Let's Run Government On Credit; And Not Collect Enough Taxes - It'll Be Great!
- Thread starter PoliTalker
- Start date
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello cawacko,
Better recheck the math behind those numbers.
Fact: We spend double on health care.
You change the system, stop spending double, that doesn't cost you. That is a net gain.
Better recheck the math behind those numbers.
Fact: We spend double on health care.
You change the system, stop spending double, that doesn't cost you. That is a net gain.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello cawacko,
Man, if you didn't have any spending, you wouldn't have a country.
OK?
There is nothing wrong with spending per se.
Spending is what everybody does to get everything they want or need.
We want a government that works for we the people, and that means spending.
Hell yeah, we are going to spend. We are going to spend on some overdue needed things and some important ones. You got that right.
We are not afraid of spending, as is "the case with most folks. "
The only difference is we have a way to pay for it. TAX THE RICH!
Democrats have a record of lower deficits than Republicans. ("Just the facts, ma'am." As Sergeant Joe Friday would have said.)
The really crazy thing is: This should be a really popular idea. Most people are not rich.
The question is: Why are so many non-rich people supporting what the rich want?
We, the non-rich, outnumber them 10 to 1.
The only thing standing between we the non rich people, and getting what we want, is the Republican party.
And my what a great con that whole party is, to convince so many people to vote for policy that helps not them but the rich.
This should be a slam-dunk.
There are so many more struggling households in America than there are mansions.
It is a testament to the power of propaganda, that's for sure. Wow.
SMH
Man, if you didn't have any spending, you wouldn't have a country.
OK?
There is nothing wrong with spending per se.
Spending is what everybody does to get everything they want or need.
We want a government that works for we the people, and that means spending.
Hell yeah, we are going to spend. We are going to spend on some overdue needed things and some important ones. You got that right.
We are not afraid of spending, as is "the case with most folks. "
The only difference is we have a way to pay for it. TAX THE RICH!
Democrats have a record of lower deficits than Republicans. ("Just the facts, ma'am." As Sergeant Joe Friday would have said.)
The really crazy thing is: This should be a really popular idea. Most people are not rich.
The question is: Why are so many non-rich people supporting what the rich want?
We, the non-rich, outnumber them 10 to 1.
The only thing standing between we the non rich people, and getting what we want, is the Republican party.
And my what a great con that whole party is, to convince so many people to vote for policy that helps not them but the rich.
This should be a slam-dunk.
There are so many more struggling households in America than there are mansions.
It is a testament to the power of propaganda, that's for sure. Wow.
SMH
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
The rich get what they want out of government, whether it is popular or not.
Really, public opinion has a near-zero effect on legislation.
The one thing that makes the difference in whether proposed legislation gets passed into law is: if the rich want it.
If the rich want something it most likely passes.
If 90% of non-rich Americans want something, it generally does not pass. Most proposed legislation, even if it is overwhelmingly popular, does not pass if the rich are against it. Even if most of the rest of the nation is strongly for it.
The rich get what they want, and they are currently using the Republican party to get what they want: Richer.
And they don't care about servicing the federal debt.
They don't care if the USA goes bankrupt.
As long as they get rich.
Really, public opinion has a near-zero effect on legislation.
The one thing that makes the difference in whether proposed legislation gets passed into law is: if the rich want it.
If the rich want something it most likely passes.
If 90% of non-rich Americans want something, it generally does not pass. Most proposed legislation, even if it is overwhelmingly popular, does not pass if the rich are against it. Even if most of the rest of the nation is strongly for it.
The rich get what they want, and they are currently using the Republican party to get what they want: Richer.
And they don't care about servicing the federal debt.
They don't care if the USA goes bankrupt.
As long as they get rich.
cawacko
Well-known member
That's a hell of a Saturday morning strawman you've got there Poli. You're complaining about deficits and debt yet when I speak about addressing them you claim people want no spending.
