First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last

51 GOP Senators Just Voted To Cut More Than $1 Trillion from Medicare and Medicaid To Give Super-Rich and Corporations a

Post Reply
13945 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
50 / M / New England, USA
Online
Posted 10/21/17 , edited 10/21/17

ironh19 wrote:

Dear people. did you know the upperclass pay 90 percent of the taxes in this country. These are also the people that have the businesses that employ [people]. if their taxes get cut, then they have more money to build and hire more folks. Trump's tax plan would be a huge benefit in this country.


When taking credit for the earned income of their employees and the taxes their employees pay, maybe. The problem with that is the fact that once that money changes hands, it's the employees who pay their fair share of the taxes while the bigwigs tend to take advantage of every tax break, tax cut or shady deduction to pay less (such as https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/10/us/politics/donald-trump-taxes.html or https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/tax-returns-trump ) . Even when it comes to paying employees Trump went with cheap undocumented labor and labor he intended to stiff at every turn reneging on each deal he made with them. Giving the tax breaks mostly to the rich will just keep the money for the rich, it won't translate to more jobs. It won't translate to higher wages or better benefits for employees. It will just transfer into more Cayman Islands laundered accounts for those at the highest levels of income to avoid paying taxes. This https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-04-25/trump-s-tax-plan-said-to-slash-rate-for-pass-throughs-to-15-j1y5bn74 should explain it all.
7899 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / Pacific North West
Offline
Posted 10/21/17 , edited 10/21/17
This one is a difficult issue to discuss. On one hand it is most regrettable some services maybe cut from medicare/medicaid. On the other hands Medicare is one of if not thee largest ticket items that is adding to our astronomical national debt. Personally I would love to see govt. spending put on a serious diet starting with Senate/congress on both sides of the table being capped at $150000/yr in income. We the people are represented by people who are so ingloriously rich that they couldn't fathom the lives of day to day people. If money were no object it would be great if medicare/military/welfare/ect had endless resources, however we do not live in such a world.

Myself personally before we start fixing taxes, how about the govt just learn how to balance a checkbook like the rest of us. Allowing this farce of raising the spending limit to keep the country going is lunacy at best. Yes, I understand why they do it, but eventually this bubble will burst. I would much rather the US default on its bills now then in 50 years when the repercussions could bring the world to its knees.

That said I don't think giving tax cuts to the rich corporations is going to actually create jobs. However it might encourage a few of them to stay in the US and not move oversees, then again maybe not as its hard to compete against $5/day labor. Though on the flip side giving tax breaks to small business's wont create anything either. To me assuming a small business with a bit more revenue will drive it to grow and innovate but not have the same effect on corporations is mind boggling. As someone before mentioned the top 0.1% of the income earners pay something akin to 40% of total income tax generated. We can whine about how the rich get richer all day long, however when they are the ones paying most of your bills.... it just feels ungrateful.

I thought the 10/10/10 rule was fantastic. 10% Federal tax, 10% income tax, 10% sales tax for individuals and companies alike. Now everyone would pay the same percentage wise and (II think anyways) it would generate reliable income. Now you just have to get the govt. to stop spending everyone's money. Especially when they fund groups like the IRS not becuase the IRS is necessary, but rather just to say they provide jobs.

EDIT: for anyone interested...
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
11328 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / M
Offline
Posted 10/21/17 , edited 10/21/17

neugenx wrote:


ironh19 wrote:

Dear people. did you know the upperclass pay 90 percent of the taxes in this country. These are also the people that have the businesses that employ [people]. if their taxes get cut, then they have more money to build and hire more folks. Trump's tax plan would be a huge benefit in this country.


When taking credit for the earned income of their employees and the taxes their employees pay, maybe. The problem with that is the fact that once that money changes hands, it's the employees who pay their fair share of the taxes while the bigwigs tend to take advantage of every tax break, tax cut or shady deduction to pay less (such as https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/10/us/politics/donald-trump-taxes.html or https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/tax-returns-trump ) . Even when it comes to paying employees Trump went with cheap undocumented labor and labor he intended to stiff at every turn reneging on each deal he made with them. Giving the tax breaks mostly to the rich will just keep the money for the rich, it won't translate to more jobs. It won't translate to higher wages or better benefits for employees. It will just transfer into more Cayman Islands laundered accounts for those at the highest levels of income to avoid paying taxes. This https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-04-25/trump-s-tax-plan-said-to-slash-rate-for-pass-throughs-to-15-j1y5bn74 should explain it all.


Exactly, and one need not look far to see that if it didn't work in 1890 in the U.S., and the numerous times since under various other terminology, it's never going to work - it is merely a rationalisation of the elite out-of-touch wealthy to make rules to guarantee them to amass more wealth & power, while the poor grow ever more impoverished & powerless.
What lesson did the Tea Party learn by forcibly refusing to pay tax to England? Not the lesson that taxation without representation was unfair on the then British colony and the welfare of its people in general, but the lesson that if you personally are in a strong enough financial & political position & you push hard enough with the right amount of rhetoric, you can avoid paying a lot of tax.
Too bad if you're not in that position.

Some lovely critiques through the ages :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics
The economist John Kenneth Galbraith noted that "trickle-down economics" had been tried before in the United States in the 1890s under the name "horse and sparrow theory." He wrote,

"Mr. David Stockman has said that supply-side economics was merely a cover for the trickle-down approach to economic policy—what an older and less elegant generation called the horse-and-sparrow theory: 'If you feed the horse enough oats, some will pass through to the road for the sparrows.'"

