Reply With Quote
LOL "the media"
Someday the right in this country will quit using that as a scapegoat for why no one likes their ty policies and ty candidates.
LOL... poor Bernie.
LOL "the media"
Someday the right in this country will quit using that as a scapegoat for why no one likes their ty policies and ty candidates.
what level would you be taxed at?
How would that be worse than the ed plans to cut taxes and run up more record deficits and debt by the GOP clowns crowd?
http://www.economist.com/news/leader...ir-contents-be
I always get a kick out of pointing out how fiscally irresponsible the GOP is when you give them governments.the plans’ central chapters: huge tax cuts for high earners. At 39.6%, America’s top federal income-tax rate is hardly high by global standards. Yet the candidates are racing to see who can promise to cut it most. Mr Bush aims for 28%; Mr Trump 25%. Ted Cruz wants to replace income tax entirely with a 10% flat tax and a value-added tax. Mr Rubio, whose promise of a 35% top rate seems timid by comparison, serves up largesse elsewhere by promising to abolish levies on capital gains and dividends.
The first problem with these schemes is their cost. On today’s growth forecasts, even Mr Bush’s relatively moderate plan would reduce revenues by $715 billion, or 13.5%, a year by 2026—more than the projected national defence budget. Paying for Mr Trump’s plan with reduced day-to-day spending (as opposed to mandatory spending on things like pensions and health care) would require cutting budgets by a staggering 82%.
The candidates claim that tax cuts will spur the economy, filling the government’s coffers with new revenue. But the pace of any economic acceleration is uncertain. The evidence that income-tax cuts for high earners boost growth is thin at best. Predictions that tax cuts in the early 2000s would cause enough growth to pay for themselves look foolish today.
This is no time to be taking chances with America’s budget. Retiring baby-boomers are increasing the cost of providing pensions and health care for the old. There is no appe e among Republicans for defence cuts, and other day-to-day spending has already been cut by 22% in real terms since 2010. If tax cuts were paid for with more borrowing rather than lower spending, they would end up as deadweight for the economy rather than as fuel
Bush's tax cuts and his 2T+ invasion of Iraq have added more to the debt and your taxes than anything Democrats have done in the last 20 years, Obamacare included.
\Bush's tax cuts and his 2T+ invasion of Iraq have added more to the debt and your taxes than anything Democrats have done in the last 20 years, Obamacare included
Don't forget Medicare D.....all unfunded of course...
Medicare D and Medicare Advantage fund BigPharma and BigInsurnace. Medicare Advantage costs taxpayers 10%+ more than Medicare.
Single-payer health plan wouldn't cost U.S. more
In our "read my lips/over my dead body" political culture, the threat of tax increases usually shuts down proposals for single-payer national health insurance. Lately, conservative pundits - and even liberals like Hillary Clinton - have been repeating the mantra that single-payer insurance would break the bank.
Never mind that Canadians, Australians, and Western Europeans spend about half what we do on health care, enjoy universal coverage, and are healthier. Their health-care taxes are higher.
Or are they? According to our study in the current issue of the American Journal of Public Health, American taxpayers picked up 65 percent of the total health-care tab last year - a figure that will soon rise to 67 percent.
We paid $2.1 trillion in taxes to fund health care - $6,560 per person. That's more per capita than Canadians or people in any other nation pay. Indeed, our tax-financed health-care bill is higher than total health spending (private as well as public) in any other nation except Switzerland.
Official accounts from agencies like the Department of Health and Human Services peg taxpayers' share of U.S. health spending at about 45 percent, a figure that includes Medicare, Medicaid, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Veterans Affairs. However, this kind of tally omits two important items.
First, it leaves out government spending to buy private health coverage for public employees like teachers, firefighters, and members of Congress. Indeed, government employers account for 28 percent of all employer health spending.
Second, it excludes tax subsidies for private employer-paid plans and other privately paid care - $326 billion last year - that mainly benefit affluent families.
Omitting these government expenditures from the official health-spending tabulations obscures the fact that our health-care system is already about two-thirds publicly funded. In contrast, the Office of Management and Budget, not to mention most health-policy experts, considers tax subsidies for private insurance to be tax expenditures.
