Trump wants to cut $4.1T over 10 years

[Unchained]

The bible also says if you have two coats and another man has none you should give the man one of your coats. It also says eating shellfish is an abomination.

But that's ok just use the parts that support your world view.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using SDN mobile

And the poor people of today are so similar to the poor people in the Bible.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[npage148]

Should we not be proud our poor have such a high standard of living?

 

[WVUPharm2007]

Well, in theory if AI/automation (at some point) becomes more efficient and cheaper than human labor in all of these sectors than the costs of these goods and services should also decrease significantly for the end user. Providing a good/service at a lower costs due to increased efficiency ultimately raises the standard of living in that economy because the product is more accessible. This is why capitalism, in it's purest sense, is so rapidly progressive. Innovation/efficiency is rewarded and the standard of living for the consumer is increased.

Now the main fear is that low-skilled workers in these jobs will be thrown onto the street, but I think that this fear is overstated. Perhaps in 20 years from now there will be new sectors that do not even exist today, offering millions of jobs. How many jobs today are in technology? There was a day, not too long ago, when the average person had never even seen a computer. Another, even more recent example, cell phones. Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, TMobile.... these companies are worth billions and billions of dollars with stores in every city across the county employing many people. Jobs created out of thin air because of the same innovation that people are afraid of. This did not exist 20 years ago.

I don't know what the future holds, but I think that viewing the opportunity to increase efficiency and lower costs in a fearful way is not smart or progressive.

Yeah, it's kind of different now. We are getting to the point where machines can potentially both do physical AND intellectual labor in a manner better than a human could. That's sort of the problem. Capitalism is the only economic system where having the machines do all the work actually presents a problem. It's sort of absurd when you think about it. What happens to the wage slaves when the wages aren't viable? And it really magnifies the problem most socialists have with capitalism. People with no capital give the majority of what they actually produce, be it via physical labor or creative labor, to the people that "own" the fruits of said labor. At some point most people are going to question why the concept of capital should exist in the first place. Capitalism isn't beautiful, despite what the evangelical libertarian ideologues will preach. And it certainly is not a longterm solution. It has really only worked via exploitation and wage theft. Let's talk about those cell phones. You ever stop and think about the people whose working conditions are so terrible that they fling themselves off the roof of Foxconn to end their misery? Foxconn had anti-suicide nets installed. Though most would have to admit that it has been a plus for your average American as they constituted the consumer/wealth class in the current capitalist paradigm. Problem is...the average American is being cut out of the whole consumer class thing bit by bit. If the world continues down that route, again, we're still looking at plutocracy with either a stipend for the poor or a remake of the French Revolution.

And, again, either will entertain me. It will amuse me to see the upper middle class conservatives in the dole line getting gubmint cheese with everyone else...as we grovel at the feet of out 1000-family or so oligarchy...or, if they decide to not give the people enough to live on...when some hilljack militia invades silicon valley and decide to behead Zuckerberg.

Either will amuse me.

 

[BidingMyTime]

Instead of cutting entitlement programs and Medicaid and EBT, why not cut the military? We don't need to have bases, submarines, aircraft carriers, destroyers, etc all over the world. We don't need to continue to develop new fighter aircraft. No one is gonna invade us. The armed citizens in this country would make quick work of any invading army. End the drug war, and end the war on terror.

Sparda, I wish I could highlight this as the best post you've ever had here (well, serious post, after excluding the entertaining posts.) This is SO true. In fact, we would be a lot safer if we stayed out of other countries...terrorists are often inspired because they don't appreciate the US meddling with their politics and countries.

I'd be really surprised if there was any hard proof that either Democrats or Republicans donate more to charity. I don't have evidence either, but it feels like people of means are typically more likely to donate than those without, regardless of political affiliation. Living in the rural south, I see impoverished people on both sides of the spectrum and none of them can donate much beyond tithing to their church.

What Lord999 said. Middle class and poor people donate a far greater percentage of their income than rich people do. (tithing to a non-profit church, as most are, would count as donating for the purpose of the studies done, they can't really start making judgement calls on what is a "good" charity or a "bad" charity, they just measure people's giving to non-profits.) I haven't seen any breakdowns on political lines (perhaps because many poor people don't vote because they can't easily get off of work, get access to their polling place, or even get a polling place when they are homeless.) ....but my guess is that areas with high Republican poverty rates (ie deep south) would have high Republican donation rates and areas with high Democrat poverty rates (ie metropolitan areas) would have high Democrat donation rates.

 

[BenJammin]

Nothing says authentic charity like forcing your religion on the people you're helping.

That's part of the deal when you ask a religious charity to help you. Not sure why anyone would be upset about that.

 

[owlegrad]

And the poor people of today are so similar to the poor people in the Bible.

I don't see your point. In what way are they different and how does that matter in regards to you giving them your extra coat?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using SDN mobile

 

[gwarm01]

Well I stand corrected. I always think about people like Bill Gates when picturing a wealthy philanthropist, but it's not really surprising to hear the middle class donates more to charity. Even the poorest person seems to find something for their Church.