It takes two to tango and that's why our debt and unfunded liabilities are in the trillions. You're giving lip service to caring but what you really want is political power. Like I said, it's not the spending that bothers you it's when people in office you don't like do the spending that it bothers you (and that's not unique to you).
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello cawacko,
You're way off base in your perception of my thinking.
You'd be far better off to take me at my word and try to dispute what I actually say, instead of making up false claims about it.
If you could.
Problem is: you know I am right, and you have no way to dispute what I actually say, so you have to make up a bunch of BS and pretend I said what you made up.
You got a bit thing wrong about my position, and your whole argument is based on it.
In what fictitious post of mine did I ever say: "you claim people want no spending. " None. I didn't say it.
Here's what I did say:
"Hell yeah, we are going to spend. We are going to spend on some overdue needed things and some important ones. You got that right.
We are not afraid of spending...
The only difference is we have a way to pay for it. TAX THE RICH!"
The problem is you've got this false belief that the only way to reduce the deficit is to reduce spending. Oh yeah, that will do it, but the problem is what do you cut? And you're stuck on that. You're willing to cut some strongly needed services for the disadvantaged, even though you are not disadvantaged, yourself. The one thing you are ignoring is hanging around like a giant white elephant in the room. There is another way to cut the deficit. Increase the revenue. You don't have to cut spending if you increase the revenue. All that is needed is to ask the American people to pay for the government they've got. Now who among the American people is most able to absorb higher taxes? Only one answer. The rich.
Logically, we can tax the rich and we don't have to cut spending.
Hell, tax 'em more and we can have more spending and a lower deficit.
That would be a win-win for America.
You have to twist what I say to make your argument work, but I can take you at your word and trash your argument on the basis of merit alone. The only honest thing for you to do is to admit I am actually right. I would if I was in your position.
You're way off base in your perception of my thinking.
You'd be far better off to take me at my word and try to dispute what I actually say, instead of making up false claims about it.
If you could.
Problem is: you know I am right, and you have no way to dispute what I actually say, so you have to make up a bunch of BS and pretend I said what you made up.
You got a bit thing wrong about my position, and your whole argument is based on it.
In what fictitious post of mine did I ever say: "you claim people want no spending. " None. I didn't say it.
Here's what I did say:
"Hell yeah, we are going to spend. We are going to spend on some overdue needed things and some important ones. You got that right.
We are not afraid of spending...
The only difference is we have a way to pay for it. TAX THE RICH!"
The problem is you've got this false belief that the only way to reduce the deficit is to reduce spending. Oh yeah, that will do it, but the problem is what do you cut? And you're stuck on that. You're willing to cut some strongly needed services for the disadvantaged, even though you are not disadvantaged, yourself. The one thing you are ignoring is hanging around like a giant white elephant in the room. There is another way to cut the deficit. Increase the revenue. You don't have to cut spending if you increase the revenue. All that is needed is to ask the American people to pay for the government they've got. Now who among the American people is most able to absorb higher taxes? Only one answer. The rich.
Logically, we can tax the rich and we don't have to cut spending.
Hell, tax 'em more and we can have more spending and a lower deficit.
That would be a win-win for America.
You have to twist what I say to make your argument work, but I can take you at your word and trash your argument on the basis of merit alone. The only honest thing for you to do is to admit I am actually right. I would if I was in your position.
cawacko
Well-known member
The first line in your post was this:
Man, if you didn't have any spending, you wouldn't have a country.
Where did I ever say or imply we should have no government spending? Answer, I didn't.
What I said was if you are serious about addressing spending vote Libertarian.
countryboy
Verified User
Healthcare is far from the only spending being proposed. It is YOU who needs to check the math.
countryboy
Verified User
Again, you suck at math. Even confiscating 100% of the wealth of the top 1%, would not come close to paying for Bernie's proposed spending. You are a moron. And I mean that in the nicest possible way.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello cawacko,
Here:
Our difference is that I am not hung up on this concept that the only way to reduce the deficit is to reduce spending.
You're not alone. Most conservatives would rather reduce spending than to raise taxes.
