If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   Ted Cruz: I get my health insurance through my wife's insurance at no cost to the taxpayer. HuffPo: Are you sure? Because it probably costs taxpayers about $8,500 a year   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 108
    More: Fail, Sen. Ted Cruz, Goldman Sachs, voting Precinct, Republican Clubs, Capitol Hill in Washington, Dean Baker, R-Texas, David Dewhurst  
•       •       •

4764 clicks; posted to Politics » on 25 Oct 2013 at 12:50 PM (37 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



108 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-10-25 11:31:39 AM
Now don't get me wrong, I think Ted Cruz is one of the slimiest sociopathic demagogues the U.S. Congress has ever had the displeasure to count as a member, but HuffPo is reaching a bit here to count uncollected tax on the value of employer-provided healthcare as a "cost" to the taxpayer.

That's just the sh*tty system we have.
 
2013-10-25 11:33:48 AM
So you're saying a politician doesn't understand health care? Who knew?
 
2013-10-25 11:36:58 AM
nice dog-whistle there
 
2013-10-25 11:37:37 AM

mrshowrules: nice dog-whistle there


wrong thread
 
2013-10-25 11:39:32 AM
I always thought congress critters had outstanding insurance as one of the perks. Am I wrong on that?

Is GS really subsidizing the Cruz family health ins to the tune of 20k/yr? I work at a financial, I get great bene's. My employers contribution and my share don't come close to that to cover myself and my daughter.

I hate Ted but these numbers just don't add up.
 
2013-10-25 11:48:19 AM

edmo: So you're saying a politician doesn't understand health care?


or economics

UrukHaiGuyz: to count uncollected tax on the value of employer-provided healthcare as a "cost" to the taxpayer.


The technical term is 'tax expenditure' and notwithstanding the social benefits of this particular tax exemption, it is an economic subsidy that people who don't have employer sponsored insurance don't receive. TFA is much closer to accuracy than Cruz is.
 
2013-10-25 11:48:50 AM
Can't we just ignore the Canadian male version of Sarah Palin?
 
2013-10-25 11:49:32 AM

UrukHaiGuyz: but HuffPo is reaching a bit here to count uncollected tax on the value of employer-provided healthcare as a "cost" to the taxpayer.


This sort of thinking, the idea that a tax deduction is somehow not a 'cost' like spending is, is endemic to conservative political philosophy, but its insane. Imagine two scenarios:

1) Employer health insurance contributions (value of Y) are tax deductible. That means that without this deducted, your taxes are X, but since the deduction is in place, you only have to pay X-Y.

2) Employer health insurance contributions (value of Y) are NOT tax deductible. Rather, you pay your taxes. Then the government has a new program in place. If you send them an invoice showing your insurance premiums, the government will send you a check in the amount of Y. To make it totally even, lets say that also need to provide proof of income, and Y can't exceed your income amount.

These are literally the exact same thing, its just that #2 is less efficient. But someone, #2 is 'spending' which costs the taxpayers money, and #1 isn't. Makes no sense.
 
2013-10-25 11:51:18 AM

UrukHaiGuyz: Now don't get me wrong, I think Ted Cruz is one of the slimiest sociopathic demagogues the U.S. Congress has ever had the displeasure to count as a member, but HuffPo is reaching a bit here to count uncollected tax on the value of employer-provided healthcare as a "cost" to the taxpayer.

That's just the sh*tty system we have.


It most certainly is a subsidy. I don't pretend the government isn't helping to subsidize my mortgage.

It would be different if the employer paid tax on their income, then bought the insurance for the Cruz family. But the employer deducts the cost as a business expense and the Cruz family pays no tax on the benefit. I don't see how that isn't subsidizing the cost of healthcare.

And if the government is subsidizing it, it costs the government, and is therefore a cost to the taxpayer.
 
2013-10-25 11:55:02 AM

Three Crooked Squirrels: It would be different if the employer paid tax on their income, then bought the insurance for the Cruz family. But the employer deducts the cost as a business expense and the Cruz family pays no tax on the benefit. I don't see how that isn't subsidizing the cost of healthcare.


The issue isn't on the employer side - it's on the employee side. Regardless of whether or not there's a tax deduction in place for health care, the employer is always going to be able to deduct the cost as a medical expense. The key to the tax deduction is that the employee doesn't have to include that amount as income, and doesn't have to pay tax on it.
 
2013-10-25 12:10:56 PM

Three Crooked Squirrels: UrukHaiGuyz: Now don't get me wrong, I think Ted Cruz is one of the slimiest sociopathic demagogues the U.S. Congress has ever had the displeasure to count as a member, but HuffPo is reaching a bit here to count uncollected tax on the value of employer-provided healthcare as a "cost" to the taxpayer.

That's just the sh*tty system we have.

It most certainly is a subsidy. I don't pretend the government isn't helping to subsidize my mortgage.

It would be different if the employer paid tax on their income, then bought the insurance for the Cruz family. But the employer deducts the cost as a business expense and the Cruz family pays no tax on the benefit. I don't see how that isn't subsidizing the cost of healthcare.

And if the government is subsidizing it, it costs the government, and is therefore a cost to the taxpayer.


I understand that it's a subsidy, but even the fact that it's an absurdly gold-trimmed policy doesn't change the fact that our healthcare system is built on the vast majority of Americans receiving employer-provided coverage. It's not a great system by any stretch, but to call out Cruz specifically is a bit disingenuous.

There's just not much of a story here. "Ted Cruz receives employer-provided healthcare through his spouse, which is tax-exempt like all employer-provided care." No sh*t.
 
2013-10-25 12:12:55 PM

UrukHaiGuyz: It's not a great system by any stretch, but to call out Cruz specifically is a bit disingenuous.


We're only calling Cruz out because he's denying the very thing you claim our healthcare system is built on.

UrukHaiGuyz: There's just not much of a story here. "Ted Cruz receives employer-provided healthcare through his spouse, which is tax-exempt like all employer-provided care, while at the same time arguing that his healthcare is not benefiting from a tax-exemption and that he somehow is not relying on government benefits." No sh*t.


FTFY to explain the actual story.
 
2013-10-25 12:13:31 PM

shifty lookin bleeder: The technical term is 'tax expenditure' and notwithstanding the social benefits of this particular tax exemption, it is an economic subsidy that people who don't have employer sponsored insurance don't receive. TFA is much closer to accuracy than Cruz is.


True, but that was the whole point of the ACA, right? To level the playing field for individuals who lack the bargaining power of corporations. The government should subsidize healthcare 100% like every sane developed country in the world, just not through businesses.
 
2013-10-25 12:30:05 PM
Without a $12 billion bailout from the government, GS/your wife's job may not even fkn exist, Rafi.
 
2013-10-25 12:33:49 PM

UrukHaiGuyz: True, but that was the whole point of the ACA, right?


It's not about the ACA or government run health care. It's about asshats like Cruz that runaround preaching rugged individualism for the poors while they revel in their personal public subsidies.  And the reason they get away with it is because too many people refuse to call out the mushy-headed economics that they pass off  to their followers as limited government, free market thinking.

And btw, only 55% of Americans received insurance through an employer sponsored plan in 2011, according to the Census Bureau.  Nearly half the country doesn't get the special tax treatment on compensation in the form of health benefits that Cruz pretends isn't a subsidy.
 
2013-10-25 12:41:29 PM

Peter von Nostrand: Can't we just ignore the Canadian male version of Sarah Palin?


Unlike Sarah Palin, Ted Cruz is actually an elected politician now, and unlike the Governor of Alaska, has direct influence on federal policymaking. Also, he had the power to cause a default by himself last week by delaying the vote on the budget deal. I'm still amazed that he didn't.

