home

On the Math

By Jeralyn, Section Economy
Posted on Mon Sep 19, 2011 at 07:58:29 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Charlie Sheen is getting a $100 million payout from Warner Brothers, in settlement of his lawsuit over his television show (that I've never seen), Two and a Half Men. $25 million will be paid in two weeks, the rest over time.

Apple stock prices closed at an all-time high today, $411 a share, with a new record-high market valuation of $381.62 billion, which even beats Exxon Mobile.

Let the mega-rich pay more in taxes. Leave Medicare alone. They may have more money, but there's millions more of us and we vote. Our votes can lead to electoral victory. Who cares if they pout?

< GA Parole Board Delays Decision on Troy Davis | Monday Night Open Thread: DWTS, Can Nancy and Chas Dance? >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    On the Math | 38 comments (38 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    $100M payout? (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by andgarden on Mon Sep 19, 2011 at 08:35:26 PM EST
    Wow, he had a meltdown all the way to the bank!

    That's just staggering.

    my thoughts exactly (none / 0) (#3)
    by nycstray on Mon Sep 19, 2011 at 09:22:45 PM EST


    Parent
    100M? (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by lentinel on Tue Sep 20, 2011 at 04:17:33 AM EST
    That's nothing.

    I just got a letter from a real good lawyer in Slovenia.

    It seems that a guy left $300,000,000.00 dollars and needs someone to accept the money.

    I sent him my personal information and should be receiving the money in a few days.

    Parent

    me too (none / 0) (#23)
    by ruffian on Tue Sep 20, 2011 at 10:21:13 AM EST
    I wonder how much money the network makes from those shows?

    Parent
    You hit it on the head with "Mega-rich" (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by Dadler on Mon Sep 19, 2011 at 09:08:09 PM EST
    That is where we are really being thieved from and destroyed.  Financial corruption at the highest levels IS the problem facing the country, not debt, not spending, nothing but corruption from the riches of the rich.  It is truly astounding that those massive financial bets that ruined the economy, and still paid off obscenely for many inside players, are UNTAXED ENTIRELY.  Try to fathom that.  You make a hundred million dollar financial bet that pays off and you pay nothing in taxes to the nation that gave you the freedom.  The people that line their pockets and compensate for their tiny d*cks this way are the worst human beings America can produce.  Common criminals far outstrip their humanity.  

    So THEIR freedom is free! (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by observed on Tue Sep 20, 2011 at 10:06:09 AM EST


    Parent
    Obama may cut funds to the states (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by MO Blue on Mon Sep 19, 2011 at 10:40:12 PM EST
    for Medicaid and more poor people may not be able to receive Medicaid benefits but Obama's new health insurance legislation unless fixed could be a windfall for some early retirees.

    The problem began after the health care law changed Medicaid rules so Social Security benefits would no longer count as income, as they do now.

    Because of the glitch, married early retirees making $64,000 a year could qualify for Medicaid. Medicare's top number cruncher, Richard Foster, said that situation didn't make sense but policymakers weren't interested in addressing it. link

    Before anyone gets to excited and starts to include free health care into a early retirement plan I guess I should mention that President Barack Obama's new deficit plan would fix this $14 billion glitch in his health care law.

    The pink slip. (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by lentinel on Tue Sep 20, 2011 at 06:35:10 AM EST
    I know that you are eager to tear up the pink slip... but my reading of Obama's "plan" says that he would veto any plan that cut Medicare but did not raise revenue from the rich. (This according to the NYTimes.)

    That proposal has the familiar Obamian flavour about it.

    A trade.

    Raise more revenues from the wealthiest Americans, and I'll give you the medicare cuts from the poorest and neediest. Balance you can believe in.

    Maybe it won't pan out that way, but it seems to me that Obama is floating a grand plan with an enticing sound for the democratic faithful, but is way way short on specifics.

    I'm not tearing up my pink slip just yet.

    The plan he proposed yesterday (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by MO Blue on Tue Sep 20, 2011 at 08:10:16 AM EST
    already takes chunks out of Medicare and Medicaid.

    On Medicare some of the goodies are: higher deductibles for doctor services and $100 co-pay for home health care visits. An extra 15% percent premium on people who purchase Medi-gap plans that actually provide coverage rather than require high up front deductibles and an additional 15% increase (means test) on high earners. Of course high earners for retirees means something much lower than it does when Obama talks about high earners for tax purposes.