Liberals prefer to raise taxes on the rich.
Nothing new here.
Republicans under DT have mostly now decided to ignore the whopping deficit, the rising debt. They don't want to admit how irresponsible it is to have that when the economy is strong enough to support higher taxes. Basically you guys want to have your cake and eat it too. or more like you want to eat cake and lose weight. The cake is low taxes and the weight is the debt. You can pretend it is possible to lose weight and eat cake but that doesn't mean it is reality. So you're eating your cake and simply ignoring the debt. We are saying that can only be a temporary situation. You can't ignore the debt as a matter of policy. That's dumb. That's how you get saddled with big debt. So Democrats are speaking out. Sensible responsible people are speaking out. We have to tax the rich more. Face it. Understand it. Grasp the concept. Be the reality. Stop fooling yourself.
Look at the numbers:
How far too low are taxes on the rich?
Federal Tax Deficit: 1.061 TRILLION DOLLARS less than expenses are being collected as revenue. <- This is how much the Debt rises in one year at this rate of imbalance between taxes and spending. And we can't cut the spending without dire consequences.
Here:
Our difference is that I am not hung up on this concept that the only way to reduce the deficit is to reduce spending.
You're not alone. Most conservatives would rather reduce spending than to raise taxes.
Liberals prefer to raise taxes on the rich.
Nothing new here.
Republicans under DT have mostly now decided to ignore the whopping deficit, the rising debt. They don't want to admit how irresponsible it is to have that when the economy is strong enough to support higher taxes. Basically you guys want to have your cake and eat it too. or more like you want to eat cake and lose weight. The cake is low taxes and the weight is the debt. You can pretend it is possible to lose weight and eat cake but that doesn't mean it is reality. So you're eating your cake and simply ignoring the debt. We are saying that can only be a temporary situation. You can't ignore the debt as a matter of policy. That's dumb. That's how you get saddled with big debt. So Democrats are speaking out. Sensible responsible people are speaking out. We have to tax the rich more. Face it. Understand it. Grasp the concept. Be the reality. Stop fooling yourself.
Look at the numbers:
How far too low are taxes on the rich?
Federal Tax Deficit: 1.061 TRILLION DOLLARS less than expenses are being collected as revenue. <- This is how much the Debt rises in one year at this rate of imbalance between taxes and spending. And we can't cut the spending without dire consequences.
Not according to https://berniesanders.com/issues/how-does-bernie-pay-his-major-plans/
It says Medicare for All will save $5 trillion over the next 10 years. Subtract that from the $52 trillion the current system will spend equals $47 trillion. To get $47.5 trillion we will need we use the $30 trillion in projected spending and add $17.5 in new revenues. So we have to raise an additional $17.5 trillion to save that $5 trillion.
Will that also include budgeting like those other industrialized nations? The U. S. healthcare does not limit spending. Medicare and Medicaid are entitlements and spend as much money as needed for all eligible patients.
Many other countries have a budget and cannot spend any more when they hit their limit. In places like Canada they save on costs by reducing physician payments who then adjust the volume of services they provide to compensate for fee cuts. Some physicians write of closing their offices when they hit their caps.
Will we cut our costs by limiting medical care?
The government pays for 50% of healthcare costs in the U. S.
"Even without a history-making health care remake to deliver "Medicare-for-all," government at all levels will be paying nearly half the nation's health care tab in less than 10 years, according to a federal report released Wednesday. The government growth is driven by traditional Medicare, which is experiencing a surge in enrollment as aging baby boomers shift out of private coverage, according to the analysis from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (Alonso-Zaldivar, 2/20)"
https://khn.org/morning-breakout/go...riven-by-baby-boomers-shifting-into-medicare/
Medicare for All means government has to pay for 100% of healthcare costs by subsidizing private employers who previously provided that service (more of that corporate socialism liberals bemoan).
And costs are usually projected as lower than reality since spending too much creates political opposition. The original Medicare costs were much higher than the projections.
