Madison Square Garden

[SassyLady]

If you missed it you missed seeing a political movement. Quite inspiring.

Trump proposed giving a tax credit to families taking care of their parents. An elder care tax credit that shows commitment to creating stronger families.

[fj1200]

Expansive-government conservatism. Sweet!

[Kathianne]

Expansive-government conservatism. Sweet!

Yep. Not fiscally conservative, by any means. From. The get go. NYC Republicans.

[Gunny]

Yep. Not fiscally conservative, by any means. From. The get go. NYC Republicans.

To hear the MSM tell it, it was nothing but rally for racists and crude people:rolleyes: The divide between leftist MSM and anyone else is pretty stark.

I am curious about this idea though. Not because I disagree. I agree completely hardly fiscally conservative/small government. Just wondering about the math. How many old folks is the government already housing because families won't or can't afford to? Tax dollars are already paying for it.

Not even getting into the Hell hole State hospitals are, but they're already soaking the government. If the government could get off cheaper giving tax/breaks credits for them to stay home? Wouldn't work for those requiring constant care.

Just throwing it out there. Old people in my family usually die at home already.

[Black Diamond]

The comedian should be skinned.

[Gunny]

Trump packs Madison Square Garden in campaign's final stretch | New York | thecentersquare.com (https://www.thecentersquare.com/new_york/article_1daab9ca-94c9-11ef-86df-af33f4a1390a.html)

[Gunny]

The comedian should be skinned.I have to question the whole Hulk Hogan thing :laugh: Not only is it at least 20 years too late for him to be relevant, but he gets busted every other day for telling whoppers as big as Biden's:laugh:

[Gunny]

Tony Hinchcliffe: Backlash after comedian at Trump rally calls Puerto Rico 'island of garbage' (https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy9jj2g75q4o)

[Kathianne]

To hear the MSM tell it, it was nothing but rally for racists and crude people:rolleyes: The divide between leftist MSM and anyone else is pretty stark.

I am curious about this idea though. Not because I disagree. I agree completely hardly fiscally conservative/small government. Just wondering about the math. How many old folks is the government already housing because families won't or can't afford to? Tax dollars are already paying for it.

Not even getting into the Hell hole State hospitals are, but they're already soaking the government. If the government could get off cheaper giving tax/breaks credits for them to stay home? Wouldn't work for those requiring constant care.

Just throwing it out there. Old people in my family usually die at home already.

As most know, my mom was in bad shape for more than 10 years. After breaking her hip, a year at my brother's and after 3nd break 3 years with me. We were fortunate my dad had wherewithal for 24/7 nursing. Most can't. Then my dad stayed with me for next 3 years, until he had cancer but died 6 months after diagnosis.

Mt mom spent the last 7 months in nursing home, but it was exceptional and several family members were with her everyday. My dad was everyday, sometimes 3 times.

[revelarts]

Expansive-government conservatism. Sweet!


Yep. Not fiscally conservative, by any means. From. The get go. NYC Republicans.

Tax Cuts are not "Expansive-Government".

I don't want to be be mean, but when corporations get 'tax cuts' and various tax breaks and bailouts I don't see "conservatives" crying about govt expansion.
Sheesh.
Are HIGHER taxes on the middle & lower class a sign Govt Reduction?

Tax cuts or credits for the middle and lower class and small biz are the type of thing R's SHOULD be doing MORE of.
Even if they get called a POPULIST for doing that instead of more of tax breaks for the rich and big corps that supposedly have benefits that "tickle down" to the middle & lower class.
"Tax credit
A tax credit is a provision that reduces a taxpayer’s final tax bill, dollar-for-dollar. A tax credit differs from deductions and exemptions, which reduce taxable income, rather than the taxpayer’s tax bill directly."

[SassyLady]

According to Elon these expansions will be covered by the elimination of government inefficiencies.

[Kathianne]

According to Elon these expansions will be covered by the elimination of government inefficiencies.

All well and good, but even if perfect and everything goes as planned, it's a 4 year term.

While I'm not holding my breath, the more government does beyond borders, common defense, and the few other necessities needed on federal level, the more justified they are at confiscating your wealth through taxes. Do it for yourself.

I'm not against some programs to help those that can't, but am also for truly vetting the same.

[fj1200]

Tax Cuts are not "Expansive-Government".

I don't want to be be mean, but when corporations get 'tax cuts' and various tax breaks and bailouts I don't see "conservatives" crying about govt expansion.
Sheesh.
Are HIGHER taxes on the middle & lower class a sign Govt Reduction?

