Headlines you'd love to see. I can only imagine the ones the copy editors at the World wanted to write.
U.S. Sen. Tom Coburn's Viagra amendment fails
Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., speaks to reporters on Capitol Hill Tuesday in Washington. MANUEAL BALCE CENETA/AP Photo
By CHRIS CASTEEL NewsOK.com
Published: 3/25/2010 11:04 AM
Last Modified: 3/25/2010 11:07 AM
WASHINGTON — The Senate on Wednesday killed a proposal by Sen. Tom Coburn to prevent convicted sex offenders from getting Viagra or similar prescriptions in the insurance markets to be established under the new health reform law.
Coburn's amendment was one of several shot down by Democrats working to approve a package of changes to the health care reform bill signed into law Tuesday by President Barack Obama. Among those killed was one that would put members of Congress in the Medicaid program.
Any changes to the package would force the House to vote on it again, so Democrats put up a united front Wednesday against amendments to keep the package intact.
Idea criticized
Coburn, R-Muskogee, called the new health reform law "the greatest assault on liberty this country has ever had," as he put Democrats in the position of voting down his proposal to prevent convicted child molesters, rapists and other sex offenders from getting federal drug coverage for erectile dysfunction drugs. The amendment was killed by a vote of 57-42
Read more from this Tulsa World article at http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=17&articleid=20100325_17_0_WASHIN56949
Most of the amendments were placed as fodder to use on campaign ads.
"the democrats want impotent men to rape you" is coming soon.
Quote from: Townsend on March 25, 2010, 11:36:01 AM
Most of the amendments were placed as fodder to use on campaign ads.
"the democrats want impotent men to rape you" is coming soon.
Yep, it's their season to collect ammunition
"If you elect _____________ he/she will take away your healthcare."
Ahhh that old ditty.
I think that's why they call them "Mad Libs"
"If you elect _____________ he/she will take away ___________."
How many can we come up with?
(http://www-inst.eecs.berkeley.edu/~selfpace/cs9gonline/P2/MadLibs.jpg)
Is Coburn the most talked about junior senator?
http://www.newson6.com/global/story.asp?s=12204773 (http://www.newson6.com/global/story.asp?s=12204773)
QuoteSenate Republicans hold up jobless benefits
Associated Press - March 25, 2010 3:35 PM ET
WASHINGTON (AP) - Senate Republicans are blocking speedy passage of a stopgap bill to extend jobless benefits, saying its $9 billion cost should not be added to the national debt.
The clash comes less than a month after Republicans shied away from a similar battle that led to an interruption in unemployment benefits eligibility for some people and a 2-day furlough for some Transportation Department employees.
Last month, Kentucky Republican Jim Bunning blocked a similar extension of jobless benefits but ended up on the losing end of a public relations battle and backed away.
Now, it's Oklahoma Republican Tom Coburn who's insisting that the measure be financed with money from last year's economic stimulus bill.
QuoteCoburn's Viagra Amendment Goes Flaccid
Shame! He worked so HARD-ON that.
Quote from: Townsend on March 25, 2010, 11:36:01 AM
Most of the amendments were placed as fodder to use on campaign ads.
"the democrats want impotent men to rape you" is coming soon.
Wrong. It's another dumb tactic to prove a point....he does not have one to prove.
Quote from: Townsend on March 25, 2010, 03:20:04 PM
Is Coburn the most talked about junior senator?
http://www.newson6.com/global/story.asp?s=12204773 (http://www.newson6.com/global/story.asp?s=12204773)
How many weeks of unemployment are people getting now? We closing in on 1,000?
Quote from: guido911 on March 25, 2010, 03:35:32 PM
How many weeks of unemployment are people getting now? We closing in on 1,000?
Almost 2 years, 99 weeks. They have to push it to 4 years so that they can use the. . .
"If you elect __________ he/she will take away your unemployment benefits."
Quote from: fotd on March 25, 2010, 03:32:51 PM
Wrong. It's another dumb tactic to prove a point....he does not have one to prove.
What the hell is that?
29 attempted amendments...what's that got to do with one "he"?
Quote from: Townsend on March 25, 2010, 04:09:30 PM
What the hell is that?
29 attempted amendments...what's that got to do with one "he"?
Bunning take 2....
Coburn's Viagra Gambit [Daniel Foster]http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=M2E0OTMwYmM2NWZmM2UzNjU1OTRmYTQ2NTRmMTVkMWU=
"Sen. Tom Coburn (R., Okla.) has offered an amendment to the Senate reconciliation bill that would make it illegal for the government to cover Viagra through the exchanges.