Even many uninsured families pay thousands of dollars in taxes for the health care of others.
More than one-third of these tax dollars meander through private insurers on the way to the bedside. These private insurers siphon off 12 percent for their overhead and profits (vs. 2 percent in the Medicare program) and also inflict huge paperwork costs on doctors and hospitals. A shift to single-payer national health insurance would save at least $400 billion annually on paperwork alone, enough to cover all of the uninsured and eliminate co-payments and deductibles for the rest of us.
That means a national single-payer plan wouldn't cost Americans any more than we're currently spending. Moreover, the taxes to pay for it would be fully offset by the savings from eliminating private insurance premiums.
Moving from our current level of tax financing, 65 percent, to Canada's 70.7 percent would mean a tax increase of about $185 billion per year. But Americans would save at least that much on premiums. The vast majority of American households would come out ahead financially, and everyone would be covered.
Drug and insurance firms that would lose billions under single-payer health coverage generously fund its detractors (including Clinton, who has gotten more health-industry dollars than any other presidential candidate). These naysayers suggest that a single-payer plan (or "Medicare for all," as Bernie Sanders likes to call it) would downgrade Americans' coverage, and they also raise the specter of big tax increases.
But a national single-payer plan would give all Americans the first-dollar coverage enjoyed by Canadians and Brits, and guarantee them a free choice of doctors and hospitals - a choice that private insurers currently deny to many of us.
Surprisingly, American taxpayers already pay enough to fund national health insurance. We just don't get it.
http://mobile.philly.com/beta?wss=%2...n&id=367751861
And Ouch!
At some point an individual human American must press a button in a voting "booth"
or write in a name.
Blame it on US.
And that's the bottom line.
All the you put up free on this site and all of the Koch brother's/Soros $ carpet bombing does not press the GD button.
you don't understand that pushing the goddam button is irrelevant. Citizens are disenfranchised. They lost the vote.
The politicians do what their donors want, not what voters want.
Princeton Study: U.S. No Longer An Actual Democracy
A new study from Princeton spells bad news for American democracy—namely, that it no longer exists.
Asking "[w]ho really rules?" researchers Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page argues that over the past few decades America's political system has slowly transformed from a democracy into an oligarchy, where wealthy elites wield most power.
Using data drawn from over 1,800 different policy initiatives from 1981 to 2002, the two conclude that rich, well-connected individuals on the political scene now steer the direction of the country, regardless of or even against the will of the majority of voters.
"The central point that emerges from our research is that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy," they write, "while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence."
As one illustration, Gilens and Page compare the political preferences of Americans at the 50th income percentile to preferences of Americans at the 90th percentile as well as major lobbying or business groups. They find that the government—whether Republican or Democratic—more often follows the preferences of the latter group rather than the first.
The researches note that this is not a new development caused by, say, recent Supreme Court decisions allowing more money in politics, such as Citizens United or this month's ruling onMcCutcheon v. FEC. As the data stretching back to the 1980s suggests, this has been a long term trend, and is therefore harder for most people to perceive, let alone reverse.
"Ordinary citizens," they write, "might often be observed to 'win' (that is, to get their preferred policy outcomes) even if they had no independent effect whatsoever on policy making, if elites (with whom they often agree) actually prevail."
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewir...nger-democracy
No you wouldnt.
Why do you think I wouldn't protest in the streets.
When's the last time you saw millionaires and other high income earners protesting in the streets?
Now you're kidding me. You think a stay at home mom who's homeschooled for years and lived on one income is a high income earner?
I have no clue what you're talking about. But if you're going to be protesting Bernie's tax rates (which you self admitted, would never get through congress, right?) then you pretty much must be upper middle class and beyond. It's those people who Bernie wants to contribute significantly more, not "stay at home moms."
Everyone under $250,000 will pay 8.8% more - even those in the lowest tax bracket (under $18,550). These people already qualify for Medicaid and get financial aid if they go to college. This will hurt them disproportionately.
All this comes down to is choice in how to spend MY money. That 8.8% might be the difference between me being able to stay home or having to go out and work - and for what? free college tuition? I've already saved for my kids' college but I would be forced to give up my lifestyle to pay for others' college. Instead of that 8.8% going toward my retirement, it'll be commandeered to pay for some one else's college? How about everyone earn their own money and pay for their own stuff?
A lot of people from the rest of the world want to come to the US because of the freedom we enjoy. Why in the world do people want to turn America into the rest of the world? And give up our freedom? Because that's what it results in - less money in my pocket means less freedom to spend it how I choose.
You do realize America is $20 trillion in debt, right?
I am extremely aware that America is $20 trillion in debt. We can't even afford what we have now and you want to add more obligations like healthcare, college tuition and parental leave? Does anything the government gets into ever run within budget? This is not even touching on Medicare and Social Security.
Oh, now youre so worried about the national debt. Sounds a lot like you would protest in the streets about paying your fair share to dig us out of this hole.
Ps, medicare and a single payer UHC system are what Bernie wants to consolidate. You are so afraid of the symptoms of the problem you dont even realize what the actual cause is.
You are the one who brought up the national debt. The additional 8.8% tax that I was talking about was for the healthcare, college tuition and parental leave. I already pay my fair share - the government MISUSED it and now we're supposed to hand over more taxes for more obligations. All these obligations will do is further expand the debt.
No, youre not paying your fair share. None of us are. And corporate America and Wall Street, the ppl youre really defending (whether you want to accept it or not) with your undying allegiancre, certainly arent.
Why do you hate your fellow Americans? Why do you want to keep taxes low and hold on to your money as greedily as possible when our nation needs you to do the opposite?
Where is the money we've contributed all these years to Social Security and Medicare? Is it being invested by the government and waiting for us when we retire? At the rate they are going, it's going to be bankrupt by the time I reach retirement age. And you want me to turn over more money for the government's promises? I am defending myself for the choice to spend my money the way I want - not have it confiscated by the government for them to waste. I believe that I am a better steward of that money than the government. I do not agree that taxes are low.
I do not hate my fellow Americans - I hold them in very high regard (especially since I believe they are children of God). That's why the direction this country is going in alarms me. It is frightening how many young people are buying into this free this and free that - nothing is for free. And it does them no good to think that they can get something for nothing. They are better served being encouraged to work hard and value the efforts of their work. If they don't work for it - they will not value it. And the people who it's taken from will resent it. What do you suppose the really rich people who will be taxed at a very high rate will do? Do you think they'll stay in the US?
And what about people like Danny Green who earn a high income for a short time? You're okay with him being taxed at 77%?
Absolutely. Every single millionaire needs to be heavily taxed. And unfortunatepy, you keep repeating this free that free this matra as of its true. No, we agree higher taxes are necessary to CATCH UP TO THE REST OF THE WESTERN WORLD. Your children of god statement only proves that you are still caught in the age old pr9paganda of "our country is better thaj everyone elses because GOD".
Sorry, its not. Were being passed by, being bankrupted by paying for wars on drugs and terrorists we cant afford while puppets like you want to keep the status quo.
You are part of the problem. You are the selfish fool standing the way of progress. You can say you love america all you want, but judging by your actions, you are nothing but selfish. We are 20 trillion in debt. Honestly, you dont want america to be the greatest nation on earth again. Period. Talk the talking points all you want, but we see right through you.
Where did you get these figures? Link please.
A hilariously simplistic view of local and global economics. The income tax increase, which I don't think will be 8.8%, will go towards universal healthcare. Paying for college tuition would come from some sort of high risk speculation tax, which admittedly doesn't make a ton of sense.All this comes down to is choice in how to spend MY money. That 8.8% might be the difference between me being able to stay home or having to go out and work - and for what? free college tuition? I've already saved for my kids' college but I would be forced to give up my lifestyle to pay for others' college. Instead of that 8.8% going toward my retirement, it'll be commandeered to pay for some one else's college? How about everyone earn their own money and pay for their own stuff?
Wow. If you had a better education (say for instance in one of the countries ahead of us in education) you would understand that your statement is a false equivalency. A false equivalency brainwashed into republicans/conservatives for decades.A lot of people from the rest of the world want to come to the US because of the freedom we enjoy. Why in the world do people want to turn America into the rest of the world? And give up our freedom? Because that's what it results in - less money in my pocket means less freedom to spend it how I choose.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