Tax cuts or credits for the middle and lower class and small biz are the type of thing R's SHOULD be doing MORE of.
Even if they get called a POPULIST for doing that instead of more of tax breaks for the rich and big corps that supposedly have benefits that "tickle down" to the middle & lower class.
"Tax credit
A tax credit is a provision that reduces a taxpayer’s final tax bill, dollar-for-dollar. A tax credit differs from deductions and exemptions, which reduce taxable income, rather than the taxpayer’s tax bill directly."


Tax credits are expansive government by deciding on a particular blessed group that is fortunate to receive the largesse. I suppose $25,000 for first time homebuyers isn't expansive either. Another $6,000 in child care credits on the other side isn't expansive. OT isn't going to be taxed anymore. Tips won't be taxed any more. It's great to be part of today's sainted group of individuals who get today's tax credits. I just need to find the right lobbying group so that I can get my piece of the pie.

And corporations should get big fat tax cuts so that they don't need tax breaks and bailouts and I dare say that conservatives do decry the necessity of tax breaks and bailouts whereas "conservatives" don't decry them.

Tax cuts that should be championed are those that are stimulative to the economy and not straight-to-the-bottom-line deficit increases.


According to Elon these expansions will be covered by the elimination of government inefficiencies.

In for the evidence that that has happened before.

[SassyLady]

All well and good, but even if perfect and everything goes as planned, it's a 4 year term.

While I'm not holding my breath, the more government does beyond borders, common defense, and the few other necessities needed on federal level, the more justified they are at confiscating your wealth through taxes. Do it for yourself.

I'm not against some programs to help those that can't, but am also for truly vetting the same.

Yes, it is a 4 year term. Hopefully momentum can be created and carried over into another conservative win in 2028.

[Kathianne]

Yes, it is a 4 year term. Hopefully momentum can be created and carried over into another conservative win in 2028.
I remember admonishments to Harry regarding the filibuster and what about when the opposition can return the act? This is why having real values and knowing what is worth compromising and what isn't is so important.

The asinine attitude today of 'no compromise' is just that. It's why we are where we are. Throw in executive orders and the Congress' willingness to abdicate their powers to the executive and it's easy to see why everything is so f'd up.

Of the two choices today, I had to go with Trump, Biden/Harris have been that bad. Doesn't make it a great choice, but too serious to throw my vote away with write in.

[Kathianne]

I think this pretty much sums up what has truly influenced me.

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/democrats-made-a-trump-comeback-thinkable-2024-presidential-election-61748036?st=Wh9ZoB&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink


Democrats Made a Trump Comeback ThinkableIf punishing them means rewarding him, that’s a bargain the voters may prove willing to strike.
Gerard Baker
By
Gerard Baker
Follow
Oct. 28, 2024 1:37 pm ET








1031


Gift unlocked article


Listen


(5 min)






Republican presidential nominee and former President Donald Trump speaks at a campaign rally at Madison Square Garden in New York City, Oct. 27. Photo: Evan Vucci/Associated Press
There are surely millions of conflicted Americas who are sympathetic to the Democrats’ closing argument that Donald Trump is the risk to our national civic health we are reluctant to take. We hear his demeaning rhetoric about migrants, his menacing language about “the enemy from within,” his weird and unsettling infatuation with some of the worst people on earth. We don’t have to adjudicate the precise semantics about whether he meets the literal definition of “fascist”; we have heard and seen enough of him to recoil at the thought of four more years, another go-round on the (this time revenge-flecked) grimdark Trump carousel of mendacity, degradation and intimidation.


Opinion: Potomac Watch
WSJ Opinion Potomac Watch
Donald Trump’s NYC Rally Offends While the Harris Campaign Plays the Celebrity Card




Subscribe
Add to Queue
Explore Audio Center
We are conflicted, however, because of this simple, enraging thought about the Democrats themselves: Are we really going to let them get away with exploiting that unease, using our doubts and manipulating our angst to validate retrospectively the damage they have wrought in the past four years and to approve proactively what they might do in the next four?


Their deceitfully vacuous campaign, its invitation to sign up to a blank slate on their plans for another term and a collective amnesia about their work in the current one, their empty pantsuit of a candidate, incessantly blurting inanities into the media void, incapable of articulating a single substantive idea for governing—what they amount to is nothing less than an abuse of the voters’ scruples, an exploitation of the yearning many have for a hint of normalcy. Don’t doubt that the Democrats fully intend to repurpose that passive desire into another sweeping mandate for their divisive and destructive ideology.