The rationale here is that Coburn is trying to force Democrats into a difficult vote. If the amendment succeeds, the reconciliation package would clearly represent a change of policy, and not just of taxation and spending, and would therefore be subject to a sixty-vote threshold. If it fails, Democrats will be seen as standing up for molestors' access to libido-enhancers."
Shenanigan's by a mega millionaire at the expense of the poor and helpless. Just great for you who support this type of logic.
Quote from: fotd on March 25, 2010, 04:24:38 PM
Bunning take 2....
Coburn's Viagra Gambit [Daniel Foster]
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=M2E0OTMwYmM2NWZmM2UzNjU1OTRmYTQ2NTRmMTVkMWU=
"Sen. Tom Coburn (R., Okla.) has offered an amendment to the Senate reconciliation bill that would make it illegal for the government to cover Viagra through the exchanges.
The rationale here is that Coburn is trying to force Democrats into a difficult vote. If the amendment succeeds, the reconciliation package would clearly represent a change of policy, and not just of taxation and spending, and would therefore be subject to a sixty-vote threshold. If it fails, Democrats will be seen as standing up for molestors' access to libido-enhancers."
Shenanigan's by a mega millionaire at the expense of the poor and helpless. Just great for you who support this type of logic.
The republicans knew they'd get shot down but they wanted the ability to say "He wants your family raped" et al on the next campaign trail so they came up with crazy crap like that.
So they added several amendments like that. Oklahoma was just lucky enough to have the limpist one.
K... so far in the Reconciliation process . . .
New tax on medical devices ($2 Billion, $3 Billion after 2017 in the signed bill) now 2.9% of sales starting in 2013 (around $20 billion).
New tax on prescription drugs ($2.3 billion in the signed bill) now $4.8 billion in the new bill.
AND THEY'RE JUST GETTING WARMED UP :D
Quote from: Gaspar on March 25, 2010, 04:29:06 PM
K... so far in the Reconciliation process . . .
New tax on medical devices ($2 Billion, $3 Billion after 2017 in the signed bill) now 2.9% of sales starting in 2013 (around $20 billion).
New tax on prescription drugs ($2.3 billion in the signed bill) now $4.8 billion in the new bill.
AND THEY'RE JUST GETTING WARMED UP :D
B..bb.bbb..but, I thought they were going to lower the cost of treatment, pharmaceuticals, and devices. Where's Nathan with the mental gymnastics of how a tax increase will actually equal cost savings?
Cost savings to the many who can't afford insurance and have been left out in the cold by.....you all?
Quote from: Gaspar on March 25, 2010, 04:29:06 PM
K... so far in the Reconciliation process . . .
New tax on medical devices ($2 Billion, $3 Billion after 2017 in the signed bill) now 2.9% of sales starting in 2013 (around $20 billion).
New tax on prescription drugs ($2.3 billion in the signed bill) now $4.8 billion in the new bill.
AND THEY'RE JUST GETTING WARMED UP :D
I take it only those making more than 250K will be subject to those new taxes, after all, Obama promised. lol
Quote from: Townsend on March 25, 2010, 04:27:59 PM
The republicans knew they'd get shot down but they wanted the ability to say "He wants your family raped" et al on the next campaign trail so they came up with crazy crap like that.
So they added several amendments like that. Oklahoma was just lucky enough to have the limpist one.
This is not a new tactic. It's usually used in reverse though. Tack on a POS earmark to a good bill. Then you get your earmark. Anyone voting against your earmark is voting against an otherwise good bill.
Quote from: Conan71 on March 25, 2010, 11:31:47 AM
WASHINGTON — The Senate on Wednesday killed a proposal by Sen. Tom Coburn to prevent convicted sex offenders from getting Viagra or similar prescriptions in the insurance markets to be established under the new health reform law.
....because every practicing MD knows Viagra is just a rape pill....
::)
Quote from: fotd on March 25, 2010, 04:35:05 PM
Cost savings to the many who can't afford insurance and have been left out in the cold by.....you all?
Explain the mechanism that makes it less expensive. It's totally lost on me.
And Coburn is the brilliant one of our two Senators!
And did you notice Brogdon (State senator) is making racist comments again... what a wiener, er, uh, winner!!
You can provide your support by calling his company, Hardin Geo-Technologies, where he is sales dude, according to his bio. And ONB bank in Owasso where he is advisory board member.
Or not.
Good to know. I will avoid both. (Sorry Randy.)
Quote from: fotd on March 25, 2010, 04:35:05 PM
Cost savings to the many who can't afford insurance and have been left out in the cold by.....you all?
What about the people that can't afford gym memberships?
