Obama Is Willing to Consider Taxing Health Benefits

[zrinkill]

President Pivots on Taxing Benefits

Obama Is Willing to Consider Move to Gain Health Reform


President Obama, in a pivot from some of his harshest campaign rhetoric, told Democratic senators yesterday that he is willing to consider taxing employer-sponsored health benefits to help pay for a broad expansion of coverage.



Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/b000243) (D-Mont.) said Obama expressed a willingness to consider changing the existing tax exclusion. The decision would probably anger liberal supporters such as labor unions, but such a tax change would raise enormous sums of money as Congress and the White House are struggling to find the estimated $1.2 trillion needed to pay for health-care reform over the next decade.



"Yeah, it's something that he might consider," Baucus told reporters after the meeting between Obama and Democratic lawmakers. "That was discussed. It's on the table." Obama had summoned about two dozen senators to the White House to keep up the pressure to enact a comprehensive health-care overhaul this year.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/02/AR2009060201491.html

.
.
.

Treacherous politics for Obama, given his attacks on McCain who advocated a similar approach during the campaign.

"For the first time in American history, he wants to tax your health benefits," Obama said in September. "Apparently, Senator McCain doesn't think it's enough that your health premiums have doubled. He thinks you should have to pay taxes on them, too."



I hate politicians.


.
.
.
.

[WoodysGirl]

Regardless of the change in rhetoric, I don't necessarily have a problem with tax on my bennies. It would simply change from a pre-tax deduction to a post-tax deduction. As a single person with no dependants, my annual tax bill is always high.

What I'd like to see is a change in making it easier to get individual health coverage from insurers outside of employer-sponsored coverage or even government run programs.

[theogt]

What I'd like to see is a change in making it easier to get individual health coverage from insurers outside of employer-sponsored coverage or even government run programs.I think that's a key component, myself. I'm not quite sure why it doesn't operate like auto insurance. There would be a pretty fluid market that would drive down costs, like Geico has done for auto insurance.

[Doomsday101]

Watch business who currently offer health care drop it and just let the Government run it. Once we get stuck with Government health care it will be extremely difficult in not impossible to reverse course

[ThaBigP]

President Pivots on Taxing Benefits

Obama Is Willing to Consider Move to Gain Health Reform


President Obama, in a pivot from some of his harshest campaign rhetoric, told Democratic senators yesterday that he is willing to consider taxing employer-sponsored health benefits to help pay for a broad expansion of coverage.



Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/b000243) (D-Mont.) said Obama expressed a willingness to consider changing the existing tax exclusion. The decision would probably anger liberal supporters such as labor unions, but such a tax change would raise enormous sums of money as Congress and the White House are struggling to find the estimated $1.2 trillion needed to pay for health-care reform over the next decade.



"Yeah, it's something that he might consider," Baucus told reporters after the meeting between Obama and Democratic lawmakers. "That was discussed. It's on the table." Obama had summoned about two dozen senators to the White House to keep up the pressure to enact a comprehensive health-care overhaul this year.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/02/AR2009060201491.html

.
.
.

Treacherous politics for Obama, given his attacks on McCain who advocated a similar approach during the campaign.

"For the first time in American history, he wants to tax your health benefits," Obama said in September. "Apparently, Senator McCain doesn't think it's enough that your health premiums have doubled. He thinks you should have to pay taxes on them, too."



I hate politicians.


.
.
.
.


I hereby demand the thread title changed....Obama is not pushing for this. No decision has been made.

Put up or shut up.

BTW - this has nothing to do with you, Zrin. A particular poster and mod know who I'm talking about, and why.

[ThaBigP]

I think that's a key component, myself. I'm not quite sure why it doesn't operate like auto insurance. There would be a pretty fluid market that would drive down costs, like Geico has done for auto insurance.

You skipped right over the core of the issue here - the thread title is a lie. Obama is not pushing this. No decision has been made yet.

[theogt]

You skipped right over the core of the issue here - the thread title is a lie. Obama is not pushing this. No decision has been made yet.The title doesn't say a decision has been made and the OP is not suggesting that Obama is pushing this. It simply says he's willing to consider it, which is backed up by the article: "Yeah, it's something that he might consider," Baucus told reporters after the meeting between Obama and Democratic lawmakers. "That was discussed. It's on the table."

Perhaps if you actually read the articles you might notice when the title is misleading or not.

[WoodysGirl]

I hereby demand the thread title changed....Obama is not pushing for this. No decision has been made.

Put up or shut up.

BTW - this has nothing to do with you, Zrin. A particular poster and mod know who I'm talking about, and why.It would probably be relevant if what Zrin posted wasn't the actual headline of the story...

For clarification purposes: When it comes to thread titles for articles, my rule of thumb is to try to use the headline whenever possible. If the the headline isn't very descriptive, then that's when you should give an idea of what the story is about.

Posting a thread title that suggests something that's neither in the headline or can be accurately portrayed by the article is what will always be considered misleading. It also takes away from the point of the article...and redirects the thread from truly discussing what's in the post and focusing on the poster.

[theogt]

Shut the hell up.Sure, why not. Talking to you is like talking to a brick wall anyway.

[ThaBigP]

Sure, why not. Talking to you is like talking to a brick wall anyway.


Bold



Faced


Liar

[Doomsday101]

President Obama, in a pivot from some of his harshest campaign rhetoric, told Democratic senators yesterday that he is willing to consider taxing employer-sponsored health benefits to help pay for a broad expansion of coverage.


Well then stop considering it!!!!

[WoodysGirl]

Sure, why not. Talking to you is like talking to a brick wall anyway.

Bold



Faced


Liar
Move along...

You both got your shots in, so take it to PM or let it go.

It's done. :cool:

[Doomsday]

Keep taxing and spending, that approach did woonders for California.

[zrinkill]

I did not mean to start a controversy ..... you know how innocent I am ....


:p:

[JBond]

Regardless of the change in rhetoric, I don't necessarily have a problem with tax on my bennies. It would simply change from a pre-tax deduction to a post-tax deduction. As a single person with no dependants, my annual tax bill is always high.

What I'd like to see is a change in making it easier to get individual health coverage from insurers outside of employer-sponsored coverage or even government run programs.

Have you been denied coverage from a group outside of your company? I know we talked about this once before, but I thought I would mention it again. Blue Cross\Blue Shield of Kansas City as some very affordable plans starting as low as $50 for a single person. It covers Doctor visits, prescriptions and caps out at $5 million.

[WoodysGirl]

Have you been denied coverage from a group outside of your company? I know we talked about this once before, but I thought I would mention it again. Blue Cross\Blue Shield of Kansas City as some very affordable plans starting as low as $50 for a single person. It covers Doctor visits, prescriptions and caps out at $5 million.
Yes, I have...by Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Texas...and by United Health Care.

I've had both through my employer.

My previous employer offered BCBS of California.

My new employer offers it through Cigna and UHC. I'm going with UHC.

[JBond]

Yes, I have...by Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Texas...and by United Health Care.

I've had both through my employer.

My previous employer offered BCBS of California.

My new employer offers it through Cigna and UHC. I'm going with UHC.

I currently have Cigna through my wife's employer. Very satisfied so far. Her company is in serious trouble though, so I have started scouting out plans.

[WoodysGirl]

I currently have Cigna through my wife's employer. Very satisfied so far. Her company is in serious trouble though, so I have started scouting out plans.
Maybe it's a Texas thing, but everybody I talked to said to stay far away from Cigna.

The coverage seems to be about the same as everyone else, but I think they were griping about services.

*shrug*

I had a good experience with UHC when my employer offered it a few years ago. So I'm simply going with who I know over the unknown.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Well, I can understand why this seems like twice backed goods to some.

President Obama has adopted a few positions from McCain and FP Bush after having bashed them before, during and after the election. I can understand it.

I don't believe the money is there for Healthcare Reform. I said that before the election and I still believe it. If we try this, I believe we will bankfupt ourselves.

[jrumann59]

Regardless of the change in rhetoric, I don't necessarily have a problem with tax on my bennies. It would simply change from a pre-tax deduction to a post-tax deduction. As a single person with no dependants, my annual tax bill is always high.