 

[Charcoales]

The greatest con is that the rich have convinced the poor to fight amongst themselves. (The middle class is a myth for most)

 

[Coopa Jay]

We are 20 Trillion in debt... cuts need to happen. I watched someone buy 9 24 packs of soda with their EBT and so many people on Medicaid are on bogus pain management/benzo scripts costing us thousands each year per patient (The MD's usually see them monthly and bill a full ~$250 each visit). Something needs to happen. I fully support cuts and addressing inefficiencies and more need based focus on social programs. Again, we are 20 trillion in debt... Why should we pay for soda on the taxpayer dime or spend thousands for people to have oxycodone and Xanax filled each month when it's likely being abused or barely legit? I know people who are eligible for private insurance through their employer but get Medicaid and chose it because everything is free, all it takes is a few kids as a single parent also collecting child support... They aren't hurting for money and they opt for the state to pay when they can get employer sponsored insurance simply because they would have to pay a premiu and deductible so they opt for it all to be "free". Few things anger me quite like rampant welfare and watching the system get gamed. I pay too much in taxes for that. If I have to pay %37 of my income in taxes as a single male with no kids you shouldn't be allowed to game the system, and the "system" needs to lower eligibility to the truly needy and restrict what it pays for and covers. There is no reason why my taxes need to pay for your $35 in sodas for the pool party or for someone with no documented injury or physical proof of "chronic pain" to get Oxy 30 and Methadone 10 each month coupled with Xanax and Adderall.

People don't understand that these cuts won't even fix the abuses of these programs. There will be less money to support families, but the way the programs are set up will be the same. In order to prevent abuse of the programs you need to reform them, not cut their budgets.
Also, Trump is making these cuts without showing how many of these programs are being abused and how often. We need to see the numbers before we destroy the program.

Sent from my VS985 4G using SDN mobile

 

[ldiot]

Yeah, it's kind of different now. We are getting to the point where machines can potentially both do physical AND intellectual labor in a manner better than a human could. That's sort of the problem. Capitalism is the only economic system where having the machines do all the work actually presents a problem. It's sort of absurd when you think about it. What happens to the wage slaves when the wages aren't viable? And it really magnifies the problem most socialists have with capitalism. People with no capital give the majority of what they actually produce, be it via physical labor or creative labor, to the people that "own" the fruits of said labor. At some point most people are going to question why the concept of capital should exist in the first place. Capitalism isn't beautiful, despite what the evangelical libertarian ideologues will preach. And it certainly is not a longterm solution. It has really only worked via exploitation and wage theft. Let's talk about those cell phones. You ever stop and think about the people whose working conditions are so terrible that they fling themselves off the roof of Foxconn to end their misery? Foxconn had anti-suicide nets installed. Though most would have to admit that it has been a plus for your average American as they constituted the consumer/wealth class in the current capitalist paradigm. Problem is...the average American is being cut out of the whole consumer class thing bit by bit. If the world continues down that route, again, we're still looking at plutocracy with either a stipend for the poor or a remake of the French Revolution.

And, again, either will entertain me. It will amuse me to see the upper middle class conservatives in the dole line getting gubmint cheese with everyone else...as we grovel at the feet of out 1000-family or so oligarchy...or, if they decide to not give the people enough to live on...when some hilljack militia invades silicon valley and decide to behead Zuckerberg.

Either will amuse me.

It's an interesting topic for me. In my honest opinion you don't see much "real" capitalism in America, in it's purest form, and a lot of people mistake crony capitalism for real capitalism. A big talking point of the left is the wealth gap between the rich and the poor. My first point is would you rather have $50,000 and you neighbor have $50,000 or would you rather have $60,000 and your neighbor have $100,000? I think focusing on standard of living and total economic output is much for valueable than pointing fingers at the top 0.1%. With that being said, some of the companies do get in bed with the government and this is of course crony capitalism. In my opinion, the solution to crony capitalism is real capitalism. For those who can not distinguish the two, their answer is of course socialism/redistribution of wealth. This solution works on the assumption that everyone who is wealthy obtained this wealth by illegitimate means, which certainly is not the case (at least in the USA, maybe in Russia it actually is the case).

Anyways, if you want to eliminate crony capitalism (government in bed with the private sector), expanding the influence of government (socialism) certainly doesn't seem to be the answer. Handing more centralized power to the government only opens the door for greater corruption. It kills innovation, kills economic growth, and ultimately leads to tyranny. History tells us this. The USA is very far from perfect, but we do not give enough credit to capitalism for making the USA the most powerful economy in the history of humanity. Europe is turning into a socialist hellhole, Russia has done a 180 and is back on the Soviet Path, and probably half of the US population has a negative view of capitalism. It's not good.

Oh and Foxconn sounds horrendous, but capitalism is not to blame for this, rather China is. If their communist state was go fantastic their citizens wouldn't choose to work at Foxconn to begin with. Capitalism is about choice for both the worker and consumer, in China they probably have no choice.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

It's an interesting topic for me. In my honest opinion you don't see much "real" capitalism in America, in it's purest form, and a lot of people mistake crony capitalism for real capitalism. A big talking point of the left is the wealth gap between the rich and the poor. My first point is would you rather have $50,000 and you neighbor have $50,000 or would you rather have $60,000 and your neighbor have $100,000? I think focusing on standard of living and total economic output is much for valueable than pointing fingers at the top 0.1%. With that being said, some of the companies do get in bed with the government and this is of course crony capitalism. In my opinion, the solution to crony capitalism is real capitalism. For those who can not distinguish the two, their answer is of course socialism/redistribution of wealth. This solution works on the assumption that everyone who is wealthy obtained this wealth by illegitimate means, which certainly is not the case (at least in the USA, maybe in Russia it actually is the case).

