Americans Paid $90 Billion MORE In Taxes After Republican Tax Cut

[Flash]

You did make a bad faith prediction, and you did it instead of debating the actual proposal. The reason you don't want to debate the actual proposal is because doing so will result in you agreeing with the proposal. And that would mean everything you said against the proposal was just a load of horseshit, and frankly, I don't believe you are adult enough to admit that.

And why shouldn't illegal immigrants get free healthcare? What makes them illegal is an arbitrary law that didn't exist when my ancestors came here. So you don't want them coming here, so you criminalize the means by which most of them do, and that makes it easy for you to justify treating them inhumanely.

And who gives a shit what Republicans say? They voted for and support Trump; they're written off. They're not the people we are counting on to vote for us, and they never were.

All these programs would cost too much money when we have a $22 trillion debt. And, it is very hypocritical to want to supply all these free benefits when you want a small percentage of the population to pay for them. It is the perfect example of those who quote the problems with democracy---we can vote ourselves benefits without paying for them. It increases the size of government taking up a much large share of the GDP.

I never justified in treating illegals humanely--another Straw Man you have created. It is not the taxpayer's responsibility to give illegals or legal immigrants free healthcare. Another expensive benefit you want others to pay for.

The immigration laws are no more arbitrary than any other laws. When your ancestors came here we didn't have Social Security, Medicare, unemployment insurance, welfare, food stamps, Medicaid, WIC, or EITC, either. Would you also get rid of those along with immigration laws?

My point about the Republican ad is that it might be influential as an issue in determining who wins the election.

 

[LV426]

Buying a car does not have to be a major cause a debt.

I never said it was. What I said was the major cause of debt were three things: health care, education, credit cards.

Single payer takes care of health care debt.
Free public colleges and debt forgiveness takes care of student debt.
Higher wages takes care of credit card debt.

You oppose at least two of those.

If a person has more disposable income he might choose to use that additional income to buy a car. So, in his case, the additional debt is not a bad thing but the cost of having a new car. If he has student loan, medical, or credit card debt let's hope he will use that additional income to pay on those debts.

Hope? Could? Might?

These are goalposts you're setting in order to move later on.

The person doesn't have more disposable income because they have to put more income towards education and health care because you cut funding for those because ARGLE BARGLE SPENDING BADDDD.

So just like what happened in Kansas with the State Board of Regents, we are seeing a consistent pattern emerge; taxes get cut, which results in deficits, which result in spending cuts, which result in more borrowing. So people don't get to keep more of what they earn, because they have to shell out more out of their own pockets on services the state can provide at a cheaper cost, funded by taxes instead of premiums, copays, deductibles, drug costs, coinsurance, dental, vision, hospital stays, ambulance rides, etc.

The Kaiser Family Foundation says that the average a worker spends in premiums for their employer-provided care is about $5,000/year PLUS an additional $1,500 a year for deductibles. So all in, the average worker pays $6,500 a year for their health care.

Sanders' M4A proposal swaps all that OOPE for a flat payroll tax of about 6%. The highest I've heard that tax go is 8%. So let's do some math. You like math, right?

The average worker spends $6,500/year for health care through their employer
The average salary for US workers is $47,060 a year.
Bernie's M4A tax is 6%...but let's go up to 10% because that will be easier for you to follow.
So if we had M4A, the average worker would pay $4,706 a year for health care vs. the $6,500 a year they pay right now.

So, is $4,706 > or < $6,500 in Flashtardia?



So how are you not the obstacle to society achieving less debt?

 

[LV426]

We were talking about government waste and you wanted examples.

We were talking about M4A and free public colleges...two things you have yet to even debate besides ducking out of a debate about them by preemptively killing them by saying they'll be changed.

Maybe they won't be changed. Medicare wasn't.

 

[LV426]

The point is that consumer spending and disposable income have been increasing

BECAUSE OF DEBT.

That's what I've been saying this whole time, moron.

The reason the spending continued to increase was because of debt.

so your claim that people don't have more money to spend is a lie. Spending it on student loan debt is a good way to pay for the debt a person chose to incur.

It's not a lie, Flash, you just confirmed for me that the spending isn't being done with money...it's being done with credit. Credit is what accounts for the continued consumer spending you're trying to attribute to a nominal increase in after-tax income. But you are either deliberately ignoring, or are just plain ignorant of everything I've been saying this thread. That tax cuts result in more debt, not people keeping more of what they earned.