What I'd like to see is a change in making it easier to get individual health coverage from insurers outside of employer-sponsored coverage or even government run programs.

It is in the wording, you are talking about your premium not your benefits. The tax could be on another 10-15K per year depending on what is the total premium plus whatever "benefits" you get, since you are woman, lets say birth control pills, while you may pay $30 dollar copay your insurance pays the remainder of lets say $100 for a pack of pills. So now the gov't wants to tax the "benefit" of the insurance company paying for those pills every month, so every year you will get taxed on $840 plus the premium you and your employer pays. Now lets say you are an unhealthy person that needs dialysis every week, plus seeing a specialist, all those costs would be taxed as well. If this goes through everyone will have no choice but to go with gov't healthcare where like medicare they can decide what you can or cannot get for ailments.

[theogt]

It is in the wording, you are talking about your premium not your benefits. The tax could be on another 10-15K per year depending on what is the total premium plus whatever "benefits" you get, since you are woman, lets say birth control pills, while you may pay $30 dollar copay your insurance pays the remainder of lets say $100 for a pack of pills. So now the gov't wants to tax the "benefit" of the insurance company paying for those pills every month, so every year you will get taxed on $840 plus the premium you and your employer pays. Now lets say you are an unhealthy person that needs dialysis every week, plus seeing a specialist, all those costs would be taxed as well. If this goes through everyone will have no choice but to go with gov't healthcare where like medicare they can decide what you can or cannot get for ailments.This is incorrect. They would only tax the premium that is paid by your employer to the insurance company. That is the "benefit" you receive from your company. Any insurance payouts from the insurance company are not "benefits" from your employer. They are contractually obligated payouts from a third party.

Currently, premiums paid by your employer are exempt from federal income tax. All they would be doing is removing that exemption.

[jrumann59]

This is incorrect. They would only tax the premium that is paid by your employer to the insurance company. That is the "benefit" you receive from your company. Any insurance payouts from the insurance company are not "benefits" from your employer. They are contractually obligated payouts from a third party.

Currently, premiums paid by your employer are exempt from federal income tax. All they would be doing is removing that exemption.


I heard that also, and still it is nothing more than a backdoor tax either way. I have heard/read the "experts" say it using both methods. For example for me it will be a hefty tax increase because I pay $8 a check and my employer pays $192 which is roughly $800 extra in income a month and with the tax lets say 30% that is another $3000 I lose per year. Which means now I may have to pay a partial payment on a bill or 2 a month depending on where it lands. This nothing more than a money grab that we will not be able to get back as people. To steal a line from Star Trek, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one." It sounds cold hearted but 50 million without health insurance is sad but we cannot and should not try to please everyone all of the time because all end is everyone pissed at you all the time.

[theogt]

I heard that also, and still it is nothing more than a backdoor tax either way. I have heard/read the "experts" say it using both methods. For example for me it will be a hefty tax increase because I pay $8 a check and my employer pays $192 which is roughly $800 extra in income a month and with the tax lets say 30% that is another $3000 I lose per year. Which means now I may have to pay a partial payment on a bill or 2 a month depending on where it lands. This nothing more than a money grab that we will not be able to get back as people. To steal a line from Star Trek, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one." It sounds cold hearted but 50 million without health insurance is sad but we cannot and should not try to please everyone all of the time because all end is everyone pissed at you all the time.They couldn't logistically tax it any other way, because they couldn't withhold taxes from your paycheck from your employer for income from third parties.

I don't know that it's a "backdoor" tax. It's part of the federal income tax system just like anything else. Currently there's an exemption and they're considering removing the exemption. The exemption did not always exist. It's politically more expedient to just remove the exemption again than raise tax rates.

[jrumann59]

They couldn't logistically tax it any other way, because they couldn't withhold taxes from your paycheck from your employer for income from third parties.

I don't know that it's a "backdoor" tax. It's part of the federal income tax system just like anything else. Currently there's an exemption and they're considering removing the exemption. The exemption did not always exist. It's politically more expedient to just remove the exemption again than raising tax rates.

So in other words remove the exemption so more people will go without health care because they can't afford the hit from the taxes oh yeah its another way around the whole lets take a vote in congress so no one is held accountable for an actual tax increase. Is it just me or is this turning into the biggest shell game in history. Unfortunately the only people that win is the gov't and the only losers are the taxpayers.