Anyways, if you want to eliminate crony capitalism (government in bed with the private sector), expanding the influence of government (socialism) certainly doesn't seem to be the answer. Handing more centralized power to the government only opens the door for greater corruption. It kills innovation, kills economic growth, and ultimately leads to tyranny. History tells us this. The USA is very far from perfect, but we do not give enough credit to capitalism for making the USA the most powerful economy in the history of humanity. Europe is turning into a socialist hellhole, Russia has done a 180 and is back on the Soviet Path, and probably half of the US population has a negative view of capitalism. It's not good.

Oh and Foxconn sounds horrendous, but capitalism is not to blame for this, rather China is. If their communist state was go fantastic their citizens wouldn't choose to work at Foxconn to begin with. Capitalism is about choice for both the worker and consumer, in China they probably have no choice.

I'd rather not compare government influence to a cult of personality like the Soviet Union. You can't scream "crony capitalism" while citing crony communism. And perhaps rather to the US in the 1950s or the Scandanavian states today. Taxes are higher...government influence and regulations stronger...middle class bigger/happier. Back then a bumbling idiot could get a factory job, work 9-5, and have enough money so that the wife stayed at their paid off home with 2 cars in the garage. Those are the days people want to go back to. It's how Trump won the election. Now you got two breadwinners that work 45 hours a week and can barely pay the rent on an apartment. It has nothing to do with crony capitalism -- it is simply the predictable arrival at late stage capitalism.

Also, China isn't a communist state. Or even close to one. The communist party thing is a holdover name from the Soviet days.

 

[Baalzeebub]

We are 20 Trillion in debt... cuts need to happen.

It's funny how people only care about the debt when it comes to programs they don't like.

 

[VA77]

Well I don't know which political party donated the most to charity or also if they are rich or poor but I do know the story of the Poor Widow.

Mark 12:43
Then one poor widow came and put in two small copper coins, which amounted to a small fraction of a denarius. Jesus called His disciples to Him and said,“Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put more than all the others into the treasury. For they all contributed out of their surplus, but she out of her poverty has put in all she had to live on.”…

 

[Unchained]

Well I don't know which political party donated the most to charity or also if they are rich or poor but I do know the story of the Poor Widow.

Mark 12:43
Then one poor widow came and put in two small copper coins, which amounted to a small fraction of a denarius. Jesus called His disciples to Him and said,“Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put more than all the others into the treasury. For they all contributed out of their surplus, but she out of her poverty has put in all she had to live on.”…

The poor people of today are mostly nothing like the poor people of the Bible my friend. Today we have generations who have been trained to game the system for free government handouts. Everyone wants a handout because they feel it is owed to them for some reason. I'm glad you read the Bible though or at least took the time to look up this quote.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

The poor people of today are mostly nothing like the poor people of the Bible my friend. Today we have generations who have been trained to game the system for free government handouts. Everyone wants a handout because they feel it is owed to them for some reason. I'm glad you read the Bible though or at least took the time to look up this quote.

I think you'd find that if well paying jobs were actually available, most of these folks caught in a cycle of poverty would rather have a solid middle-class life than living in poverty. The American Dream died back in the 70s. It's really hard to understand the mentality unless you've lived through it. Poverty changes how you think and how you view yourself. I knew kids with an incredible amount of intelligence and talent that became nothing. I have no idea how the hell I didn't get sucked back in to be honest.

 

[confettiflyer]

I knew kids with an incredible amount of intelligence and talent that became nothing. I have no idea how the hell I didn't get sucked back in to be honest.

Depends on the school of thought applied. Conservative principles dictate you had more intelligence, drive, and talent than the others, and perhaps a better upbringing, as evidenced by your success; the more liberal principles dictate that systemic issues were the cause that allowed this outcome.

Real answer is it's probably a little bit of both, and we (as a country/as a people) got stuck flat footed when manufacturing jobs produced that great giant sucking sound on their way out.

 

[Old Timer]

It is amazing to read this thread. I don't understand why some of these people don't drop out of school and collect welfare. It's the greatest government freebee in history. I have never seen such a lack of understanding of taxes and economics in my almost 60 years on this earth.

If you want to be a selfish prick, it's a free country. Hey, you make 100K and you want it all and let others suffer because they are _____________ than you it's your right to feel that way and it's your right to advocate for that kind of policy.

This is a fundamental argument about how much government we want to have. Just admit that. Tell me what you want to get rid of. Be specific. If you want o get rid of some regulation, say it. But remember what it was like before that law or regulation went in to effect. Remember, a CEO's sole function is to make more money for his shareholders. If he/she has to screw over his workers and customers so be it.

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr said it best in two different quotes;

I like to pay taxes. With them I buy civilization.

Taxes are what we pay for civilized society …

Decide what you wish to have the government stop doing and what the consequences of such action would be. There is price for everything in life, we will pay a price if we raise taxes, cut taxes or leave them alone.

As for the annual budget deficit and the total national debt, they are more complicated than you portray them. As long as we are the most dominant economic power on earth US Government securities will always be in demand and we will be able to finace our debt.......

I listen to politicians and it makes me cringe. You have the Bernie Sanders left who will tax the rich for everything they have and spend it all twice. Then you have the right led by Paul Ryan, the liar in chief. As it stands right now 31 of the 50 states are facing a budget shortfall and Mr. Do Gooder looks you and me in the eye when he is informed there is not enough money to cover people with pre existing conditions in the AHCA and says the states will make it up. Just say what you mean. The ACHA and the Right does not believe it is societies obligation to pay for healthcare for all of it's citizens. Own it and just say it.