That’s the reason it seems, a week from Election Day, that enough Americans are ready to take their chances on another term for Mr. Trump. They want to tell the Democrats: You don’t get to do that. You don’t get to drive the country ever further into your new progressive dystopia, deepening our divisions and sapping our strength, and then turn around and say to the voters: Sorry, but it’s us or Hitler.


For all the talk of Mr. Trump’s character flaws, this is the unhappy political reality at the end of this long, enervating election—it’s the Democrats who have brought us to this place.


Four years ago, the former president was beaten and, like all defeated presidents in the past 130 years, ripe only for the history books. His disgraceful behavior in his final two months in office was, if not constitutionally disbarring, at least politically disqualifying. When he sulkily left office on Jan. 20, 2021, his approval rating was 34%, according to Gallup, the lowest at the end of a president’s first term since Jimmy Carter.


That should have been the end of him politically, yet his fortunes have revived—not because of some genius work of rehabilitation on his or his supporters’ part, but entirely because of his Democratic opponents’ arrogance, overreach and ineptitude.


Read More Free Expression
America Is Far Stronger Than Our Politicians AdmitOctober 21, 2024
Barack Obama and the Democrats’ Politics of ContemptOctober 14, 2024
They wilfully misinterpreted a small majority for Joe Biden, who was presented in his campaign as the personification of dull political normalcy, as a mandate for presidential and legislative activism on an historic scale. They took a country at the end of its mental tether, exhausted by a pandemic and bitter partisanship, and—using their time-honored tactic of never letting a crisis go to waste—sought to reshape it in the image of their own extremist ideals.


Bowing to a fundamentalist lunacy that walls are somehow immoral, that America owes the world a home and a living, they opened the border, unleashing socially and economically destabilizing forces that will take decades to repair.


They propagated antiscientific nonsense about “gender” and antihistorical nonsense about race that have inflicted new wounds on our social fabric and reopened old scars.


They brought shame on America’s reputation and critically undermined our strength by executing a disastrous surrender to the enemy in Afghanistan and thereby emboldening far larger foes in Europe and the Middle East.


Their zealotry helped turn the president who had left office in a cloud of shame into a figure of some pity with an excessively vengeful campaign of criminal and civil litigation aimed not only at harming his political and business prospects but at sending him to prison for the rest of his life—a campaign that backfired spectacularly and damaged trust in the idea of an independent judiciary.


They deceived the country for 3½ years about the fitness for office of the cognitively failing president. For all their talk about the threat their opponents pose to democracy, we have yet to learn how much the presidency has been run by an unelected cadre of people competing for power around an increasingly catatonic figurehead.


When the truth about Mr. Biden’s health was finally exposed, they thought they could simply swap him out for someone who hadn’t been tested in electoral competition. Anyone questioning her credentials and abilities was denounced as racist or sexist. And now their plan is to have the voters bail them out of all this misgovernance by insisting that the only alternative is totalitarian terror. Will we really make that bargain?

[revelarts]

Tax credits are expansive government by deciding on a particular blessed group that is fortunate to receive the largesse. I suppose $25,000 for first time homebuyers isn't expansive either. Another $6,000 in child care credits on the other side isn't expansive. OT isn't going to be taxed anymore. Tips won't be taxed any more. It's great to be part of today's sainted group of individuals who get today's tax credits. I just need to find the right lobbying group so that I can get my piece of the pie.

And corporations should get big fat tax cuts so that they don't need tax breaks and bailouts and I dare say that conservatives do decry the necessity of tax breaks and bailouts whereas "conservatives" don't decry them.

Tax cuts that should be championed are those that are stimulative to the economy and not straight-to-the-bottom-line deficit increases.



In for the evidence that that has happened before.

Sounds like an argument for a FLAT tax FJ.
or Maybe a 100% repeal of all income tax?
Since there wasn't one not to many decades ago.
Because All the people's income was considered sainted. and only Biz was taxed by the feds.

Are you for that?
Or is the old way, that's closer to the constitutions format, too populist for you to consider?
(since unconstitutionality can be bad or good, but populism is always bad if I've read you right before.)

But i have to wonder why you think a tax credit for the masses wouldn't stimulate the economy?
or why you think keepng higher taxes on the middle class & poor during a time of high inflation and low wages would HELP the economy?

Also maybe big corporations should be kept smaller, so if they FAIL (as happens in free markets) they won't get govt bailouts. And if they didn't have lobbyist doling out cash and bennies to congress they wouldn't pretend they needed the billions in fat tax cuts that dwarf any tax credits or benefits that the middle & lower income have ever seen.

BTW all those IRS agents hired over the past few years aren't going after big corporations, neither are the AI bots spying on people's bank accounts.

[fj1200]

I think this pretty much sums up what has truly influenced me.

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/democrats-made-a-trump-comeback-thinkable-2024-presidential-election-61748036?st=Wh9ZoB&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink


their empty pantsuit of a candidate

Now the WSJ owes me money. :mad: Where's my copyright stamp?

The rest of it? Bam! Just Bam!

[fj1200]

Sounds like an argument for a FLAT tax FJ.
or Maybe a 100% repeal of all income tax?
Since there wasn't one not to many decades ago.
Because All the people's income was considered sainted. and only Biz was taxed by the feds.

Are you for that?
Or is the old way, that's closer to the constitutions format, too populist for you to consider?
(since unconstitutionality can be bad or good, but populism is always bad if I've read you right before.)

But i have to wonder why you think a tax credit for the masses wouldn't stimulate the economy?
or why you think keepng higher taxes on the middle class & poor during a time of high inflation and low wages would HELP the economy?

Also maybe big corporations should be kept smaller, so if they FAIL (as happens in free markets) they won't get govt bailouts. And if they didn't have lobbyist doling out cash and bennies to congress they wouldn't pretend they needed the billions in fat tax cuts that dwarf any tax credits or benefits that the middle & lower income have ever seen.

BTW all those IRS agents hired over the past few years aren't going after big corporations, neither are the AI bots spying on people's bank accounts.

Oh geez! You sound like a Democrat. Social engineering for the win! The middle class pays a piddling amount of taxes compared to the rest of the world and another token tax cut/tax credit is going to make no difference in their daily lives. Where do you plan on stopping once we give out more cuts and credits to the current voting bloc of the day? Serious question. I'm not sure the two tops of the current tickets have an answer to that so wouldn't be a surprise if you don't either.

What is going to make a difference is a big fat corporate tax cut that will make us more competitive on the global stage and encourage businesses to come back to the US. Flat tax? Love it. Fair tax? Love it. Both of those eliminate corporate taxes IIRC. It would be great to go back to 1916 and let everyone know how it turned out but I choose to live in the real world.

I also don't choose to use government power to decide when a sainted small business becomes too successful and becomes an evil big business.

[Gunny]

I think it doesn't matter one way or the other. I could see such a plan possibly working with a government and people acting in good faith. We don't have any of that here. It would just be another layer to the bureaucracy.

Have to ask/point out some obvious: If one is supported by their children, do they not have to be declared legal dependents for tax purposes already? If they are legal dependents, does that not mean the caregivers are already collecting their parents' SS?

Would this "tax credit" be deducted from that SS?

If none of the above, the parent collects SS AND the kids get the tax break?

Then I can already see the usual scammers throwing their parents in the basement and collecting their SS and getting a tax break. That already happens.

IMO, this was going nowhere but the election promise round file before it was said.

[Kathianne]

I think it doesn't matter one way or the other. I could see such a plan possibly working with a government and people acting in good faith. We don't have any of that here. It would just be another layer to the bureaucracy.

Have to ask/point out some obvious: If one is supported by their children, do they not have to be declared legal dependents for tax purposes already? If they are legal dependents, does that not mean the caregivers are already collecting their parents' SS?

Would this "tax credit" be deducted from that SS?

If none of the above, the parent collects SS AND the kids get the tax break?

Then I can already see the usual scammers throwing their parents in the basement and collecting their SS and getting a tax break. That already happens.

IMO, this was going nowhere but the election promise round file before it was said.

I'm thinking more along the lines of Medicare picking up more, lots of things covered in nursing/hospitals/ even hospice centers are not covered in homes, even when person is 'on hospice care.' They cover the visit, but none of the meds or suggested purchases. As I said, ours was family choice to do home as long as we could. When our nurse had to leave, my dad and I couldn't do it by ourselves.

[Gunny]

I'm thinking more along the lines of Medicare picking up more, lots of things covered in nursing/hospitals/ even hospice centers are not covered in homes, even when person is 'on hospice care.' They cover the visit, but none of the meds or suggested purchases. As I said, ours was family choice to do home as long as we could. When our nurse had to leave, my dad and I couldn't do it by ourselves.

I wasn't thinking along those lines but it makes sense.

[revelarts]

Oh geez! You sound like a Democrat. Social engineering for the win! The middle class pays a piddling amount of taxes compared to the rest of the world and another token tax cut/tax credit is going to make no difference in their daily lives. Where do you plan on stopping once we give out more cuts and credits to the current voting bloc of the day? Serious question. I'm not sure the two tops of the current tickets have an answer to that so wouldn't be a surprise if you don't either.
Sounds like a few hundred or thousand extra dollar in your pocket for 1 or 2 months out of the year has never meant much to you.
but I know people who've been at a place where it's huge. To the point of bringing tears to their eyes.