We are dooming them to poorer health, decreased lifespan, and a lower quality of living.
Perhaps we should include gym memberships in the healthcare bill?
These people have a RIGHT to be healthy!
It seems that this bill does not go far enough.
Being happy is good mental health
Drinking Marshall's makes me happy
I need a health benefit from Uncle Sam to buy Marshall's
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on March 25, 2010, 09:13:37 PM
And Coburn is the brilliant one of our two Senators!
And did you notice Brogdon (State senator) is making racist comments again... what a wiener, er, uh, winner!!
You can provide your support by calling his company, Hardin Geo-Technologies, where he is sales dude, according to his bio. And ONB bank in Owasso where he is advisory board member.
Or not.
Good to know. I will avoid both. (Sorry Randy.)
What a bunch of pussies.
"Members of the Oklahoma Legislative Black Caucus were both shocked and disappointed at Sen. Brogdon's comments on the Senate floor that asked whether President Barack Obama would consider forcing Oklahomans to eat fried chicken," said a statement issued Wednesday by Rep. Jabar Shumate of Tulsa, the caucus' chairman, on behalf of its members Sen. Judy Eason McIntyre of Tulsa and Reps. Mike Shelton and Anastasia Pittman, both of Oklahoma City. All four are Democrats.
Fried chicken has been part of a cultural stereotype of black Americans.
Read more from this Tulsa World article at http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=12&articleid=20100325_16_A3_OLHMIY473280&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+StatelineorgRss-HealthCare+(Stateline.org+RSS+-+Health+Care)
Puh-lease.
Since when did food become racist? I could better better understand if Brogdon had dropped the N-bomb or something more blatant like "fried chicken, collard greens, water melon, & ribs". I guess the Hispanic caucus would be upset if he'd said burritos. Has the white caucus weighed in on this? Oh wait, that would be racist if there were a white caucus.
Hardly a stereo-type as worded. Far as I know black people pretty much like all the same food I do.
Again, what a bunch of sniveling pussies.
Amen Conan. I just bet those losers were all over Harry Reid over this gem:
Or what about Biden and these famous quotes:
7-11:
Clean, articulate:
Quote from: Gaspar on March 25, 2010, 03:53:18 PM
Almost 2 years, 99 weeks. They have to push it to 4 years so that they can use the. . .
"If you elect __________ he/she will take away your unemployment benefits."
I am reading that Obama wants banks to allow the unemployed to reduce their or even not pay their mortgages:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/25/AR2010032502426.html?hpid=topnews
So let me fix your quote a bit:
"If you elect __________ he/she will make you pay your mortgage"
The gravy training continues on the backs of the taxpayer.
Quote from: guido911 on March 26, 2010, 10:48:39 AM
I am reading that Obama wants banks to allow the unemployed to reduce their or even not pay their mortgages:
Uh, was that not one of the reasons the real estate market imploded, along with lending and the investment banks?
Here we go again. "I won't have to worry about paying my mortgage"
Holy crap, I guess they were serious!
Quote from: guido911 on March 25, 2010, 04:38:34 PM
I take it only those making more than 250K will be subject to those new taxes, after all, Obama promised. lol
I do believe the medical device manufacturers and pharmaceutical companies generally make more than $250,000 a year. You can breathe.
And Obama wants banks to do what's in their own best interest: keep people paying their mortgage, even if that means taking a partial loss on the loan. We don't have as big a problem with this here, but in a lot of places, the amount recovered from foreclosure is well under 50% of the typical loan value.
If a bank can reduce the principal balance by 30% and make the mortgage affordable to the homeowner, the bank is better off. Not only do they get a better recovery than they would otherwise, but they keep getting interest. I know it's hard to figure these things out when you're too busy getting upset.
Quote from: nathanm on March 26, 2010, 12:45:57 PM
I do believe the medical device manufacturers and pharmaceutical companies generally make more than $250,000 a year. You can breathe.
And Obama wants banks to do what's in their own best interest: keep people paying their mortgage, even if that means taking a partial loss on the loan. We don't have as big a problem with this here, but in a lot of places, the amount recovered from foreclosure is well under 50% of the typical loan value.
If a bank can reduce the principal balance by 30% and make the mortgage affordable to the homeowner, the bank is better off. Not only do they get a better recovery than they would otherwise, but they keep getting interest. I know it's hard to figure these things out when you're too busy getting upset.
Who pays for those tax increases? Does the revenue to pay the additional taxes just magically appear or does it wind up factored into the cost to manufacture a device. Who uses medical devices?