[theogt]

So in other words remove the exemption so more people will go without health care because they can't afford the hit from the taxes oh yeah its another way around the whole lets take a vote in congress so no one is held accountable for an actual tax increase. Is it just me or is this turning into the biggest shell game in history. Unfortunately the only people that win is the gov't and the only losers are the taxpayers.Federal taxes as a % of GDP are at a pretty low level, historically. In other words, we're taxed less now at the federal level than we have been in most of the 20th (and 21st) century. I don't think taxpayers are "losing" right now in terms of how much they're taxed.

[AbeBeta]

Keep taxing and spending, that approach did woonders for California.

I think you totally fail to understand the situation in California. One of the primary issues in CA is that the state's ballot measure system ultimately gives massive power to voters in deciding how money will be spent. Predictably, voters nearly always vote for more services, bonds to improve schools and transportation. Voters also voted for measures that require a 2/3rds legislature vote to raise taxes. So taxes don't get raised.

The idea that CA is "tax" and "spend" is just plain wrong. The state does spend... which is why residents have about 40 public universities to choose from (at a very low cost compared to other states) and over 100 community colleges. It however does not tax enough and that is the problem

[theogt]

I think you totally fail to understand the situation in California. One of the primary issues in CA is that the state's ballot measure system ultimately gives massive power to voters in deciding how money will be spent. Predictably, voters nearly always vote for more services, bonds to improve schools and transportation. Voters also voted for measures that require a 2/3rds legislature vote to raise taxes. So taxes don't get raised.

The idea that CA is "tax" and "spend" is just plain wrong. The state does spend... which is why residents have about 40 public universities to choose from (at a very low cost compared to other states) and over 100 community colleges. It however does not tax enough and that is the problemI'm not sure taxing any more would help. Obviously spending less is key. The referendum mess in CA is just beyond stupid. You can't fix the state until you get rid of that.

[burmafrd]

Federal taxes are not whats eating at peoples wallets- it is the state and local taxes and all the "incidental" taxes they have come up with.

[Temo]

I think that's a key component, myself. I'm not quite sure why it doesn't operate like auto insurance. There would be a pretty fluid market that would drive down costs, like Geico has done for auto insurance.

I don't see how. After all it's not quite the cost of insurance, but rather the cost of health care that is most worrisome.

[theogt]

I don't see how. After all it's not quite the cost of insurance, but rather the cost of health care that is most worrisome.My point is that a more developed market for insurance would drive down medical care costs. If insurance companies were forced to provide lower premiums in a developed market like auto insurance, they would also be forced to drive down their own costs by negotiating better pricing from medical care providers.

[Temo]

My point is that a more developed market for insurance would drive down medical care costs. If insurance companies were forced to provide lower premiums in a developed market like auto insurance, they would also be forced to drive down their own costs by negotiating better pricing from medical care providers.

Hmmm. Not a bad argument. I suppose that would help dis-incentivise unnecessary procedures as well.

That still leaves open what would happen to people who cannot afford their own insurance, however.

[theogt]

Hmmm. Not a bad argument. I suppose that would help dis-incentivise unnecessary procedures as well.

That still leaves open what would happen to people who cannot afford their own insurance, however.I would assume that most people who cannot afford their own insurance are (1) not employed (2) not employed by an employer that provides medical insurance, or (3) a dependent of someone falling into one of the first two categories.

If medical insurance were like car insurance, it would be available from third parties at a more affordable rate, thus many in those categories could obtain it. There will always be people that make the poor decision of driving without auto insurance. And there will always be people that make the poor decision of living without medical insurance.

But I think if there were some form of system like we've discussed, it would go a long way toward bridging the gap.

[AbeBeta]

I'm not sure taxing any more would help. Obviously spending less is key. The referendum mess in CA is just beyond stupid. You can't fix the state until you get rid of that.