If people could keep more of what they earned then quite literally the personal savings rate would be increasing, not decreasing.

So this is the conversation:

Me: Tax cuts result in more debt.

You: Impossible! Look at consumer spending continuing to grow. Consumers can't spend without money.

Me: Ummm...they're spending because of credit. And what is credit, but debt.

Consumers are going into debt in order to spend in the economy because they have to shell out more of their income on non-consumer goods like health care and education.

For some stupid reason, your brain won't process that complex thought.

 

[Flash]

Ah, so another vague, ambiguous goalpost you are shifting.

What "educational purpose" could come from you soliciting confidential information on your students other than unethically changing how you educate them because of your bias?

Another straw man you have invented. How do you change how you educate a student? Total BS. If a student never attends class and only enrolled to get their grant money while another one is in the hospital, you drop one and make accommodations for the other.

OK, but you implied before that you could just dial up the student aid office and solicit this information.

Still true

What you were saying earlier was that you could find out any student's financial information. But what you're saying now is that "finding out" that information is actually people voluntarily giving you that info unsolicited. That's a huge difference and massive goalpost shift in your bad faith argument.

Both true. Life is not always either/or.

And this was a private school, wasn't it?

State college.

"Waste" is subjective, and what you're doing is trying to establish your broad standard of "waste", very lazily, as the general standard. But it's not. There is no standard because it's subjective. You judge things as wasteful because you don't see the personal benefit, because you're a selfish, lazy asshole and a sociopath who only cares about himself, and who lacks basic human empathy. You're basically a monster.

Yes, of course it is subjective. That is what makes political differences.

If a taxpayer prefers to cut government spending rather than pay for a study about the benefit of cats listening to classical money that is their free democratic choice.

You spent several posts trying to justify that government supported study (that would primarily benefit the wealthy pet industry) like if you could justify it the people would be willing to pay for it.

Politics is subjective. Some, like LV426, want more government spending, a bigger government, free healthcare, free college, forgiving student debts, and probably increases in many other government programs. And, they want the wealthy to pay for it all with very high taxes.

Most of the public does not support all those things. That is their subjective choice--there is no scientific proof to which is best.

 

[LV426]

I never implied anything close to that. You make simplistic assumptions that do not reflect anything I said. I said getting more clientele increases their budget. Expanding their programs is good for the agency, but not necessarily for the taxpayer. It depends on whether an expanded program produces necessary benefits desired by the taxpayers. Using an increased budget to enlarge your office and buy new furniture because it is desirable to the occupant is not beneficial to the taxpayer.

So at what point should office furniture be replaced, or facilities should be upgraded? Never?

 

[LV426]

I said getting more clientele increases their budget.

What clientele? What are you talking about? Apply this to M4A.

 

[LV426]

All these programs would cost too much money when we have a $22 trillion debt.

But those programs are funded by taxes and are paid for.

So again you won't debate the proposal. Instead, you're searching for any way you can to avoid doing that because of your ego.

And, it is very hypocritical to want to supply all these free benefits when you want a small percentage of the population to pay for them.

Again with the bad faith! M4A is funded by payroll taxes. Free public colleges and forgiving student loan debt is funded by a $0.02 wealth tax and a repeal of the Russia Tax Cut you support. The benefits are free at the point of service when it comes to health care and you know that. SO why do you keep saying they're "free"? Simple; you act in bad faith because you don't know any other way to act.

It is the perfect example of those who quote the problems with democracy---we can vote ourselves benefits without paying for them. It increases the size of government taking up a much large share of the GDP.

Again, this is a subjective judgment you are making from a place of inherent bias. You keep doing that; you keep trying to establish your subjective judgment and lazy reasoning as some kind of established standard, but it's not. It never has been. It never will be. And yes, we can vote to raise taxes on the rich to pay for things. Why is that so controversial to you? You're not rich and you never will be. So since it doesn't affect you, why are you opposed to it?

I never justified in treating illegals humanely--another Straw Man you have created. It is not the taxpayer's responsibility to give illegals or legal immigrants free healthcare. Another expensive benefit you want others to pay for.