I honestly have not looked at what current recovery rates are on foreclosures, but 50% sounds very low to me except in markets which were over-built before the collapse or areas with unusually high unemployment rates. Obviously, the rate of recovery for lenders will be higher in areas where housing inventories are lower and where the jobless rate is lowest. In one way, choosing not to foreclose could have the effect of keeping housing inventories slimmer which would bolster value at a later date, or hoping the current resident could resume paying full payments when their circumstances change. By the same token, if the borrower is still in the house but figures they are going to lose it anyhow, 9 out of 10 times they won't maintain anything and the value of the property will degrade further than it would if it sat empty by willful neglect and in many cases outright vandalism.
I worked in consumer lending for about four years in the late '80's and early '90's. I never ceased to be amazed at the kind of spite people had when they knew they were losing their car or house and the nasty things they could to do show that spite.
I need to ask an accountant if forgiveness of indebtedness on these mortgages falls back on the taxpayer as a liability.
Quote from: fotd on March 26, 2010, 02:11:07 PM
I need to ask an accountant if forgiveness of indebtedness on these mortgages falls back on the taxpayer as a liability.
In the past lenders mailed the borrower a 1099 for the difference between the price the house sold at foreclosure auction (it usually sells to the bank) for and the balance on their loan at the time. The gov't may have changed that due to the record number of foreclosures but generally a defaulted loan is treated as income.
Quote from: Conan71 on March 26, 2010, 02:06:51 PM
Who pays for those tax increases? Does the revenue to pay the additional taxes just magically appear or does it wind up factored into the cost to manufacture a device. Who uses medical devices?
...
9 out of 10 times they won't maintain anything and the value of the property will degrade further than it would if it sat empty by willful neglect and in many cases outright vandalism.
You're seriously trying to defend Guido's argument that a tax on certain corporations is a tax on people earning less than $250,000 a year?
...
I don't think so. Even a person not maintaining the home will be better on it than having the utilities shut off and letting it rot in the summer humidity. It's shocking how quickly houses deteriorate structurally when they are not properly ventilated.
Interestingly, MBS are trading as if the loss ratio will be 80 or 90% across the board. I don't have recent numbers handy, but last year, the loss severity was around 65%.
Moody's is forecasting non-subprime Option ARM loss severity to be over 50% this year on '06 and '07 loans.
Also, I seem to remember that there was a provision in the stimulus to not treat amounts written off on a loan secured by your primary residence as taxable income. I forget exactly what the terms are, but I specifically remember that issue being addressed.
I'm not defending anyone else's argument, Nathan it's a principle I've long espoused. I'm pointing out that corporate taxes are paid by customers of the corporation by via higher prices. Yes the corporate treasurer's signature is on the check (or in most cases of companies this large a facsimile of a signature).
A large percentage of medical device and medication users make under $250K if you want to extrapolate it that way. No it's not a direct tax on those people, however taxes like this are regressive in nature when you look at who ultimately winds up paying the taxes. The consumer, and typically those on fixed incomes and disability payments wind up using more devices & meds.
Quote from: Conan71 on March 26, 2010, 02:36:53 PM
I'm not defending anyone else's argument, Nathan it's a principle I've long espoused. I'm pointing out that corporate taxes are paid by customers of the corporation by via higher prices.
Yes, but would you argue that someone who said "I'm not going to raise taxes on people making less than $250,000 a year" is lying if they raise taxes on corporations?
Corporate taxes are paid by higher prices or lower profits, yes. Which it ends up being depends on the demand elasticity for a given product line. Sometimes raising prices will lose you even more money than a tax.
Let's keep in mind that the companies involved negotiated that particular tax and how it is structured.
To cynics like me it's double-speak, particularly when there is a plot for systemic tax increases which "aren't tax increases".
No they did not directly agree to raise taxes on those making less than $250k but they used class envy to dupe people into believing that tax increases on greedy corporations & the rich somehow don't ultimately wind up being paid for by those who are led to believe they are unaffected by them
Quote from: Conan71 on March 27, 2010, 10:24:59 AM
To cynics like me it's double-speak, particularly when there is a plot for systemic tax increases which "aren't tax increases".
No they did not directly agree to raise taxes on those making less than $250k but they used class envy to dupe people into believing that tax increases on greedy corporations & the rich somehow don't ultimately wind up being paid for by those who are led to believe they are unaffected by them
That is exactly my point. The higher tax will be passed along to the consumer in the form of higher prices, most of which (statistically) earn less than $250K/year and probably are the most vulnerable since they need these devices to make their lives manageable. I cannot understand how Nate doesn't get that. Interestingly, there were several amendments offered during reconciliation to exempt certain classes of people, such as veterans and children. Well, we know how that ended up--flaccid:
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/print/63358
Here's the video of Obama pledging no increase in taxes (which he of course broke with the passage of S-CHIP and the tobacco tax):
Quote from: guido911 on March 27, 2010, 02:49:52 PM
I cannot understand how Nate doesn't get that.