But since the middle class just pays a piddling amount of taxes compared to whatever anyway, then it's not going to hurt the federal budget or economy to GET any level of cuts.
or cut out income tax altogether.



What is going to make a difference is a big fat corporate tax cut that will make us more competitive on the global stage and encourage businesses to come back to the US.

MORE tax cuts & big breaks for big corporations, that's what the country needs.:rolleyes:
THEN they'll be ...encouraged to...come back to the U.S.. Can we get that return in writing FJ? If the govt is going to invest in corporate welfare, we should get something in writing.
or do we have to see if the global market place bear it out, makes it worthwhile for the corporations? Since it's in our best interest to make them rich.
But won't they be better off competitively and financially in general even if they get the U.S. tax breaks & still never come back.



Flat tax? Love it. Fair tax? Love it. Both of those eliminate corporate taxes IIRC. It would be great to go back to 1916 and let everyone know how it turned out but I choose to live in the real world.
Whose fault was it that it turned out that way... the big banks, stock market?
Sure wasn't the general populis... I mean population.

But I'm glad we agree that a Flat tax or fair tax or NO income tax is a good thing.
I think it's a FAR MORE of a Real World option today than Ukraine defeating Russia, Or coporations bringing manufacturing and industry back to the U.S if we give them MORE tax breaks.



I also don't choose to use government power to decide when a sainted small business becomes too successful and becomes an evil big business.
You know one way you can tell when a sainted small biz has become a to successful evil big biz, is when it's "TO BIG TO FAIL".

[fj1200]

I guess we're doing it this way.


Sounds like a few hundred or thousand extra dollar in your pocket for 1 or 2 months out of the year has never meant much to you.
but I know people who've been at a place where it's huge. To the point of bringing tears to their eyes.

But since the middle class just pays a piddling amount of taxes compared to whatever anyway, then it's not going to hurt the federal budget or economy to GET any level of cuts.
or cut out income tax altogether.

How many reasons would you like of why I'm opposed to straight to the bottom-line, debt-increasing tax cuts? One reason? Two reasons? 36 reasons? 36 trillion reasons? How much of a tax cut do you think people are going to get? A few hundred or thousand per month? I don't think anyone is talking about any significant dollars where it's going to be a budget saver. Maybe it will be a budget saver for some. What happens when they need another budget saver in a few years?


MORE tax cuts & big breaks for big corporations, that's what the country needs.:rolleyes:
THEN they'll be ...encouraged to...come back to the U.S.. Can we get that return in writing FJ? If the govt is going to invest in corporate welfare, we should get something in writing.
or do we have to see if the global market place bear it out, makes it worthwhile for the corporations? Since it's in our best interest to make them rich.
But won't they be better off competitively and financially in general even if they get the U.S. tax breaks & still never come back.

I saw a study awhile back that one of the beneficiaries of a domestic corporate tax was foreign labor? Did you catch that? Let's hike up the domestic corporate taxes because China, or India, or Vietnam, or Thailand... needs the jolt. I believe the opposite will hold true and that were now reaping the benefits of the trump corporate tax cuts in the labor markets for the past few years. The left won't acknowledge it and the populi... "right" is to busy whining about tariffs.

Also, do you know that corporations don't really pay taxes? Sure, they write some checks but those paying the taxes are owners (equity and debt), labor, and customers. I'm just all for not having artificial entities in the middle that can be demonized. So what will happen to "rich" corporations? Owners gain, employees gain, customers gain. Who gains when? The market will determine, not government fiat.


Whose fault was it that it turned out that way... the big banks, stock market?
Sure wasn't the general populis... I mean population.

But I'm glad we agree that a Flat tax or fair tax or NO income tax is a good thing.
I think it's a FAR MORE of a Real World option today than Ukraine defeating Russia, Or coporations bringing manufacturing and industry back to the U.S if we give them MORE tax breaks.

Whose fault? The same that are to blame for all the other things you want to complain about. The people, the population, and what/who they voted for.

And what were saying about manufacturing and industry coming back? Look here:

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fcdn.statcdn.com%2FStatistic%2F660 000%2F664993-blank-355.png&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=379c3b48c6b82d887a496ba2e5431cbac074bf5f3efcb5 646f7b850c2a6352ce&ipo=images

and here:

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zippia.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2023%2F08%2Fus-manufacturing-output-over-time.png&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=b0f48d8e29dff1aecd84b72ae6647829db37d8f7aa0fab ad71efba26cbb09bdb&ipo=images

We make stuff. A lot of stuff. We just do it with fewer people because our capital markets are efficient and labor rates are high.