"Congressional budgeters at the time thought Medicare, the healthcare program for the elderly, would cost about $12 billion by 1990. The actual cost that year was $90 billion."
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello Flash,
First of all, you don't have to worry about that even if Bernie gets elected because he'll never get his plan through Congress.
Second, even if he did, he explains how it more than gets paid for:
From your link:
"How we pay for it:
Current federal, state and local government spending over the next ten years is projected to total about $30 trillion.
The revenue options Bernie has proposed total $17.5 Trillion
$30 trillion + $17.5 trillion = $47.5 Trillion total
Sources:
https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statis...lthExpendData/NationalHealthAccountsProjected
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(19)33019-3/fulltext#
Since 2016, Bernie has proposed a menu of financing options that would more than pay for the Medicare for All legislation he has introduced according to the Yale study.
These options include:
Creating a 4 percent income-based premium paid by employees, exempting the first $29,000 in income for a family of four.
In 2018, the typical working family paid an average of $6,015 in premiums to private health insurance companies. Under this option, a typical family of four earning $60,000, would pay a 4 percent income-based premium to fund Medicare for All on income above $29,000 – just $1,240 a year – saving that family $4,775 a year. Families of four making less than $29,000 a year would not pay this premium.
(Revenue raised: About $4 trillion over 10 years.)
Imposing a 7.5 percent income-based premium paid by employers, exempting the first $1 million in payroll to protect small businesses.
In 2018, employers paid an average of $14,561 in private health insurance premiums for a worker with a family of four. Under this option, employers would pay a 7.5 percent payroll tax to help finance Medicare for All – just $4,500 – a savings of more than $10,000 a year.
(Revenue raised: Over $5.2 trillion over 10 years.)
Eliminating health tax expenditures, which would no longer be needed under Medicare for All.
(Revenue raised: About $3 trillion over 10 years.)
Raising the top marginal income tax rate to 52% on income over $10 million.
(Revenue raised: About $700 billion over 10 years.)
Replacing the cap on the state and local tax deduction with an overall dollar cap of $50,000 for a married couple on all itemized deductions.
(Revenue raised: About $400 billion over 10 years.)
Taxing capital gains at the same rates as income from wages and cracking down on gaming through derivatives, like-kind exchanges, and the zero tax rate on capital gains passed on through bequests.
(Revenue raised: About $2.5 trillion over 10 years.)
Enacting the For the 99.8% Act, which returns the estate tax exemption to the 2009 level of $3.5 million, closes egregious loopholes, and increases rates progressively including by adding a top tax rate of 77% on estate values in excess of $1 billion.
(Revenue raised: $336 billion over 10 years.)
Enacting corporate tax reform including restoring the top federal corporate income tax rate to 35 percent.
(Revenue raised: $3 trillion ,of which $1 trillion would be used to help finance Medicare for All and $2 trillion would be used for the Green New Deal.)
Using $350 billion of the amount raised from the tax on extreme wealth to help finance Medicare for All."
Let's add 'em up, shall we?
$4 trillion
$5.2 trillion
$3 trillion
$.700 trillion
$.400 trillion
$2.5 trillion
$.336 trillion
$3 trillion
_______________
$19.136 trillion
We only needed $17.5 trillion
That more than pays for it.
The rest can be used for deficit reduction.
First of all, you don't have to worry about that even if Bernie gets elected because he'll never get his plan through Congress.
Second, even if he did, he explains how it more than gets paid for:
From your link:
"How we pay for it:
Current federal, state and local government spending over the next ten years is projected to total about $30 trillion.
The revenue options Bernie has proposed total $17.5 Trillion
$30 trillion + $17.5 trillion = $47.5 Trillion total
Sources:
https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statis...lthExpendData/NationalHealthAccountsProjected
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(19)33019-3/fulltext#
Since 2016, Bernie has proposed a menu of financing options that would more than pay for the Medicare for All legislation he has introduced according to the Yale study.