We are all free to argue and debate what is the best course of action. But own your beliefs and back them up with facts. There is no direct correlation between marginal tax rates and economic growth. If there was, how did the economy grow when Bill Clinton raised taxes? It grew because of increasing productivity and the the steady decline of long term interest rates.....

Also, the current Republican orthodoxy that holds we can cut taxes and spending and there will be an economic explosion has to admit it has never happened, not even once. There have been three major tax cuts in US history:

• The Kennedy Tax Cuts that were accompanied by the massive government spending on the Great Society and the war in Vietnam
• The Reagan tax cuts which were accompanied by the massive government spending on Military.
• The Bush tax cuts which were accompanied by the massive government spending on Medicare Part D and the war on Terror

When the state of Kansas tried to use itself as laboratory for this type of economic theory it was sort of a crash and burn.


Like I said, advocate for what you believe, just back it up with real life facts and illustrations.

Look at the deduction for mortgage interest. It costs the treasury billions of dollars per year. But we as a society agree that home ownership is important and incentivize it. Why does a a pharmacist who makes 120K per year and pays rent for an apartment pay more taxes than a pharmacist who makes 120K and owns a home with a mortgage. Maybe we shouldn't do that?

Look at the deduction for state and local taxes. This is the governments why of subsidizing K-12 education without federal control. The largest single part of this deduction in most states is the real estate tax and most of that goes to k-12 schools. Maybe we shouldn't do that either.

I don't know that right answer is on these questions, but I know if we were to change the deductions there would be an effect on school funding and home values.

Why is is if Pharmacist A marries Pharmacist B and together they make 250 K per year but are for some reason unable to have children (leave out those childless by choice) have to may more in taxes than Pharmacist C and Pharmacist D who have three children?

When is it a compelling societal interest t encourage or incentivize some kind of behavior.?

 

[Old Timer]

Depends on the school of thought applied. Conservative principles dictate you had more intelligence, drive, and talent than the others, and perhaps a better upbringing, as evidenced by your success; the more liberal principles dictate that systemic issues were the cause that allowed this outcome.

Real answer is it's probably a little bit of both, and we (as a country/as a people) got stuck flat footed when manufacturing jobs produced that great giant sucking sound on their way out.

It's also some time just dumb luck. Why do some people get killed in a terror attack and others don't. They aren't necessarily smarter or more driven, just luckier. Right/Wrong place at the Right/Wrong time......

 

[Rouelle]

Wow. I can't believe I waited so long to follow this thread. I just read through it for the first time. It's definitely a doosie.

 

[ldiot]

I'd rather not compare government influence to a cult of personality like the Soviet Union. You can't scream "crony capitalism" while citing crony communism. And perhaps rather to the US in the 1950s or the Scandanavian states today. Taxes are higher...government influence and regulations stronger...middle class bigger/happier. Back then a bumbling idiot could get a factory job, work 9-5, and have enough money so that the wife stayed at their paid off home with 2 cars in the garage. Those are the days people want to go back to. It's how Trump won the election. Now you got two breadwinners that work 45 hours a week and can barely pay the rent on an apartment. It has nothing to do with crony capitalism -- it is simply the predictable arrival at late stage capitalism.

Also, China isn't a communist state. Or even close to one. The communist party thing is a holdover name from the Soviet days.

The difference between "crony capitalism" and "crony communism" is that much more is at stake in a communist system. Those who are corrupt hold greater power and have more influence and impact in a communist state, and complete tyranny ensues. It's inevitable.

And China is a communist country. Just look at the wealth of the government compared to the wealth of the individual citizen.

 

[ldiot]

I listen to politicians and it makes me cringe. You have the Bernie Sanders left who will tax the rich for everything they have and spend it all twice. Then you have the right led by Paul Ryan, the liar in chief. As it stands right now 31 of the 50 states are facing a budget shortfall and Mr. Do Gooder looks you and me in the eye when he is informed there is not enough money to cover people with pre existing conditions in the AHCA and says the states will make it up. Just say what you mean. The ACHA and the Right does not believe it is societies obligation to pay for healthcare for all of it's citizens. Own it and just say it.

Is no secret that the position of the conservatives (not necessairly republican party at this point) is that healthcare is most certainly not a right. I think a lot of these republicans never intended to repeal Obamacare... so now the liberals are losing their mind over the cuts and the conservatives are losing their mind because 90% of Obamacare will remain. Politically it's a lose-lose situation and seems idiotic to me.

On another note this whole pre-existing conditions thing is just a load of crap in my opinion. Do you buy car insurance after you wreck your car? A congenital disease is one thing, but if you develop heart disease or cancer you had your chance to buy coverage, you decided not to. Why should your neighbor who paid into his plan for 40 years have to foot your bill? The costs gets indirectly placed on him in the form of higher premiums in order to essentially cover everyone else.

And I know, you are going to scream and tell me that insurance is expensive and we need compassion for those who cannot pay these premiums, and that's why we have Medicaid.

I'd probably just repeal Obamacare in it's entirety with no replacement, and use the money to put these people on medicaid. I would then phase out this excess medicaid funding over a 4-year span while deregulating. This way nobody has the rug pulled out from under them. I would look at free-market solutions and put emphasis on catastrophic coverage; the way things are set up now a plan is pretty much required to cover everything under the sun which drives up costs, as a consumer I should be able to buy whatever coverage I want.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

I don't think you know what communism is. If it would somehow exist and be stable, it would look nothing like China. China is closer to a fascist state than a communist state. And you can't really describe it as either to be honest.