You know one way you can tell when a sainted small biz has become a to successful evil big biz, is when it's "TO BIG TO FAIL".

That's what politicians say. Not economists.

[revelarts]

I guess we're doing it this way.



How many reasons would you like of why I'm opposed to straight to the bottom-line, debt-increasing tax cuts? One reason? Two reasons? 36 reasons? 36 trillion reasons? How much of a tax cut do you think people are going to get? A few hundred or thousand per month? I don't think anyone is talking about any significant dollars where it's going to be a budget saver. Maybe it will be a budget saver for some. What happens when they need another budget saver in a few years?



I saw a study awhile back that one of the beneficiaries of a domestic corporate tax was foreign labor? Did you catch that? Let's hike up the domestic corporate taxes because China, or India, or Vietnam, or Thailand... needs the jolt. I believe the opposite will hold true and that were now reaping the benefits of the trump corporate tax cuts in the labor markets for the past few years. The left won't acknowledge it and the populi... "right" is to busy whining about tariffs.

Also, do you know that corporations don't really pay taxes? Sure, they write some checks but those paying the taxes are owners (equity and debt), labor, and customers. I'm just all for not having artificial entities in the middle that can be demonized. So what will happen to "rich" corporations? Owners gain, employees gain, customers gain. Who gains when? The market will determine, not government fiat.



Whose fault? The same that are to blame for all the other things you want to complain about. The people, the population, and what/who they voted for.

And what were saying about manufacturing and industry coming back? Look here:

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fcdn.statcdn.com%2FStatistic%2F660 000%2F664993-blank-355.png&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=379c3b48c6b82d887a496ba2e5431cbac074bf5f3efcb5 646f7b850c2a6352ce&ipo=images

and here:

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zippia.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2023%2F08%2Fus-manufacturing-output-over-time.png&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=b0f48d8e29dff1aecd84b72ae6647829db37d8f7aa0fab ad71efba26cbb09bdb&ipo=images

We make stuff. A lot of stuff. We just do it with fewer people because our capital markets are efficient and labor rates are high.



That's what politicians say. Not economists.

hmm well it looks like looks like we should let the corporations, banks and economist run things.
oh wait minute they have been.

the fed has not been interfered with, Corps have been bailed out, supplied with tax cuts, breaks, and other welfare for decades, they control politicians, they write the laws, the CEOs & other execs rotate in & out of the regulator agencies because they know best.

Sounds like we just need MORE of the same so the corps will just bring jobs back to the U.S. and inflation will come down, the price of health care will go down and more health care options will be available IF the American people will just stay out of the way and stop messing things up.

if you say so FJ.
no worries.
In corporations we trust.

...BTW
Here's a report that touches on the fact that the IRS has, as a matter of official policy, things set up NOT to investigate certain individuals.
Some folks are literally considered special cases. CEOs of large corps, certain politicians, high net worth individuals and others.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1851277287221817514.html

[Gunny]

I'm thinking more along the lines of Medicare picking up more, lots of things covered in nursing/hospitals/ even hospice centers are not covered in homes, even when person is 'on hospice care.' They cover the visit, but none of the meds or suggested purchases. As I said, ours was family choice to do home as long as we could. When our nurse had to leave, my dad and I couldn't do it by ourselves.

I'm not arguing. Trying to maybe learn something. Is home hospice care a tax write-off, even partially? Is nursing/rest/old folks home any kind of write off if the kids foot the bill?

I wouldn't argue too much about Medicare covering more of that, or getting a tax credit.

[Kathianne]

I'm not arguing. Trying to maybe learn something. Is home hospice care a tax write-off, even partially? Is nursing/rest/old folks home any kind of write off if the kids foot the bill?

I wouldn't argue too much about Medicare covering more of that, or getting a tax credit.

I don't know the tax apps, my dad was financially responsible. Just a bunch of stuff that would have been covered wasn't, when we know it was less expensive to handle at home.

[fj1200]

I'm not arguing. Trying to maybe learn something. Is home hospice care a tax write-off, even partially? Is nursing/rest/old folks home any kind of write off if the kids foot the bill?

I wouldn't argue too much about Medicare covering more of that, or getting a tax credit.

I think that depends on so many factors, how much money you have or don't have being primary.


I don't know the tax apps, my dad was financially responsible. Just a bunch of stuff that would have been covered wasn't, when we know it was less expensive to handle at home.