We do have to get rid of the referendum mess. But unfortunately to straighten out that mess the voters who made these decisions ultimately are going to have to pay for it. But certainly just taxing more and not dealing with the other issue is not going to help. Of course, the lost revenue in reduced taxes since our present governor took office (about 12 billion dollars) hasn't helped. (I btw think Arnold is 100 times better a governor than I expected)

[iceberg]

The title doesn't say a decision has been made and the OP is not suggesting that Obama is pushing this. It simply says he's willing to consider it, which is backed up by the article: "Yeah, it's something that he might consider," Baucus told reporters after the meeting between Obama and Democratic lawmakers. "That was discussed. It's on the table."

Perhaps if you actually read the articles you might notice when the title is misleading or not.

did i miss an election where theo got voted as thread police?

it's so damn hard to believe people getting so bent over their own use of a word you'd not use.

so don't use it. as for misleading - we've got posters in here who's only goal is to mislead. in one thread you demand, and get, a title changed cause you don't like it.

when i read through it, the white house was considering it - you know, all options are on the table, then it's a legit title.

i'm sorry you don't like it, dude, but get over it.

the last thing we need is a few select posters whining that other people don't post their way. well, 2nd to last. the last thing we need is to appease that whiner.

guess i'm too late here.

[theogt]

did i miss an election where theo got voted as thread police?

it's so damn hard to believe people getting so bent over their own use of a word you'd not use.

so don't use it. as for misleading - we've got posters in here who's only goal is to mislead. in one thread you demand, and get, a title changed cause you don't like it.

when i read through it, the white house was considering it - you know, all options are on the table, then it's a legit title.

i'm sorry you don't like it, dude, but get over it.

the last thing we need is a few select posters whining that other people don't post their way. well, 2nd to last. the last thing we need is to appease that whiner.

guess i'm too late here.You've got it backwards. I'm not the one whining. The guy posted a thread with a clearly misleading thread title. It was changed by a mod. He got upset about it, and now is whining in this thread.

You didn't miss much.

[iceberg]

You've got it backwards. I'm not the one whining. The guy posted a thread with a clearly misleading thread title. It was changed by a mod. He got upset about it, and now is whining in this thread.

You didn't miss much.

in another thread you went forum police on him, did you not? demanding thread title changes, asking for action to be taken against him, blah blah blah.

did you not?

not out to get into it - just got back from florida and am going to chill. in the end i do trust the mods to take care of things w/o you or i going WAH - MISLEADING! WAH!

[theogt]

in another thread you went forum police on him, did you not? demanding thread title changes, asking for action to be taken against him, blah blah blah.

did you not?

not out to get into it - just got back from florida and am going to chill. in the end i do trust the mods to take care of things w/o you or i going WAH - MISLEADING! WAH!Yes, I pointed out that he has a habit of being misleading in his thread titles. The mods apparently agreed, and he got his panties in a wad. No biggie. Either he stops the near outright lying in his thread titles or I imagine the mods will continue changing them.

Also, as for the "thread police" title, if you don't want someone to criticize what you post, then don't post. Pretty simple to me.

[iceberg]

Yes, I pointed out that he has a habit of being misleading in his thread titles. The mods apparently agreed, and he got his panties in a wad. No biggie. Either he stops the near outright lying in his thread titles or I imagine the mods will continue changing them.

Also, as for the "thread police" title, if you don't want someone to criticize what you post, then don't post. Pretty simple to me.

ok, let me ask you this - the thread title went from:

"obama considers"
to
"considered once not likely"

or something to that effect. if it was at one time not considered possible but it now is, is it not now under consideration? and if the white house is now considering it, is that not obama?

i just don't get the need for a huge RED FLAG unless you just don't like someone. how you or i feel about a given poster is *supposed* to not make a difference. you can call him out on it and ask him to explain himself, but instead, you went WAH - MODS PUNISH HIM!!!

did you not?

you didn't critisize what he posted in as much as went to a mod to ensure what he posted fit your personal guildelines.

yea, it was blown out of proportion, but it's easy enough to do when you post something and don't think that much about it and someone goes wordsmithing on you and suddenly "freedom of posting" comes under the queastion of posters, not the mods.

anyway - i just realized i left laundry in the laundry machine for 3 days so i've got bigger problems right now. : )

[theogt]

ok, let me ask you this - the thread title went from:

"obama considers"
to
"considered once not likely"

or something to that effect. if it was at one time not considered possible but it now is, is it not now under consideration? and if the white house is now considering it, is that not obama?The thread title originally portrayed that Obama was considering it. The article actually stated the opposite. The new thread title does not suggest that the administration is considering it.

