Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 80
  1. #26
    Millennial Messiah UNT Eagles 2016's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Post Count
    16,222
    lol bumping an 11 year old thread

  2. #27
    Veteran SpursforSix's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Post Count
    21,158
    lol bumping an 11 year old thread
    Seems like he's spending a lot of time doing that.

  3. #28
    Believe. Pavlov's Avatar
    My Team
    Los Angeles Lakers
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Post Count
    41,752
    Apparently Obama thought so.

    You apparently are insinuating I am a hypocrite for taking advantage of the EV tax credits that were available, but I am totally OK with that. I am even OK with paying professionals to do everything legally possible to limit my tax liability. I'm pretty sure I still pay a LOT more taxes than you do so I don't feel the slightest shred of guilt.
    I am flat out saying that you don't give a about deficits at all and should just shut the up about them. I'm also saying you're an insecure hypocrite.

  4. #29
    Mr. John Wayne CosmicCowboy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    43,734
    I am flat out saying that you don't give a about deficits at all and should just shut the up about them. I'm also saying you're an insecure hypocrite.


    LOL I got Chumpy all riled up. I pay over $100K in federal taxes every year so I'm doing more than my 'fair share".

  5. #30
    Believe. Pavlov's Avatar
    My Team
    Los Angeles Lakers
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Post Count
    41,752


    LOL I got Chumpy all riled up. I pay over $100K in federal taxes every year so I'm doing more than my 'fair share".


    LOL I got CC all riled up proving he doesn't give a about deficits. All he can talk about now is muh money.

  6. #31
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    Seems like he's spending a lot of time doing that.
    Dug deep around page 600.

    It was a fascinating dive into what was going on when Obama first got elected.

    Found a ton of ironic posts from conservatives who had a lot of cogent criticisms of Obama, but who STFU when Trump goes 100 times further.

  7. #32
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    lol bumping an 11 year old thread
    You're welcome.

  8. #33
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    Deficits are bad. Period. Also unsustainable over the long term, but what the ...lets just give free tuition, free health care, green dream etc.

    Random Guy is all in.
    No way man. Raise taxes to pay for it all. No deficits required.

    Roll back the tax cuts, and roll up a modest increase on top of that.

    It isn't difficult.

  9. #34
    Veteran SpursforSix's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Post Count
    21,158
    Dug deep around page 600.

    It was a fascinating dive into what was going on when Obama first got elected.

    Found a ton of ironic posts from conservatives who had a lot of cogent criticisms of Obama, but who STFU when Trump goes 100 times further.
    (shrugs) (farts)

    Btw...I think you mean "hypocritical", not "ironic". But the hypocrisy runs deep on both sides.

    (belches)

  10. #35
    Mr. John Wayne CosmicCowboy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    43,734
    No way man. Raise taxes to pay for it all. No deficits required.

    Roll back the tax cuts, and roll up a modest increase on top of that.

    It isn't difficult.
    modest?

    Some estimates I have seen would call for doubling the tax rate top to bottom.

  11. #36
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    modest?

    Some estimates I have seen would call for doubling the tax rate top to bottom.
    Meh. "some estimates".

    Even if we don't do any of these things, we will still have to raise taxes to pay for the 3-4 trillion dollars more in debt that Crooked Donny Bonespurs is piling up.

    National health insurance would cost less than our current system, so we would end up collectively better off.

  12. #37
    Millennial Messiah UNT Eagles 2016's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Post Count
    16,222
    No way man. Raise taxes to pay for it all. No deficits required.

    Roll back the tax cuts, and roll up a modest increase on top of that.

    It isn't difficult.
    95% marginal tax on all personal income over $1 Million?

    How about corporate net income... 90% tax on all corporate net income over $10 Million?

  13. #38
    Mr. John Wayne CosmicCowboy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    43,734
    Meh. "some estimates".

    Even if we don't do any of these things, we will still have to raise taxes to pay for the 3-4 trillion dollars more in debt that Crooked Donny Bonespurs is piling up.

    National health insurance would cost less than our current system, so we would end up collectively better off.
    a July 2018 report by Charles Blahous, senior research strategist at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. Blahous served as a public trustee for Social Security and Medicare from 2010-'15.

    The center is described as a non-profit free-market-oriented research, education, and outreach think tank. Blahous’ expertise includes domestic economic policy, federal fiscal policy and health care programs.

    According to Blahous’ report, Sanders’ "Medicare for all" bill "would under conservative estimates increase federal budget commitments by approximately $32.6 trillion during its first 10 years of full implementation (2022–2031), assuming enactment in 2018."

    In the report, Blahous wrote that "doubling all currently projected federal individual and corporate income tax collections would be insufficient to finance the added federal costs of the plan. In a Wall Street Journal commentary, Blahous wrote.

    "My projection generously assumes the plan would succeed in lowering prescription-drug costs and that administrative costs would somehow be less than half what they are among private insurers. Most important, it assumes Medicare for All would successfully cut all health-care provider payments down to Medicare’s reimbursement rates, which are more than 40% lower than private insurance rates — and even below providers’ costs of delivering services."

  14. #39
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    [tired saw about medicare for all from an op-ed]
    So how much would be saved on health insurance premiums? Does your "some estimate" provide that?

    If not, then why do you think they omitted that data?

    Conservatives, in general, cannot rationally or honestly discuss this topic, so I don't expect you to answer either question. My guess is that you will simply shift to another talking point.

  15. #40
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    95% marginal tax on all personal income over $1 Million?

    How about corporate net income... 90% tax on all corporate net income over $10 Million?
    Don't need taxes that high. That seems vastly too extreme, and counterproductive.

  16. #41
    Mr. John Wayne CosmicCowboy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    43,734
    So how much would be saved on health insurance premiums? Does your "some estimate" provide that?

    If not, then why do you think they omitted that data?

    Conservatives in general, cannot rationally, or honestly discuss this topic, so I don't expect you to answer either question. My guess is that you will simply shift to another talking point.
    Sorry, just read the summary, not the full report. I read the current average of health care costs per person is around $10,500. Obviously if your taxes go up less than that your are a winner, if they go up more than that you are a loser. You clearly are in the camp of "soak the rich" and I can understand that since you personally expect to receive more benefits than you will have to pay for in taxes. It's understandable human nature.

  17. #42
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    So how much would be saved on health insurance premiums? Does your "some estimate" provide that?

    If not, then why do you think they omitted that data?

    Conservatives in general, cannot rationally, or honestly discuss this topic, so I don't expect you to answer either question. My guess is that you will simply shift to another talking point.
    Sorry, just read the summary, not the full report. I read the current average of health care costs per person is around $10,500. Obviously if you taxes go up less than that your are a winner, if they go up more than that you are a loser. You clearly are in the camp of "soak the rich" and I can understand that since you personally expect to receive more benefits than you will have to pay for. It's understandable human nature.
    So, you answered neither question, and shifted to another talking point not only irrelevant to the merits of the policy, but actively committing a logical fallacy in the process.
    Last edited by RandomGuy; 05-02-2019 at 04:55 PM. Reason: civility.

  18. #43
    Believe. Pavlov's Avatar
    My Team
    Los Angeles Lakers
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Post Count
    41,752
    Classic CosmicCowpie subject change

  19. #44
    Mr. John Wayne CosmicCowboy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    43,734
    So, you answered neither question, and shifted to another talking point irrelevant to the merits of the policy.

    Conservatives cannot honestly discuss this topic. Sad to see so many simply stop caring about facts or truth.

    At least we know where you stand. Any lie is ok.
    like I said, I didn't read the full report, just the summary. I don't know if they did or did not omit that data, but I addressed your point and answered your question.

    Assuming universal health care is paid for by tax increases some will benefit financially from universal health care because they receive more benefits than they pay in taxes. Some won't because they pay more in taxes than they receive in benefits. It's really pretty obvious.

  20. #45
    Believe. Pavlov's Avatar
    My Team
    Los Angeles Lakers
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Post Count
    41,752
    Um, doesn't every beneficiary of health insurance benefit from health insurance?

  21. #46
    Mr. John Wayne CosmicCowboy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    43,734
    I get that you and chumpster are in the "soak the rich" category because you anticipate you will benefit, since it's "them" and not "you". It's only human nature.

  22. #47
    Mr. John Wayne CosmicCowboy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    43,734
    Um, doesn't every beneficiary of health insurance benefit from health insurance?
    Not necessarily. A healthy person that pays for insurance (or whose taxes go up to pay for it) and doesn't use it (because they are healthy) doesn't benefit from insurance.

  23. #48
    Believe. Pavlov's Avatar
    My Team
    Los Angeles Lakers
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Post Count
    41,752
    Not necessarily. A healthy person that pays for insurance and doesn't use it (because they are healthy) doesn't benefit from insurance.
    Which is why I used the word beneficiaries and put it in italics.

    Doesn't every beneficiary of health insurance benefit from health insurance?

    It's almost as if those beneficiaries benefit from the premiums pooled from them and other premium payers.

    Wow!

  24. #49
    Mr. John Wayne CosmicCowboy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    43,734
    Which is why I used the word beneficiaries and put it in italics.

    Doesn't every beneficiary of health insurance benefit from health insurance?
    What the are you trying to say? Please rephrase your question. I gave you a perfect example of someone who is not a beneficiary of insurance.

  25. #50
    Mr. John Wayne CosmicCowboy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    43,734
    Which is why I used the word beneficiaries and put it in italics.

    Doesn't every beneficiary of health insurance benefit from health insurance?

    It's almost as if those beneficiaries benefit from the premiums pooled from them and other premium payers.

    Wow!
    Oh...back to your asinine circular argument of pooled risk. All pooled insurance risks/premiums have winners and losers. Not to mention the house rake off the top.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •