House repubs vote again to screw working families

[Realitytrembles]

Skroe is not being rational on this subject and frankly he never has been. His argument is rooted in deep-red wealthy conservative fundamentals of "fuck the poor". It comes out in his arguments on military spending, his arguments on states rights, his arguments on government welfare spending and more. They are quite frankly, highly emotional, illogical arguments that rely heavily on the fact that he is wealthy and doesn't give a shit if his fellow Americans prosper or not.

@Skroe

I'd like to see a reply to this part.

[Mehrunes]

States should pay for them. Why should my federal taxes pay for somebody in Kansas given their tax situation?

By that logic, why not abolish most of the federal taxes? They pay for people in other states on plenty other issues. But wait, why pay state taxes too? Those freeloades in poorer cities within your states aren't your concern either.

On the contrary, it'lll promote democratic (small d) accountability.

One of the largest historic mistakes we have made as a country is nationalizing *everything*. We are a federal state, with 50 distinct sub-divisions that share soverignty. Yet, particularly in the post-World War II era, we have acted like a unitary state. There are strengths and weaknesses to both models, no doubt. It's gone far too far in the direction of the unitary state, where the Federal Government is supreme.

First of all, the sovereignty of federal states and shared sovereignty are not the same concepts. Secondly, the federal government has always been supreme, which isn't an innately unitarian concept but something caused by the federal government being the higher level of government.

You want to get people voting in State and Local elections? You want to get people voting in mid-terms? You want people involved in local politics? Move federal responsibilities on things that directly effect them - namely healthcare - a layer of abstraction down so they have more granular democratic control over it. When healthcare is more of an issue of the State House than the White House, you'll find people start realizing that *gasp* their vote does matter. That they should vote every opportunity they get. That non-Federal elections are hugely important.

It would be surprising if this country DIDN'T have enormous voter apathy. One vote in 130 million, where as preached for 20 years, it's the "swing states" that matter. The rest of us might as well note vote. Well... a big step to fighting that directly is to make the Federal Government handle less that effects everyday Americans, and State Governments handle more. Then it's what? one vote in 4 million. One vote in 11 million. Politics, which is always local, would be functionally much more so.

That's my vision for this country. You can call it "fucking over poor states" if you like. I'd like to see poor States have their populations actually come out and vote in favor of affordable healthcare that they pay for, at the State level. That's called "responsibility'.

Aside from voter apathy not being unique to state elections, yeah, let's let red states state rights their way into abominations worse than even the bills that were supposed to repeal Obamacare. That'll totally work. And it just reeks of responsibility from the federal state. It's not like the citizens of those states are also citizens of the federal state, whom the federal state has responsibilities to or anything.

And let's fuck over even the non-GOP voters in the process. I'm sure there won't be mass scale exodus of them that'll create a burden for the state of destination. And unless you want the problem of the remaining GOP voters (and the non-GOP voters too poor to move) to solve itself by all of them dying by easily preventable diseases, the unsustainable mess GOP will create in those states would still have to be solved by the federal state stepping in, subsidizing in and changing pretty much nothing.

Is it messier and slower than a all-national approach that sidesteps the shared-sovereignty system we live in? Oh hell yeah. And that's too fucking bad. It's more important it be done right, than fast. We've seen what the "fierce urgency of now" gets us. Nothing good.

You turned this "fierce urgency of now" into some sort of personal boogeyman that allows you to straw-man any policy you don't like and once again the application of it is patently ridiculous. Even ignoring the non-existence of shared-sovereignty in a federal state, there's no sidestepping anything if the concept is considered to be a federal responsibility. Or, in general, the responsibility of the higher level of government.

Which, imagine that, healthcare is considered to be in almost the entire world. Works there too. It's not like top down approach to healthcare is some kind of a shortcut and doing it right, as opposed to US' already existing clusterfuck (that your idea would only multiply), is impossible to do on that level.

I get what you're after - you want good healthcare and responsible citizens. And this suggestion would certainly shake up local government in just about every Red State. But who else does it like this?

Why would it? Even ignoring the fact that red states are gerrymandered to hell and back, the case of Trump alone shows that large sways of people are in no way opposed to vote against their own interests and will continue to vote for GOP for one glorious reasons after another, be it focusing on a single issue GOP promotes, believing that one day they'll make it big so they'll benefit from rich-friendly legislation, the rest of the poor be damned, so on and so forth. Is it responsible voting? Not really. Does it mean they have to suffer from shitty healthcare that's bound to pop up in red states? Not really either. Then there'd be the people who don't vote for GOP in those states that'd also get the shaft for some misguided attempt at "revitalizing voter's interests" - as if even the important nation-wide elections didn't suffer from immense voter apathy mixed with some muh state rights, which would deserve it even less.

And not just stop people from dying but it's also fiscally responsible by significantly decreasing the amount of our federal budget that has to be spent on healthcare.