Health care is a right, and everyone is entitled to it. Regardless of their citizenship. You can't mandate that doctors have to treat every sick person who shows up to the ER but then say no one is entitled to that care for free. I mean you can, you'd just be a horrible monster for saying that, proving yours isn't a voice or a vote anyone should fucking care about.

The immigration laws are no more arbitrary than any other laws.

Sure they are. Why criminalize crossing the Southern border, but not criminalize arriving by boat at Ellis Island? What is the benefit to criminalizing the means by which most of these immigrants come here? Simple; to make it easier to treat them inhumanely if you can brand them as criminals for breaking a law you set up for the sole purpose of delegitimizing their immigration.

Surely you can't be that naive.

When your ancestors came here we didn't have Social Security, Medicare, unemployment insurance, welfare, food stamps, Medicaid, WIC, or EITC, either. Would you also get rid of those along with immigration laws?

Why would we need to?

My point about the Republican ad is that it might be influential as an issue in determining who wins the election.

Anyone who seriously considers Republican talking points isn't a vote we are trying to reach, so no one on this side gives a shit what Republicans say because all Republicans are liars who have backed Trump. So anything they say is immediately dismissed.

You're not going to increase enthusiasm with bad faith moderation.

 

[LV426]

Another straw man you have invented. How do you change how you educate a student?

You do exactly what you do on these boards; exercise sophistry and ignore what they say because of the inherent bias you have.

You're so unethical.

 

[Flash]

You do exactly what you do on these boards; exercise sophistry and ignore what they say because of the inherent bias you have.

You're so unethical.

A bias against excessive partisanship and government waste has no influence on how a person teaches students unless he brings his politics into class.

A good teacher does not know whose paper he is grading and the Scantron machine never knows.

 

[Flash]

Again with the bad faith! M4A is funded by payroll taxes.

We already debated this and you admitted you are not telling the entire truth. What about the legal and illegal immigrants and other people living in America who do not have jobs? They still get free health care being paid for by others. Under Medicare you only get care if you paid in payroll taxes but not so under your plan--everybody gets it even if they never contributed one cent.

Would people still have to pay in for Part B benefits after they turn 65 like they do now? Would it still be optional?

Health care is not a right when you are forcing someone else to pay for it.

 

[Flash]

This gets back to what I said before about not voting for those people. So you have a real rhetorical dilemma you face in your argument here; you argue that these plans will "get changed" by corporatists in Congress, yet you vote for corporatists who do that.

Another lie. You take my post and add false information. I said all legislation gets many changes while going through Congress. Then, you add changed by "corporatists" which I never said. It gets changed by many different interests and I never implied those changes are necessarily bad. You make up false stuff and pretend I said it---that is your black and white mentality and partisan mindset.

If, for example, the free college thing was debated in Congress and the member who had the small historically black private college in his district fought to give those students free college and save that college from closing down I don't think that would be a change by a corporatist interest. And you would be the "monster" by denying those students the same thing you are giving students who attend public schools.

Then, you say I vote for "corporatists who do that. What "corporatists" did I ever vote for?

I'm proposing something radical; we stop giving a shit what people like you think and concentrate instead on the 45% of people who didn't vote, but could for a program like M4A, student debt forgiveness, and a Green New Deal.

It is nice being an idealist but you are unrealistic. You probably thought Sanders would win the nomination in 2016. Not caring what people like me think leaves you with less than 40% of the vote and no chance of winning much less getting free healthcare (for all those who do not pay the payroll tax), free college, debt forgiveness, and a new Green Deal.

I think you really believe we will have some of these things which shows your lack of judgment and realism. You can't not care about 63 million voters and expect to accomplish anything.

 

[LV426]

We already debated this and you admitted you are not telling the entire truth. What about the legal and illegal immigrants and other people living in America who do not have jobs?

As I understand it, illegal immigrants are the ones stealing all the jobs. That's why we need the wall, right?

Secondly, we already have Medicare and S-Chip for seniors, disabled, and kids; those are the people we are talking about who "don't work".

Under Medicare you only get care if you paid in payroll taxes but not so under your plan--everybody gets it even if they never contributed one cent.

Seniors already did. Kids haven't yet. Disabled are...disabled.

So who are you talking about?

Would people still have to pay in for Part B benefits after they turn 65 like they do now? Would it still be optional?