These options include:
Creating a 4 percent income-based premium paid by employees, exempting the first $29,000 in income for a family of four.
In 2018, the typical working family paid an average of $6,015 in premiums to private health insurance companies. Under this option, a typical family of four earning $60,000, would pay a 4 percent income-based premium to fund Medicare for All on income above $29,000 – just $1,240 a year – saving that family $4,775 a year. Families of four making less than $29,000 a year would not pay this premium.
(Revenue raised: About $4 trillion over 10 years.)
Imposing a 7.5 percent income-based premium paid by employers, exempting the first $1 million in payroll to protect small businesses.
In 2018, employers paid an average of $14,561 in private health insurance premiums for a worker with a family of four. Under this option, employers would pay a 7.5 percent payroll tax to help finance Medicare for All – just $4,500 – a savings of more than $10,000 a year.
(Revenue raised: Over $5.2 trillion over 10 years.)
Eliminating health tax expenditures, which would no longer be needed under Medicare for All.
(Revenue raised: About $3 trillion over 10 years.)
Raising the top marginal income tax rate to 52% on income over $10 million.
(Revenue raised: About $700 billion over 10 years.)
Replacing the cap on the state and local tax deduction with an overall dollar cap of $50,000 for a married couple on all itemized deductions.
(Revenue raised: About $400 billion over 10 years.)
Taxing capital gains at the same rates as income from wages and cracking down on gaming through derivatives, like-kind exchanges, and the zero tax rate on capital gains passed on through bequests.
(Revenue raised: About $2.5 trillion over 10 years.)
Enacting the For the 99.8% Act, which returns the estate tax exemption to the 2009 level of $3.5 million, closes egregious loopholes, and increases rates progressively including by adding a top tax rate of 77% on estate values in excess of $1 billion.
(Revenue raised: $336 billion over 10 years.)
Enacting corporate tax reform including restoring the top federal corporate income tax rate to 35 percent.
(Revenue raised: $3 trillion ,of which $1 trillion would be used to help finance Medicare for All and $2 trillion would be used for the Green New Deal.)
Using $350 billion of the amount raised from the tax on extreme wealth to help finance Medicare for All."
Let's add 'em up, shall we?
$4 trillion
$5.2 trillion
$3 trillion
$.700 trillion
$.400 trillion
$2.5 trillion
$.336 trillion
$3 trillion
_______________
$19.136 trillion
We only needed $17.5 trillion
That more than pays for it.
The rest can be used for deficit reduction.
That's true. People yell how terrible somebody's proposals are with the assumption they can actually pass those programs. We won't have Medicare for All, free college, forgiving college loans, or the environmental policies. Just as any rational person knew we wouldn't have Mexico pay for the wall, abolish Obamacare on day 1, or balance the budget.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello Flash,
Good post.
The perplexing thing is trying to figure out how those rational people who knew DT was lying about getting Mexico to pay for the wall, or his boast about paying off the debt, voted for him anyway. To do so, they had to overcome their disgust with seeing the Hollywood Access video, and knowing they would be voting for someone who already believed he was entitled to take advantage of others because of holding a powerful position.
Good post.
The perplexing thing is trying to figure out how those rational people who knew DT was lying about getting Mexico to pay for the wall, or his boast about paying off the debt, voted for him anyway. To do so, they had to overcome their disgust with seeing the Hollywood Access video, and knowing they would be voting for someone who already believed he was entitled to take advantage of others because of holding a powerful position.
Scut Farkus
Verified User
lying adam schiff and deep state fake fisa fraud treason democrats know something about abuse of position.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
It remains unexplained how giving the most advantaged people in the country even more advantage is a good thing for the country.
cut welfare from those lazy niggas and stop spending money on education.
they will end up in our prisons anyway.
except it's not mistakes... IT'S INTENTIONAL.
Correction............white people
what is the point of defeating dump if were just going to implement the republican agenda by compromising?
I say not only rid dump but rid any dem who wont support Bernie sanders if he wins.
Last edited: