calculate the penalty for not having insurance.  Is there anything you
> won't believe if it fits your pre-conceptions?
>
> The penalty is capped at 2.5% of the amount over the filing limit.  The
> family in the example had an income of $120K, so the penalty would be
> paid on about $100K and would be about $2500.
>
> Still think a bronze plan will cost $20K?

Read the actual article Sancho posted.

“The annual national average bronze plan premium for a family of 5 (2
adults, 3 children) is $20,000,” the regulation says.

(And bronze is the lowest level that meets the requirements.)

Don't confuse the premium with the penalty.

[deadrat]

I'll type more slowly so you can follow:

1. The $20K is an arbitrary figure used in an example of how to do tax
calculations. It likely has nothing to do with the real cost of health
insurance.

2. If the penalty is drastically lower than the insurance premiums, then
it's no deterrent at all, and the effect of the individual mandate will
be nullified. So it's likely that the $20K figure isn't realistic.

3. The IRS is not the agency that will be issuing statistics about
health insurance. That would be HHS.

4. CNSNews is a right-wing source with an agenda. Caveat lector.

Is any of this getting through?

[Bill Shatzer]

hal lillywhite wrote:

> On 1 feb, 13:33, deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:

-snip-

>>Still think a bronze plan will cost $20K?

> Read the actual article Sancho posted.
>
> “The annual national average bronze plan premium for a family of 5 (2
> adults, 3 children) is $20,000,” the regulation says.
>
> (And bronze is the lowest level that meets the requirements.)

It's CNS - not exactly even Faux Nooze when it comes to truth and
accuracy in reporting.

Perhaps you should reed the actual IRS paper which CNS references and
apparently relies on for this particular bit of pulp fiction.

http://www.irs.gov/PUP/newsroom/REG-148500-12%20FR.pdf

Page 56. Example 2.

First, and as a minor point, the IRS example posits a family of -four-
not five. Apparently CNS is deficient in reading or arithmetic or both.

Secondly, its an -example- not a prediction. The numbers were snatched
more or less out of thin air for ease of illustration and calculation.

And finally and most importantly, the example posits the costs of an
-employer- sponsored group health plan, not individual policies
purchased through the "exchanges". The costs in the example were set
deliberately high to illustrate what constitutes and does not constitute
a "lack of affordable coverage".

The mendacity of the ultra right wing knoweth no bounds.

peace and justice,

[hal lillywhite]

On Feb 1, 11:54 pm, Bill Shatzer <ww...@NOcornell.edu> wrote:
> hal lillywhite wrote:
> > On 1 feb, 13:33, deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>
> -snip-
>
> >>Still think a bronze plan will cost $20K?
> > Read the actual article Sancho posted.
>
> > “The annual national average bronze plan premium for a family of 5 (2
> > adults, 3 children) is $20,000,” the regulation says.
>
> > (And bronze is the lowest level that meets the requirements.)
>
> It's CNS - not exactly even Faux Nooze when it comes to truth and
> accuracy in reporting.
>
> Perhaps you should reed the actual IRS paper which CNS references and
> apparently relies on for this particular bit of pulp fiction.
>
> http://www.irs.gov/PUP/newsroom/REG-148500-12%20FR.pdf
>
> Page 56. Example 2.

"Under
paragraph (e)(1) of this section, B has affordable coverage for 2016
because B’s
required contribution ($5,000) does not exceed 8 percent of B’s
household income
($7,200). Under paragraph (e)(3)(ii)(B) of this section, the required
contribution for C,
D, and E is B's share of the cost for family coverage, $20,000."

Sounds worse than what the article describes. B pays $5,000 for
himself plus $20,000 for the rest of the family. I do admit that the
paragraph in question is written in legalese however so it is not all
that clear. It talks about paragraph (e)(1) whatever that is (can't
find it in that article). I surmise that it may exempt people for
which the $20,000 exceeds 8% of their income. Why should anyone be
forced to pay $20,000 a year for insurance?

> First, and as a minor point, the IRS example posits a family of -four-
> not five. Apparently CNS is deficient in reading or arithmetic or both.
>
> Secondly, its an -example- not a prediction. The numbers were snatched
> more or less out of thin air for ease of illustration and calculation.
>
> And finally and most importantly, the example posits the costs of an
> -employer- sponsored group health plan, not individual policies
> purchased through the "exchanges".

So what? They are still forcing expensive coverage on people. It
costs what it costs whether they take it from the employer or from the
employee directly.

> The costs in the example were set
> deliberately high to illustrate what constitutes and does not constitute
> a "lack of affordable coverage".
>
> The mendacity of the ultra right wing knoweth no bounds.

It pales compared to the mendacity of the leftists/statists. MSNBC
continues its practice of "creative" editing, this time making it seem
like the NRA was heckling a witness when they were doing no such
thing. The nice editors cut out the little bit about being open to
questions. And the people who were claiming that racist comments were
shouted at congresscritters about Obamacare when no evidence of such
has been found. And the accusations that the Tea Party is founded on
racism. In fact the whole "code words for racism" thing is dishonest.

[Moses]

On Sat, 2 Feb 2013 09:50:53 -0800 (PST), hal lillywhite
<hlil...@juno.com> wrote:

> Sounds worse than what the article describes. B pays $5,000 for
> himself plus $20,000 for the rest of the family.

Are you retarded? This is just an *example* and is not the actual cost of
health insurance for a family.

[deadrat]

This is an example calculation for determining taxes. The numbers are
arbitrary.

> Why should anyone be
> forced to pay $20,000 a year for insurance?

Nobody is being forced to pay $20K a year for insurance. That's the point.

>> First, and as a minor point, the IRS example posits a family of -four-
>> not five. Apparently CNS is deficient in reading or arithmetic or both.
>>
>> Secondly, its an -example- not a prediction. The numbers were snatched
>> more or less out of thin air for ease of illustration and calculation.
>>
>> And finally and most importantly, the example posits the costs of an
>> -employer- sponsored group health plan, not individual policies
>> purchased through the "exchanges".
>
> So what? They are still forcing expensive coverage on people.

They are not forcing expensive coverage on anyone. That's the point.

> It
> costs what it costs whether they take it from the employer or from the
> employee directly.

That's correct. Right now is costs whatever it costs, and if you cannot
afford it, then you have no insurance. That will change next year.

>> The costs in the example were set
>> deliberately high to illustrate what constitutes and does not constitute
>> a "lack of affordable coverage".
>>
>> The mendacity of the ultra right wing knoweth no bounds.
>
> It pales compared to the mendacity of the leftists/statists. MSNBC
> continues its practice of "creative" editing, this time making it seem
> like the NRA was heckling a witness when they were doing no such
> thing. The nice editors cut out the little bit about being open to
> questions. And the people who were claiming that racist comments were
> shouted at congresscritters about Obamacare when no evidence of such
> has been found. And the accusations that the Tea Party is founded on
> racism.

I'm no fan of MSNBC, but the pioneer in trying to disguise advocacy as
news is, of course, Faux News. Remember the Obama trip to India that
was costing $200M a day?

> In fact the whole "code words for racism" thing is dishonest.

As Bill Maher says, the problem with the Republican base these days is
that they're too dumb for code. So Rick Santorum has to say that he
doesn't want to give black people somebody else's money. And Newt
Gingrich has to talk about the "food stamp President." And the birthers
have to pitch fits over the Kenyan in the White House. Whattayathink
this stuff means?

The telling detail here, though, is the black Congressmen who said that
they were called names. No evidence for that, you say, dismissing the
eyewitness testimony. Well, sure. Ya can't trust "those" people, if ya
get my meaning.

[Bill Shatzer]

hal lillywhite wrote:

> On Feb 1, 11:54 pm, Bill Shatzer <ww...@NOcornell.edu> wrote:

>>hal lillywhite wrote:

>>>On 1 feb, 13:33, deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:

>>-snip-

>>>>Still think a bronze plan will cost $20K?

>>>Read the actual article Sancho posted.

>>>�The annual national average bronze plan premium for a family of 5 (2
>>>adults, 3 children) is $20,000,� the regulation says.

>>>(And bronze is the lowest level that meets the requirements.)

>>It's CNS - not exactly even Faux Nooze when it comes to truth and
>>accuracy in reporting.
>>
>>Perhaps you should reed the actual IRS paper which CNS references and
>>apparently relies on for this particular bit of pulp fiction.
>>
>>http://www.irs.gov/PUP/newsroom/REG-148500-12%20FR.pdf

>>Page 56. Example 2.

> "Under
> paragraph (e)(1) of this section, B has affordable coverage for 2016

> because B�s
> required contribution ($5,000) does not exceed 8 percent of B�s

> household income
> ($7,200). Under paragraph (e)(3)(ii)(B) of this section, the required
> contribution for C,
> D, and E is B's share of the cost for family coverage, $20,000."

> Sounds worse than what the article describes. B pays $5,000 for
> himself plus $20,000 for the rest of the family. I do admit that the
> paragraph in question is written in legalese however so it is not all
> that clear. It talks about paragraph (e)(1) whatever that is (can't
> find it in that article). I surmise that it may exempt people for
> which the $20,000 exceeds 8% of their income. Why should anyone be
> forced to pay $20,000 a year for insurance?

No one is "forced" to pay $20,000.

First, the example supposes that the $20,000 is the cost of family
coverage UNDER THE EMPLOYER SPONSORED health insurance plan.

More significantly, the $20,000 was used to illustrate that because of
that cost, the family members would be deemed not have access to
affordable health insurance and would be therefore eligible for health
insurance subsidies.

>>First, and as a minor point, the IRS example posits a family of -four-
>>not five. Apparently CNS is deficient in reading or arithmetic or both.
>>
>>Secondly, its an -example- not a prediction. The numbers were snatched
>>more or less out of thin air for ease of illustration and calculation.
>>
>>And finally and most importantly, the example posits the costs of an
>>-employer- sponsored group health plan, not individual policies
>>purchased through the "exchanges".

> So what? They are still forcing expensive coverage on people. It
> costs what it costs whether they take it from the employer or from the
> employee directly.

They are NOT. As the example makes clear, any costs over 8% of income
($7,200) are eligible for subsidies - not although necessarly under the
employer sponsored plan. They might be provided insurance through the
"exchanges" - which while perhaps not as extensive as coverage under the
employer's $20,000 a year plan, will none the less be sufficient to meet
the minimum standars (the Bronze Plan?) under the act.

If you have access to affordable insurance - in this case, insurance
costing less than $7,200 a year - you have to take it. If you don't,
then the other provisions of the law kick in.

In no case is a family earning $90,000 a year required to pay $20,000
for health insurance coverage.

peace and justice,

[Bill Graham]

Bill Shatzer wrote:
> hal lillywhite wrote:
>
>> On Feb 1, 11:54 pm, Bill Shatzer <ww...@NOcornell.edu> wrote:
>
>>> hal lillywhite wrote:
>
>>>> On 1 feb, 13:33, deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>
>>> -snip-
>
>>>>> Still think a bronze plan will cost $20K?
>
>>>> Read the actual article Sancho posted.
>

>>>> “The annual national average bronze plan premium for a family of 5
>>>> (2 adults, 3 children) is $20,000,” the regulation says.

>
>>>> (And bronze is the lowest level that meets the requirements.)
>
>>> It's CNS - not exactly even Faux Nooze when it comes to truth and
>>> accuracy in reporting.
>>>
>>> Perhaps you should reed the actual IRS paper which CNS references
>>> and apparently relies on for this particular bit of pulp fiction.
>>>
>>> http://www.irs.gov/PUP/newsroom/REG-148500-12%20FR.pdf
>
>>> Page 56. Example 2.
>
>> "Under
>> paragraph (e)(1) of this section, B has affordable coverage for 2016

>> because B’s
>> required contribution ($5,000) does not exceed 8 percent of B’s

What if you are retired and living off of your IRA? How do they calculate
your income then? Today, the banks disreguard your IRA income and just use
your Social Security check as your, "real" income. The fact that you have
some savings just doesn't compute with them anymore... They have assumed the
national socialist mindset.(thanks to the stupid liberals, who apparently
never save/invest a dime of their money in anything.)

[Sancho Panza]

On 2/2/2013 12:54 AM, Bill Shatzer wrote:
> hal lillywhite wrote:
>
>> On 1 feb, 13:33, deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>
> -snip-
>
>>> Still think a bronze plan will cost $20K?
>
>> Read the actual article Sancho posted.
>>

>> �The annual national average bronze plan premium for a family of 5 (2
>> adults, 3 children) is $20,000,� the regulation says.

>>
>> (And bronze is the lowest level that meets the requirements.)
>
> It's CNS - not exactly even Faux Nooze when it comes to truth and
> accuracy in reporting.
>
> Perhaps you should reed the actual IRS paper which CNS references and
> apparently relies on for this particular bit of pulp fiction.

What you call "pulp fiction" comes directly from Sebelius and her HHS.
Maybe you prefer the absolute malarkey of clw and other purveyors of
fantasy and phantom promises.

>
> http://www.irs.gov/PUP/newsroom/REG-148500-12%20FR.pdf
>
> Page 56. Example 2.
>
> First, and as a minor point, the IRS example posits a family of -four-
> not five. Apparently CNS is deficient in reading or arithmetic or both.

If you cannot correctly depict a 10-paragraph analysis, it is no wonder
you can't deal with a 73-page report.

The quoted example is from page 70, paragraph 2, followed by examples
for four-member and three-member families on pages 70 and 71. Gee, even
some legal briefs and court decisions must go on for similar lengths.

>
> Secondly, its an -example- not a prediction. The numbers were snatched
> more or less out of thin air for ease of illustration and calculation.

That is the way the Democratic majorities in the House and Senate
operated to push through passage of the Affordable Care Act, and
Sebelius is following through. The regulations, however, stand as they
are. Unless, of course, you have superior information.

>
> And finally and most importantly, the example posits the costs of an
> -employer- sponsored group health plan, not individual policies
> purchased through the "exchanges". The costs in the example were set
> deliberately high to illustrate what constitutes and does not constitute
> a "lack of affordable coverage".
>
> The mendacity of the ultra right wing knoweth no bounds.

"The costs in the example were set deliberately high" not by anyone
other than Sebelius and the HHS. You're barking up the wrong tree. No
one else constructed or selected the examples.

[Sancho Panza]

Maybe you can state what and where those "other provisions of the law"
because the two references in the HHS's newly promulgated law do not
mention subsidy or subsidies.

>
> In no case is a family earning $90,000 a year required to pay $20,000
> for health insurance coverage.

That $90,000 figure is yet another strawman. The analysis, as made clear
in paragraph 10, used the HHS figure of $120,000. And this fakeout from
someone who misquotes and then complains about family sizes of four and
five.

[Sancho Panza]

On 2/2/2013 4:54 PM, Bill Shatzer wrote:
> hal lillywhite wrote:
>
>> On Feb 1, 11:54 pm, Bill Shatzer <ww...@NOcornell.edu> wrote:
>
>>> hal lillywhite wrote:
>
>>>> On 1 feb, 13:33, deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>
>>> -snip-
>
>>>>> Still think a bronze plan will cost $20K?
>
>>>> Read the actual article Sancho posted.
>

>>>> “The annual national average bronze plan premium for a family of 5 (2
>>>> adults, 3 children) is $20,000,” the regulation says.

>
>>>> (And bronze is the lowest level that meets the requirements.)
>
>>> It's CNS - not exactly even Faux Nooze when it comes to truth and
>>> accuracy in reporting.
>>>
>>> Perhaps you should reed the actual IRS paper which CNS references and
>>> apparently relies on for this particular bit of pulp fiction.
>>>
>>> http://www.irs.gov/PUP/newsroom/REG-148500-12%20FR.pdf
>
>>> Page 56. Example 2.
>
>> "Under
>> paragraph (e)(1) of this section, B has affordable coverage for 2016

>> because B’s
>> required contribution ($5,000) does not exceed 8 percent of B’s

>> household income
>> ($7,200). Under paragraph (e)(3)(ii)(B) of this section, the required
>> contribution for C,
>> D, and E is B's share of the cost for family coverage, $20,000."
>
>> Sounds worse than what the article describes. B pays $5,000 for
>> himself plus $20,000 for the rest of the family. I do admit that the
>> paragraph in question is written in legalese however so it is not all
>> that clear. It talks about paragraph (e)(1) whatever that is (can't
>> find it in that article). I surmise that it may exempt people for
>> which the $20,000 exceeds 8% of their income. Why should anyone be
>> forced to pay $20,000 a year for insurance?
>
> No one is "forced" to pay $20,000.
>
> First, the example supposes that the $20,000 is the cost of family
> coverage UNDER THE EMPLOYER SPONSORED health insurance plan.
>
> More significantly, the $20,000 was used to illustrate that because of
> that cost, the family members would be deemed not have access to
> affordable health insurance and would be therefore eligible for health
> insurance subsidies.

As you state, you are discussing employer-sponsored plans. As apparently
eluded you unless the deflection was intentional, the 10-paragraph
analysis makes clear that the given example of the five-member family,
which you have eventually come around to finding, pertains to exempt people.

For clarification, here is the analysis which has been, expectedly, snipped:

January 31, 2013
By Matt Cover

(CNSNews.com) – In a final regulation issued Wednesday, the Internal
Revenue Service (IRS) assumed that under Obamacare the cheapest health
insurance plan available in 2016 for a family will cost $20,000 for the
year.

Under Obamacare, Americans will be required to buy health insurance or
pay a penalty to the IRS.

The IRS's assumption that the cheapest plan for a family will cost
$20,000 per year is found in examples the IRS gives to help people
understand how to calculate the penalty they will need to pay the
government if they do not buy a mandated health plan.

The examples point to families of four and families of five, both of
which the IRS expects in its assumptions to pay a minimum of $20,000 per
year for a bronze plan.

“The annual national average bronze plan premium for a family of 5 (2
adults, 3 children) is $20,000,” the regulation says.

Bronze will be the lowest tier health-insurance plan available under
Obamacare--after Silver, Gold, and Platinum. Under the law, the penalty
for not buying health insurance is supposed to be capped at either the
annual average Bronze premium, 2.5 percent of taxable income, or
$2,085.00 per family in 2016.

In the new final rules published Wednesday, IRS set in law the rules for
implementing the penalty Americans must pay if they fail to obey
Obamacare's mandate to buy insurance.

To help illustrate these rules, the IRS presented examples of different
situations families might find themselves in.

In the examples, the IRS assumes that families of five who are uninsured
would need to pay an average of $20,000 per year to purchase a Bronze
plan in 2016.

Using the conditions laid out in the regulations, the IRS calculates
that a family earning $120,000 per year that did not buy insurance would
need to pay a "penalty" (a word the IRS still uses despite the Supreme
Court ruling that it is in fact a "tax") of $2,400 in 2016."

[Bill Graham]

Since there is no constitutional restrictions against taxing yuou multiple
times on the same earnings, why would it matter whether they call it a tax
or a penalty? The direction of the money (from our pockets into theirs) is
the same in either case. And, should they need/want more money, they can
just do it again and again in either case.

[deadrat]

Yeah, those liberals are so stupid. Not like you or anything.

Oh, wait.

If you're on Social Security, then you're covered by Medicare, and none
of this applies to you.

[deadrat]

Hey! I ran across a sample calculation in an IRS publication about the
capital loss carryover. The example said that the capital gains in
question was $20K.

That must mean that I've got $20K coming. Everybody does, right? It
says so in the example.

Woo hoo!

[deadrat]

No, they didn't. The assumed that the family in the example would pay
$20K for a bronze plan.

>
> Using the conditions laid out in the regulations, the IRS calculates
> that a family earning $120,000 per year that did not buy insurance would
> need to pay a "penalty" (a word the IRS still uses despite the Supreme
> Court ruling that it is in fact a "tax") of $2,400 in 2016."

Does it hurt to be this ignorant? No?

Too bad.

The penalty is a penalty because it's levied for not following the
rules. Kinda like the penalty for filing late. You don't have to pay a
penalty if you follow the rules. That doesn't work for taxes. The
Supreme Court didn't rule that the penalty was a tax; a majority decided
that it was Constitutionally permissible under Congress' taxing
authority to apply the penalty for violations.

[Greegor]

> That must mean that I've got $20K coming.  Everybody does, right?  It
> says so in the example.
>
> Woo hoo!

That would cut into your SSI disability benefits wouldn't it, deadrat?

Why don't you address the "glitch" or hole in the program
that has been publicized recently?

[Greegor]

Why DID they use such a rediculously high figure on the example?

Was it to avoid the "glitch" or hole in coverage that was
recently acknowledged?

[Bill Shatzer]

Bill Graham wrote:

> What if you are retired and living off of your IRA? How do they
> calculate your income then?

They same way they calculate your income for other tax purposes.

Although, few retired folks will need to do any calculations at all as
Medicare meets the minimum insurance requirements.

> Today, the banks disreguard your IRA income
> and just use your Social Security check as your, "real" income.

I shouldn't think so. So long as one is taking the minimum required
withdrawals (rather than cashing out the entire balance in one year), it
should count as recurrent income just like income from any other source.

What is your source for this interesting factoid?

> The fact
> that you have some savings just doesn't compute with them anymore...
> They have assumed the national socialist mindset.(thanks to the stupid
> liberals, who apparently never save/invest a dime of their money in
> anything.)

Careful, you're starting to drool on your shirt.

peace and justice,

[Bill Graham]

Bill Shatzer wrote:
> Bill Graham wrote:
>
>> What if you are retired and living off of your IRA? How do they
>> calculate your income then?
>
> They same way they calculate your income for other tax purposes.
>
> Although, few retired folks will need to do any calculations at all as
> Medicare meets the minimum insurance requirements.

What about someone like me who doesn't want to live with, "Minimum health
insurance rewuirements"? I have always maintained the best I could get from
Blue-Cross Blue-Shield of Caslifornia. I neither want nor can avoid their
cheapo, government sponsored socialist programs, but as a taxpayer, I have
to psy for them anyway.

>> Today, the banks disreguard your IRA income
>> and just use your Social Security check as your, "real" income.
>
> I shouldn't think so. So long as one is taking the minimum required
> withdrawals (rather than cashing out the entire balance in one year),
> it should count as recurrent income just like income from any other
> source.

But it doesn't. Todays underwriters just look at my Social Security check.
They can't conceive of someone who actually saved and invested for his
retirement without government help. I had to abndon the last loan I applied
for because of this kind of short sighted thinking. Fortunately, I didn't
really need the loan but was just trying to take advantage of today's very
low rates. And that's another thing. Because I am earning more money be
keeping my money invested in the Stock Market, I choose to keep a large loan
on my house, and they can't understand that. They keep wsaying to me, "If
you have all that money, why don't you just pay off your house?" The idea
that I am better off with the money earning 7% + in the stock market while I
only pay 4-1/2% on the homeowners loan just seems to go over their miniscule
heads.....

[deadrat]

On 2/3/13 11:34 AM, Bill Graham wrote:
> Bill Shatzer wrote:
>> Bill Graham wrote:
>>
>>> What if you are retired and living off of your IRA? How do they
>>> calculate your income then?
>>
>> They same way they calculate your income for other tax purposes.
>>
>> Although, few retired folks will need to do any calculations at all as
>> Medicare meets the minimum insurance requirements.
>
> What about someone like me who doesn't want to live with, "Minimum
> health insurance rewuirements"? I have always maintained the best I
> could get from Blue-Cross Blue-Shield of Caslifornia. I neither want nor
> can avoid their cheapo, government sponsored socialist programs, but as
> a taxpayer, I have to psy for them anyway.

No, you don't, ignoramus. Keep your BCBS. It will count.
<snip/>

[Bill Shatzer]

Bill Graham wrote:
> Bill Shatzer wrote:

>> Bill Graham wrote:

>>> What if you are retired and living off of your IRA? How do they
>>> calculate your income then?

>> They same way they calculate your income for other tax purposes.

>> Although, few retired folks will need to do any calculations at all as
>> Medicare meets the minimum insurance requirements.

> What about someone like me who doesn't want to live with, "Minimum
> health insurance rewuirements"?

Then you're free to purchase whichever health insurance you wish at
whatever cost you wish, so long as it meets or exceeds the minimum
requirements.

Medicare, incidently, exceeds the minimum by a considerable margin.

> I have always maintained the best I
> could get from Blue-Cross Blue-Shield of Caslifornia. I neither want nor
> can avoid their cheapo, government sponsored socialist programs, but as
> a taxpayer, I have to psy for them anyway.

I'm not wild about paying for F-35 fighter jets at a quarter billion a
pop but I have to pay for them anyway.

That's kinda the nature of being a taxpayer.

>>> Today, the banks disreguard your IRA income
>>> and just use your Social Security check as your, "real" income.

>> I shouldn't think so. So long as one is taking the minimum required
>> withdrawals (rather than cashing out the entire balance in one year),
>> it should count as recurrent income just like income from any other
>> source.

> But it doesn't. Todays underwriters just look at my Social Security
> check. They can't conceive of someone who actually saved and invested
> for his retirement without government help.

Which sounds rather like a problem with the bank underwriters and not
the gubmint.

> I had to abndon the last
> loan I applied for because of this kind of short sighted thinking.
> Fortunately, I didn't really need the loan but was just trying to take
> advantage of today's very low rates.

Ah, it becomes clear! You're not retired and you're not taking IRA
distributions but you want the bank to count your IRA money pot as net
assets.

There's a rather good reason they won't do so - retirement moneys are
exempt assets. You could default on your loan, declare bankruptcy, and
keep every penny in your IRA safe from garnishment or execution.(1)

(1) Well, mostly. There's a $1 million plus limit on the amount of IRA
(and other retirement funds) which are exempt.

You want the bank to count it as a asset, you're going to have to pull
it out of the IRA (paying the penalty if applicable) and deposit it in
an ordinary bank account where it would not be an exempt asset and the
bank could grab it if you default on the loan.

> And that's another thing. Because I
> am earning more money be keeping my money invested in the Stock Market,
> I choose to keep a large loan on my house, and they can't understand
> that.

Sounds again very much a problem with your bank and not with the gubmint.

> They keep wsaying to me, "If you have all that money, why don't
> you just pay off your house?" The idea that I am better off with the
> money earning 7% + in the stock market while I only pay 4-1/2% on the
> homeowners loan just seems to go over their miniscule heads.....

>> What is your source for this interesting factoid?

>>> The fact
>>> that you have some savings just doesn't compute with them anymore...
>>> They have assumed the national socialist mindset.(thanks to the
>>> stupid liberals, who apparently never save/invest a dime of their
>>> money in anything.)

IRA moneys are not "just savings". You can't touch them until age 59 and
1/2 (or permanent disability) without paying a 10% penalty. And, in
addition, any withdrawals, at whatever age, are taxable income with
income taxes payable at the then current rate.

If you've got $100,000 in an ordinary account you can pull the entire
$100 grand out at any time and have a net $100,000 to pay off your
debts, including any bank loan.

If you've got $100,000 in an IRA and you're under 59 and 1/2, you can
only pull out $90,000 because the other $10,000 would be the penalty for
early withdrawl. Plus, if you're paying income tax at the 25% rate,
another $25,000 would be owing in taxes. Your $100,000 in the IRA is
effectively only $65,000.

And, of course your creditors, including the bank, can't make you pull
it out and as long as it's in the IRA it's an exempt asset and not
available to pay any creditor.

>> Careful, you're starting to drool on your shirt.

You're still drooling. But I'd suggest you look for another bank.
Assuming a decent interest rate is locked in, it seldom makes sense to
pay off a mortgage early. If your bank thinks it does, you'd be advised
to seek out another bank.

Your bitch seems to be with your bank and not the gubmint.

[Sancho Panza]

Proggies will say it doesn't matter, just like murdering and sodomizing
American heroes in Benghazi. The fact of the matter that Obama
repeatedly promised no increases in taxes because of Obamacare just goes
to generate more and more shameless baldfaced lies.

[deadrat]

Get help.

The fact of the matter that Obama
> repeatedly promised no increases in taxes because of Obamacare

Let5's have a source for this, er, untruth. The ACA includes several
new taxes, so Obama could hardly promise what you claim.

> just goes to generate more and more shameless baldfaced lies.

Of which you seem to be the expert.

[Bill Graham]

No. Its the government rules and regulations that are affecting the mindset
of the banks. Now that the government bailed them out, they have to dance to
Obama's tune. I never had any trouble getting loans on my property before.
but now, my only source of useable income iwse that stupid social security
check. I can't borrow anything on the $350 K I have in the stock market.
Obama doesn't believe in the stock market. He intends to get rid of it as
soon as he can figure out a way to do so.

[Bill Graham]

Of course. You casn't give 20 million people on the dole free health care
without taxing the living hell out of the others. Only an, "arbornomics"
liberal would believe otherwise....

[Bill Shatzer]

Bill Graham wrote:

> Bill Shatzer wrote:

- snip -

>> Your bitch seems to be with your bank and not the gubmint.

> No. Its the government rules and regulations that are affecting the
> mindset of the banks. Now that the government bailed them out, they have
> to dance to Obama's tune.

Or perhaps the fact the government had to bail them out of their "toxic
assets" makes them a little more conservative in lending funds?

I never had any trouble getting loans on my
> property before. but now, my only source of useable income iwse that
> stupid social security check. I can't borrow anything on the $350 K I
> have in the stock market.

If it's in an IRA, of course not. As I previously pointed out,
retirement funds are exempt assets - the bank can't seize them if you
stiff the bank on its loans.

> Obama doesn't believe in the stock market. He
> intends to get rid of it as soon as he can figure out a way to do so.

The Dow just crossed 14,000 this week and is within 160 points of its
all time high. For someone who hates the stock market, Obama's doing
pretty well by it.

peace and justice,

[Sancho Panza]

By that criterion, the U.S. should have started printing a couple of
trillion a year decades ago.

[Moses]

On Sun, 3 Feb 2013 17:38:37 -0800, "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net> wrote:

> I can't borrow anything on the $350 K I have in the stock market.

You can use the money in the stock market by getting a secured loan from
the bank. Your interest rate dips, but that is expected. Sorry, if your
only income is social security you're a bad risk since you are close to
death.

[Bill Graham]

Bill Shatzer wrote:
> The Dow just crossed 14,000 this week and is within 160 points of its
> all time high. For someone who hates the stock market, Obama's doing
> pretty well by it.
>

Obama has nothing to do with that, and I doubt seriously if he owns a dime
of stock. Socialists never do. I still keep asking where do the liberals
invest their money. And, I still never get an answer to my question. They
expect their socialist government to do it for them. Its not the socialists
in this world who make the stock market go up. Its the people like me who
work and save and invest in American business who do that. The socialists
are just parasites who live off of us, and spend our money.

[Bill Graham]

I have a 4-1/2% loan right now. I will sit on that. The banks can go to
hell. I have been screwed by them (ans insurance companies) my whole life.
When my father was young, there were banks and there were paw2nbrokers.
Basnks loaned you money on your good reputation. Pawnbrokers only loaned you
a dime if you gave them 15 cents colatteral. Today, there are nothing but
pawnbrokers. It burns me up that my president gives them my money. God, I
hate liberals......

[deadrat]

On 2/4/13 12:35 PM, Bill Graham wrote:
> Bill Shatzer wrote:
>> The Dow just crossed 14,000 this week and is within 160 points of its
>> all time high. For someone who hates the stock market, Obama's doing
>> pretty well by it.
>>
>
> Obama has nothing to do with that, and I doubt seriously if he owns a
> dime of stock.

That's because you're an abyssal ignoramus who lives in a world of his
own opinions. Obama's financial disclosure forms have been released and
are posted online. It's a matter of a minute or two to find out that he
owns mutual funds.

> Socialists never do. I still keep asking where do the
> liberals invest their money. And, I still never get an answer to my
> question.

You never get an answer that comports with your silly opinions, so you
ignore the answers. "Liberals" as a collective noun don't invest money;
individuals do. And those individuals who are liberals invest in the
same way that other people invest. Is Warren Buffet a liberal? Do you
know what he invests in?

> They expect their socialist government to do it for them. Its
> not the socialists in this world who make the stock market go up. Its
> the people like me who work and save and invest in American business who
> do that.

You're not working. You're retired and sucking on the public teat.

> The socialists are just parasites

You mean people like you, sucking up as much as they can at the public
trough?

[Baxter]

-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:8PmdnVS_f-3vYpLM...@giganews.com...

> Bill Shatzer wrote:
>> The Dow just crossed 14,000 this week and is within 160 points of its
>> all time high. For someone who hates the stock market, Obama's doing
>> pretty well by it.
>>
>
> Obama has nothing to do with that, and I doubt seriously if he owns a dime
> of stock. Socialists never do.

Historically, the Stock Market has always done better under Dems than under
Repugs.

[Moses]

On Mon, 4 Feb 2013 10:35:29 -0800, "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net> wrote:

> owns a dime
> of stock.

You're wrong.

[Bill Shatzer]

Bill Graham wrote:

> Bill Shatzer wrote:
>
>> The Dow just crossed 14,000 this week and is within 160 points of its
>> all time high. For someone who hates the stock market, Obama's doing
>> pretty well by it.

> Obama has nothing to do with that, and I doubt seriously if he owns a
> dime of stock.

You wouldn't have to doubt if you'd just look it up.

He doesn't own any stocks directly but he has several hundreds of
thousand (at least) with various mutual funds (including the Vanguard
500) which do invest in stocks.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/president_obama_2011_oge_form_278_certified.pdf

> Socialists never do.

Guess that pretty much squelches the "Obama is a socialist" rant.

- ranting and drool deleted -

peace and justice,

[Sancho Panza]

Cite?

[Sancho Panza]

Doesn't "squelch" anything of the sort. All it shows involving stocks
are six tax-sheltered 529 mutual funds. Unless you have access to
Attachment A, that is.

[deadrat]

What's wrong, your google broken? Go here:

http://blogs.darden.virginia.edu/deansblog/2012/11/impact-of-presidents-and-parties-on-investor-returns/

You can find dozens of other cites on other sites.

But it's silly to conclude that there's a causal relationship between
the party of the President and stock market movement. Consider that

1) Presidents serve no more than eight years, and economic cycles may
have different frequencies.

2) The President doesn't run the economy, and he has no direct levers to
control the stock market.

3) The President doesn't set economic policy by himself. He has to act
with Congress. Reagan had to deal with Democratic majorities, and
Clinton had to deal with Republican majorities. It's true that for most
of the disaster that was the administrations of the WPE (1/2001 -
1/2009), Republicans controlled Congress, but that's only one data point.

4) Presidents live with the results from their predecessors. Arguably,
Johnson's policies led to the pervasive inflation that Nixon had to
confront. In any case, every President operates during his first year
in office with the budget set by his predecessor.

The somewhat counter-intuitive correlation of stock market returns and
the party of the President does shoot down the notion that
business-friendly, no-regulation, low-taxes-for-the-rich Republicans
must be better for the stock market than (comparatively)
business-hostile, regulating, higher-taxing Democrats. It also puts
paid to the argument that we're better off with Presidents with private
sector work experience, especially those who've run a business.

[deadrat]

On 2/4/13 6:38 PM, Sancho Panza wrote:
> On 2/4/2013 5:02 PM, Bill Shatzer wrote:
>> Bill Graham wrote:
>>
>>> Bill Shatzer wrote:
>>>
>>>> The Dow just crossed 14,000 this week and is within 160 points of its
>>>> all time high. For someone who hates the stock market, Obama's doing
>>>> pretty well by it.
>>
>>> Obama has nothing to do with that, and I doubt seriously if he owns a
>>> dime of stock.
>>
>> You wouldn't have to doubt if you'd just look it up.
>>
>> He doesn't own any stocks directly but he has several hundreds of
>> thousand (at least) with various mutual funds (including the Vanguard
>> 500) which do invest in stocks.
>>
>> http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/president_obama_2011_oge_form_278_certified.pdf
>>
>>
>>
>>> Socialists never do.
>>
>> Guess that pretty much squelches the "Obama is a socialist" rant.
>

> Doesn't "squelch" anything of the sort. <snip/>

Of course not; don't be silly. Why would evidence that the President
owns stock counter the claim that he owns not a dime of stock?

[Greegor]

> Of course not; don't be silly.  Why would evidence that the President
> owns stock counter the claim that he owns not a dime of stock?

Don't you know the difference between stock and mutual funds, Zeppy?

[Baxter]

-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Greegor" <gree...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:66092daf-d9f5-4dea...@o5g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...

>> Of course not; don't be silly. Why would evidence that the President
>> owns stock counter the claim that he owns not a dime of stock?
>
>Don't you know the difference between stock and mutual funds, Zeppy?

'Course, if he owned individual stocks there would be potential for
conflict-of-interest.

[deadrat]

Sure, Sunshine, and I know it's a distinction without a difference for
BG's ignorant rant about how liberals never invest in anything, so Obama
must not own "a dime" of stock. In fact, he owns mutual funds, which
own lots of stocks, and which pass on to their share owners the
dividends and capital gains and losses of the underlying stocks.

But so good to see you jump on the bandwagon of whining ignorance (or is
that ignorant whining?).

What's does "Zeppy" mean?

[Sancho Panza]

But from the Bushes and Cheney proggies demanded that the assets be held
in trust. Double standard for the favored and the unfavored.

[Bill Shatzer]

Sancho Panza wrote:

> On 2/4/2013 2:37 PM, Baxter wrote:

-snip-

>> Historically, the Stock Market has always done better under Dems than
>> under
>> Repugs.

> Cite?

http://www.foxbusiness.com/investing/2012/09/04/history-shows-markets-gdp-outperform-under-democrats/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/economics-blog/2012/aug/29/democrats-better-wall-street-republicans
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-22/stocks-return-more-with-dem-in-white-house-bgov-barometer.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/15/democratic-presidents-stock-market_n_1967522.html

Someday, someone should teach you how to run a google search.

peace and justice,

[deadrat]

You mean like the "blind" trust that Rmoney set up. And which invested
in the start-up of one of his sons? Just a coincidence, I'm sure.

> Double standard for the favored and the unfavored.

How clueless can you get? Blind trust are for assets the value of which
the trustor has the potential to affect. Thus a trustor might hand over
a stock portfolio to a trustee with instructions to trade on the
portfolio without accepting the trustee's instructions or informing the
trustee of the transactions. Thus, in theory, the trustee can't
coordinate his actions with trades, and indeed cannot even be sure what
stocks remain in the portfolio at any particular time.

US debt instruments and highly-diversified mutual funds are pretty much
immune from particular Presidential decisions. I've only glanced
briefly at Obama's disclosure forms, but these seem to be where his
investments have been made. In particular, the mutual funds are index
funds, which by their nature invest in the stocks that make up the
market averages. It's hard to see what Obama could do to benefit
himself with these type of investments.

But keep yapping.

[Bill Shatzer]

It shows at least $350,000 invested in the Vanguard 500 Index Fund -
which without bothering to check, I'm pretty sure must invest in the S&P
500 stocks.

It hardly matters whether the mutual fund shares are in a 529, an IRA, a
401k or some other tax sheltered/tax deferred plan, it's still investing
in stocks.

peace and justice,

[Bill Shatzer]

Well, a rising tide lifts all boats and to the extent the country and
the stock market do well, Obama benefits.

But only the republican wingnuts could complain if the country and the
market do well.

One would think that one of the jobs of elected officials - presidents
included - is to help the country do well.

peace and justice,

[Bill Graham]

I believe that's true, but there is a significant time lag between damwge
done by an administration and the market's response. if that time lag is 8
years, then the market improvement is due to the past administrations work.
So, I don't attach much importance to the statistic in general.

[Bill Graham]

He may keep some mutual funds for show, but he certainly doesn't need them.
As president, he will make millions giving speeches like Clinton does aws
soon as he leaves the White House. I bet he didn't own any stock when he was
a welfare worker in Chicago. Not with the communist friends he cultivated.

[Bill Graham]

This is true. I invested in mutual funds during my working life. I only sold
them ande spread my money around into other instruments after I retired.
Mutual funds are just collections of stocks grouped according to different
investment philosophies. They are still stock market investments.

[deadrat]

On 2/5/13 12:48 AM, Bill Graham wrote:
> Sancho Panza wrote:
>> On 2/4/2013 5:02 PM, Bill Shatzer wrote:
>>> Bill Graham wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bill Shatzer wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The Dow just crossed 14,000 this week and is within 160 points of
>>>>> its all time high. For someone who hates the stock market, Obama's
>>>>> doing pretty well by it.
>>>
>>>> Obama has nothing to do with that, and I doubt seriously if he owns
>>>> a dime of stock.
>>>
>>> You wouldn't have to doubt if you'd just look it up.
>>>
>>> He doesn't own any stocks directly but he has several hundreds of
>>> thousand (at least) with various mutual funds (including the Vanguard
>>> 500) which do invest in stocks.
>>>
>>> http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/president_obama_2011_oge_form_278_certified.pdf
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Socialists never do.
>>>
>>> Guess that pretty much squelches the "Obama is a socialist" rant.
>>
>> Doesn't "squelch" anything of the sort. All it shows involving stocks
>> are six tax-sheltered 529 mutual funds. Unless you have access to
>> Attachment A, that is.
>
> He may keep some mutual funds for show, but he certainly doesn't need
> them.

Was that sound I just heard the movement of goal posts? Your claim is
that liberals like Obama don't invest and thus wouldn't have "a dime" in
the stock market. Turns out you're wrong -- no surprise there -- and
whether he's invested for show or whether he's needs the investment is
irrelevant. He's invested just like you said he wouldn't. And his
reasons certainly make no difference to those he's invested with.

> As president, he will make millions giving speeches like Clinton
> does aws soon as he leaves the White House. I bet he didn't own any
> stock when he was a welfare worker in Chicago. Not with the communist
> friends he cultivated.

So back when he was a community organizer (not a welfare worker) and
presumably he had no money, then you bet he didn't own any stock.

What kind of ignoramus finds that suspicious?

Don't answer that. You're the poster boy for that kind of ignorance.

[Sancho Panza]

If you ever get to see Attachment A, be sure to let us know.

[Sancho Panza]

Your theory of economics features record petroleum prices, structural
unemployment and what had been an extended extraordinary anemic growth
rate until the veritable decline began. How's that road to riches
working out?

[Sancho Panza]

That must have been at the same time that he became such an expert
marksman. So much so that he does not have to hold his weapon like
everyone else nor does he have to have his finger correctly on the trigger.

[hal lillywhite]

On 5 feb, 00:44, Bill Shatzer <ww...@NOcornell.edu> wrote:

> One would think that one of the jobs of elected officials - presidents
> included - is to help the country do well.

That way lies extreme danger of statism and eventual tyranny, at least
unless strict controls are placed on the powers of those officials.
Obama apparently thought he was helping the country do well when he
gave our tax money to the likes of Solyndra. The powers that be (or
were) in New London thought they were helping their area do well when
they condemned private property for the benefit of a business that
later pulled out.

There is a reason the founding fathers wanted strict limits on the
powers of government. It is reasonable for government to deal with
carefully selected instances of what economists call external benefits
and costs but its power should end there. And that does not mean that
government is good at dealing with those benefits and costs, only that
it is the only entity able to do so.

[deadrat]

It's your claim that Obama's investments are suspect. Your burden of
production and proof.

[deadrat]

Who claims that Obama is an expert marksman?

> So much so that he does not have to hold his weapon like
> everyone else nor does he have to have his finger correctly on the trigger.

This is what happens when people shoot their mouths off without knowing
the facts. After rightards grumbled about a President who never fired a
weapon calling for gun control, the President said he'd fired shotguns
at Camp David. Doubling down on stupid, the grumblers demanded proof.
So the White House produces a photo. Not good enough: his finger isn't
quite in the right place!

Bwahahahahahahaha!

And you know what else? He isn't wearing a billed cap! Go here:

http://www.therightscoop.com/skeeter-obama-fires-fake-shotgun-and-misses/

[Bill Shatzer]

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/05/16/us/politics/16disclosure-doc.html

Page 9

Glad to let you and anyone else to stupid or lazy to find it for himself
know.

peace and justice,

[Sancho Panza]

Where is that specific claim?
Please don't confuse it with the machinations of Washington to influence
investment decisions.

[deadrat]

So you don't think Obama has a conflict of interest just because his
investments aren't in a blind trust?

My bad. Never mind, then.

[Greegor]

> It's your claim that Obama's investments are
> suspect.  Your burden of production and proof.

Zeppy, I asked you for the list of Obama's huge
green/energy investments that weren't blowouts.

You didn't post any sich list, merely more chaff.

[Sancho Panza]

The reference was to OP's strident insistence that schmucks will forever
buy U.S. paper at 1 percent or less. The administration's push to move
the public to equities is crystal clear.
Based on the disclosure form, the critical group includes the president
himself.

[Sancho Panza]

The challenge to the statement about the claim on Obama's investments
was dismissed out of hand at 10:19.

[Sancho Panza]

On 2/3/2013 8:01 PM, deadrat wrote:
> On 2/3/13 6:23 PM, Sancho Panza wrote:

>> On 2/2/2013 7:25 PM, Bill Graham wrote:
>>> Sancho Panza wrote:

>>>> On 2/2/2013 4:54 PM, Bill Shatzer wrote:
>>>>> hal lillywhite wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Feb 1, 11:54 pm, Bill Shatzer <ww...@NOcornell.edu> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> hal lillywhite wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 1 feb, 13:33, deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> -snip-
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Still think a bronze plan will cost $20K?
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Read the actual article Sancho posted.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> “The annual national average bronze plan premium for a family of
>>>>>>>> 5 (2 adults, 3 children) is $20,000,” the regulation says.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (And bronze is the lowest level that meets the requirements.)
>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's CNS - not exactly even Faux Nooze when it comes to truth and
>>>>>>> accuracy in reporting.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Perhaps you should reed the actual IRS paper which CNS references
>>>>>>> and apparently relies on for this particular bit of pulp fiction.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.irs.gov/PUP/newsroom/REG-148500-12%20FR.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Page 56. Example 2.
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Under
>>>>>> paragraph (e)(1) of this section, B has affordable coverage for 2016
>>>>>> because B’s
>>>>>> required contribution ($5,000) does not exceed 8 percent of B’s
>>>>>> household income
>>>>>> ($7,200). Under paragraph (e)(3)(ii)(B) of this section, the
>>>>>> required contribution for C,
>>>>>> D, and E is B's share of the cost for family coverage, $20,000."
>>>>>
>>>>>> Sounds worse than what the article describes. B pays $5,000 for
>>>>>> himself plus $20,000 for the rest of the family. I do admit that
>>>>>> the paragraph in question is written in legalese however so it is
>>>>>> not all that clear. It talks about paragraph (e)(1) whatever that
>>>>>> is (can't find it in that article). I surmise that it may exempt
>>>>>> people for which the $20,000 exceeds 8% of their income. Why
>>>>>> should anyone be forced to pay $20,000 a year for insurance?
>>>>>
>>>>> No one is "forced" to pay $20,000.
>>>>>
>>>>> First, the example supposes that the $20,000 is the cost of family
>>>>> coverage UNDER THE EMPLOYER SPONSORED health insurance plan.
>>>>>
>>>>> More significantly, the $20,000 was used to illustrate that because
>>>>> of that cost, the family members would be deemed not have access to
>>>>> affordable health insurance and would be therefore eligible for
>>>>> health insurance subsidies.
>>>>
>>>> As you state, you are discussing employer-sponsored plans. As
>>>> apparently eluded you unless the deflection was intentional, the
>>>> 10-paragraph analysis makes clear that the given example of the
>>>> five-member family,
>>>> which you have eventually come around to finding, pertains to exempt
>>>> people.
>>>> For clarification, here is the analysis which has been, expectedly,
>>>> snipped:
>>>> January 31, 2013
>>>> By Matt Cover
>>>>
>>>> (CNSNews.com) – In a final regulation issued Wednesday, the Internal
>>>> Revenue Service (IRS) assumed that under Obamacare the cheapest health
>>>> insurance plan available in 2016 for a family will cost $20,000 for
>>>> the year.
>>>>
>>>> Under Obamacare, Americans will be required to buy health insurance or
>>>> pay a penalty to the IRS.
>>>>
>>>> The IRS's assumption that the cheapest plan for a family will cost
>>>> $20,000 per year is found in examples the IRS gives to help people
>>>> understand how to calculate the penalty they will need to pay the
>>>> government if they do not buy a mandated health plan.
>>>>
>>>> The examples point to families of four and families of five, both of
>>>> which the IRS expects in its assumptions to pay a minimum of $20,000
>>>> per year for a bronze plan.
>>>>
>>>> “The annual national average bronze plan premium for a family of 5 (2
>>>> adults, 3 children) is $20,000,” the regulation says.
>>>>
>>>> Bronze will be the lowest tier health-insurance plan available under
>>>> Obamacare--after Silver, Gold, and Platinum. Under the law, the
>>>> penalty for not buying health insurance is supposed to be capped at
>>>> either the
>>>> annual average Bronze premium, 2.5 percent of taxable income, or
>>>> $2,085.00 per family in 2016.
>>>>
>>>> In the new final rules published Wednesday, IRS set in law the rules
>>>> for implementing the penalty Americans must pay if they fail to obey
>>>> Obamacare's mandate to buy insurance.
>>>>
>>>> To help illustrate these rules, the IRS presented examples of
>>>> different situations families might find themselves in.
>>>>
>>>> In the examples, the IRS assumes that families of five who are
>>>> uninsured would need to pay an average of $20,000 per year to
>>>> purchase a Bronze plan in 2016.
>>>>
>>>> Using the conditions laid out in the regulations, the IRS calculates
>>>> that a family earning $120,000 per year that did not buy insurance
>>>> would need to pay a "penalty" (a word the IRS still uses despite the
>>>> Supreme Court ruling that it is in fact a "tax") of $2,400 in 2016."
>>>
>>> Since there is no constitutional restrictions against taxing yuou
>>> multiple times on the same earnings, why would it matter whether they
>>> call it a tax or a penalty? The direction of the money (from our pockets
>>> into theirs) is the same in either case. And, should they need/want more
>>> money, they can just do it again and again in either case.
>>
>> Proggies will say it doesn't matter, just like murdering and sodomizing
>> American heroes in Benghazi.
>
> Get help.