You're just shifting around who's responsible for it (while multiplying the amount of administration that has to operate the healthcare). How is it fiscally responsible?

Because we are ONE NATION. If you want to argue one state shouldn't support another state, what reason do you have to argue one Texas should support another Texan? You have no argument. Either we are ONE NATION and we operate like it, or we are not, and we do not. So if you don't believe Massachusetts should support Kansas, then you don't believe we are a single nation.

And if you don't believe we are a single nation, then quite frankly, go fuck yourself.

Such policies, if implemented, also beg the question why states not benefiting from the remaining shell of a union should not have the right to secede, pulling US back 150 years back.

This almost sounds like a way to make residents of red states to pay for their bad voting behavior, and to reward blue states for their good voting behavior. Why SHOULD residents of California, a state that is doing quite well, pay for the mistakes of the voters of Kansas?

Because those Californian residents don't actually do so as Californian residents but as US residents? And the federal government has responsibilities for all of its citizens. Also because solidarity and subsidiarity are concepts in countries with any form of administrative divisions.

With something like this, the Red states will have a choice of either fixing their shit and starting to adopt policies they are philosophically against otherwise their state will basically go bankrupt while their people either turn blue real quick, revolt and get violent, or many of them will migrate to other states that have better systems to live. Which will actively drag those states doing it right down when/if they are flooded with these people when there aren't even enough jobs for the people they have.

And, from what I have seen, the republicans have a major thing about cutting their nose off to spite their face and wouldn't put it past them to run the states into bankruptcy and beyond while asking for federal funding to cover their mess which their republican people will give them and would gladly run this nation to collapse so long as they can blame the Democrats for it in some way.

And since the democrat voters moving away to Oregon or California is a more likely outcome than red voters suddenly swapping allegiances when most of them have already been voting against against their own interests (since GOP policies benefit only the rich) for years, your second paragraph (and the last sentence of the first one) is what's going to happen. Which means at some point the federal government will realize that this amazing project isn't working at all and will have to step right back, only this time it'd have to spend even more money to fix the shitfest, making the whole point of this experiment moot.

[Skroe]

And continuing down that line of thought, why should your taxes pay for the guy living on the other side of the state? Why should your taxes pay for the guy the next city over? Why should your taxes pay for the guy the next county over? Why should your taxes pay for the guy down the street? Why should your taxes pay for the guy in the other side of your house? Why should your taxes pay for the guy on the other side of the room? Frankly, I'm miffed that my brain is the one choosing to pay these taxes, but my feet often benefit from them as well.

Bizarre arbitrary divisions based on artificial constructions, made even more bizarre by the fact that our taxes criss-cross and pay for the nation as a whole already.

The position you're assuming is too black and White. Consider the road outside my house. It's principally local taxes that pay for that. Sure there is some degree of state money, as a support. But since I live here, as a resident of this town and I use the road the most, my taxes pay for it. The guy living on the other side of the state, which may pass through the town twice a year, doesn't pay more than whatever his personal share is to State taxes that support the road. A little to help take the edge off, but the lionshare is my taxes.

I'm extrapolating that approach. It's certainly fair and reasonable for federal taxes to take the edge of spending at the State and Local level. Maybe provide incentives. But it should not be the purpose of federal taxes to have Massachusetts taxpayers support taxpayers of Kansas disproportionately. It is the Kansas taxpayer's responsibility to make sure their State keeps the trains running on time., Federal tax dollars should be used, to extend the analogy, to knock the price off the gas a little bit, and replace 1 rail out of every 10.

- - - Updated - - -

Because we are ONE NATION. If you want to argue one state shouldn't support another state, what reason do you have to argue one Texas should support another Texan? You have no argument. Either we are ONE NATION and we operate like it, or we are not, and we do not. So if you don't believe Massachusetts should support Kansas, then you don't believe we are a single nation.

And if you don't believe we are a single nation, then quite frankly, go fuck yourself.

We are one nation. And one State should help another State. But support is too strong a word. If a State fails, it is ultimately the responsibility for the residents of that State to fix it. The Federal Government should contain the fallout, and mitigate the negative outcomes to the degree possible. But it is not the job of the Federal Government to do what residents of the Failed State refuse to do.

This is entirely consistent with our form of government and the intent of the founders. My Senators represent my States interests in Congress. You know who was a beloved Senator here? Ted Kennedy. Because he put Massachusetts first. Sure he had a prominent national figure... the Lion of the Senate and all that... but he looked out for Massachusetts. You know who the State didn't give a rats ass wasn't Senator anymore? John Kerry, who acted like Senator-at-Large, for decades. We're seeing that dynamic repeated. Ed Markey looks out for the State. Elizabeth Warren... Senator-at-Large 2.0

That it outside the spirit of good governance and the constitution. It is their jobs to get the best bills passed in the interests of Massachusetts. Does that mean actively screwing Kanasas or Texas? No. But that means letting their senators look out for their interests, and our senators look out for ours. In the face of the Rest of the world, we are one time. But when its a room full of 50 states... not really. And that's a good thing. Competition breeds innovation.

Blah blah blah something something states rights. This is an extension of the "fuck you, I've got mine" argument, and as such, lacks both merit and substance.

On the contrary. I'm describing a fundamentally different model. Yes, I want a significant - massive - Federal Tax cut (and a tax on consumption). But I equally desire an enormous, proportionate State Tax increase. I simply believe there is a finer degree of control and ultimately, democratic oversight of spending and policies, at the state level. The current arrangement is too slow, too homogenized and makes blaming "distant washington" for local failures far too easy.

Why do people blame Washington? Why not blame their State Houses? The situation they find themselves in is largely due to the policies of State governments, not the federal one.

A few weeks ago I was in New York City. I actually wrote about this in a post. I was deeply saddened to see far more junkies and poor people laying about Manhattan. I asked my brother, a New York City ADA, about why that is. He said it is because DeBlasio stopped the practice of locking them up (which Bloomberg continued), but did not have the resources to get them the aid they need. That was deeply upsetting. Despite what you may think, I do not want my fellow man on the street or suffering.

But looking to Washington for a solution, where we you have to get 435 Representatives, 100 Senators and a President to come to some sort of majority consensus, is an easy way to kill innovative approaches to problem solving. Not just things like healthcare. But education. Homelessness. Elderly neglect.

Distributed approaches have proven their soundeness time and time again, and yet here you are arguing for an all-national approach. Oh sure, you'll get a nationally homogeneous approach, after 25 years of arguing about it. Or you can experiment at the state level.. fine tune, adjust, and gradually expand and save lives or improve people's lives, in far shorter time scales.

MassHealth was a far better healthcare system than Obamacare. Obamacare, which absorb it, has lead to worse and more expensive healthcare in this state. Not to mention far more complex to sign up for.

You say "states rights". I say "the people living in a State must be accountable for what their states do".

Skroe is not being rational on this subject and frankly he never has been. His argument is rooted in deep-red wealthy conservative fundamentals of "fuck the poor". It comes out in his arguments on military spending, his arguments on states rights, his arguments on government welfare spending and more. They are quite frankly, highly emotional, illogical arguments that rely heavily on the fact that he is wealthy and doesn't give a shit if his fellow Americans prosper or not.

Uh huh. See above. My argument is one that is focused on the way to optimally and efficiently channel revenues - taxation, into services to help the poor. This entire section here, is frankly, deeply insulting. I just think you'll get better outcomes, faster, by going through a State assembly and a governor, rather than "distant Washington". Does that mean some states will be slower? Oh hell yes. But it is the responsibility of the people living in those states to accept or reject those outcomes. If people can't make decisions for how they want to live, then they're just being kept.


If, for example, 49 states had universal healthcare and Nebraska, the last holdout, did not, that has to be okay because it must be the decision of the citizens of Nebraska to decide to adopt it or not. That is democracy and that is self determination. Am I really saying "fuck the poor" because I respect people's rights to choose?

- - - Updated - - -

Skroe has touted Japan's and a number of other country's systems as a cut/paste solution. I'm not sure if those two statements can work together or if he's trying to make the point of "just fucking pick one so people stop dying of stupid shit".

Pretty much. Either we just "implient the Japan strat" or we actually live a highly distributed solution. This dumb middle ground we're in, it is an expensive road to nowhere better.

I'm a conservative who supports Universal Healthcare. Why? Because its record is empircally proven in other highly developed countries. Because eliminating Medicare, Medicaid, the VA and everything else and putting it under a common banner (or system) would promote enormous efficiencies. Because, most of all, freeing employers fromb eing shackled with Healthcare costs AND even more, freeing workers from feeling shackled to jobs BECAUSE of Healthcare will be an enormous boon to the economy.

Healthcare should be _a_ thing the government is involved in. Right now, it's essentially the dominant thing. That has to stop.

[Tijuana]

Summery on the house's budget resolution

two other points I found interesting

"the richest 1% of Americans will get 53% of the total tax cuts in 2018 and 80% after 10 years. They will get a tax cut of $129,000 in 2018, on average, and $207,000 in the 10th year. [Source: Tax Policy Center]"

&

The Trump-Ryan tax plan repeals the deduction for state and local taxes (SALT), raising taxes on the middle class and undermining local public services. Repealing SALT would raise $1.3 trillion over 10 years. Taxpayers can deduct state and local property taxes, and either income or sales taxes, from their federal taxable income. Over a third of taxpayers making $50-75,000 use the SALT deduction, and over half of those making $75-100,000. An average family in this last group would see their federal taxes jump by $1,800 if SALT is repealed. In addition to boosting middle-class taxes, repeal of the SALT deduction will make local taxation more expensive, putting pressure on localities to cut budgets for services like roads and schools. [Sources: Tax Policy Center, Government Finance Officers Assoc.


https://www.commondreams.org/newswir...are-and-public

These figures are laughably made up, and have no basis in any proposed legislation. I sort of can't believe so many would discuss what are entirely made up stats.

