Thanks, Luck box Inc.

I know this is from page 1 of the thread, but here is a nice chart:



I would not rely on a single news source, because of the known bias.

Here is the link to the site: https://www.adfontesmedia.com/

human scum.

lmgtfy

You shouldn't use any news source outside the green circle.

Thread, Dumber thought:

1) thinking you can judge if a tax cut is successful within a couple years of it taking place
Or
2) thinking foreign interfere in US elections are new and/or can be stopped

I have no idea how Mr. Bolton “I am not part of whatever drug deal" got onto the first page.

a trillion dollar deficit now and increasing as far as they eye can see is a prelude to that promised 5 percent growth. and revenue will increase and trickle down. just give it a few years.

wtf?

Winning is easier when you report the score.




PairTheBoard

Ok since we are talking about budget deficits let’s look at the”Green New Deal” and “Medicare For All”.


Since the “Green New Deal” includes “Universal Healthcare” then the cost of Medicare for all is included in this.

Quote:

Green New Deal
In February 2019, the centre-right American Action Forum, estimated that the plan could cost between $51–$93 trillion over the next decade.[63] They estimate its potential cost at $600,000 per household.[64] The organization estimated the cost for eliminating carbon emissions from the transportation system at $1.3–2.7 trillion; guaranteeing a job to every American $6.8–44.6 trillion; universal health care estimated close to $36 trillion.[65] According to Bloomberg Businessweek, Wall Street is willing to invest significant resources toward GND programs, but not unless Congress commits to moving it forward.[66]

Let’s say that these estimates are too high and that the cost will be $25 trillion over 10 years. Federal government revenue will have to approach increasing by 100% to accommodate this program and eliminate the budget deficit. How would you recommend raising the revenue to fund this program and eliminate the budget deficit.

im not really up on it tbh, green new deal or the cost of this health care stuff, but first question that i have is how much would folks spend on doctors visits and drugs and health insurance during that time?

This is from the report that the AAF cost of M4A comes from:

This is the major issue I see with budgetary arguments against M4A. Assuming all healthcare costs become government spending, $2.5 trillion a year is actually a reduction of $700 billion over the current total costs of healthcare (current is ~17% of GDP, roughly $3.2 trillion). I would actually say that the economic arguments for tax cuts apply just as much to raising taxes to establish M4A as they do for tax cuts. Raising taxes but providing M4A will leave (most) people with more disposable income and therefore benefit the economy in the way people claim tax cuts are supposed to.

This is a derail though, if you actually want to discuss GND/M4A we should probably have a different thread for it.

Are you comparing what Clinton did to what Trump did?

Both sides are rhe same, guize!!!1!1

Yeah, because there are no other variable to how much (if any) the deficit will be than tax rates.

Doubling down on the small sample size of a few years while also ignoring other variables. How did you come to be on a poker website?


Not sure about the exact number on what individuals will pay for doctor visits, drugs and health INS but if history* is any indication it will be more that what they are currently paying.**

*Please see the correlation between what government "helps" people pay for and the inflation of those items (healthcare costs, college education, etc.)

**This is not true if you believe in the tooth fairy or believe government creates money out of thin air and aren't taking people's money via taxes to pay healthcare costs and.

The US government already pays more per person than all other countries that have full single-payer systems. It is pretty much undeniable that the American healthcare system is both horrendous from a humanitarian point of view while also being incredibly inefficient from an economical point of view.

The only legitimate argument to not move to single payer imo is that the transition would be incredibly disruptive. Arguments that it would be more expensive in the long term revolve entirely around hypotheticals because there is no reality from which to draw actual evidence, since literally every other developed nation does healthcare more cost-effectively than the US.

The US government already pays more per person than all other countries that DO NOT have full single-payer systems. It is pretty much undeniable that the American healthcare system is both horrendous from a humanitarian point of view while also being incredibly inefficient from an economical point of view.

Sad but true.

Is this supposed to be pointing out a flaw in my argument? Because the only obvious takeaway from this is that the current US system is a mess and should be reworked. Using evidence from other countries the best systems tend to be some version of single-payer so it seems like a logical thing to investigate.

And for the record, of the 82 countries listed on the wiki, the countries that have the same system of healthcare coverage as the US are DRC, Egypt, Ethiopia, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Paraguay, and UAE, and 3 of those are in the process of transitioning away from it. None of those are even remotely similar to the US so the comparison of government costs isn't very useful.

its pretty much that and expenditures and growth. economic growth is the same as it always is 2-3%, expenditures...i guess we increased military budget a lot...odd during peace time but trump does have stubby fingers to overcompensate for...entitlements...ok we are getting older here in the usa, i can see some increase there...but idk obama took a deficit of 1.5 trillion down to 400-500 billion or so...what changed so much to blow it up to a trillion but lower revenue from lower tax rates for the rich?

i dont see much difference than what W did. Clinton gave him a budget surplus and in a year he gave it all away to his rich buddies through a tax cut and we had deficits as far as the eye can see. thankfully obama got rid of some of these tax cuts and cut the deficit (obama also made obamacare revenue neutral because thats how he rolled...bush expanded medicare added billions because he wanted to give old folks a pony for free...that and well after 8 years of republican rule in both houses and the white house, having the world economy crash in 2008), but well hillary lost and we got trump and boom doubled the deficit.

Bill Barr going around the world asking foreign intelligence leaders, "we think our intelligence was plotting against Trump, what do you think?"

Conti in Italy, everybody else..."ur the united states of america. are u high? i have no idea what u are talking about u fat slob."

these 2, kellyanne and george...none of my business but lol.

bottom line, despite the fact the Russians interfered to elect Trump, Trump campaign welcomed that help...i think we can all agree that the origins of the investigation is the most pressing issue the DOJ should be pursuing right now and the opening of a criminal investigation is not a banana republic move. lock em up. law enforcement that did their job, as the bipartisian senate report confirms what everybody else knows, Russia interfered to help elect Donald Trump....law enforcement that investigated trump and russia should be rounded up and questioned.

and while were at it, whats up with these Vietnam Vets being all like traitors and weak?

Actually I am thinking that this a gross exaggeration. Spending more as a percentage of GDP isn’t necessarily a bad thing. What are your metrics on the quality of care? How about care in cancer treatment compared to other countries?

Regarding Medicare For All. Medicare as it exists today is a cost sharing program. If you elect to have plan B coverage you will have a monthly payment and be responsible for 20% of the medical bills basically (free yearly physical among other things). Of course there is Medicare Advantage plans that involve copays and deductibles. There is also Medigap insurance. But it isn’t free if you elect plan B. Medicare For All is not a cost sharing program as I understand it.

@anatta - I am pretty sure you wouldn’t have a problem with government deficits run up on programs you support. Also POTUS doesn’t rule by fiat as Congress has a key role in appropriating money for government spending. One more thing, IIRC about 60% of federal government spending is on entitlements that are not subject to year-to-year spending. Stuff like Social Security. Btw Social Security recipients are getting a 1.6% increase next year because Social Security payouts are indexed to inflation.