No of course not! The supplemental plans would disappear. There would be no need for them.

Health care is not a right when you are forcing someone else to pay for it.

You already pay for someone else's health care right now.

 

[LV426]

A bias against excessive partisanship and government waste has no influence on how a person teaches students unless he brings his politics into class. .

But you are bringing those politics to the classroom when you seek out the confidential financial information on your students so you can then change the way you educated them based on your politics with regard to the imagined "waste" you think Pell Grants largely are.

If you found out a student in your class got Pell Grants, that is going to change the way you educate them; you said so yourself!

You're an ethical dung heap of a person.

 

[LV426]

Another lie. You take my post and add false information. I said all legislation gets many changes while going through Congress. Then, you add changed by "corporatists" which I never said. It gets changed by many different interests and I never implied those changes are necessarily bad. You make up false stuff and pretend I said it---that is your black and white mentality and partisan mindset.

Sorry John Delaney, I had you mistaken for someone I actually give a shit about.

If, for example, the free college thing was debated in Congress and the member who had the small historically black private college in his district fought to give those students free college and save that college from closing down I don't think that would be a change by a corporatist interest. And you would be the "monster" by denying those students the same thing you are giving students who attend public schools.

See, because you're so fucking lazy, you don't even know that the free college plans from Sanders and Warren both include a plan for HBCU. So what you're predicting in bad faith has already been addressed by the (now) two leading contenders for the Democratic nomination. So we don't need to talk in hypotheticals because they have put forth actual plans.

In all of this, you're not debating the actual plan...you're debating what you think might happen to the plan as it works its way through Legislation, and basing your opposition to the plan you haven't read, on that imagined, hypothetical scenario as a way to dismiss the plan without having to debate its merits. Becuase if you did end up debating its merits, you'd find yourself in agreement with the plan, thus making all your opposition to it pointless and stupid, and having to admit that it's a good plan and that I was right about it.

What you're doing is pathetic.

Then, you say I vote for "corporatists who do that. What "corporatists" did I ever vote for?

Flash, I could take what you've written on this thread and word for word it would almost entirely match up with what the corporatist Delaney said in the last debate. People who are so bought by special interests and corporations that all they can do is screech for moderation, which is nothing more than a preservation of the status quo...which is what you are arguing against while also arguing for.

So I'll tell ya what; we'll nominate Warren or Sanders, who will campaign on M4A and the GND and free public colleges and student debt forgiveness, and you can vote for Trump.

How's that?

 

[LV426]

It is nice being an idealist but you are unrealistic. You probably thought Sanders would win the nomination in 2016. Not caring what people like me think leaves you with less than 40% of the vote and no chance of winning much less getting free healthcare (for all those who do not pay the payroll tax), free college, debt forgiveness, and a new Green Deal.

LOL!

We didn't give a shit what you thought last year, and we ended up winning the gerrymnadered house.

In fact, all last year, you were scolding liberals on these boards for being mean to Conservatives in public places and on the internet, and you were so convinced that was going to drive Democrats away from the polls because they weren't moderating to your specific, coddled, entitled tastes.

Of course, you were fucking wrong as usual, and the Democrats won by the largest popular vote margin in the House in over 40 years. All because we didn't listen to people like you, we ignored you, pressed ahead with our attacks on Conservatives, and won the House with turnout only 1% below turnout in 2016, a Presidential election year.

I think you wildly underestimate the motivation non-voters will have this time when it comes to the Presidency. Your corporatist agenda was soundly defeated last November, and there's no reason to think it won't meet the same fate again next year.

We will win specifically because we have big, bold ideas and programs that a majority of people in this country support.

I think you really believe we will have some of these things which shows your lack of judgment and realism. You can't not care about 63 million voters and expect to accomplish anything.

A lazy BoTh SiDeS aRe ThE sAmE sophist accusing me of poor character and judgment? LOL, OK. My judgment is sound. It was sound enough to predict the 40 seat victory in last year's election. What was your prediction for that election, again? Oh right, you said that because of how mean I was to Conservatives on these boards, Democratic voters would stay home.

So which one of us was right? Not you...

 

[LV426]

You can't not care about 63 million voters and expect to accomplish anything.