[Draco-Onis]

These figures are laughably made up, and have no basis in any proposed legislation. I sort of can't believe so many would discuss what are entirely made up stats.

Do you have actual numbers to correct us so we can discuss it properly? since you seem to be sure they are laughable.

[Toppy]

Do you have actual numbers to correct us so we can discuss it properly? since you seem to be sure they are laughable.

You know he doesnt. His response will be along the lines of "Isnt it obvious, everyone just knows"

Its kinda like the conservative explanation on cutting taxes on the rich

"Its a good idea, we dont need to prove it, it speaks for itself how this works!"

[Deleted]

I can at least see Skroe's point though. A lot of the poor states stay poor because their pitiful leadership that often stifles actual improvement because they're getting bailed out by tax dollars.

I can at least see Skroe's point though. A lot of the poor people stay poor because their pitiful decisions that often stifles actual improvement because they're getting bailed out by tax dollars.

Seems accurate actually.

[Toppy]

I can at least see Skroe's point though. A lot of the poor people stay poor because their pitiful decisions that often stifles actual improvement because they're getting bailed out by tax dollars.

Seems accurate actually.

True, this also effects those poor who are legitimately trying though, not to mention will make already poor areas even poorer further making it difficult for anyone in those situations to pull themselves up.

But then again this is america. Where we have an entire party based around the concept that people deserve to suffer and if people would just stop being lazy they can succeed (because clearly, if you're in a bad situation or not making enough money, you're just plain lazy and it has nothing to do with a poor area having no opportunities).

These decisions of course being made for the people in the worst of situations, by people who've never been in anything like them, often times being reared in well off households and not understanding that being raised in a poor one makes it incredibly difficult to succeed.

Hell theres a certain irony behind the party that approves work place stagnation, overly high standards on the young trying to begin careers, and low wages, complaining about poor leadership in the business and political sector. Its republican ran states that suffer the most from poverty conditions and defend poor leadership the most.

[Skroe]

I can at least see Skroe's point though. A lot of the poor people stay poor because their pitiful decisions that often stifles actual improvement because they're getting bailed out by tax dollars.

Seems accurate actually.

That's not what I'm saying. I don't know how it became that.

Consider two states: Massachusetts and Wyoming. Their local and State traditions are very, very different. THeir local and State politics are very, very different. What Wyoming residents want from government is fundamentally different than what Massachusetts Residents show that they want from government. Neither is right or wrong. Rather through elections, two sets of Americans came to different conclusions about the scope of government.

My position is, shrinking the Federal government and sending as much responsibility (and the funding requirements) down to the State level will make these decisions and the execution of them far more accountable. It is easy for Wyoming politicians to blame distant Washington. It'll be a lot harder to blame the State Assembly when its their job to finance and provide certain services. If citizens want more, they vote, in State elections, for more. If they want better, they vote for that too. If they want less, that is also an option. But is is scaled smaller, at the State level, with people who have a tighter level of commonality than say, all 50 states. There is less complexity and an easier path to political consensus.

Yes this would mean that in theory services would be wildly different state to state. But that is as a moral matter, the way it should be. If people aren't respnsible for their state, they're being kept... they aren't truly ruling themselves, so to speak. If success is a potential outcome, failure has to be to.

This entire vision is based on an critical requirement: a substantial cut in Federal taxes accompanied by a significant and proportional rise in State taxes as responsibilities are moved to the State level.

The current order makes very little sense. It is mostly State and Local policies and programs that effect Americans day to day, but Federal taxes consume by far the lionshare of the tax bill. And states - all states - are ultimately subject to policies far more or far less than to their liking.

The Federal government should focus on doing its core competencies - truly national level stuff like defense, scientific research, trade, standardization, interstate infrastructure and so forth - very well and with extreme efficiency. Americans more than anything else want _effective_ government. But healthcare and pensions should be moved to a much more State and Local run arrangement. Where people live is where the bulk of their money should go, so when it is in properly used, they can take political action to rectify that and not feel that their voice is drowned out in "distant Washington".


I'm not sure how this somehow got turned into "let the poor die for their own mistakes". That couldn't be further from the truth. We must help our fellow man. But people in Wyoming know whats best for people in Wyoming and they have a _right_ to decide for themselves and not have that decision warped by how Senators from Massachusetts think people should live.

The United States is projected to grow and grow this century. It was what, 270 million in the 1990s? It's 325 million today. By the end of the century it'll be between 410 million, as high as 625 million depending on the model. As the country grows the only way for efficiently, effectively sustain an effective, democratic government is through federalism and empowering the States to give more granular control to the people over a Smaller subdivision of the country. Otherwise the US, as it grows, runs into the same problems that India and China experience now, and the Roman Empire discovered 2000 years ago: that is is nearly impossible to centralize governmental administration when a country grows beyond a certain size. I mean, that's one reason why say, universal healthcare in Denmark is a poor comparison to America. Denmark, roughly the size of Massachusetts in every metric is an "easier problem" than 325 million person America.

[paralleluniverse]

I'm fine with the cuts to Medicare and Medicaid. The rest, not so much.

Friendly reminder:


Since 2014 (3 years), Medicare outlays have added up to an annual of three NASA budget's worth of spending.

Healthcare spending should be shifted to the States and paid for with higher State taxes. There are other things the Federal Government should be spending our Federal Tax Dollars on.

Slay the Great Beast.

Oh great, another believer in nonsense conservative voodoo.

Let's cut $1.5T from healthcare spending, that will sure improve healthcare!

And let's make the states pay for healthcare, as if the states have some magic unicorn healthcare policy, unknown to Washington, to magically make healthcare better or that the laws of health economics vary by state.

Of course, this is exactly the sort of fantasy bullshit that was used to sell the Cassidy-Graham-Trump bill.

Healthcare, welfare, and social security is the job of the federal government, because they form the social safety net for every citizen, and should not depend on whether or not the states can afford to or even want to extend these benefits. Same for defense.

[Draco-Onis]

That's not what I'm saying. I don't know how it became that.

Consider two states: Massachusetts and Wyoming. Their local and State traditions are very, very different. THeir local and State politics are very, very different. What Wyoming residents want from government is fundamentally different than what Massachusetts Residents show that they want from government. Neither is right or wrong. Rather through elections, two sets of Americans came to different conclusions about the scope of government.

My position is, shrinking the Federal government and sending as much responsibility (and the funding requirements) down to the State level will make these decisions and the execution of them far more accountable. It is easy for Wyoming politicians to blame distant Washington. It'll be a lot harder to blame the State Assembly when its their job to finance and provide certain services. If citizens want more, they vote, in State elections, for more. If they want better, they vote for that too. If they want less, that is also an option. But is is scaled smaller, at the State level, with people who have a tighter level of commonality than say, all 50 states. There is less complexity and an easier path to political consensus.

Yes this would mean that in theory services would be wildly different state to state. But that is as a moral matter, the way it should be. If people aren't respnsible for their state, they're being kept... they aren't truly ruling themselves, so to speak. If success is a potential outcome, failure has to be to.

This entire vision is based on an critical requirement: a substantial cut in Federal taxes accompanied by a significant and proportional rise in State taxes as responsibilities are moved to the State level.

The current order makes very little sense. It is mostly State and Local policies and programs that effect Americans day to day, but Federal taxes consume by far the lionshare of the tax bill. And states - all states - are ultimately subject to policies far more or far less than to their liking.

The Federal government should focus on doing its core competencies - truly national level stuff like defense, scientific research, trade, standardization, interstate infrastructure and so forth - very well and with extreme efficiency. Americans more than anything else want _effective_ government. But healthcare and pensions should be moved to a much more State and Local run arrangement. Where people live is where the bulk of their money should go, so when it is in properly used, they can take political action to rectify that and not feel that their voice is drowned out in "distant Washington".


I'm not sure how this somehow got turned into "let the poor die for their own mistakes". That couldn't be further from the truth. We must help our fellow man. But people in Wyoming know whats best for people in Wyoming and they have a _right_ to decide for themselves and not have that decision warped by how Senators from Massachusetts think people should live.

The United States is projected to grow and grow this century. It was what, 270 million in the 1990s? It's 325 million today. By the end of the century it'll be between 410 million, as high as 625 million depending on the model. As the country grows the only way for efficiently, effectively sustain an effective, democratic government is through federalism and empowering the States to give more granular control to the people over a Smaller subdivision of the country. Otherwise the US, as it grows, runs into the same problems that India and China experience now, and the Roman Empire discovered 2000 years ago: that is is nearly impossible to centralize governmental administration when a country grows beyond a certain size. I mean, that's one reason why say, universal healthcare in Denmark is a poor comparison to America. Denmark, roughly the size of Massachusetts in every metric is an "easier problem" than 325 million person America.

In order for your plan to work healthcare in this country would need major reform which can only be done by the federal government. There needs to be regulations on hospitals and bargaining when it comes to drug prices, there is simply no way conservatives will be for this. The problem we have in general is not just medicare but the entire system that needs to change so simply cutting medicare and giving power to the states will not solve the long term problem.

[Theinquisition]

Because we are ONE NATION. If you want to argue one state shouldn't support another state, what reason do you have to argue one Texas should support another Texan? You have no argument. Either we are ONE NATION and we operate like it, or we are not, and we do not. So if you don't believe Massachusetts should support Kansas, then you don't believe we are a single nation.

And if you don't believe we are a single nation, then quite frankly, go fuck yourself.





Blah blah blah something something states rights. This is an extension of the "fuck you, I've got mine" argument, and as such, lacks both merit and substance.

- - - Updated - - -


Sure, I don't disagree that a lot of states are in a bad place because of the people who run them. But slapping them down is less likely to result in positive growth than extending a helping hand. It is more likely to foster resentment and either rebellion (because poor people have little to lose and much to gain) or a refugee crisis as those states collapse and their people move elsewhere.

It is neither logical nor beneficial to not act in harmony with your neighbors.



There are substantial benefits to a union. If California and New York align to raise wages for everyone, Wyoming benefits. It is good for California and New York that Wyoming benefits, because an improved Wyoming produces better for California and New York. Wyoming will never be on par with California and New York, it just can't. There aren't enough people, there aren't enough resources, there aren't appropriate facilities and there isn't access to large trading facilities such as ports and major airports.

Like, the Jr Machine Operator may never be as good as the Sr Machine Operator II. But the Jr Operator still provides a function that is necessary to overall operations. Because of this, the Sr Operators should be willing to push for things that benefit the Jr Operator. You can't simply tell all the lower-ranking people to fuck off...because then you're screwing your whole company.

Skroe is not being rational on this subject and frankly he never has been. His argument is rooted in deep-red wealthy conservative fundamentals of "fuck the poor". It comes out in his arguments on military spending, his arguments on states rights, his arguments on government welfare spending and more. They are quite frankly, highly emotional, illogical arguments that rely heavily on the fact that he is wealthy and doesn't give a shit if his fellow Americans prosper or not.

Waaaaa someone doesn't agree with me waAaaa

[cubby]

These figures are laughably made up, and have no basis in any proposed legislation. I sort of can't believe so many would discuss what are entirely made up stats.

Ah Lil TJ - welcome back! How long with this stint last - no one knows!

Are you going to offer any sources showing these cited figures are wrong or is this just more of your usual diatribe bullshit?

[Zan15]

Good thing Obamacare made healthcare affordable for the middle class.

wait it was affordable before obamacare?
what magical unicorn gave you insurance?

- - - Updated - - -

[QUOTE=Skroe;47504865]I'm fine with the cuts to Medicare and Medicaid. The rest, not so much.

Friendly reminder:


Since 2014 (3 years), Medicare outlays have added up to an annual of three NASA budget's worth of spending.

Healthcare spending should be shifted to the States and paid for with higher State taxes. There are other things the Federal Government should be spending our Federal Tax Dollars on.

Slay the Great Beast.





how do you cut something people are already paying into to cover the cost? i mean its a specific tax, to pay for medicare nothing else....

umm btw medicare outlays are way above Nasa Budget of 18 billion

Adjusted Baseline Outlays, Net of Offsetting Receipts 511b 535b 592b


Total expenditures in 2015 were $647.6 billion, and total income was $644.4 billion, which consisted of $633.9 billion in non-interest income
and $10.5 billion in interest earnings.


So the system is still almost collecting more money then its paying out and you want them to cut Medicare?


if anything you could increase the amount collected slowly to keep up with the baby boomer growth, and then reduce in 20 years when they start dropping like flies and we have waaaaaaaaaaay more money in medicare system then we could spend.


So you are saying every state should manage their own medicare system? ya i can't imagine how much more expensive that will be.


As for other things it should be spending on, maybe the military??? lol.....would love to know what.

[Jeezy911]

Nothing biased about this thread. I never understood why the left demonized cooperation's. Yea they can be ingenious pieces of shit and there is certainly some tax loophole laws that need to be changed, but without them America is not an economic superpower. The goal of any Business is to make money in a capitalistic society, whether that's fair or not to some people doesn't matter.

[Zan15]

These figures are laughably made up, and have no basis in any proposed legislation. I sort of can't believe so many would discuss what are entirely made up stats.

devil in the details, i like how you substantiate this post with "proposed legislation"

let us know when they get around to it, these are numbers based on the actual facts presented and available.
they are simple math and not hard to figure out so i am not sure what you are going on about.

[Kujako]

I like how a 3.1% increase over 15 years (0.6% of GPD) doubles the size of the bar. Funny stuff.

[Tijuana]

devil in the details, i like how you substantiate this post with "proposed legislation"

let us know when they get around to it, these are numbers based on the actual facts presented and available.
they are simple math and not hard to figure out so i am not sure what you are going on about.

Do you legit not understand my point? WOW

Ok, let me slow this down for you. The OP has a chart of all these things that OP is saying are bad. Except, there is a bunch of stuff on the list, that is not current law, and is not part of any proposed law. It's literally a chart full of straw men. If you read it, it's not even all data based. It's largely an opinion chart, denouncing things that are factually not being proposed.

Did you even read the chart???

[Zan15]

Do you legit not understand my point? WOW

Ok, let me slow this down for you. The OP has a chart of all these things that OP is saying are bad. Except, there is a bunch of stuff on the list, that is not current law, and is not part of any proposed law. It's literally a chart full of straw men. If you read it, it's not even all data based. It's largely an opinion chart, denouncing things that are factually not being proposed.

Did you even read the chart???

i not only read the chart but the corresponding data presented in the PDF

https://americansfortaxfairness.org/...-just-voted-on

did you?

and where is your counter facts? Can you give us some links?

can you name some things that are not being proposed? What is opinion on the chart vs actual proposed?






Here is their sources

Endnotes
1 Tax Policy Center (TPC), “A Preliminary Analysis of the Unified Framework” (Sept. 29, 2017).
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/sites...ramework_0.pdf
2
Ibid., p. 2 and Table 1.
3
Ibid. p. 7, Table 1. The net business tax cut of $2.648 trillion is made up of $3.041 trillion in tax cuts that are partially offset by
$393 billion in revenue raisers. $2.949 trillion in tax cuts for individuals (including the estate tax cut of $240 billion) are nearly fully
paid for with $3.182 billion in new revenue.
4
Ibid., p. 13, Table B1.
5
Ibid., pp. 9-10, Tables 2 and 3. “Middle class” is defined as those in the “Middle quintile” of each table.
6 Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), “House GOP Budget Cuts Programs Aiding Low- and Moderate-Income People
by $2.9 Trillion Over Decade” (Revised Sept. 5, 2017). https://www.cbpp.org/research/federa...e-people-by-29
7 Social Security Administration (SSA), “Monthly Statistical Snapshot, June 2017” (July 2017), Table 3.
https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/quic...stat_snapshot/
8 CBPP, “House GOP Budget,” p. 4.
9 TPC, “Preliminary Analysis,” p. 7, Table 1. Corporate rate cut includes repealing the corporate Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT).
10 TPC, “Would Workers Benefit from A Corporate Tax Cut? Not Much” (Sept. 8, 2017).
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxvo...x-cut-not-much
11 Americans for Tax Fairness and Economic Policy Institute, “Corporate Tax Chartbook: How Corporations Rig the Rules to
Dodge the Taxes They Owe” (Sept. 2016), Figure 2. Estimates are measured as a share of the economy (GDP).
http://www.epi.org/publication/corpo...axes-they-owe/
12 CBPP, “House GOP Budget.”
13 TPC, “Preliminary Analysis,” p. 7, Table 1.
14 Ibid., p. 9, Table 2. “Middle class” is defined as those in the “Middle quintile” of the table.
15 CBPP, “House GOP Budget,” p. 4.
16 Congressional Budget Office, “Cost Estimate: H.R. 1628 - American Health Care Act” (May 24, 2017), p. 16.
https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/115...28aspassed.pdf
17 CBPP, “House GOP Budget,” p. 4.
18 TPC, “Preliminary Analysis,” p. 7, Table 1. See “Limit individual tax rate on pass-through income to 25%.” This estimate
includes revenue lost to high-paid employees re-characterizing their salaries as business income.
19 TPC, “T17-0078 - Sources of Flow-Through Business Income by Statutory Marginal Tax Rate; Current Law, 2017” (March
2017). http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/model...hroughbusiness
20 TPC, “Options to Reduce the Taxation of Pass-through Income” (May 15, 2017), p. 8.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/sites...ugh-income.pdf
21 Ibid.
22 CBPP, “House Budget Cuts, Restructures Medicare.” https://www.cbpp.org/blog/house-budg...tures-medicare
23 Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, “Fortune 500 Companies Hold a Record $2.6 Trillion Offshore” (March 2017).
http://www.itep.org/pdf/pre0327.pdf
24 TPC, “Preliminary Analysis,” p. 7, Table 1. See “One-time deemed repatriation tax at reduced rates.”
25 CBPP, “House GOP Budget,” p. 4.
26 TPC, “Preliminary Analysis,” p. 7, Table 1. See “Repeal individual alternative minimum tax.”
27 NYT, “Trump Wrote off $100 Million in Losses in 2005, Leaked Returns Show” (March 14, 2017).
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/14/u...=top-news&_r=1
28 NYT, “A.M.T., Which Hit Trump in 2005, Is No One’s Favorite” (March 15, 2017).
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/15/b...nimum-tax.html
29 CBPP, “House GOP Budget,” p. 5.
30 TPC, “Preliminary Analysis,” p. 7, Table 1. See “Repeal estate and GST taxes.”
31 CBPP, “Ten Facts You Should Know About the Federal Estate Tax” (May 5, 2017). https://www.cbpp.org/research/federa...ral-estate-tax
32 Ibid.
33 TPC, “Briefing Book: Who pays the estate tax?” http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/brief...ays-estate-tax
34 CBPP, “House GOP Budget,” p. 4.
35 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program FY14-FY17 National
View Summary, April 2017 (July 7, 2017). https://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/suppleme...e-program-snap
36 CBPP, “SNAP Helps Millions of Children” (April 26, 2017).
https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-a...ns-of-children

[Tijuana]

i not only read the chart but the corresponding data presented in the PDF

https://americansfortaxfairness.org/...-just-voted-on

did you?

and where is your counter facts? Can you give us some links?

can you name some things that are not being proposed? What is opinion on the chart vs actual proposed?






Here is their sources

Endnotes
1 Tax Policy Center (TPC), “A Preliminary Analysis of the Unified Framework” (Sept. 29, 2017).
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/sites...ramework_0.pdf
2
Ibid., p. 2 and Table 1.
3
Ibid. p. 7, Table 1. The net business tax cut of $2.648 trillion is made up of $3.041 trillion in tax cuts that are partially offset by
$393 billion in revenue raisers. $2.949 trillion in tax cuts for individuals (including the estate tax cut of $240 billion) are nearly fully
paid for with $3.182 billion in new revenue.
4
Ibid., p. 13, Table B1.
5
Ibid., pp. 9-10, Tables 2 and 3. “Middle class” is defined as those in the “Middle quintile” of each table.
6 Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), “House GOP Budget Cuts Programs Aiding Low- and Moderate-Income People
by $2.9 Trillion Over Decade” (Revised Sept. 5, 2017). https://www.cbpp.org/research/federa...e-people-by-29
7 Social Security Administration (SSA), “Monthly Statistical Snapshot, June 2017” (July 2017), Table 3.
https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/quic...stat_snapshot/
8 CBPP, “House GOP Budget,” p. 4.
9 TPC, “Preliminary Analysis,” p. 7, Table 1. Corporate rate cut includes repealing the corporate Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT).
10 TPC, “Would Workers Benefit from A Corporate Tax Cut? Not Much” (Sept. 8, 2017).
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxvo...x-cut-not-much
11 Americans for Tax Fairness and Economic Policy Institute, “Corporate Tax Chartbook: How Corporations Rig the Rules to
Dodge the Taxes They Owe” (Sept. 2016), Figure 2. Estimates are measured as a share of the economy (GDP).
http://www.epi.org/publication/corpo...axes-they-owe/
12 CBPP, “House GOP Budget.”
13 TPC, “Preliminary Analysis,” p. 7, Table 1.
14 Ibid., p. 9, Table 2. “Middle class” is defined as those in the “Middle quintile” of the table.
15 CBPP, “House GOP Budget,” p. 4.
16 Congressional Budget Office, “Cost Estimate: H.R. 1628 - American Health Care Act” (May 24, 2017), p. 16.
https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/115...28aspassed.pdf
17 CBPP, “House GOP Budget,” p. 4.
18 TPC, “Preliminary Analysis,” p. 7, Table 1. See “Limit individual tax rate on pass-through income to 25%.” This estimate
includes revenue lost to high-paid employees re-characterizing their salaries as business income.
19 TPC, “T17-0078 - Sources of Flow-Through Business Income by Statutory Marginal Tax Rate; Current Law, 2017” (March
2017). http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/model...hroughbusiness
20 TPC, “Options to Reduce the Taxation of Pass-through Income” (May 15, 2017), p. 8.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/sites...ugh-income.pdf
21 Ibid.
22 CBPP, “House Budget Cuts, Restructures Medicare.” https://www.cbpp.org/blog/house-budg...tures-medicare
23 Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, “Fortune 500 Companies Hold a Record $2.6 Trillion Offshore” (March 2017).
http://www.itep.org/pdf/pre0327.pdf
24 TPC, “Preliminary Analysis,” p. 7, Table 1. See “One-time deemed repatriation tax at reduced rates.”
25 CBPP, “House GOP Budget,” p. 4.
26 TPC, “Preliminary Analysis,” p. 7, Table 1. See “Repeal individual alternative minimum tax.”
27 NYT, “Trump Wrote off $100 Million in Losses in 2005, Leaked Returns Show” (March 14, 2017).
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/14/u...=top-news&_r=1
28 NYT, “A.M.T., Which Hit Trump in 2005, Is No One’s Favorite” (March 15, 2017).
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/15/b...nimum-tax.html
29 CBPP, “House GOP Budget,” p. 5.
30 TPC, “Preliminary Analysis,” p. 7, Table 1. See “Repeal estate and GST taxes.”
31 CBPP, “Ten Facts You Should Know About the Federal Estate Tax” (May 5, 2017). https://www.cbpp.org/research/federa...ral-estate-tax
32 Ibid.
33 TPC, “Briefing Book: Who pays the estate tax?” http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/brief...ays-estate-tax
34 CBPP, “House GOP Budget,” p. 4.
35 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program FY14-FY17 National
View Summary, April 2017 (July 7, 2017). https://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/suppleme...e-program-snap
36 CBPP, “SNAP Helps Millions of Children” (April 26, 2017).
https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-a...ns-of-children

Almost every one of the items on this list, is a partisan declaration of opinion.