 

[Unchained]

I think you'd find that if well paying jobs were actually available, most of these folks caught in a cycle of poverty would rather have a solid middle-class life than living in poverty. The American Dream died back in the 70s. It's really hard to understand the mentality unless you've lived through it. Poverty changes how you think and how you view yourself. I knew kids with an incredible amount of intelligence and talent that became nothing. I have no idea how the hell I didn't get sucked back in to be honest.

I totally recognize this. Congrats on pulling yourself up and out. There are segments of society that seem to have given up on the American dream and they have no beacons of light in their communities to guide them out. They buy into what the media tells them. That the system is rigged and they have no chance.

 

[ldiot]

I don't think you know what communism is. If it would somehow exist and be stable, it would look nothing like China. China is closer to a fascist state than a communist state. And you can't really describe it as either to be honest.

You can call it whatever you like but it's still a tyrannical hellhole. You are missing the point. Centralized power is an invitation for corruption and tyranny whether it is communism, fascism, or any other top-down approach. I believe in freedom, the individual, and private property rights.

You are literally doing mental gymnastics in order to blame poor Chinese working conditions on American capitalism. It's just *****ic. Why do liberals hate themselves so much?

 

[Charcoales]

Hey everyone the poor are leeches and the rich should be taxed less amirite. Think about it like this, if the poor die off then only the rich will be left! We can all be rich!

 

[WVUPharm2007]

You can call it whatever you like but it's still a tyrannical hellhole. You are missing the point. Centralized power is an invitation for corruption and tyranny whether it is communism, fascism, or any other top-down approach. I believe in freedom, the individual, and private property rights.

You are literally doing mental gymnastics in order to blame poor Chinese working conditions on American capitalism. It's just *****ic. Why do liberals hate themselves so much?

Now you're just putting words in my mouth. I'm not a liberal and I'm not blaming the US for China's "socialist market economy" or whatever they are calling themselves these days. I'm just a simple antiideologist that's telling you that China isn't a communistic country and capitalism isn't a magical panacea you think it is. We are starting to realize this as we barrel down the path towards late capitalism.

 

[Old Timer]

Is no secret that the position of the conservatives (not necessairly republican party at this point) is that healthcare is most certainly not a right. I think a lot of these republicans never intended to repeal Obamacare... so now the liberals are losing their mind over the cuts and the conservatives are losing their mind because 90% of Obamacare will remain. Politically it's a lose-lose situation and seems idiotic to me.

So first, this is only accurate from the Tea Party Conservative POV. The real reason the main stream R's are ****ting themselves is they know this is going to cost them politically. They are between a rock and a hard place. If they pass something that will appease the moderates they will lose the Tea Party. If they appease the Tea Party, they will lose the moderates. They have had 7 years to come up with a plan to replace Obamacare and they have nothing.

On another note this whole pre-existing conditions thing is just a load of crap in my opinion. Do you buy car insurance after you wreck your car? A congenital disease is one thing, but if you develop heart disease or cancer you had your chance to buy coverage, you decided not to. Why should your neighbor who paid into his plan for 40 years have to foot your bill? The costs gets indirectly placed on him in the form of higher premiums in order to essentially cover everyone else.

This is a straw man and you know it. You are either not old enough or not knowledgeable enough to understand the issue. I am sure there are people who are trying to game the system, There always has been and there always will be. But what happens when you change jobs. Suddenly, you can't get health insurance? What if you develop a chronic condition like diabetes as a child? Opps , when you are off your parents coverage you are screwed? You are not old enough to remember employer insurance refusing coverage for pre-exisiting conditions. I would say most people do not follow your scenario,

And I know, you are going to scream and tell me that insurance is expensive and we need compassion for those who cannot pay these premiums, and that's why we have Medicaid.

So you will put people into a government run program, really? That's your solution.....

I'd probably just repeal Obamacare in it's entirety with no replacement, and use the money to put these people on medicaid. I would then phase out this excess medicaid funding over a 4-year span while deregulating. This way nobody has the rug pulled out from under them. I would look at free-market solutions and put emphasis on catastrophic coverage; the way things are set up now a plan is pretty much required to cover everything under the sun which drives up costs, as a consumer I should be able to buy whatever coverage I want.

First of all your argument that Obamacare is not free market is silly. If it was government run it would be either Medicare for all or Medicaid for all..... It's not. It's actually a brilliant idea. Limit the amount they can charge for pre-exisiting conditions and force the healthy to purchase insurance to even out the pools. They don't force you to get everything under the sun. They define what basic healthcare would cover. Please tell me what free market health care looks like. If you could design a system from scratch what would it be.......

 

[ldiot]

So first, this is only accurate from the Tea Party Conservative POV. The real reason the main stream R's are ****ting themselves is they know this is going to cost them politically. They are between a rock and a hard place. If they pass something that will appease the moderates they will lose the Tea Party. If they appease the Tea Party, they will lose the moderates. They have had 7 years to come up with a plan to replace Obamacare and they have nothing.



This is a straw man and you know it. You are either not old enough or not knowledgeable enough to understand the issue. I am sure there are people who are trying to game the system, There always has been and there always will be. But what happens when you change jobs. Suddenly, you can't get health insurance? What if you develop a chronic condition like diabetes as a child? Opps , when you are off your parents coverage you are screwed? You are not old enough to remember employer insurance refusing coverage for pre-exisiting conditions. I would say most people do not follow your scenario,



So you will put people into a government run program, really? That's your solution.....



First of all your argument that Obamacare is not free market is silly. If it was government run it would be either Medicare for all or Medicaid for all..... It's not. It's actually a brilliant idea. Limit the amount they can charge for pre-exisiting conditions and force the healthy to purchase insurance to even out the pools. They don't force you to get everything under the sun. They define what basic healthcare would cover. Please tell me what free market health care looks like. If you could design a system from scratch what would it be.......

So first, this is only accurate from the Tea Party Conservative POV. The real reason the main stream R's are ****ting themselves is they know this is going to cost them politically. They are between a rock and a hard place. If they pass something that will appease the moderates they will lose the Tea Party. If they appease the Tea Party, they will lose the moderates. They have had 7 years to come up with a plan to replace Obamacare and they have nothing.



This is a straw man and you know it. You are either not old enough or not knowledgeable enough to understand the issue. I am sure there are people who are trying to game the system, There always has been and there always will be. But what happens when you change jobs. Suddenly, you can't get health insurance? What if you develop a chronic condition like diabetes as a child? Opps , when you are off your parents coverage you are screwed? You are not old enough to remember employer insurance refusing coverage for pre-exisiting conditions. I would say most people do not follow your scenario,



So you will put people into a government run program, really? That's your solution.....



First of all your argument that Obamacare is not free market is silly. If it was government run it would be either Medicare for all or Medicaid for all..... It's not. It's actually a brilliant idea. Limit the amount they can charge for pre-exisiting conditions and force the healthy to purchase insurance to even out the pools. They don't force you to get everything under the sun. They define what basic healthcare would cover. Please tell me what free market health care looks like. If you could design a system from scratch what would it be.......

I should be able to go into the open marketplace and buy any plan I want with any level of coverage that I want. I should be able to do the same thing through my employer if they are offering insurance coverage to their employees. A more open and competitive marketplace means a better product at a lower cost for the consumer and more innovation. People talk a a lot about HSAs, with en employer match, you can spend the money on premiums/deductibles, another good option to encourage saving and place the power back into the hands of the consumer.

The bottom line is that it does not matter if the government, your employer, or you is paying for healthcare, it's still going to be expensive. I just think that the private sector is more efficient in terms of both quality, cost, and value.

 

[confettiflyer]

I should be able to go into the open marketplace and buy any plan I want with any level of coverage that I want. I should be able to do the same thing through my employer if they are offering insurance coverage to their employees. A more open and competitive marketplace means a better product at a lower cost for the consumer and more innovation. People talk a a lot about HSAs, with en employer match, you can spend the money on premiums/deductibles, another good option to encourage saving and place the power back into the hands of the consumer.

The bottom line is that it does not matter if the government, your employer, or you is paying for healthcare, it's still going to be expensive. I just think that the private sector is more efficient in terms of both quality, cost, and value.

Yeah we tried that and people with _______ (insert any disease here) weren't even allowed to spend $$ on coverage. If they could, they'd have to waive coverage on the disease they had, which is like buying car insurance that doesn't cover car accidents.

Not going back to the dark ages, nope.

 

[ldiot]

Yeah we tried that and people with _______ (insert any disease here) weren't even allowed to spend $$ on coverage. If they could, they'd have to waive coverage on the disease they had, which is like buying car insurance that doesn't cover car accidents.

Not going back to the dark ages, nope.

It's a difficult topic but if you force an insurance company to cover anyone and everyone, then what is the point of having insurance? Just wait until you need insurance to buy it, in which case it is entirely pointless.

 

[Aznfarmerboi]

It's a difficult topic but if you force an insurance company to cover anyone and everyone, then what is the point of having insurance? Just wait until you need insurance to buy it, in which case it is entirely pointless.

And what is the point of an insurance company if they don't cover anything? Kid who is born over weight is a pre existing condition. Or if you have Cancer, they can drop your coverage just like how geico can drop your coverage if you have too many car accidents.

It's either that or we have a single health payer system...

The point of insurance is to spread the risk between everyone and get paid a few points above it for their services. We all know the odds of something happening. Insurance companies have models of it. The problem was that they were cherry picking the model and making insane profits while we have a healthcare crisis of millions of Americans not having insurance, that ULTIMATELY we end up bailing through hospital subsidized fundings or tax write offs or when someone declared bankruptcy from medical expenses.

 

[Aznfarmerboi]

Defense especially from paying for two wars is the biggest contributor to our deficit and budget.

One war was because we got attacked and the other was from debatable reasons...

But anyone smart can tell you that investing 100k in roads and infrastructure is better than investing in a smart missle. Welfare is not always welfare. When you invest in a kid by providing them with free school lunches and after school programs, you are making sure they are staying out of trouble. When they stay out of trouble, they don't end up costing us hundred of thousands in prison cost. Instead, they might go on to becoming productive citizens contributing to our tax payrolls. I bet a majority of Pharmacists come from lower class backgrounds. If it were not for certain welfares like public education, safety nets like Medicaid, student financial aid, we would not be paying 35k+ taxes into the government payroll.

 

[Aznfarmerboi]

The biggest form of welfare is from tax deductions. Anyone who doesn't realize that is because they haven't invest enough.

For a million dollar property (starting for NYC but most rich people have more expensive and multiple,properties), the deduction on the interest is 20,000 (assuming 40k interest based on 4% loan).

For capital returns, even at 15% rate, it is still far off from 28-30% rate. Assuming you are a smart investor, eventually your investments will be in the hundred of thousands if not millions. 15% of that is insane.

Some people don't see that as welfare but then I ask you, are there any deductions in sales tax? The government giving me back 20k plus other deductions is more welfare than 7-8k for my tech who is a single mom of three kids.

 

[Aznfarmerboi]

And for the record, no government can ever cut themselves out of a deficit or recession. There are so many case studies of it. I'm not disagreeing with either policy but looking at Obama era versus majority of Europe like Greece are good examples.

The problem when you cut, is a lot of government job and services goes along with it. If you cut police and fire departments, the property value starts going down. You cut drug and mental programs and it adds more stress to your neighborhood.

Will there always be exceptions and waste? Of course. But you are letting that blind you because they are a far minority of the system that benefits a lot more. If waste is rampant > 3%, them the solution is better oversight of the program. Cutting the benefit does not reduce percentage of waste.

 

[Sine Cura]

What is the point of private insurance when the "highest-risk" populations are already being subsidized by taxpayers and this subsidization is generally socially accepted, re: Medicare/Medicaid/VA

Recommended reading: Health Insurance: How Does It Work? – Healthcare in America

 

[Aznfarmerboi]

A lot of people mistaken government for a business. It is NOT a business and if it was, it would be out of business a while ago.

A few points to keep in mind is that a huge part of government debt is owed to us. An example is that the government have to borrow from us via social security or military retirement pension because the fund currently takes in more money than currently gives out. Instead of keeping that money under a mattress, it buys US treasuries to invest.

A quarter of that 20 trillion debt is owned by foreign governments with Japan and China owning half of it (about 2 trillion in total). They do this for many reasons (as a reserve fund, to keep their currency values down, etc). The thing to understand is it's not like a loan in that they can call it in any time nor would they want to for many reasons. We also indirectly got 2 trillion dollars worth of benefit form AND paying them historical low interest rates similar to what you would get when you keep your money in the bank today. A huge part of that benefited us directly by helping us get out of one of the worst recessions in history where we could have lost both the banking and auto industry through quantitative easing monetary policy.

The problem is you have a lot of fake news or politicians who have no idea of how the government or economics works being voted in. In either case, even if it was possible to "manage" the debt the way people think it should be managed, it is at the point of no return like lord mentioned and will only hurt us by leading us to another recession for NO REASON or BENEFIT at all.

 

[Aznfarmerboi]

What is the point of private insurance when the "highest-risk" populations are already being subsidized by taxpayers and this subsidization is generally socially accepted, re: Medicare/Medicaid/VA

Recommended reading: Health Insurance: How Does It Work? – Healthcare in America

There is no point and which is why most countries get a better return for their bucks for healthcare. For the money that we pay for our healthcare now and the ****ty quality of return, we can probably get better healthcare without the wait time if managed properly (which would open another discussion). There are some government systems that are well runned and other systems that are not.

But to go back to your answer, that's why we have Obamacare. It's a win win because 1. No pre existing conditions which can mean any disease state, and 2. A market place where insurance competes based off those factors, and 3. Everyone contributes and everyone benefits even if they don't know it yet.

The problem is the threat of it being cancelled worries insurance companies which directly hurts 2 and it's a house of card then.

 

[GypsyHummus]

The bible also says if you have two coats and another man has none you should give the man one of your coats. It also says eating shellfish is an abomination.

But that's ok just use the parts that support your world view.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using SDN mobile

Yes, One man should give another man his coat, not the State comes in, takes the first man's coat by force (threat of going to jail for not paying taxes), and then redistributes the coat to another.

And shellfish are gross.

 

[GypsyHummus]

Didn't we have a surplus after Clinton until Bush?

That was due to a couple of things:

-The dot come bubble
-the Reagan tax breaks

 

[Rouelle]

Yes, One man should give another man his coat, not the State comes in, takes the first man's coat by force (threat of going to jail for not paying taxes), and then redistributes the coat to another.

And shellfish are gross.

Excuse me, but shellfish are not gross. They are, in fact, awesome.

 

[Old Timer]

That was due to a couple of things:

-The dot come bubble
-the Reagan tax breaks

That is the most ridiculous thing I ever heard. Reagan's tax cut that took place in 1983 caused a surplus 1999?, but not before?
The .com bubble did produce enough government revenue to produce a surplus.

 

[Old Timer]

It's a difficult topic but if you force an insurance company to cover anyone and everyone, then what is the point of having insurance? Just wait until you need insurance to buy it, in which case it is entirely pointless.

STOP SAYING THAT IT'S A LIE​

Since Obamacare passed, you can only sign up once a year during open enrollment. You can't just wait until you are sick. Most people who don't have insurance that are to well off for medicaid, could not afford a policy under the old system. While I am sure there are some, most people do not wait until they are sick to sign up. Repeating a steaming pile of

over and over again will not make it smell like

 

[owlegrad]

Yes, One man should give another man his coat, not the State comes in, takes the first man's coat by force (threat of going to jail for not paying taxes), and then redistributes the coat to another.

And shellfish are gross.