I understand what you guys are saying, I just am not so anti-tax that I care. Every dollar has to come from somewhere, if one business chooses to raise its prices while another accepts a slightly lower profit margin, the one that is willing to take the lower margin per product will sell more stuff.
As I approach retirement age I am trying to become a Liberal so that I can have the government support me in a manner to which I would like to become accustomed. I will try my best to believe the money will magically appear. ;D
It's not so much the fried chicken remark as the fact that he is such a dipstick. More the overall tone he sets, so that anything he says will be taken as being in that overall tone context regardless of the exact terminology. Remember all the crap Dipstick Keating spewed during his time as Governor? Same kind of thing.
And Gene Stipe, Jim Inhoffe, the fool woman in Oklahoma City area - can't remember her name - who wants to kill the gays or at least put them all in prison.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on March 28, 2010, 09:46:36 PM
It's not so much the fried chicken remark as the fact that he is such a dipstick. More the overall tone he sets, so that anything he says will be taken as being in that overall tone context regardless of the exact terminology. Remember all the crap Dipstick Keating spewed during his time as Governor? Same kind of thing.
And Gene Stipe, Jim Inhoffe, the fool woman in Oklahoma City area - can't remember her name - who wants to kill the gays or at least put them all in prison.
It's not so much the fried chicken remark as the fact that he is such a
dipstick republican. FIFY
Gene Stipe wasn't a Publican.
He was probably the worst this state has ever seen. Probably even a few points worse than Jim Inhoffe. Kind of a southeast Oklahoma Huey Long wannabe.
Randy is a Publican, just not much of a Republican. Page Belcher was a Republican - and a really good man to boot. And David Boren. There just haven't been many lately.
It is Democrats AND Republicans that are running this state into the ground. As well as the rest of the country. That's why I adhere to the philosphy of voting out any and all incumbents. Newbies will take some time to learn how to do the graft and corruption, which buys us a little breathing space. By the time they figure it out, we then vote them out and get new ones. Simple.
Quote from: Conan71 on March 26, 2010, 02:36:53 PM
The consumer, and typically those on fixed incomes and disability payments wind up using more devices & meds.
Pretty soon, it'll be their insurance companies paying the bill, adding yet another layer of indirection.
Philosophically, I just can't get behind your position, as the only logical conclusion is eliminating all corporate taxation, which I consider an absurd result.
Quote from: nathanm on March 28, 2010, 10:53:17 PM
Pretty soon, it'll be their insurance companies paying the bill, adding yet another layer of indirection.
Philosophically, I just can't get behind your position, as the only logical conclusion is eliminating all corporate taxation, which I consider an absurd result.
Nope, not at all. You've reached a false conclusion about my philosophies. What would be logical about eliminating all corporate taxation? You made that up, not me.
I want a smaller, less deft government which doesn't need as much money to operate as it does now. We waste far, far too much money in areas the government should not be involved in. The problem, as I see it, between your philosophy (and is generally the difference between fiscal libs and cons) and mine is you seem to think a large government is normal and acceptible. Liberals typically believe that government offers the fairest solution to just about any issue or social deficiency. I think a lot of liberals like you have either thrown your hands up and figured the system is the way it is so leave it alone, or you want someone else to solve every problem instead of taking personal accountability to solve your own problems. An example would be twenty-somethings changing personal priorities and buying health insurance in place of expecting the government should provide it so they can afford a slightly bigger house or a new BMW instead of a second-hand Toyota. (yes, I know gross generalization)
I don't have a problem providing for myself nor paying for my own retirement, keeping myself employed at a level I can afford my health care. I don't have a problem paying for my fair share of government services and even a portion of my productivity going to help educate others and to provide a hand up for those who are struggling. I don't have a problem with that at all. I realize government has to exist to prevent society from lapsing into anarchy and to help provide certain common services like national defense, highways, safe food products, police protection, fire protection, promote commerce so that business can thrive, clean water, safe sewage disposal, nice green spaces I can enjoy on my bicycle, clean water ways I can enjoy with human, wind, or mechanical power, etc. And I wouldn't have a problem directly paying for those benefits on a per use basis, if necessary, to keep them that way.
But, I believe the Federal government has become too big, costly, and deft to properly serve the people it purports to serve in an efficient manner and I believe the government tries to be too many things to too many people. I see our country becoming a nanny state where people are becoming overly dependent on government to solve every problem for them, instead of trying to provide their own solutions. I also see too many limited special interests dipping their beak in the treasury who have no business being there. "Community organizing groups" have no business being funded on any government level. I think the general aviation (this coming from a pilot) airports should be pay-to-play by the users and tenants- plenty more examples of that exist. Every conservative and every liberal accepts graft and creates waste to pay back their best donors. Bloated government is the result of decades of systemic corruption which must end. Earmarks need to go away permanently. We need to quit cloaking more government handouts (corporate and individual), more bureaucracies, and more needless pet projects into un-related bills. The only way to bring transparency to Federal legislation is to end the practice of 500, 1000, or 2000 page mega-bills. We should not put up with this practice any more.
We don't need lower taxes so much as we need less government spending, fewer government agencies, and better decision-making as to where the resources of government are best placed and serve the best interests of the public. Our government has become like the "Blob". Started out small but gradually keeps creeping and consuming and becoming ever bigger to the detriment and fear of people.
The difference is Nathan, you seem to be content with simply raising taxes to pay for all the waste and un-needed services of government instead of simply scaling back the function and size of government. I suspect strongly that health care for every US citizen could be done without raising any taxes at all if we went through and cut out every un-needed service and un-needed "project" the government gets suckered into paying for.
/long, windy conservative hack diatribe
Quote from: Conan71 on March 29, 2010, 09:23:37 AM
The difference is Nathan, you seem to be content with simply raising taxes to pay for all the waste and un-needed services of government instead of simply scaling back the function and size of government. I suspect strongly that health care for every US citizen could be done without raising any taxes at all if we went through and cut out every un-needed service and un-needed "project" the government gets suckered into paying for.
Actually, I completely agree that we could pay for health care by cutting waste. I doubt we agree on what in the federal budget is waste, however! ;D
I do think that if I were to take the position that corporate taxes are necessarily individual taxes just by dint of the way corporations work, I would be unable to find logical support for continuing corporate taxation. After all, what's the point of pretending to take money from one group when you're really taking it from someone else? The only reason to do it is obfuscation.
Thankfully, I do find a distinction there, so I don't have to take that position.
Quote from: nathanm on March 29, 2010, 03:09:58 PM
Thankfully, I do find a distinction there, so I don't have to take that position.
Great! I've always wondered what that distinction is, but none have been able to describe it yet.
It sounds like you understand the distinction between taxes on businesses and increased cost to the consumer. Please let me know how that works.
Quote from: Gaspar on March 29, 2010, 03:33:14 PM
It sounds like you understand the distinction between taxes on businesses and increased cost to the consumer. Please let me know how that works.
In a competitive market, it will sometimes or even often benefit the corporation to not pass through increased taxes through increased sales prices of their goods, as profits will be reduced further than the tax alone causes due to pricing some of the demand out of the market.
It all depends on the amount of competition and the demand elasticity of the good.
Quote from: Conan71 on March 26, 2010, 02:15:10 PM
In the past lenders mailed the borrower a 1099 for the difference between the price the house sold at foreclosure auction (it usually sells to the bank) for and the balance on their loan at the time. The gov't may have changed that due to the record number of foreclosures but generally a defaulted loan is treated as income.
That's obvious. What's the new rule?
" But, I believe the Federal government has become too big, costly..." Conan, with all due little respect when the population multiply's government must too. Sorry, but it is the nature of governments that look out for the taxpaying citizenry. Maybe birth control could solve this issue.
Quote from: fotd on March 29, 2010, 03:58:48 PM
That's obvious. What's the new rule?
" But, I believe the Federal government has become too big, costly..." Conan, with all due little respect when the population multiply's government must too. Sorry, but it is the nature of governments that look out for the taxpaying citizenry. Maybe birth control could solve this issue.
Of course they must get bigger to keep up with increasing population. They needn't get bigger on a whim.
They might want to control that immigration thingy better before they start mandating birth control. I can think of a few people for whom retroactive birth control sounds like a great option.
Quote from: nathanm on March 29, 2010, 03:44:56 PM
In a competitive market, it will sometimes or even often benefit the corporation to not pass through increased taxes through increased sales prices of their goods, as profits will be reduced further than the tax alone causes due to pricing some of the demand out of the market.
It all depends on the amount of competition and the demand elasticity of the good.
Oh good, you're taking in consideration competition. So then, lets look at an entire sector. . . say Locksmiths (sector SIC 7699).
If the government issues a special tax on locksmiths, say an extra 3%. Do you anticipate a change in the charge for the consumer product or service?