This isn't a "just don't look" situation. This guy needs to be thrown back in Texas' face repeatedly to ensure that they don't do this again.
 
2013-10-25 12:43:14 PM
Is his wife hot?
 
2013-10-25 12:43:29 PM

shifty lookin bleeder: UrukHaiGuyz: True, but that was the whole point of the ACA, right?

It's not about the ACA or government run health care. It's about asshats like Cruz that runaround preaching rugged individualism for the poors while they revel in their personal public subsidies.  And the reason they get away with it is because too many people refuse to call out the mushy-headed economics that they pass off  to their followers as limited government, free market thinking.

And btw, only 55% of Americans received insurance through an employer sponsored plan in 2011, according to the Census Bureau.  Nearly half the country doesn't get the special tax treatment on compensation in the form of health benefits that Cruz pretends isn't a subsidy.


Huh,I hadn't realized it was that low a percentage of Americans.

My larger point is that trying to nail Cruz on the subsidized benefit he receives won't gain any traction or change any minds. Lawyers thrive on technicalities, and tax-exemptions are an opportunity cost, not a real one.

 You need to attack the entire philosophy behind the idea that government-provided subsidies and services are not the entire framework for social stability and the personal wealth of every American. This is the party of "We Built That." They're not exactly equipped to parse subtleties, and attacking Cruz on this is counter-productive, IMHO. There are much better blatant falsehoods to attack him over.
 
2013-10-25 12:52:58 PM
Repeat?
 
2013-10-25 12:55:51 PM
www.bitlogic.com
 
2013-10-25 12:56:18 PM

UrukHaiGuyz: Now don't get me wrong, I think Ted Cruz is one of the slimiest sociopathic demagogues the U.S. Congress has ever had the displeasure to count as a member, but HuffPo is reaching a bit here to count uncollected tax on the value of employer-provided healthcare as a "cost" to the taxpayer.

That's just the sh*tty system we have.


Only a bit? The whole premise is absurd.
 
2013-10-25 12:56:20 PM

UrukHaiGuyz: My larger point is that trying to nail Cruz on the subsidized benefit he receives won't gain any traction or change any minds


Doesn't mean the press shouldn't call him out on it. There's really not much anyone can say to change Tea Partiers' minds, but that doesn't mean people should stop trying to pursue acurate information.
 
2013-10-25 12:56:54 PM
All Republicans believe the handouts to them don't count.
 
2013-10-25 12:58:46 PM

balthan: UrukHaiGuyz: My larger point is that trying to nail Cruz on the subsidized benefit he receives won't gain any traction or change any minds

Doesn't mean the press shouldn't call him out on it. There's really not much anyone can say to change Tea Partiers' minds, but that doesn't mean people should stop trying to pursue acurate information.


Exactly, remember when people started ignoring birthers hoping they would go away. Almost 50% of the American people started believing it.

There is a big population that will just believe things because one side is repeating it enough. Same is true with global warming denial, people are believing it because they just repeat it and the other side isn't as loud.
 
2013-10-25 12:59:55 PM
Cuban-Canadian Rafael Cruz is a lying sack of shiat AND a scumbag?  Now my world is shattered.  SHATTERED.
 
2013-10-25 01:00:01 PM

Corvus: All Republicans believe the handouts to them don't count.


of course they don't! Their case if totally different, they earned them.
 
2013-10-25 01:01:22 PM
Wait, this guy's wife works for Goldman Sachs?  Just when I thought Cruz couldn't get any more comically evil, I learn this.  Wow.
 
2013-10-25 01:01:35 PM
Huff-Po failed to add in the cost of his insurance plan traveling on federal freeways to get to him.
 
2013-10-25 01:03:54 PM
Everyone in this thread is voluntarily writing checks to cover the subsidy you receive by not paying taxes on your employer provided health care right?

To not do so would be kind of hypocritical.
 
2013-10-25 01:05:48 PM

Giltric: Everyone in this thread is voluntarily writing checks to cover the subsidy you receive by not paying taxes on your employer provided health care right?