Before my dad passed they did at-home hospice where my mom took care of the day-to-day and the hospice folks delivered whatever was needed, hospital bed probably being the biggest thing, and I don't recall any questions of cost. I'm guessing medicare and veteran status were helpful or just being in a smaller market like Kalamazoo, MI.

[fj1200]

hmm well it looks like looks like we should let the corporations, banks and economist run things.
oh wait minute they have been.

the fed has not been interfered with, Corps have been bailed out, supplied with tax cuts, breaks, and other welfare for decades, they control politicians, they write the laws, the CEOs & other execs rotate in & out of the regulator agencies because they know best.

Sounds like we just need MORE of the same so the corps will just bring jobs back to the U.S. and inflation will come down, the price of health care will go down and more health care options will be available IF the American people will just stay out of the way and stop messing things up.

if you say so FJ.
no worries.
In corporations we trust.

...BTW
Here's a report that touches on the fact that the IRS has, as a matter of official policy, things set up NOT to investigate certain individuals.
Some folks are literally considered special cases. CEOs of large corps, certain politicians, high net worth individuals and others.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1851277287221817514.html

So I guess what I thought was a well-thought out post was just an utter waste of time because you've got it all worked out no matter my rationale or evidence. It seems that you prefer more government meddling when you've just pointed out the ramifications of decades of government meddling. Cognitive dissonance mayhap? You're very concerned about the little guy but who is the first to suffer when $36TT in debt can no longer just be rolled over? I'll tell you in ~2035 based on laws passed in the 1980s will see 30%? reduction in SS payments just because the trust fund is no longer solvent the little guy will get screwed. That is exactly the people's fault because it became clear to elected officials what would happen if they dared touch the "3rd rail." Even here I was excoriated for suggesting that SS was essentially welfare; I was told that they paid into and needed to get back their taxes contributions. Tell me where I'm wrong, don't just roll up in a ball and try to tell me what I said; you're not very good at telling me what I just said.

Nevertheless, since you didn't like any of my ideas what's your solution? Trinket tax cuts because evil corporations? Eat all the rich because there are some bad apples? More and more bureaucracy because of regulatory capture? Inquiring minds... or it's better that you don't reply to me because it's clear that alternate viewpoints are not welcome.

[Kathianne]

I think that depends on so many factors, how much money you have or don't have being primary.



Before my dad passed they did at-home hospice where my mom took care of the day-to-day and the hospice folks delivered whatever was needed, hospital bed probably being the biggest thing, and I don't recall any questions of cost. I'm guessing medicare and veteran status were helpful or just being in a smaller market like Kalamazoo, MI.

I think the difference might be that all the equipment, bed, wheelchair, bathroom modifications, were done before hospice. I probably should have paid more attention, but my dad was handling all and just complaining once in awhile how it shouldn't be penalized for caring at home.

[revelarts]

So I guess what I thought was a well-thought out post was just an utter waste of time because you've got it all worked out no matter my rationale or evidence. It seems that you prefer more government meddling when you've just pointed out the ramifications of decades of government meddling. Cognitive dissonance mayhap? You're very concerned about the little guy but who is the first to suffer when $36TT in debt can no longer just be rolled over? I'll tell you in ~2035 based on laws passed in the 1980s will see 30%? reduction in SS payments just because the trust fund is no longer solvent the little guy will get screwed. That is exactly the people's fault because it became clear to elected officials what would happen if they dared touch the "3rd rail." Even here I was excoriated for suggesting that SS was essentially welfare; I was told that they paid into and needed to get back their taxes contributions. Tell me where I'm wrong, don't just roll up in a ball and try to tell me what I said; you're not very good at telling me what I just said.

Nevertheless, since you didn't like any of my ideas what's your solution? Trinket tax cuts because evil corporations? Eat all the rich because there are some bad apples? More and more bureaucracy because of regulatory capture? Inquiring minds... or it's better that you don't reply to me because it's clear that alternate viewpoints are not welcome.


Here's the thing I think you miss about my POV.
The only sacred ideology I have is GOD and his word.

For me it's right & proper to call out problems everywhere there is one.
There ARE no sacred institutions or ideologies or economic forms. Only some that are somewhat better than others.

Capitalism is good ...to a point... as a tool, not an ultimate goal or foundation for life.
Govt is good ...to a point... as a tool, not as ultimate authority over every, or even MOST, aspects of life.

When either assumes too much power, separately or in cooperation, they can and do act in ways that harm.
And when they have outsized scale they can do outsized harm.

As far as solutions go
I think I've made that clear over the years.
Gov't acting closer to the constitutional limits. And corporations limited in scope, and limited in influence in the gov't. and excluded from the monetary controls.
Opening up far more options, opportunities & responsibilities all down the line. Rather than the one size fits all top down 'solutions' & controls from corporate & govt overlords.
I've been told this is too "idealistic" to reach. Not that it won't work.
But it's amazing to me how we can elect all of the Horrific candidates who believe things like men can have babies and the U.S. military can police the world economically. But somehow making the gov't and corporations smaller is too crazy to consider.

There is no perfection here on earth... yet.
And I think at this point Thomas Sowell's remark seems about right.
"there are no solutions only trade offs".

But the ultimate Goal is HUMAN flourishing & personal freedom (under God), not CORPORATE flourishing with unchecked freedoms or BIG GOVT Flourishing with unchecked freedoms and power.
Corporations & Gov'ts are TOOLS for the ultimate Goal of HUMAN flourishing not the other way around.
If you can see my comments through that lens I think you'll see the consistency.

[fj1200]

Here's the thing I think you miss about my POV.
The only sacred ideology I have is GOD and his word.

For me it's right & proper to call out problems everywhere there is one.
There ARE no sacred institutions or ideologies or economic forms. Only some that are somewhat better than others.

Capitalism is good ...to a point... as a tool, not an ultimate goal or foundation for life.
Govt is good ...to a point... as a tool, not as ultimate authority over every, or even MOST, aspects of life.

When either assumes too much power, separately or in cooperation, they can and do act in ways that harm.
And when they have outsized scale they can do outsized harm.

As far as solutions go
I think I've made that clear over the years.
Gov't acting closer to the constitutional limits. And corporations limited in scope, and limited in influence in the gov't. and excluded from the monetary controls.
Opening up far more options, opportunities & responsibilities all down the line. Rather than the one size fits all top down 'solutions' & controls from corporate & govt overlords.
I've been told this is too "idealistic" to reach. Not that it won't work.
But it's amazing to me how we can elect all of the Horrific candidates who believe things like men can have babies and the U.S. military can police the world economically. But somehow making the gov't and corporations smaller is too crazy to consider.

There is no perfection here on earth... yet.
And I think at this point Thomas Sowell's remark seems about right.
"there are no solutions only trade offs".

But the ultimate Goal is HUMAN flourishing & personal freedom (under God), not CORPORATE flourishing with unchecked freedoms or BIG GOVT Flourishing with unchecked freedoms and power.
Corporations & Gov'ts are TOOLS for the ultimate Goal of HUMAN flourishing not the other way around.
If you can see my comments through that lens I think you'll see the consistency.

I don't know that I miss it but let's say that I agree with it wholeheartedly. Where is my argument different?

I believe that capitalism is good. Other people think it's good to a point. Where is that point and who gets to decide when it hits that point? Government is the only entity able to do that. No one can be forced to do business with a corporation, unless you're talking about the company store which may also not really be capitalism anyway, and there are options at not doing business with it or working for it. The problem is that once the government has decided that point then they start making decisions that pervert every decision beyond that point and, I'll argue, even before that point is reached. Those decisions may sound good at the time and are probably fairly benign, and possibly even helpful (to a group), but years down the road it becomes lost that the program that "fixed" the problem had unintended consequences and people start demanding that capitalism is good to a different point. Corporations, as an institution, are not evil.

I believe that government is good... to a point. And that is a very limited point. Government can force, government can require, government can demand, government can kill lawfully, etc. Only government, as an institution, can do outsize harm.

I don't think you realize about the POV of most here; we wish for smaller government, closer to constitutional limits, with increased protections for life, liberty, property. From what you've presented in this thread I'm not sure how what you've proposed gets you closer to what you desire.

[Gunny]

I think the difference might be that all the equipment, bed, wheelchair, bathroom modifications, were done before hospice. I probably should have paid more attention, but my dad was handling all and just complaining once in awhile how it shouldn't be penalized for caring at home.


I think that depends on so many factors, how much money you have or don't have being primary.



Before my dad passed they did at-home hospice where my mom took care of the day-to-day and the hospice folks delivered whatever was needed, hospital bed probably being the biggest thing, and I don't recall any questions of cost. I'm guessing medicare and veteran status were helpful or just being in a smaller market like Kalamazoo, MI.

That's pretty much how it was in my family. The modifications and special equipment were already in house to provide for day to day living before things went downhill. That was for my great grandmother and grandmother. Stepfather had to be put in a home where he could be confined and watched because he had dementia.

All that, whatever it amounted to, came out of pocket.