Quote from: Conan71 on March 29, 2010, 04:05:45 PM
Of course they must get bigger to keep up with increasing population. They needn't get bigger on a whim.
They might want to control that immigration thingy better before they start mandating birth control. I can think of a few people for whom retroactive birth control sounds like a great option.
There we go again... you know, that "immigration thingy."
Bigger on a whim? That's what happens when Conan gets stroked but not the government.
Quote from: fotd on March 29, 2010, 04:15:59 PM
Bigger on a whim? That's what happens when Conan gets stroked but not the government.
I hear when I get really old, it'll take an act of Congress, not a whim.
Quote from: Gaspar on March 29, 2010, 04:09:08 PM
If the government issues a special tax on locksmiths, say an extra 3%. Do you anticipate a change in the charge for the consumer product or service?
Why don't you try something which, like most industries, has significant demand elasticity? You might as well have picked beer distributing, another area in which competition has little bearing on pricing.
You know, something more representative of capitalism.
Quote from: nathanm on March 29, 2010, 04:25:43 PM
Why don't you try something which, like most industries, has significant demand elasticity? You might as well have picked beer distributing, another area in which competition has little bearing on pricing.
You know, something more representative of capitalism.
Not really sure of the reason behind your request or the amusing over-use of the term "elasticity." But whatever, lets go for Tire manufacturers (SIC 3011). Same question.
If the government issues a special tax on tire companies, say an extra 3%. Do you anticipate a change in the charge for the consumer product?
(I am hopeful that Tires are more "capitalistic?")
Quote from: Gaspar on March 29, 2010, 04:34:03 PM
Not really sure of the reason behind your request or the amusing over-use of the term "elasticity." But whatever, lets go for Tire manufacturers (SIC 3011). Same question.
I don't know why you find one of the fundamental notions of economics amusing, but whatever. ;)
Again, it depends. If there is enough competition (and a lack of collusion) and the buyers are price sensitive, it will behoove the manufacturer to absorb the tax, as they will sell more tires and make more money by doing so. If the buyers are not so price sensitive, the company will of course pass on the cost of the tax.
As I'm sure you're aware, being a businessperson, it's a matter of calculating whether you'll make more money with a lower margin and higher unit sales or make more money with a higher margin and lower unit sales.
There is no one size fits all answer, sorry.
Quote from: Gaspar on March 29, 2010, 04:34:03 PM
Not really sure of the reason behind your request or the amusing over-use of the term "elasticity." But whatever, lets go for Tire manufacturers (SIC 3011). Same question.
If the government issues a special tax on tire companies, say an extra 3%. Do you anticipate a change in the charge for the consumer product?
(I am hopeful that Tires are more "capitalistic?")
What are your raw material costs? What are your labor costs? Ancillary costs, like facility, packaging, shipping, advertising?
How many tires are already in seller's stores? How many have you made and are in inventory? How will international tire sellers react?
What's your salesforce look like? Have you been aggressively selling or coasting on existing relationships?
And what's your existing margin? What are you making on your tires now? A small profit? A healthy profit? A ridiculous profit?
There are a million other large and small variables that can impact whether or not that tax will affect consumer prices. It might be in the best interest of the manufacturer to swallow the increase; it may be in its interest to pass it along to the consumer. And this doesn't mean, necessarily, that you and I will see higher prices at Sears Auto . . . Sears itself may swallow the cost as it retails the product to you and me. It may also double the cost. More likely, the price will go up a few cents or even (gasp!) a dollar, and you and I will possibly remark on it as we sit together in the waiting room while our tires are being rotated . . . or possibly not. We might just sit there and grumble about how disconnected the entire healthcare industry has become from traditional supply and demand economics.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on March 28, 2010, 10:16:54 PM
Gene Stipe wasn't a Publican.
He was probably the worst this state has ever seen. Probably even a few points worse than Jim Inhoffe. Kind of a southeast Oklahoma Huey Long wannabe.
Speak of the devil.......
We just got Stiped!
Quote from: Conan71 on March 29, 2010, 04:05:45 PM
Of course they must get bigger to keep up with increasing population. They needn't get bigger on a whim.
They might want to control that immigration thingy better before they start mandating birth control. I can think of a few people for whom retroactive birth control sounds like a great option.
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_0YTZJpJ8Jp8/SyMENsyOn2I/AAAAAAAAF00/aGseFbVy0VA/s400/ClownCar.jpg)
Quote from: nathanm on March 29, 2010, 04:58:53 PM
Again, it depends. If there is enough competition (and a lack of collusion) and the buyers are price sensitive, it will behoove the manufacturer to absorb the tax, as they will sell more tires and make more money by doing so. If the buyers are not so price sensitive, the company will of course pass on the cost of the tax.
As I'm sure you're aware, being a businessperson, it's a matter of calculating whether you'll make more money with a lower margin and higher unit sales or make more money with a higher margin and lower unit sales.
There is no one size fits all answer, sorry.
If there is enough competition, everyone will absorb the tax and you will probably not see enough increase in sales to offset the increased tax. (Obviously implies more than a few cents worth of tax.)
So far everyone seems to be working in quantity of dollars rather than percent return on investment. A small family business may be happy with "enough" money. A larger, probably publicly owned, business with investors wanting a percentage return may make it impossible to accept a lower margin. Depends on how much in both instances.
Quote from: JeffM on March 29, 2010, 07:22:18 PM
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_0YTZJpJ8Jp8/SyMENsyOn2I/AAAAAAAAF00/aGseFbVy0VA/s400/ClownCar.jpg)
Okay, that's the funniest bucking spoof poster I've seen in awhile. Pure awesomeness.
Quote from: Conan71 on March 29, 2010, 09:07:13 PM
Okay, that's the funniest frakking spoof poster I've seen in awhile. Pure awesomeness.
I used to live down the street from the Duggars, so it has special meaning to me. ;)
Quote from: Conan71 on March 29, 2010, 09:23:37 AM
I think the general aviation (this coming from an inactive pilot that hasn't flown for years) airports should be pay-to-play by the users and tenants- plenty more examples of that exist.
AOPA (Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association) has made a good case that the existing tax on aviation fuel (gas is in excess of $4.00/gal at Riverside/Jones) is the best way to pay for most of General Aviation. Other methods would involve another level of bureaucracy that would absorb much of the revenue without supporting the airports. Most public airports get some level of federal funds from the gas tax. You are probably unaware of the fees and conditions involved regarding the commercial operators and private hangar owners at Tulsa's two airports.
When runners and bikers at Riverparks pay a toll to use the trails, I would consider additional fees at the airport.
Please note that I delayed my response to this to be sure it wasn't just a knee jerk.
Edit:
I just checked the price of fuel. $4.68/gal of gasoline. Jet fuel is $3.84ish. (I buy avgas, not jet fuel) The Airport Authority (or City or the Airport Improvement Authority) also gets a cut on every gallon of fuel sold. I think it's about $.15/gallon but haven't verified it lately. General Aviation is
not getting a free ride.
Quote from: Red Arrow on April 02, 2010, 11:13:46 PM
AOPA (Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association) has made a good case that the existing tax on aviation fuel (gas is in excess of $4.00/gal at Riverside/Jones) is the best way to pay for most of General Aviation. Other methods would involve another level of bureaucracy that would absorb much of the revenue without supporting the airports. Most public airports get some level of federal funds from the gas tax. You are probably unaware of the fees and conditions involved regarding the commercial operators and private hangar owners at Tulsa's two airports.
When runners and bikers at Riverparks pay a toll to use the trails, I would consider additional fees at the airport.
Please note that I delayed my response to this to be sure it wasn't just a knee jerk.
Edit:
I just checked the price of fuel. $4.68/gal of gasoline. Jet fuel is $3.84ish. (I buy avgas, not jet fuel) The Airport Authority (or City or the Airport Improvement Authority) also gets a cut on every gallon of fuel sold. I think it's about $.15/gallon but haven't verified it lately. General Aviation is not getting a free ride.
Once you mentioned it, I seem to recall this from my days as an AOPA member and was ignoring the amount of added taxes in aviation fuels. And you are correct, I've been inactive for quite some time and have not kept up with aviation issues. I stand corrected.
I don't have a probem with use or consumption taxes, that's one of the reasons I like the Fair Tax concept.
Seemed the perfect slot to insert this:
Arrest for Viagra possession was a little stiff, Bronx man claims in lawsuit
A Bronx man claims he did two days of hard time after an NYPD detective arrested him on a limp charge — possessing Viagra.
Peter Williams, 56, says in a Bronx Supreme Court lawsuit that he had a prescription for the little blue pills, but Detective Howell Daniel "verbally threatened and harassed" him before cuffing him on charges of possession of a controlled substance.
Williams claims he was roughed up and suffered permanent injuries in the 2011 incident.
"He was falsely arrested for having prescribed Viagra," Williams' attorney, Gary Rawlins, argued in the lawsuit filed Monday.
He claims he spent four hours in a police van and two days in jail after Daniel arrested him on May 25, 2011, at 3 p.m. outside a pizza parlor where he stopped while on his way to work.
He says he tried to tell the detective that he had a prescription for the erectile dysfunction medication.