To not do so would be kind of hypocritical.


Only if we were holding national office, chiding the "poors" for wanting healthcare, and loudly proclaiming we didn't cost the taxpayers anything.  Thanks for playing.
 
2013-10-25 01:06:11 PM
Nice attempted straw man, smitty.  Don't think you'll find an actual quote to that effect.  But it's always nice when the mask comes off the liberals and they reveal that they truly reject the notion of private property.  "We don't tax you on that?  Then it's just a gift from us to you."
 
2013-10-25 01:08:13 PM

Heliovdrake: Corvus: All Republicans believe the handouts to them don't count.

of course they don't! Their case if totally different, they earned them.


Special circumstances.

Democrats understand that everyone is one bad day from catastrophe. Republicans think that people are where they deserve to be, then scream "special circumstances" when it happens to them.
 
2013-10-25 01:08:14 PM

Garet Garrett: "We don't tax you on that?  Then it's just a gift from us to you."


Do you think that no tax deductions are gifts? Or just this one? I mean, what if the Democratic House passed a law saying union member no longer have to pay taxes at all. You wouldn't consider that a gift to unions?
 
2013-10-25 01:08:16 PM

UrukHaiGuyz: HuffPo is reaching a bit here to count uncollected tax on the value of employer-provided healthcare as a "cost" to the taxpayer.


That.
 
2013-10-25 01:08:39 PM

Garet Garrett: Nice attempted straw man, smitty.  Don't think you'll find an actual quote to that effect.  But it's always nice when the mask comes off the liberals and they reveal that they truly reject the notion of private property.  "We don't tax you on that?  Then it's just a gift from us to you."


It's always amusing to hear a conservative express what he thinks liberals believe.
 
2013-10-25 01:09:07 PM
Damn, I guess that raise I didn't get last year is really costing the taxpayer.  Sorry, everyone.
 
2013-10-25 01:09:38 PM

sugardave: Giltric: Everyone in this thread is voluntarily writing checks to cover the subsidy you receive by not paying taxes on your employer provided health care right?

To not do so would be kind of hypocritical.

Only if we were holding national office, chiding the "poors" for wanting healthcare, and loudly proclaiming we didn't cost the taxpayers anything.  Thanks for playing.


Yeah...your type always has an excuse why other people should pay more.....
 
2013-10-25 01:09:40 PM

Garet Garrett: Nice attempted straw man, smitty.  Don't think you'll find an actual quote to that effect.  But it's always nice when the mask comes off the liberals and they reveal that they truly reject the notion of private property.  "We don't tax you on that?  Then it's just a gift from us to you."


Private property only exists in a stable society, which is only provided by a stable government, which is paid for by taxes. The article is a stretch, but you sound utterly insane.
 
2013-10-25 01:10:22 PM

Lionel Mandrake: Garet Garrett: Nice attempted straw man, smitty.  Don't think you'll find an actual quote to that effect.  But it's always nice when the mask comes off the liberals and they reveal that they truly reject the notion of private property.  "We don't tax you on that?  Then it's just a gift from us to you."

It's always amusing to hear a conservative express what he thinks liberals believe.


Tell me again how much Republicans like rape.
 
2013-10-25 01:11:38 PM

UrukHaiGuyz: Private property only exists in a stable society, which is only provided by a stable government


Wrong.

Private property exists until my ammo runs out and until you deem it worth the risk to try to take whats not yours.
 
2013-10-25 01:11:58 PM
everyone in this thread is simply admitting that liberals are like farts right

to not do so would be kind of hypocritical
 
Bf+
2013-10-25 01:12:38 PM

vygramul: [www.bitlogic.com image 200x100]


Well, that is certainly disturbing...
 
2013-10-25 01:12:49 PM

Giltric: UrukHaiGuyz: Private property only exists in a stable society, which is only provided by a stable government

Wrong.

Private property exists until my ammo runs out and until you deem it worth the risk to try to take whats not yours.


Because heavily armed nuts in bunkers are capable of building freeways, or the internet. Feel free to go Galt anytime. You won't be missed.
 
2013-10-25 01:12:56 PM

Cletus C.: Lionel Mandrake: Garet Garrett: Nice attempted straw man, smitty.  Don't think you'll find an actual quote to that effect.  But it's always nice when the mask comes off the liberals and they reveal that they truly reject the notion of private property.  "We don't tax you on that?  Then it's just a gift from us to you."

It's always amusing to hear a conservative express what he thinks liberals believe.

Tell me again how much Republicans like rape.


I don't recall ever saying that, so I can't tell you "again"
 
2013-10-25 01:13:36 PM
Wrong side of the ledger there, HuffPo.  Cruz is saving 8.5K in taxes which is a reduction in goverment revenues.  This is not a cost to the taxpayer.  The taxpayer does not fork out any additional money, it is just that the goverment gets less in their pocket and the Deficit and Debt ticks up another notch.
 
2013-10-25 01:14:55 PM

Giltric: Everyone in this thread is voluntarily writing checks to cover the subsidy you receive by not paying taxes on your employer provided health care right?

To not do so would be kind of hypocritical.


I'm well aware that I get subsidies for healthcare and am grateful for them.  I also think more people should get them, especially the poor and middle class who don't have access to employer provided health care.  How does that make me a hypocrite?
 
2013-10-25 01:15:29 PM

HeadLever: Cruz is saving 8.5K in taxes which is a reduction in goverment revenues.  This is not a cost to the taxpayer.  The taxpayer does not fork out any additional money, it is just that the goverment gets less in their pocket and the Deficit and Debt ticks up another notch.


This is insane. Imagine two scenarios:

1) Employer health insurance contributions (value of Y) are tax deductible. That means that without this deducted, your taxes are X, but since the deduction is in place, you only have to pay X-Y.

2) Employer health insurance contributions (value of Y) are NOT tax deductible. Rather, you pay your taxes. Then the government has a new program in place. If you send them an invoice showing your insurance premiums, the government will send you a check in the amount of Y. To make it totally even, lets say that also need to provide proof of income, and Y can't exceed your income amount.

These are literally the exact same thing, its just that #2 is less efficient. But someone, #2 is 'spending' which costs the taxpayers money, and #1 isn't. Makes no sense.
 
2013-10-25 01:15:39 PM

Giltric: sugardave: Giltric: Everyone in this thread is voluntarily writing checks to cover the subsidy you receive by not paying taxes on your employer provided health care right?

To not do so would be kind of hypocritical.

Only if we were holding national office, chiding the "poors" for wanting healthcare, and loudly proclaiming we didn't cost the taxpayers anything.  Thanks for playing.

Yeah...your type always has an excuse why other people should pay more.....


Hmmm....what "type" am I?  I think I'm the type that just blew up your claims of "hypocrisy" by pointing out that it would be impossible to be hypocritical in this, since we aren't GOP-hole Senators with the power to affect legislation.  Again, you fail.  Thanks for playing.

If you're so farking worried about paying more, why don't you get a better-paying job?  Are you a shiftless, good-for-nothing taker or something?  farking moocher.
 
2013-10-25 01:16:14 PM
25.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-10-25 01:16:39 PM

UrukHaiGuyz: Giltric: UrukHaiGuyz: Private property only exists in a stable society, which is only provided by a stable government

Wrong.

Private property exists until my ammo runs out and until you deem it worth the risk to try to take whats not yours.

Because heavily armed nuts in bunkers are capable of building freeways, or the internet. Feel free to go Galt anytime. You won't be missed.


Yep. helped build a couple. Did some work on 202, 206, 22, 78, the GSP.....78 was fun, we helped extend it from Berkely Heights out to Clinton. Even got to use explosives.

But enough about me....what have you done for your country?
 
Displayed 50 of 108 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report