    On Medicaid Obama would also modify the scheme for financing Medicaid, calling upon cash strapped states to kick in a bit more money.

    If this is Obama's starting position, which will cause enough pain for the poor and the elderly, god protect us from what we would wind up with if the Republicans ever decided they would be willing to tax millionaires an additional $.01 per year if Obama slashes safety net benefits completely and lowers the marginal tax rates and for corporations and the mega rich.  

    Parent

    Reading (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by lentinel on Tue Sep 20, 2011 at 08:19:54 AM EST
    what you wrote confirms my suspicions - as well as my predisposition to distrust the image of the newly refurbished Obama.

    I think Jeralyn was a bit too hasty to tear up the pink slip.

    Parent

    AARP statement on Obama's (none / 0) (#4)
    by MO Blue on Mon Sep 19, 2011 at 09:49:00 PM EST
    proposed changes to Medicare:

    T

    he plan got a cool reception from AARP, the influential lobby for older Americans, although the group praised the president for not trying to raise the eligibility age for Medicare.

    "AARP urges Congress to first cut waste and close tax loopholes instead of taking away the benefits Americans have earned after decades of working hard and paying into the system," AARP Vice President Nancy LeaMond wrote in a statement. "The president and Congress should be thinking of ways to restore middle class prosperity, not weaken it through cuts to benefits. It is neither balanced nor fair to ask seniors, whose incomes average less than $20,000, to contribute even more for their health care."
    And it isn't honest of AARP to imply that (none / 0) (#8)
    by Farmboy on Tue Sep 20, 2011 at 08:06:00 AM EST
    the proposed Medicare changes would affect seniors making $20k.

    To the extent they would force individual seniors to pay more, it'd be in the form of higher premiums from wealthy seniors or higher co-pays for treatments likely to be unnecessary or wasteful.
    link

    Parent
    Well yes, AARP is being honest (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by MO Blue on Tue Sep 20, 2011 at 08:43:39 AM EST
    about the changes that Obama is recommending would would affect seniors making $20k. It is you who are are being dishonest by cherry picking the means testing part of Obama's recommended changes to Medicare. The TNR link that you provided does reference increases in cost-sharing. Obama recommendations that would affect all seniors including those making $20k:

    o Higher deductibles for doctor services
    o $100 co-pay for home health care visits
    o 15% percent premium on people who purchase Medi-gap plans that actually provide coverage rather than require high up front deductibles

    While Jonathon Cohn might think these changes are trivial, I guarantee that for people with limited incomes they are not trivial at all.

    Parent

    I see. I should have said the AARP was wrong (none / 0) (#14)
    by Farmboy on Tue Sep 20, 2011 at 09:14:19 AM EST
    to imply that the changes would "negatively affect" seniors making $20k. The proposed changes will certainly affect that group of seniors over time, by providing them net annual savings due to the means testing, and by continued viability and improvements to the program.

    BTW, the quote in the Cohn article says the changes are non-trivial, not trivial as you state.

    Parent

    This is so much B.S. (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by MO Blue on Tue Sep 20, 2011 at 10:03:23 AM EST
    it is a wonder you can walk around with boots that high.

    by providing them net annual savings due to the means testing


    Parent
    The fact that they are means testing (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by MO Blue on Tue Sep 20, 2011 at 10:28:19 AM EST
    people whose income is over a certain limit does not save people anyone money when they are forced to pay much higher out of pocket expenses in order to get needed medical care.

    The fact that Joe Smoe pays 15% more for Medicare does not give me an additional $2,000 or $3,000 dollars to pay for a deductible before the Medi-gap insurance kicks in. That just takes reduces my income by $2,000 or $3,000 a year if I want to actually get the health care I need. The fact that good old Mr Smoe pays 15% more for Medicare does not give limited income people who need home health care $100 for their co pay. It just means that they won't get the home health care that they need if they cannot afford the $100. If they wind up in the hospital because they didn't get adequate care when they needed it, oh well, they will just have to come up with a few thousand more to meet their deductible.

    Nope, means testing does not provide people any net annual savings. Your statement does not make any sense what so ever. You just make things up as you go along and you don't even take the time to frame your statements so that they make any rational sense.
       

    Parent

    Oh brother (none / 0) (