The administration's inaction has drastically increased the danger to
every single American traveling or residing overseas. And Panetta says
he is satisfied with what the Defense Department about Benghazi.

>
> The fact of the matter that Obama
>> repeatedly promised no increases in taxes because of Obamacare
>
> Let5's have a source for this, er, untruth. The ACA includes several
> new taxes, so Obama could hardly promise what you claim.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8erePM8V5U

>
>> just goes to generate more and more shameless baldfaced lies.
>
> Of which you seem to be the expert.

Maybe you should try showing where Obama promised to raise taxes.

[deadrat]

On 2/5/13 9:26 PM, Greegor wrote:
>> It's your claim that Obama's investments are
>> suspect. Your burden of production and proof.
>
> Zeppy, I asked you for the list of Obama's huge
> green/energy investments that weren't blowouts.

Obama himself doesn't have such investments, and *that's* what the
discussion was about, per BG whether Obama personally invested in the
stock market, and if he did per Sancho why it was bad that Obama's
investments weren't in a blind trust.

Whassamatter, Sparky, didja get lost?

> You didn't post any sich list, merely more chaff.

First, the subthread started with another of BG's ignorant claims, not
another of yours. Secondly, just because you can't understand something
doesn't mean it's "chaff."

Just look at how confused you are about this subthread.

[Sancho Panza]

On 2/5/2013 10:57 PM, deadrat wrote:
> On 2/5/13 9:26 PM, Greegor wrote:
>>> It's your claim that Obama's investments are
>>> suspect. Your burden of production and proof.
>>
>> Zeppy, I asked you for the list of Obama's huge
>> green/energy investments that weren't blowouts.
>
> Obama himself doesn't have such investments, and *that's* what the
> discussion was about, per BG whether Obama personally invested in the
> stock market, and if he did per Sancho why it was bad that Obama's
> investments weren't in a blind trust.

That was not what I posted in any way. What was posed was why blind
trusts were demanded of Republicans but not Democrats.

[deadrat]

Sorry to have lost concentration, but I've got no idea what you're
talking about. See my quote up there:

<quote>

Why would evidence that the President owns stock counter the claim that
he owns not a dime of stock?

</quote>

This was in response to that ignoramus BG who was whining that in
general liberals don't invest in anything and in particular Obama didn't
"own a dime" of stock. Once that particular untruth was dispensed with,
the conversation then turned to the propriety of Obama's investment not
being in a blind trust.

> The administration's push to move the public to equities is crystal clear.

I didn't get the memo. Could we have some evidence for this "crystal
clear" strategy? Does "the public" include mutual funds and pension funds?

> Based on the disclosure form, the critical group includes the president
> himself.

Let me make sure I've got this straight. The President tries to
implement policies that will strengthen the economy, which will lift the
stock market, and since he himself is invested in the stock market, then
these policies constitute a conflict of interest. Have I got that
foolishness right?

You do understand that even in your Bizarro World where this obtains, a
blind trust would be ineffective, right?

[deadrat]

On 2/5/13 9:57 PM, Sancho Panza wrote:
> On 2/3/2013 8:01 PM, deadrat wrote:
>> On 2/3/13 6:23 PM, Sancho Panza wrote:
>>> On 2/2/2013 7:25 PM, Bill Graham wrote:
>>>> Sancho Panza wrote:
>>>>> On 2/2/2013 4:54 PM, Bill Shatzer wrote:
>>>>>> hal lillywhite wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Feb 1, 11:54 pm, Bill Shatzer <ww...@NOcornell.edu> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> hal lillywhite wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 1 feb, 13:33, deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -snip-
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Still think a bronze plan will cost $20K?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Read the actual article Sancho posted.
>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> �The annual national average bronze plan premium for a family of
>>>>>>>>> 5 (2 adults, 3 children) is $20,000,� the regulation says.

>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> (And bronze is the lowest level that meets the requirements.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's CNS - not exactly even Faux Nooze when it comes to truth and
>>>>>>>> accuracy in reporting.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Perhaps you should reed the actual IRS paper which CNS references
>>>>>>>> and apparently relies on for this particular bit of pulp fiction.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.irs.gov/PUP/newsroom/REG-148500-12%20FR.pdf
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Page 56. Example 2.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Under
>>>>>>> paragraph (e)(1) of this section, B has affordable coverage for 2016

>>>>>>> because B�s
>>>>>>> required contribution ($5,000) does not exceed 8 percent of B�s

>>>>> (CNSNews.com) � In a final regulation issued Wednesday, the Internal

>>>>> Revenue Service (IRS) assumed that under Obamacare the cheapest health
>>>>> insurance plan available in 2016 for a family will cost $20,000 for
>>>>> the year.
>>>>>
>>>>> Under Obamacare, Americans will be required to buy health insurance or
>>>>> pay a penalty to the IRS.
>>>>>
>>>>> The IRS's assumption that the cheapest plan for a family will cost
>>>>> $20,000 per year is found in examples the IRS gives to help people
>>>>> understand how to calculate the penalty they will need to pay the
>>>>> government if they do not buy a mandated health plan.
>>>>>
>>>>> The examples point to families of four and families of five, both of
>>>>> which the IRS expects in its assumptions to pay a minimum of $20,000
>>>>> per year for a bronze plan.
>>>>>

>>>>> �The annual national average bronze plan premium for a family of 5 (2
>>>>> adults, 3 children) is $20,000,� the regulation says.

Bzzzzzzt. I'm sorry, but that was the wrong answer. Thanks for playing
though. In that clip, Obama promises not to raise taxes on those
*making less than $200K per year*. The ACA does tax gold-plated health
plans, tanning salons, and certain medical device, but these don't apply
to the people making less than $200K per year. And in fact, the new tax
rates just approved don't increase taxes on those making less than $400K
per year.

>>> just goes to generate more and more shameless baldfaced lies.
>>
>> Of which you seem to be the expert.
>
> Maybe you should try showing where Obama promised to raise taxes.

Here's where he talks about actually raising taxes on the rich:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMSkXM9PIHc

Will that do?

[deadrat]

Really? Can you back this claim up? You'll probably have to restrict
yourself to Presidents and Presidential candidates because CNNMoney
quoting the Center for Responsive Politics says that of the previous
Congress only 7 Senators and 12 Representatives had blind trusts, so
there can't be that many demands of federal legislators.

Blind trusts may be demanded of politicians when they invest in
companies that their policies can affect directly. Let's take Rmoney
(actually Mrs. Rmoney). Mrs. Rmoney invested in a hedge fund that made
a ton of money from the auto bailout by investing in Delphi Automotive
(the former Delco, a GM spinoff). Since Mr. Rmoney was speaking
directly on the issue of bailouts, Mrs. Rmoney's investment was in a
blind trust. I don't think anyone demanded that the Rmoney's do that,
but if they hadn't, I'm sure the demands would have been there.

The Clintons put their stocks in a blind trust in 1993 when Bill took
office. This trust continued while Hillary was Senator, but in 2007,
when she decided to run for President, they dissolved the trust, sold
all the stock, and converted everything to cash and US debt. Apparently
the rules for Presidential candidates were sufficiently different from
those for Senators, and they didn't want the hassle of reorganizing
their trust. Cash doesn't require a blind trust.

Likewise, the WPE (1/2001 - 1/2009) dissolved his own blind trust in
January 2009, after he left office.

Biden doesn't seem to have a blind trust, but his financial disclosure
forms show no individual stocks, just a few mutual funds in the $1K-$15K
range, and a negative net worth.

So, Republican or Democrat, politicians put their direct stock
investments in blind trusts. There's always a question of how "blind"
these trusts really are, but that's a separate issue. Since this seems
to be routine, are there really any "demands" that Republicans use blind
trusts? Or that Democrats don't and don't face demands that they do?

Could you give a few examples?

[Sancho Panza]

That must be why the working middle class and true leftists are so
surprised to see that they, too, are affected.

[Sancho Panza]

On 2/6/2013 1:51 AM, deadrat wrote:
> On 2/5/13 10:50 PM, Sancho Panza wrote:
>> On 2/5/2013 10:57 PM, deadrat wrote:
>>> On 2/5/13 9:26 PM, Greegor wrote:
>>>>> It's your claim that Obama's investments are
>>>>> suspect. Your burden of production and proof.
>>>>
>>>> Zeppy, I asked you for the list of Obama's huge
>>>> green/energy investments that weren't blowouts.
>>>
>>> Obama himself doesn't have such investments, and *that's* what the
>>> discussion was about, per BG whether Obama personally invested in the
>>> stock market, and if he did per Sancho why it was bad that Obama's
>>> investments weren't in a blind trust.
>>
>> That was not what I posted in any way. What was posed was why blind
>> trusts were demanded of Republicans but not Democrats.
>
> Really? Can you back this claim up?

That was a repeated cry on this forum.
<snip deflection>

[deadrat]

Sure, any working middle class and true leftists making more than $400K
per year.

[deadrat]

Bwahahahahahahaha! This forum! You gotta get out more. And let's have
the message IDs making up this "repeated cry." My bet is that you can't
provide any.

> <snip deflection>

By which you mean, you snipped the evidence that few members of Congress
(less than two dozen out of 535) have blind trusts) and all recent
Presidents and Presidential candidates who own individual stocks do. So
there was no occasion of your claim of repeated demands.

Pathetic.

[Sancho Panza]

You might learn something on this subject by reading the entries in this
thread about families earning $120,000 a year, who are now the
supposedly loathed "rich."

[Sancho Panza]

If you think that what was snipped was relevant to the question of just
who called for blind trusts, by all means have at it and re-post the
germane segment. On the other hand, if you were unable to
understand the reference to the history of prior exchanges, it might be
useful to inquire and check on them instead of jumping to unwarranted
assumptions.

[deadrat]

But the topic isn't whether bloviators on a newsgroup "loath" families
making over twice the country's median income. The topic is whether
Obama promised never to raise taxes, or if he didn't, whom he promised
to raise taxes on.

Try to focus.

[deadrat]

I've summarized it above. There are likely no such "demands" for blind
trusts for legislators (since those trusts are so rare across both
parties) and likewise no such "demands" for blind trusts for Presidents
and Presidential candidates (because all of those folks had them or had
divested themselves of assets that required blind trusts).

Keep pretending you don't understand this, though.

> On the other hand, if you were unable to
> understand the reference to the history of prior exchanges, it might be
> useful to inquire and check on them instead of jumping to unwarranted
> assumptions.

Uh, uh. Your claim, Sunshine. Your burden. If there were such
demands, then it's your job to produce evidence of them. That sound I
heard was, as I thought, the sound of goal posts being moved. Now
instead of repeated demands, you claim there were repeated demands just
*on this newsgroup*. Whatever. Produce the multiple message IDs.

[Sancho Panza]

On 2/6/2013 12:55 AM, deadrat wrote:
> On 2/5/13 9:51 PM, Sancho Panza wrote:

>> The administration's push to move the public to equities is crystal
>> clear.
>
> I didn't get the memo. Could we have some evidence for this "crystal
> clear" strategy?

If you do not understand the forced lowering of interest to record low
levels and what the does to and for investors, ask for an explanation on
an economics forum.

> Does "the public" include mutual funds and pension funds?

If by "the public" you mean equities, the preponderance of mutual and
pension funds hold them. If the term "the public" does not mean
equities, perhaps you could just what it stands for.

>
>> Based on the disclosure form, the critical group includes the president
>> himself.
>
> Let me make sure I've got this straight. The President tries to
> implement policies that will strengthen the economy, which will lift the
> stock market, and since he himself is invested in the stock market, then
> these policies constitute a conflict of interest. Have I got that
> foolishness right?

That is what you want to say. You cannot find anywhere where I said
anything about Obama trying to implement policies to strengthen the
economy. While you're at an economics forum, ask for explanations of
what is making the stock market rise and let us know what experts
attribute that to.
>

[Sancho Panza]

On 2/6/2013 6:32 PM, deadrat wrote:
> On 2/6/13 5:27 PM, Sancho Panza wrote:
>> On 2/6/2013 12:22 PM, deadrat wrote:
>>> On 2/6/13 8:08 AM, Sancho Panza wrote:
>>>> On 2/6/2013 1:05 AM, deadrat wrote:
>>>>> On 2/5/13 9:57 PM, Sancho Panza wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/3/2013 8:01 PM, deadrat wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/3/13 6:23 PM, Sancho Panza wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/2/2013 7:25 PM, Bill Graham wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Sancho Panza wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/2/2013 4:54 PM, Bill Shatzer wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> hal lillywhite wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 1, 11:54 pm, Bill Shatzer <ww...@NOcornell.edu> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> hal lillywhite wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1 feb, 13:33, deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> -snip-
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Still think a bronze plan will cost $20K?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Read the actual article Sancho posted.
>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> “The annual national average bronze plan premium for a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> family of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5 (2 adults, 3 children) is $20,000,” the regulation says.

>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (And bronze is the lowest level that meets the requirements.)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's CNS - not exactly even Faux Nooze when it comes to truth
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> accuracy in reporting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps you should reed the actual IRS paper which CNS
>>>>>>>>>>>>> references
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and apparently relies on for this particular bit of pulp
>>>>>>>>>>>>> fiction.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.irs.gov/PUP/newsroom/REG-148500-12%20FR.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Page 56. Example 2.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Under
>>>>>>>>>>>> paragraph (e)(1) of this section, B has affordable coverage for
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2016

>>>>>>>>>>>> because B’s
>>>>>>>>>>>> required contribution ($5,000) does not exceed 8 percent of B’s

>>>>>>>>>> (CNSNews.com) – In a final regulation issued Wednesday, the

>>>>>>>>>> Internal
>>>>>>>>>> Revenue Service (IRS) assumed that under Obamacare the cheapest
>>>>>>>>>> health
>>>>>>>>>> insurance plan available in 2016 for a family will cost $20,000
>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>> the year.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Under Obamacare, Americans will be required to buy health
>>>>>>>>>> insurance or
>>>>>>>>>> pay a penalty to the IRS.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The IRS's assumption that the cheapest plan for a family will
>>>>>>>>>> cost
>>>>>>>>>> $20,000 per year is found in examples the IRS gives to help
>>>>>>>>>> people
>>>>>>>>>> understand how to calculate the penalty they will need to pay the
>>>>>>>>>> government if they do not buy a mandated health plan.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The examples point to families of four and families of five,
>>>>>>>>>> both of
>>>>>>>>>> which the IRS expects in its assumptions to pay a minimum of
>>>>>>>>>> $20,000
>>>>>>>>>> per year for a bronze plan.
>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> “The annual national average bronze plan premium for a family of
>>>>>>>>>> 5 (2
>>>>>>>>>> adults, 3 children) is $20,000,” the regulation says.

There was no bloviating on the subject, unless you want to call the HHS
regulations and examples just that. If you can't find it, look up HHS.

[deadrat]

On 2/6/13 8:05 PM, Sancho Panza wrote:
> On 2/6/2013 12:55 AM, deadrat wrote:
>> On 2/5/13 9:51 PM, Sancho Panza wrote:
>
>>> The administration's push to move the public to equities is crystal
>>> clear.
>>
>> I didn't get the memo. Could we have some evidence for this "crystal
>> clear" strategy?
>
> If you do not understand the forced lowering of interest to record low
> levels and what the does to and for investors, ask for an explanation on
> an economics forum.

The lowering of interest rates encourages the expansion of business
activity, i.e., it encourages businesses to grow and consumers to buy.

>
> > Does "the public" include mutual funds and pension funds?
>
> If by "the public" you mean equities, the preponderance of mutual and
> pension funds hold them. If the term "the public" does not mean
> equities, perhaps you could just what it stands for.

It was a question. What's the direct object in the clause "move the
public to equities."

>>> Based on the disclosure form, the critical group includes the president
>>> himself.
>>
>> Let me make sure I've got this straight. The President tries to
>> implement policies that will strengthen the economy, which will lift the
>> stock market, and since he himself is invested in the stock market, then
>> these policies constitute a conflict of interest. Have I got that
>> foolishness right?
>
> That is what you want to say.

I don't want to say anything. I want you to explain what you mean.
That's why I'm asking questions.

> You cannot find anywhere where I said
> anything about Obama trying to implement policies to strengthen the
> economy.

OK, what is the subject of the clause "the critical group includes the
president," and what make the group "critical"?

> While you're at an economics forum, ask for explanations of
> what is making the stock market rise and let us know what experts
> attribute that to.

I'm really not interested in what is making the stock market rise. Is
the President doing anything that warrants placing his index funds in a
blind trust? If so, what is it, and why would a blind trust help?

Perhaps I've completely misunderstood what you're saying.

[deadrat]

On 2/6/13 8:08 PM, Sancho Panza wrote:
> On 2/6/2013 6:32 PM, deadrat wrote:
>> On 2/6/13 5:27 PM, Sancho Panza wrote:
>>> On 2/6/2013 12:22 PM, deadrat wrote:
>>>> On 2/6/13 8:08 AM, Sancho Panza wrote:
>>>>> On 2/6/2013 1:05 AM, deadrat wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/5/13 9:57 PM, Sancho Panza wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/3/2013 8:01 PM, deadrat wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/3/13 6:23 PM, Sancho Panza wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/2/2013 7:25 PM, Bill Graham wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Sancho Panza wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/2/2013 4:54 PM, Bill Shatzer wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> hal lillywhite wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 1, 11:54 pm, Bill Shatzer <ww...@NOcornell.edu> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hal lillywhite wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1 feb, 13:33, deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -snip-
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Still think a bronze plan will cost $20K?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Read the actual article Sancho posted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> �The annual national average bronze plan premium for a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> family of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5 (2 adults, 3 children) is $20,000,� the regulation says.

>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (And bronze is the lowest level that meets the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requirements.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's CNS - not exactly even Faux Nooze when it comes to truth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accuracy in reporting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps you should reed the actual IRS paper which CNS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> references
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and apparently relies on for this particular bit of pulp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fiction.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.irs.gov/PUP/newsroom/REG-148500-12%20FR.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Page 56. Example 2.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Under
>>>>>>>>>>>>> paragraph (e)(1) of this section, B has affordable coverage
>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2016

>>>>>>>>>>>>> because B�s

>>>>>>>>>>>>> required contribution ($5,000) does not exceed 8 percent of

>>>>>>>>>>>>> B�s

>>>>>>>>>>> (CNSNews.com) � In a final regulation issued Wednesday, the

>>>>>>>>>>> Internal
>>>>>>>>>>> Revenue Service (IRS) assumed that under Obamacare the cheapest
>>>>>>>>>>> health
>>>>>>>>>>> insurance plan available in 2016 for a family will cost $20,000
>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>> the year.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Under Obamacare, Americans will be required to buy health
>>>>>>>>>>> insurance or
>>>>>>>>>>> pay a penalty to the IRS.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The IRS's assumption that the cheapest plan for a family will
>>>>>>>>>>> cost
>>>>>>>>>>> $20,000 per year is found in examples the IRS gives to help
>>>>>>>>>>> people
>>>>>>>>>>> understand how to calculate the penalty they will need to pay
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> government if they do not buy a mandated health plan.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The examples point to families of four and families of five,
>>>>>>>>>>> both of
>>>>>>>>>>> which the IRS expects in its assumptions to pay a minimum of
>>>>>>>>>>> $20,000
>>>>>>>>>>> per year for a bronze plan.
>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> �The annual national average bronze plan premium for a family of
>>>>>>>>>>> 5 (2
>>>>>>>>>>> adults, 3 children) is $20,000,� the regulation says.

Then what did you mean by "entries in this thread about families earning
$120,00 a year"? And how do those relate to the new tax rates on people
making over $400K per year?

> unless you want to call the HHS
> regulations and examples just that.

The regulations and example were from the IRS. How are they "entries in
this thread"?

> If you can't find it, look up HHS.

HHS has nothing to do with this.

[Bill Graham]

Sancho Panza wrote:
> On 2/6/2013 6:32 PM, deadrat wrote:
>> On 2/6/13 5:27 PM, Sancho Panza wrote:
>>> On 2/6/2013 12:22 PM, deadrat wrote:
>>>> On 2/6/13 8:08 AM, Sancho Panza wrote:
>>>>> On 2/6/2013 1:05 AM, deadrat wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/5/13 9:57 PM, Sancho Panza wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/3/2013 8:01 PM, deadrat wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/3/13 6:23 PM, Sancho Panza wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/2/2013 7:25 PM, Bill Graham wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Sancho Panza wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/2/2013 4:54 PM, Bill Shatzer wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> hal lillywhite wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 1, 11:54 pm, Bill Shatzer <ww...@NOcornell.edu>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hal lillywhite wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1 feb, 13:33, deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -snip-
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Still think a bronze plan will cost $20K?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Read the actual article Sancho posted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> �The annual national average bronze plan premium for a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> family of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5 (2 adults, 3 children) is $20,000,� the regulation

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> says.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (And bronze is the lowest level that meets the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requirements.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's CNS - not exactly even Faux Nooze when it comes to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truth and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accuracy in reporting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps you should reed the actual IRS paper which CNS
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> references
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and apparently relies on for this particular bit of pulp
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fiction.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.irs.gov/PUP/newsroom/REG-148500-12%20FR.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Page 56. Example 2.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Under
>>>>>>>>>>>>> paragraph (e)(1) of this section, B has affordable
>>>>>>>>>>>>> coverage for 2016

>>>>>>>>>>>>> because B�s

>>>>>>>>>>>>> required contribution ($5,000) does not exceed 8 percent

>>>>>>>>>>>>> of B�s household income

>>>>>>>>>>> (CNSNews.com) � In a final regulation issued Wednesday, the

>>>>>>>>>>> Internal
>>>>>>>>>>> Revenue Service (IRS) assumed that under Obamacare the
>>>>>>>>>>> cheapest health
>>>>>>>>>>> insurance plan available in 2016 for a family will cost
>>>>>>>>>>> $20,000 for
>>>>>>>>>>> the year.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Under Obamacare, Americans will be required to buy health
>>>>>>>>>>> insurance or
>>>>>>>>>>> pay a penalty to the IRS.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The IRS's assumption that the cheapest plan for a family
>>>>>>>>>>> will cost
>>>>>>>>>>> $20,000 per year is found in examples the IRS gives to help
>>>>>>>>>>> people
>>>>>>>>>>> understand how to calculate the penalty they will need to
>>>>>>>>>>> pay the government if they do not buy a mandated health
>>>>>>>>>>> plan. The examples point to families of four and families of
>>>>>>>>>>> five,
>>>>>>>>>>> both of
>>>>>>>>>>> which the IRS expects in its assumptions to pay a minimum of
>>>>>>>>>>> $20,000
>>>>>>>>>>> per year for a bronze plan.
>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> �The annual national average bronze plan premium for a
>>>>>>>>>>> family of 5 (2
>>>>>>>>>>> adults, 3 children) is $20,000,� the regulation says.

In any case, writing legislation that sets an upper limit on what you earn
is stupid, because it will change and become obsolete immediately under an
inflating economy. I don;t know why lawyers do this. Even the constitution
says you can demand a jury trial for fines over $20.... Which was a lot of
money when the constitution was written, but is laughable today. What's the
matter with linking their amounts to rthe nation al consumer price index so
they won't become obsolete with time? Are they so ignorant of the time value
of money that they can't conceive of such a radical idea?

[deadrat]

Then it's a good thing there's no such legislation, eh?

> because it will change and become obsolete immediately
> under an inflating economy. I don;t know

Yeah. The rest is just talking past the close.

> why lawyers do this. Even the
> constitution says you can demand a jury trial for fines over $20....

No, it doesn't, you ignoramus. That's for civil trials in which the
amount at issue is at least $20.

<snip/>

[Sancho Panza]

That is acting like who came in the second half of the movie and starts
complaining that he can't understand the references.

[deadrat]

> Evasion noted. We're done with this, no?

[Sancho Panza]

If you've had enough of ad hominems, let's discuss real issues:



Of course, Obamacare includes a whole new entitlement program (just what
we need) providing health insurance welfare for families making up to
$88,000 a year to start, rising to over $100,000 a year after a few
years. With that welfare, the net cost to families at different income
levels is limited to 2 percent of income for people at 133 percent of
poverty up to 9.8 percent of income for people at 400 percent of
poverty. But that in itself is still like a new payroll tax, or income
tax surcharge.

Moreover, taxpayers pay for the health insurance welfare as well. So the
entire cost of the individual mandate tax is still $15,000 per year for
families to start, and rising rapidly. That adds up to the largest tax
increase on the middle class in world history.

On July 9, President Obama proposed to extend for one year the Bush tax
cuts for the middle class, defined as singles making less than $200,000
per year, and couples making less than $250,000 per year, but to let the
tax cuts for those earning above those thresholds expire now. A caller
to a national radio show recently said the proposal meant Obama was
looking out for the middle class. But if Obama is looking out for the
middle class, why is he proposing to extend their Bush tax cuts for only
one year? This is the first time Obama is implying that maybe the Bush
tax cuts for the middle class may not become permanent either.