Pretty straightforward. Not sure where you're getting confused.

i just don't get the need for a huge RED FLAG unless you just don't like someone. how you or i feel about a given poster is *supposed* to not make a difference. you can call him out on it and ask him to explain himself, but instead, you went WAH - MODS PUNISH HIM!!!

did you not?I get that you don't see the need for a red flag, but as I've already pointed out, it's a continuous thing. If you don't see how someone continuously posting misleading thread titles is a problem in an on-line forum, I can't help you and we'll just have to agree to disagree. I, however, think it's annoying when people post misleading thread titles on an almost daily basis.

you didn't critisize what he posted in as much as went to a mod to ensure what he posted fit your personal guildelines.I didn't go to a mod at all.

yea, it was blown out of proportion, but it's easy enough to do when you post something and don't think that much about it and someone goes wordsmithing on you and suddenly "freedom of posting" comes under the queastion of posters, not the mods.

anyway - i just realized i left laundry in the laundry machine for 3 days so i've got bigger problems right now. : )Thanks for letting me know what I can and can't criticize, Mr. Thread Police.

Anywho, I'm glad you that you now have better things to do than dig up days old discussions.

[iceberg]

The thread title originally portrayed that Obama was considering it. The article actually stated the opposite. The new thread title does not suggest that the administration is considering it.

Pretty straightforward. Not sure where you're getting confused.

I get that you don't see the need for a red flag, but as I've already pointed out, it's a continuous thing. If you don't see how someone continuously posting misleading thread titles is a problem in an on-line forum, I can't help you and we'll just have to agree to disagree. I, however, think it's annoying when people post misleading thread titles on an almost daily basis.

I didn't go to a mod at all.

Thanks for letting me know what I can and can't criticize, Mr. Thread Police.

Anywho, I'm glad you that you now have better things to do than dig up days old discussions.

'once considered unthinkable" - does that not also say it's now being considered? again, wordsmithing and perspective.

i get confused when people get stupid about it. sorry.

and you did go "can a mod take corrective action here" - i went and looked, so yes, you went wah'ing for a mod to make things all better for you.

as for critisizing your thread - i quote someone who considers himself pretty intelligent.

"if you don't want someone to criticize what you post, then don't post. Pretty simple to me."

i'll let that speak for itself.

as for bringing up threads from many days old - what part of my saying i've been in florida for 3 days confused you?

[theogt]

'once considered unthinkable" - does that not also say it's now being considered? again, wordsmithing and perspective.

i get confused when people get stupid about it. sorry.What's stupid is if you actually think the new title portrays that Obama is considering it. If you can't tell the difference, I really have to question your reading comprehension.

and you did go "can a mod take corrective action here" - i went and looked, so yes, you went wah'ing for a mod to make things all better for you.Actually, I asked whether it was in the rules that someone could be reprimanded for continually posting misleading thread titles. I wasn't crying to anyone. I was asking a question. The guy has had a number of titles changed and I was asking if, at some point, there is action taken in those instances.

as for critisizing your thread - i quote someone who considers himself pretty intelligent.

"if you don't want someone to criticize what you post, then don't post. Pretty simple to me."

i'll let that speak for itself.Honestly, how did you fail to see my point there? I was pointing out the contradiction in your post, so obviously my criticism of that original post would apply to my attempt at irony.

Right over your head.

as for bringing up threads from many days old - what part of my saying i've been in florida for 3 days confused you?Nothing confused me. I could see very well that you were wasting our time on days old threads/discussions.

[iceberg]

What's stupid is if you actually think the new title portrays that Obama is considering it. If you can't tell the difference, I really have to question your reading comprehension.

Actually, I asked whether it was in the rules that someone could be reprimanded for continually posting misleading thread titles. I wasn't crying to anyone. I was asking a question. The guy has had a number of titles changed and I was asking if, at some point, there is action taken in those instances.