That's fine and all but if we are trying to use biblical principles to inform government policy, why should we use the 'teach a man to fish' principle but not the 'give a man a coat' principle?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using SDN mobile

 

[ldiot]

The biggest form of welfare is from tax deductions. Anyone who doesn't realize that is because they haven't invest enough.

For a million dollar property (starting for NYC but most rich people have more expensive and multiple,properties), the deduction on the interest is 20,000 (assuming 40k interest based on 4% loan).

For capital returns, even at 15% rate, it is still far off from 28-30% rate. Assuming you are a smart investor, eventually your investments will be in the hundred of thousands if not millions. 15% of that is insane.

Some people don't see that as welfare but then I ask you, are there any deductions in sales tax? The government giving me back 20k plus other deductions is more welfare than 7-8k for my tech who is a single mom of three kids.

Letting you keep the money you make is welfare now? OK...

 

[Old Timer]

Letting you keep the money you make is welfare now? OK...

No, but why is it fair for a home owner to pay less taxes than an apartment dweller? You twist obvious things that demonstrate your bias. Say you want a flat tax with no deductions.

Explain why it is if Pharmacist A marries Pharmacist B and together they make 250 K per year but are for some reason unable to have children (leave out those childless by choice) have to may more in taxes than Pharmacist C and Pharmacist D who have three children?

It's not about keeping money you earned, that is false argument. It's about right and fairness.

You love to build up the straw man and knock him down, without advancing any compelling argument that would prove your point

 

[ldiot]

No, but why is it fair for a home owner to pay less taxes than an apartment dweller? You twist obvious things that demonstrate your bias. Say you want a flat tax with no deductions.

An apartment dweller does not pay property tax to begin with, so whether or not a home owner gets a deduction they are still paying more. So how can you directly tell me that the home owner is getting welfare? It's flat out incorrect.

Just because you are wrong when you call tax deductions welfare does not mean that I like our current tax system. I actually agree with your second point which is why I supported the tax plans of Ted Cruz and Ben Carson, a simple flat tax rate with no deductions. I don't think it will ever happen though, Trump can't even take one penny out of a government program without the left literally accusing him of murdering babies and grandmas.

 

[BJNCNC]

Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[Old Timer]

An apartment dweller does not pay property tax to begin with, so whether or not a home owner gets a deduction they are still paying more. So how can you directly tell me that the home owner is getting welfare? It's flat out incorrect.

Just because you are wrong when you call tax deductions welfare does not mean that I like our current tax system. I actually agree with your second point which is why I supported the tax plans of Ted Cruz and Ben Carson, a simple flat tax rate with no deductions. I don't think it will ever happen though, Trump can't even take one penny out of a government program without the left literally accusing him of murdering babies and grandmas.

I really can't believe you are as silly as you appear. You don't think the apartment dweller pays the property tax as part of his rent? Just because it's indirect, does not mean he does not pay it. Also your derision of welfare is also a straw man meant to diminish the welfare recipient in some way for accepting a benefit from the government while any benefit you get from the government is earned. Whether the benefit is a direct transfer payment or a reduction in the amount of tax owed it is still a benefit. Stop with false right wing platitudes.

There is a reason why these deductions and tax credits exist. There is a reason why capital gains are taxed differently than earned income. There is a reason why there is a home mortgage deduction. There is a reason why oil and gas companies have a depreciation allowance that other business don't have. You just want to keep all of the goodies for yourself.

 

[ldiot]

I really can't believe you are as silly as you appear. You don't think the apartment dweller pays the property tax as part of his rent?

Luckily the landlord is taking a deduction, otherwise he would be passing even more cost down to the renter. In either situation the inequality that you are dreaming up just doesn't exist.

You work for CVS, what is their effective corporate tax rate? Tell me if they are getting away with murder.

Leftists want to move wealth around, conservatives want to create wealth. That's the bottom line.

 

[GodsSon2011]

We are 20 Trillion in debt... cuts need to happen. I watched someone buy 9 24 packs of soda with their EBT and so many people on Medicaid are on bogus pain management/benzo scripts costing us thousands each year per patient (The MD's usually see them monthly and bill a full ~$250 each visit). Something needs to happen. I fully support cuts and addressing inefficiencies and more need based focus on social programs. Again, we are 20 trillion in debt... Why should we pay for soda on the taxpayer dime or spend thousands for people to have oxycodone and Xanax filled each month when it's likely being abused or barely legit? I know people who are eligible for private insurance through their employer but get Medicaid and chose it because everything is free, all it takes is a few kids as a single parent also collecting child support... They aren't hurting for money and they opt for the state to pay when they can get employer sponsored insurance simply because they would have to pay a premiu and deductible so they opt for it all to be "free". Few things anger me quite like rampant welfare and watching the system get gamed. I pay too much in taxes for that. If I have to pay %37 of my income in taxes as a single male with no kids you shouldn't be allowed to game the system, and the "system" needs to lower eligibility to the truly needy and restrict what it pays for and covers. There is no reason why my taxes need to pay for your $35 in sodas for the pool party or for someone with no documented injury or physical proof of "chronic pain" to get Oxy 30 and Methadone 10 each month coupled with Xanax and Adderall.

Please stop. You are attacking the wrong people.. Those are pennies to the dollar of fraud

Three Individuals Charged in $1 Billion Medicare Fraud and Money Laundering Scheme

Twelve Charged in Dallas as Part of Largest National Medicare Fraud Takedown in History

these are the people you should get mad at