And then who passed those middle class tax cuts in the first place that
Obama is proposing to extend? That would be President Bush and the then
Congressional majority Republicans, with almost every Democrat opposing
the relief. But Obama and his Che Guevara Democrats have been telling us
for 4 years that Bush and the Republicans only cut taxes for the rich.
Even according to CBO, the Bush middle class tax cuts Obama wants to
extend dwarf the Bush tax cuts for "the rich" Obama does not want to extend.

Obama elaborated on July 9, "We need policies that grow and strengthen
the middle class - policies that help create jobs, ...that encourage
businesses to start up and create jobs right here in the United States."
But the Obama policies already enacted under current law would raise the
top tax rates on Jan. 1 for almost every federal tax for the nation's
job creators, investors and small businesses, with the expiration of the
Bush tax cuts and the Obamacare tax increases becoming effective.

As a result, the top two income tax rates would increase by nearly 20%,
the capital gains tax rate would increase nearly 60%, the tax on
dividends would nearly triple, the Medicare payroll tax rate would
increase by 62% for these disfavored taxpayers, and the death tax rate
would rise from the grave with a 57% increase in the top rate.

This would all be on top of the highest corporate income tax rate in the
industrialized world at nearly 40% when state taxes are counted. That
leaves American businesses uncompetitive in the global economy. Yet
under Obama, there is no relief in sight. Instead he has spent the past
two years barnstorming the country for still more tax increases. His
proposed Buffet Rule would increase the current capital gains tax rate
by 100%, leaving America saddled with the fourth highest cap gains rate
in the industrialized world.

As the Wall Street Journal explained on July 10, what "Mr. Obama is
demanding [are] tax increases, not tax cuts, and large increases at
that." How do those tax increases strengthen the middle class, and
encourage businesses to start up and create jobs right here in the
United States? They do just the opposite. Obama's rhetoric is just more
Calculated Deception, designed to fool the gullible.

By sharp contrast, the Republican House majority has already passed the
permanent extension of the Bush tax cuts for everyone. That includes the
middle class tax cuts that the Republicans originally enacted that Obama
proposes to extend for only one year, as well as the Bush tax cuts for
the nation's job creators, investors, and small businesses. So who is
really looking out for the middle class?

It is the middle class and working people that will be hurt the most by
Obama's comprehensive tax rate increases already enacted into current
law. Those steep rate increases will slash incentives for the capital
investment essential to creating new jobs and increasing wages. If those
tax rate increases push the weak economy back into recession next year,
as I and many others have predicted, the unemployment rate will soar
back into double digits, and wages and income will decline further.
Poverty will accelerate to new all-time records. How does that
strengthen the middle class?

Obama contends that his tax rate increases would only affect 3% of small
businesses. While that figure is in dispute, more important is that the
tax rate increases would affect two-thirds of small business income, and
the jobs and wage increases that income supports.

Obama continued on July 9 with this outdated talking point, "So I'm not
proposing anything radical here. I just believe that anybody making over
$250,000 a year should go back to the income tax rates we were paying
under Clinton...." But the capital gains tax rate Obama is proposing is
50% higher than under Clinton. The tax on corporate dividends is 10%
higher. The top income tax rate is 27% higher.

As the Journal also observed on July 10, "As for the impact on growth,
even Keynesian theory holds that raising taxes should be avoided in a
weak economy. That's the argument that Mr. Obama used in late 2010 when
he agreed with Republicans to extend the Bush tax rates through the end
of 2012." But Obama displayed a lot of confusion on July 9, when he also
said, "these tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans are also the tax cuts
that are least likely to promote growth." That reflects his own
confessed Marxist upbringing and philosophy holding that spending on
consumption somehow does more to promote growth than spending on
investment, when in the real world the opposite is true. That confused
thinking is more generally held throughout today's Che Geuvara Democrat
Party.

But Obama continued on July 9 to reflect ignorance or dishonesty in
saying, "Moreover, we've tried it their way. It didn't work. At the
beginning of the last decade, Congress passed trillions of dollars in
tax cuts that benefited the wealthiest Americans more than anybody else.
And what happened?"

We already discussed above that more revenues were lost on the tax cuts
that Obama says he wants to keep than on the tax cuts for the "rich"
that he doesn't. But what did happen with the tax cuts for job creators,
investors and small businesses that Obama doesn't want to keep?

After those rate cuts were all fully implemented in 2003, the economy
created 7.8 million new jobs over the next 4 years and the unemployment
rate fell from over 6% to 4.4%. Real economic growth over the next 3
years doubled from the average for the prior 3 years, to 3.5%.

In response to the rate cuts, business investment spending, which had
declined for 9 straight quarters, reversed and increased 6.7% per
quarter. That is where the jobs came from. Manufacturing output soared
to its highest level in 20 years. The stock market revived, creating
almost $7 trillion in new shareholder wealth. From 2003 to 2007, the S&P
500 almost doubled. Capital gains tax revenues had doubled by 2005,
despite the 25% rate cut!

Perhaps knowing that this rationale for his position was not valid,
Obama offered another justification on July 9 for his comprehensive tax
rate increases, saying, "But we've got this huge deficit, and everybody
agrees that we need to do something about these deficits and those
debts." The problem is that his dramatic tax rate increases will do
little if anything to reduce the deficit. In fact, they may well make
the deficit worse.

As reflected by the Bush experience discussed above, over the last 45
years, every time the capital gains tax rate has been raised, capital
gains revenues have declined rather than increased. And every time the
cap gains tax rate has been cut, revenues have increased rather than
declined. Obama's nearly 60% increase in cap gains tax rates will
produce the same result.

Moreover, after the Bush tax rate cut for dividends, corporate dividend
payouts soared, increasing rather than reducing revenues again. If the
dividend tax rate is now increased by nearly 3 times, dividend payouts
will collapse to their previous levels, and revenues from their taxation
will decline as well.

Don't tell me about the CBO or Joint Tax Committee score of the Obama
tax rate increases, because these august authorities failed to predict
accurately all the prior history discussed above. In 1997, when Congress
was considering a cut in the capital gains rate from 28% back down to
20%, CBO estimated that revenues would decline as a result, for a net
revenue loss of $21 billion over the next 10 years. The actual numbers
after the tax cut was passed showed an increase of $84 billion over the
pre-tax cut projections for 1997 to 2000. Despite an almost 30% cut in
the rate, capital gains revenues rose from $62 billion in 1996 to $109
billion in 1999.

When Congress considered the Bush capital gains rate cut in 2003, from
20% to 15%, CBO estimated that this would cause a revenue loss of $5.4
billion from 2003 to 2006. But after Congress passed the tax cut,
capital gains revenues increased by $133 billion during those years, as
compared to the pre-tax cut projections. As Dan Clifton of the American
Shareholders Association said, "There is no excuse for this $138 billion
error." Capital gains tax revenue doubled from 2003 to 2005 despite a
25% cut in the tax rate.

If all these comprehensive Obama tax rate increases for 2013 push the
weak economy back into recession, federal revenues overall will decline
rather than increase, and the deficit will rocket to new all time
records over $2 trillion. Because of the Obama tax rate increases, Art
Laffer and Ford Scudder write in Monday's Wall Street Journal, "it is a
certainty that we face a lower level of output in 2013." Declining
output means recession. Indeed, because the Obama tax increases are 50%
greater as a percent of GDP than the Reagan tax cuts, Laffer and Scudder
write, "Mr. Obama's tax increases will do more to harm the economy than
Reagan's tax cuts helped the economy."
That is not fighting for the middle class, that is trashing the middle
class. --http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2911752/posts

[Sancho Panza]

On 2/2/2013 10:18 PM, Greegor wrote:
> Why DID they use such a rediculously high figure on the example?
>
> Was it to avoid the "glitch" or hole in coverage that was
> recently acknowledged?
>
Because the time has come that HHS has to stop with the lies. The crap
is hitting the fan. Here is one shrink who turns into a shrinking eunuch
when he can't respond to a simple question, in other words, your typical
liberal crap artist who leaves the under-informed asking real questions
three years too late:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=C5waMNlqD9Q

[Sancho Panza]

On 2/5/2013 2:02 PM, deadrat wrote:
> On 2/5/13 6:21 AM, Sancho Panza wrote:

>> On 2/5/2013 1:48 AM, Bill Graham wrote:
>>> Sancho Panza wrote:

>>>> On 2/4/2013 5:02 PM, Bill Shatzer wrote:
>>>>> Bill Graham wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Bill Shatzer wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Dow just crossed 14,000 this week and is within 160 points of
>>>>>>> its all time high. For someone who hates the stock market, Obama's
>>>>>>> doing pretty well by it.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Obama has nothing to do with that, and I doubt seriously if he owns
>>>>>> a dime of stock.
>>>>>
>>>>> You wouldn't have to doubt if you'd just look it up.
>>>>>
>>>>> He doesn't own any stocks directly but he has several hundreds of
>>>>> thousand (at least) with various mutual funds (including the Vanguard
>>>>> 500) which do invest in stocks.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/president_obama_2011_oge_form_278_certified.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Socialists never do.
>>>>>
>>>>> Guess that pretty much squelches the "Obama is a socialist" rant.
>>>>
>>>> Doesn't "squelch" anything of the sort. All it shows involving stocks
>>>> are six tax-sheltered 529 mutual funds. Unless you have access to
>>>> Attachment A, that is.
>>>
>>> He may keep some mutual funds for show, but he certainly doesn't need
>>> them. As president, he will make millions giving speeches like Clinton
>>> does aws soon as he leaves the White House. I bet he didn't own any
>>> stock when he was a welfare worker in Chicago. Not with the communist
>>> friends he cultivated.
>>
>> That must have been at the same time that he became such an expert
>> marksman.
>
> Who claims that Obama is an expert marksman?

He says Camp David regularly hosts gun shooting. How regu
>
>> So much so that he does not have to hold his weapon like
>> everyone else nor does he have to have his finger correctly on the
>> trigger.
>
> This is what happens when people shoot their mouths off without knowing
> the facts. After rightards grumbled about a President who never fired a
> weapon calling for gun control, the President said he'd fired shotguns
> at Camp David. Doubling down on stupid, the grumblers demanded proof.
> So the White House produces a photo. Not good enough: his finger isn't
> quite in the right place!
>
> Bwahahahahahahaha!
>
> And you know what else? He isn't wearing a billed cap! Go here:
>
> http://www.therightscoop.com/skeeter-obama-fires-fake-shotgun-and-misses/
>
Might as well print the whole little segment. It's pretty damning:

"American Thinker � Now, what�s wrong with the president�s picture?
First the weapon is nearly level to the ground. Can�t be skeet shooting,
nor likely trap either.

Second, it is evident that the President has never shot a shotgun before
as his stance is leaning slightly backward. Look at the position of his
torso to his legs. Skeet or trap shooters never do this. They lean
slightly forward like a boxer in the ring.

Third, he doesn�t know or was never taught that the butt of the weapon
must fit to his shoulder. He�s holding the weapon with a gap between his
shoulder and the top of the butt. Sure you can fire it that way, but
expect lots of pain if not bruising later.

Fourth, either skeet or trap shooters wear either a shell bag or a vest
or both. Apparently, the president is too tough for that.

Fifth, most shooters wear baseball style caps. The bill helps block
unwanted sun in your eyes. Most golfers do, too, for the same reason.

Sixth, he appears to be aiming as one would with a rifle. Doesn�t mean
you don�t do that with a shotgun but as you are trying to hit a moving
target, as opposed to a stationary one, your body must swivel with the
target right or left and up or down. The worst shotgun shooters are
those that try to aim the weapon like a rifle.

Seventh, I suppose it could happen, but in my fifty years of shooting a
shotgun, skeet, trap, and hunting, including double barrel muzzle
loading black powder shotguns, I have never once seen a smoke pattern
like that. Smoke going straight out the barrel is normal, but what the
heck is that second smoke stream shooting behind and away from the
barrel? Perhaps some sort of release value to diminish the recoil from
the shot but I�ve never seen that on a range.

[deadrat]

Nothing, and I mean literally nothing in this subthread has been an
attack on you or anybody else. I asked for evidence for a claim about
blind trusts.

let's discuss real issues:

> Of course, Obamacare includes a whole new entitlement program (just what
> we need) providing health insurance welfare for families making up to
> $88,000 a year to start, rising to over $100,000 a year after a few
> years. With that welfare, the net cost to families at different income
> levels is limited to 2 percent of income for people at 133 percent of
> poverty up to 9.8 percent of income for people at 400 percent of
> poverty. But that in itself is still like a new payroll tax, or income
> tax surcharge.

People who have health insurance may keep their health insurance.
People who don't have to get it. If they can't afford it, they get
subsidies. I understand you don't like this, but it's not "like a new
payroll tax."

> Moreover, taxpayers pay for the health insurance welfare as well. So the
> entire cost of the individual mandate tax is still $15,000 per year for
> families to start, and rising rapidly. That adds up to the largest tax
> increase on the middle class in world history.

The ACA is funded by decreases in payments to providers and by some new
taxes. No one will be socked with a bill for $15K. Where do you get this?

> On July 9, President Obama proposed to extend for one year the Bush tax
> cuts for the middle class, defined as singles making less than $200,000
> per year, and couples making less than $250,000 per year, but to let the
> tax cuts for those earning above those thresholds expire now. A caller
> to a national radio show recently said the proposal meant Obama was
> looking out for the middle class. But if Obama is looking out for the
> middle class, why is he proposing to extend their Bush tax cuts for only
> one year? This is the first time Obama is implying that maybe the Bush
> tax cuts for the middle class may not become permanent either.

Oh, a caller to a national radio show said something? Well, say no
more. I'm convinced. By the way, the tax cuts were extended to people
making less than $400K.

>
> And then who passed those middle class tax cuts in the first place that
> Obama is proposing to extend? That would be President Bush and the then
> Congressional majority Republicans, with almost every Democrat opposing
> the relief. But Obama and his Che Guevara Democrats have been telling us
> for 4 years that Bush and the Republicans only cut taxes for the rich.

Nonsense. The WPE cut taxes for everybody. The average savings was
just short of $1900 a year. The average savings for the top 1% was over
$56,000 per year. Taxpayers in the 4th quintile of income got a 2%
break; taxpayers in the 99th percentile got a 4.3% break.

Go here:
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/bush-tax-cuts/ignore.cfm

> Even according to CBO, the Bush middle class tax cuts Obama wants to
> extend dwarf the Bush tax cuts for "the rich" Obama does not want to
> extend.

Let's have a cite. The WPE's tax cuts benefited the very wealthy, so
it's absurd to call them "middle class tax cuts."

>
> Obama elaborated on July 9, "We need policies that grow and strengthen
> the middle class - policies that help create jobs, ...that encourage
> businesses to start up and create jobs right here in the United States."
> But the Obama policies already enacted under current law would raise the
> top tax rates on Jan. 1 for almost every federal tax for the nation's
> job creators, investors and small businesses, with the expiration of the
> Bush tax cuts and the Obamacare tax increases becoming effective.

But that didn't happen. The Jan. 1 date was the expiration of the WPE's
tax cuts.

>
> As a result, the top two income tax rates would increase by nearly 20%,
> the capital gains tax rate would increase nearly 60%, the tax on
> dividends would nearly triple, the Medicare payroll tax rate would
> increase by 62% for these disfavored taxpayers, and the death tax rate
> would rise from the grave with a 57% increase in the top rate.

But this didn't happen except for people making $400K or more per year.

"Death tax." Heh, heh. Like you need to worry about estate taxes. Why
not let rich kids earn their own way?

> This would all be on top of the highest corporate income tax rate in the
> industrialized world at nearly 40% when state taxes are counted. That
> leaves American businesses uncompetitive in the global economy. Yet
> under Obama, there is no relief in sight. Instead he has spent the past
> two years barnstorming the country for still more tax increases. His
> proposed Buffet Rule would increase the current capital gains tax rate
> by 100%, leaving America saddled with the fourth highest cap gains rate
> in the industrialized world.
>
> As the Wall Street Journal explained on July 10, what "Mr. Obama is
> demanding [are] tax increases, not tax cuts, and large increases at
> that." How do those tax increases strengthen the middle class, and
> encourage businesses to start up and create jobs right here in the
> United States? They do just the opposite. Obama's rhetoric is just more
> Calculated Deception, designed to fool the gullible.

You're one of the losers, at least economically. Why are you shilling
for the very rich? Some kind of Stockholm Syndrome? If you put your
ear to your monitor and listen very carefully, you can hear rich people
laughing at you.

>
> By sharp contrast, the Republican House majority has already passed the
> permanent extension of the Bush tax cuts for everyone. That includes the
> middle class tax cuts that the Republicans originally enacted that Obama
> proposes to extend for only one year, as well as the Bush tax cuts for
> the nation's job creators, investors, and small businesses. So who is
> really looking out for the middle class?

Old news. Didn't happen. Oh, wait. A trip to the bottom reveals that
this is an out-of-date copyright violation from a right wing website.

Didja not realize that the whole thing is out of date? Didja check any
of the so-called facts?

<snip/>

--http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2911752/posts

[Bill Graham]

> "American Thinker – Now, what’s wrong with the president’s picture?
> First the weapon is nearly level to the ground. Can’t be skeet

> shooting, nor likely trap either.
>
> Second, it is evident that the President has never shot a shotgun
> before as his stance is leaning slightly backward. Look at the
> position of his torso to his legs. Skeet or trap shooters never do
> this. They lean slightly forward like a boxer in the ring.
>

> Third, he doesn’t know or was never taught that the butt of the weapon
> must fit to his shoulder. He’s holding the weapon with a gap between

> his shoulder and the top of the butt. Sure you can fire it that way,
> but expect lots of pain if not bruising later.
>
> Fourth, either skeet or trap shooters wear either a shell bag or a
> vest or both. Apparently, the president is too tough for that.
>
> Fifth, most shooters wear baseball style caps. The bill helps block
> unwanted sun in your eyes. Most golfers do, too, for the same reason.
>

> Sixth, he appears to be aiming as one would with a rifle. Doesn’t mean
> you don’t do that with a shotgun but as you are trying to hit a moving

> target, as opposed to a stationary one, your body must swivel with the
> target right or left and up or down. The worst shotgun shooters are
> those that try to aim the weapon like a rifle.
>
> Seventh, I suppose it could happen, but in my fifty years of shooting
> a shotgun, skeet, trap, and hunting, including double barrel muzzle
> loading black powder shotguns, I have never once seen a smoke pattern
> like that. Smoke going straight out the barrel is normal, but what the
> heck is that second smoke stream shooting behind and away from the
> barrel? Perhaps some sort of release value to diminish the recoil from

> the shot but I’ve never seen that on a range.

Quoting something dumb written by a conservative, or avowed conservative
doesn't proove anything about all conservatives or the conservative
philosophy. I can quote many stupid things written bu liberals too. I could
care less whether Obama knows how to shoot a shotgun or not. I only know
that I need a gun in my pocket in order to protect myself from crime because
we don;t live in a society where there are two policemen on every corner.
So, I have one in my pocket right now. It is, "concealed" and I don;t have a
licenst to carry a concealed weapon, and never have had one. But ai carry it
anyway because I can read, and the second amendment giver me that right, in
spite of the fact that all liberals can;t read, including SCOTUS. Had the
founding rathers wanted to ban condealed weapons, they would have added the
word, "unconcealed" before the word, "arms" in the second amendment. Any
reasonable thinking person knows this. That's why I think liberals are
neither reasonable, nor thinking....

[Baxter]

-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:LqCdnXyCh_4AV4TM...@giganews.com...
> .. I only know that I need a gun in my pocket in order to protect myself

> from crime because we don;t live in a society where there are two
> policemen on every corner.

So your excuse for carrying a gun is that we don't live in a Police State -
where you wouldn't be allowed a gun in the first place.

[Bill Graham]

No. My excuse for carrying a gun is to protect myself (and sometimes
others)from the crazies that have become more and more prevalent in the
society during my lifetime. I donl't like to take chances. I carry a
concealed weapon, and I know how to use it. On two seperate occasions having
it with me has saved me from certain harm, and perhaps saved my life. (I
will never know which for sure) But more than that, it has given me the
confidence to go wherever I damned well pleased at any hour of the day or
night. I have never had to say, "Well, I would like to go there, but it is
too dangerous, so I donl't think I will." It is a fact that the police don't
prevent crime. They can only hunt down the perpetrators after the fact. When
a crime is committed, there are only two people there. The victom and the
criminal(s). So if there is any "preventing" to be done, you damn well
better be prepared to do it yourself. A gun is only a tool for doing that.
Just like my pocket knife and my pair of scissors, I always have it with me.

[Sancho Panza]

It was just posted in this forum and heavily discussed. And the bill is
for $20,000. And you are also wrong about the funding. It is
intellectually dishonest to omit the limits on care. As figured you are
not well informed about the details and just want to throw out some
arguing points. That is what was expected from you with a challenge to
discuss substantive questions.

> You're one of the losers, at least economically. Why are you shilling
> for the very rich? Some kind of Stockholm Syndrome? If you put your
> ear to your monitor and listen very carefully, you can hear rich people
> laughing at you.

I'm a loser in this deal because Obama lied when he promised that I
would be able to retain my current health insurance.

>>
>> By sharp contrast, the Republican House majority has already passed the
>> permanent extension of the Bush tax cuts for everyone. That includes the
>> middle class tax cuts that the Republicans originally enacted that Obama
>> proposes to extend for only one year, as well as the Bush tax cuts for
>> the nation's job creators, investors, and small businesses. So who is
>> really looking out for the middle class?
>
> Old news. Didn't happen.

So you want to say that the House did not pass the extension. Fascinating.

> Oh, wait. A trip to the bottom reveals that
> this is an out-of-date copyright violation from a right wing website.
>
> Didja not realize that the whole thing is out of date? Didja check any
> of the so-called facts?
>
> <snip/>
>
> --http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2911752/posts

So all you have got to dispute basically is your misstatement about the
financing of Obamacare. Figures.

[Sancho Panza]

On 2/11/2013 11:15 PM, deadrat wrote:

It was just posted in this forum and heavily discussed. And the bill is
for $20,000. And you are also wrong about the funding. It is
intellectually dishonest to omit the limits on care. As figured you are
not well informed about the details and just want to throw out some
arguing points. That is what was expected from you with a challenge to
discuss substantive questions.

> You're one of the losers, at least economically. Why are you shilling
> for the very rich? Some kind of Stockholm Syndrome? If you put your
> ear to your monitor and listen very carefully, you can hear rich people
> laughing at you.

I'm a loser in this deal because Obama lied when he promised that I
would be able to retain my current health insurance.


>>

>> By sharp contrast, the Republican House majority has already passed the
>> permanent extension of the Bush tax cuts for everyone. That includes the
>> middle class tax cuts that the Republicans originally enacted that Obama
>> proposes to extend for only one year, as well as the Bush tax cuts for
>> the nation's job creators, investors, and small businesses. So who is
>> really looking out for the middle class?
>
> Old news. Didn't happen.

So you want to say that the House did not pass the extension. Fascinating.

> Oh, wait. A trip to the bottom reveals that
> this is an out-of-date copyright violation from a right wing website.
>
> Didja not realize that the whole thing is out of date? Didja check any
> of the so-called facts?
>
> <snip/>
>
> --http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2911752/posts

[Baxter]

-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:EJWdnds8Rp7UcoTM...@giganews.com...

> Baxter wrote:
>> "Bill Graham" <we...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:LqCdnXyCh_4AV4TM...@giganews.com...
>>> .. I only know that I need a gun in my pocket in order to protect
>>> myself from crime because we don;t live in a society where there are
>>> two policemen on every corner.
>>
>> So your excuse for carrying a gun is that we don't live in a Police
>> State - where you wouldn't be allowed a gun in the first place.
>
> No. My excuse for carrying a gun is to protect myself (and sometimes
> others)from the crazies that have become more and more prevalent in the
> society during my lifetime.

Rationalization

>I donl't like to take chances.

Fear, cowardace

> I carry a concealed weapon, and I know how to use it. On two seperate
> occasions having it with me has saved me from certain harm, and perhaps
> saved my life. (I will never know which for sure) But more than that, it
> has given me the confidence to go wherever I damned well pleased at any
> hour of the day or night. I have never had to say, "Well, I would like to
> go there, but it is too dangerous, so I donl't think I will."

Arrogance and stupidity.

>It is a fact that the police don't prevent crime. They can only hunt down
>the perpetrators after the fact.

And out of the other side of your mouth, you say that more cops and more
prisons do deter crime.

>When a crime is committed, there are only two people there. The victom and
>the criminal(s). So if there is any "preventing" to be done, you damn well
>better be prepared to do it yourself. A gun is only a tool for doing that.
>Just like my pocket knife and my pair of scissors, I always have it with
>me.

You just love a Police State - you just want to be one of those bully cops.