Why not? Republicans didn't give a shit about 65 million voters and pressed ahead with their accomplishments like the failed Russia Tax Cut you support, the Trade War I'm sure you also support, taking funds away from FEMA to build a stupid wall you also support, ripping funds from Planned Parenthood, taking health care away from people, and putting kids in cages indefinitely after ripping them away from their parents which I'm pretty sure you're OK with too because after all, you blame the government for individuals and corporations taking advantage of it, and you also probably think rape victims bear some or all of the blame for being raped. So it's not hard to imagine you blaming the parents of migrant children for those children being ripped away, kept in cages indefinitely, abused, and killed.

So how come you aren't screeching to Conservatives about caring what 65 million people think?

65 million > 63 million, right?

 

[Flash]

Why not? Republicans didn't give a shit about 65 million voters and pressed ahead with their accomplishments like the failed Russia Tax Cut you support, the Trade War I'm sure you also support, taking funds away from FEMA to build a stupid wall you also support, ripping funds from Planned Parenthood, taking health care away from people, and putting kids in cages indefinitely after ripping them away from their parents which I'm pretty sure you're OK with too because after all, you blame the government for individuals and corporations taking advantage of it, and you also probably think rape victims bear some or all of the blame for being raped. So it's not hard to imagine you blaming the parents of migrant children for those children being ripped away, kept in cages indefinitely, abused, and killed.

So how come you aren't screeching to Conservatives about caring what 65 million people think?

65 million > 63 million, right?

Nothing like a guy who speaks in bigoted stereotypes and generalizations. Trying to claim things I "support" when I have said several times I do not is either outright lying, senile forgetfulness, or poor reading comprehension. You must have been watching MSNBC today, you just vomitted every talking point from the hate spewed by partisan web sites.

Your extreme partisanship black-white outlook prevents any rational conversation. You are so full of hate and hostility it is being taking the form of political expression.

 

[Flash]

See, because you're so fucking lazy, you don't even know that the free college plans from Sanders and Warren both include a plan for HBCU. So what you're predicting in bad faith has already been addressed by the (now) two leading contenders for the Democratic nomination. So we don't need to talk in hypotheticals because they have put forth actual plans.

Then you lied AGAIN because you already made it clear the plan only applied to public colleges and that you don't care about private schools. Was that a lie or does the plan include historically black private schools?

You think a plan could pass that includes private black colleges but not white colleges?

This is debating the actual plan which keeps changing in your description.

 

[LV426]

Nothing like a guy who speaks in bigoted stereotypes and generalizations.

What bigotry did I speak in?

What generalizations did I make?

You screeched about ignoring 63 million people, and I countered that by pointing out Republicans have already ignored 65 million people in pursuit of their agenda; an agenda of which you find yourself largely in agreement!

Trying to claim things I "support" when I have said several times I do not is either outright lying, senile forgetfulness, or poor reading comprehension.

1. You've defended tax cuts, even when there is no economic data to support it. You migrate that argument to one of emotion, particularly the emotion of "letting people keep more of what they earned" even though doing so along these terms results in people going into debt.

2. You've called them "illegals" and by doing so, justify the inhumanity directed at them because in your mind, they don't belong here, you don't want them here, and you're perfectly OK doing whatever it takes to kick them out or deter them from coming, slipping into the myth and lie that they are a drain on public resources when it's been explained over and over again that they aren't eligible for pretty much every single program you accuse them of draining (while also accusing them of stealing jobs, so...WTF?).

3. You've blamed the institution of government for individuals and businesses taking advantage of it; exercising your BoTh SiDeS aRe ThE sAmE by heaping equal scorn on an institution for what individuals and businesses unethically do.

4. We already know you don't think health care is a right, so for you, stripping away funding for Planned Parenthood is exactly the "waste" you seek to eliminate because you are fundamentally opposed to the institution of government, and fundamentally opposed to the concept that it should do good for the citizens it represents.

5. Since you're all about victim-blaming, it's not that much of a rhetorical leap to assume you also believe rape victims are to blame for being raped, and that migrant children's parents are to blame for Trump choosing to tear them apart, detain them illegally and indefinitely, torture them, and kill them.

Your extreme partisanship black-white outlook prevents any rational conversation. You are so full of hate and hostility it is being taking the form of political expression.

I don't suffer lazy fools.