Honestly, how did you fail to see my point there? I was pointing out the contradiction in your post, so obviously my criticism of that original post would apply to my attempt at irony.

Right over your head.

Nothing confused me. I could see very well that you were wasting our time on days old threads/discussions.

geez dude - when you dig in, common sense need not apply. here is the changed headline:

Once Considered Unthinkable, U.S. Sales Tax Gets Fresh Look and/or VAT (http://cowboyszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=154043)

US sales tax, once considered unthinkable, now being considered.

is that fair? it's now being considered? if its not then let's stay anal and ponder what "considered" means here. NOT CONSIDERED - or to be considered. to consider or not consider, that is the question! (hint, i'm being sarcastic tonight, bad time to take me seriously - sorry i have to point that out. i would have thought laundry comments made that clear)

if it was once considered unthinkable yet now it is being considered, is it not fair to say it's now being considered?

and who else other than obama can "consider" such actions? remember, we live in an era where we default to the person in charge. we did it for 8 years, don't stop now. while i can see the finer details, you can dig deep into anything and make it whatever you want it to be.

you. thabigp, anyone can do this and does. oh the revelation.

so you weren't crying to a mod but you asked a mod to intervene.

sorry, but who's comprehension needs work? you either asked a mod to step in or you didn't.

you did.

as for my sarcasm to your post in response to my post where i used your post as an example, i went over your head first.

i win.

yay me.

i'll slow down next time, dude. but you take me seriously at the times it seems to suit you, not when i'm being serious.

[theogt]

geez dude - when you dig in, common sense need not apply. here is the changed headline:

Once Considered Unthinkable, U.S. Sales Tax Gets Fresh Look and/or VAT (http://cowboyszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=154043)

US sales tax, once considered unthinkable, now being considered.

is that fair? it's now being considered? if its not then let's stay anal and ponder what "considered" means here. NOT CONSIDERED - or to be considered. to consider or not consider, that is the question! (hint, i'm being sarcastic tonight, bad time to take me seriously - sorry i have to point that out. i would have thought laundry comments made that clear)

if it was once considered unthinkable yet now it is being considered, is it not fair to say it's now being considered?

and who else other than obama can "consider" such actions? remember, we live in an era where we default to the person in charge. we did it for 8 years, don't stop now. while i can see the finer details, you can dig deep into anything and make it whatever you want it to be.
If you actually read the article, it tells you who's considering it. And it isn't the Obama administration.

you. thabigp, anyone can do this and does. oh the revelation.

so you weren't crying to a mod but you asked a mod to intervene.

sorry, but who's comprehension needs work? you either asked a mod to step in or you didn't.

you did.Actually, no I didn't ask a mod to intervene. There you go again with the poor reading comprehension again.

Shocker, I know.

as for my sarcasm to your post in response to my post where i used your post as an example, i went over your head first.

i win.

yay me.

i'll slow down next time, dude. but you take me seriously at the times it seems to suit you, not when i'm being serious.:laugh2:

You're like a 12 year old.

[iceberg]

If you actually read the article, it tells you who's considering it. And it isn't the Obama administration.

Actually, no I didn't ask a mod to intervene. There you go again with the poor reading comprehension again.

Shocker, I know.

:laugh2:

You're like a 12 year old.

so you missed my post where i said obama didn't say it but his admin will wear the tag like bush's did? gee - it was in the very post you quote. not wonder you missed it.

and my comprehension needs work and you can't keep up with a 12 year old mind. go figure.

i'll bring up the other thread and spank you there and move on to laundry.

[theogt]

so you missed my post where i said obama didn't say it but his admin will wear the tag like bush's did? gee - it was in the very post you quote. not wonder you missed it.

and my comprehension needs work and you can't keep up with a 12 year old mind. go figure.

i'll bring up the other thread and spank you there and move on to laundry.Oh, noes!!! Don't spank me by dredging up a buried, days old thread and repeating what you've said in this thread.

Too late, I guess.

[iceberg]

Oh, noes!!! Don't spank me by dredging up a buried, days old thread and repeating what you've said in this thread.

Too late, I guess.

and i need to work on my comprehension.

are you this dense on purpose hoping to bore people into submission?