Galbraith claimed that the horse and sparrow theory was partly to blame for the Panic of 1896.[18] In the 1992 presidential election, Independent candidate Ross Perot called trickle-down economics "political voodoo."[19] In the same election during a presidential town hall debate, Bill Clinton said,

"What I want you to understand is the national debt is not the only cause of [declining economic conditions in America]. It is because America has not invested in its people. It is because we have not grown. It is because we’ve had 12 years of trickle-down economics. We’ve gone from first to twelfth in the world in wages. We’ve had four years where we’ve produced no private-sector jobs. Most people are working harder for less money than they were making 10 years ago."[20]

In New Zealand, Labour Party MP Damien O'Connor has, in the Labour Party campaign launch video for the 2011 general election, called trickle-down economics "the rich pissing on the poor".[21]

A 2012 study by the Tax Justice Network indicates that wealth of the super-rich does not trickle down to improve the economy, but tends to be amassed and sheltered in tax havens with a negative effect on the tax bases of the home economy.[9]

In 2013, Pope Francis referred to trickle-down theories (plural) in his Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium with the statement (No.54)

"Some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system."[22]

A 2015 paper by researchers for the International Monetary Fund argues that there is no trickle-down effect as the rich get richer:

f the income share of the top 20 percent (the rich) increases, then GDP growth actually declines over the medium term, suggesting that the benefits do not trickle down. In contrast, an increase in the income share of the bottom 20 percent (the poor) is associated with higher GDP growth.[6]

A 2015 report on policy by economist Pavlina R. Tcherneva described the failings of increasing economic gains of the rich without commensurate participation by the working and middle classes, referring to the problematic policies as, "Reagan-style trickle-down economics," and "a trickle-down, financial-sector-driven policy regime."[7]

In 2016 US presidential candidates debate, Hillary Clinton accused Donald Trump of supporting the "most extreme" version of trickle-down economics with his tax plan, calling it "trumped-up trickle-down" as a pun on his name.[23]





6090 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / BuBbLeS!
Offline
Posted 10/21/17 , edited 10/21/17
and all the things obama did (crickets). https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/10/19/republicans-have-the-budget-votes-they-need-but-democrats-prepare-to-make-it-painful/?utm_term=.aa3d50778316 what the "people" forget to mention is all the other nasty underlying things which were in the bill. that's the pros and cons of a bill, everyone gets what they want or at least some of what they want. like the cases that took place under Bill Clinton and so forth. this is politics, not clean yet not dirty either. it's the old "scratch my back I'll scratch yours" this isn't new in politics not by a long shot. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/09/26/republican-to-unveil-broad-tax-cuts-put-off-tough-decisions/?utm_term=.139dbbd53269 let's not forget, it's the rich who really make the money and cast it down and helps the poor people out of poor. this is Capitalism, it's not pretty but that's how the game is played. Republicans believe in new money, Democrats believe in shuffling funds around and not generating any new funds.
16526 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 10/21/17 , edited 10/21/17

niotabunny wrote:

and all the things obama did (crickets). https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/10/19/republicans-have-the-budget-votes-they-need-but-democrats-prepare-to-make-it-painful/?utm_term=.aa3d50778316 what the "people" forget to mention is all the other nasty underlying things which were in the bill. that's the pros and cons of a bill, everyone gets what they want or at least some of what they want. like the cases that took place under Bill Clinton and so forth. this is politics, not clean yet not dirty either. it's the old "scratch my back I'll scratch yours" this isn't new in politics not by a long shot. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/09/26/republican-to-unveil-broad-tax-cuts-put-off-tough-decisions/?utm_term=.139dbbd53269 let's not forget, it's the rich who really make the money and cast it down and helps the poor people out of poor. this is Capitalism, it's not pretty but that's how the game is played. Republicans believe in new money, Democrats believe in shuffling funds around and not generating any new funds.


Is that first link supposed to point out all those other nasty things in the bill? Because the only thing I see is the elimination of vote-a-ramas which is a good thing. Really, its not "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours". Its "we have a simple majority so fuck you, we're doing it my way". Your whole post is nebulous and non-specific and doesn't really put forward much in the way of argument.

Also, theres already been multiple posts in this thread and in The Daily Donald which provide arguments that trickle down economics does not work.
12453 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / People's Republic...
Offline
Posted 10/21/17 , edited 10/21/17
Medicare and Medicaid are walking zombies. Stop feeding them and just lop off their heads already.
Zorvus 
1038 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
49 / M
Offline
Posted 10/21/17 , edited 10/22/17
Well the whole thing does make sense if your one of the wealthy who believe this country is on its last legs. They are just milking the country to get every little drop of money they can before they run away to another country before the dam breaks.
568 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/21/17 , edited 10/22/17

mxdan wrote:

... Tax cut. (Title cut off)

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2017/10/19/51-gop-senators-just-voted-cut-15-trillion-medicare-and-medicaid-give-super-rich-and

I mean, laissez faire is part of the reason we got into the crash in the first place. .


The crash came about because the Government put pressure (read lawsuits) on the mortgage companies to toss out such unfair concepts as "can this person pay the mortgage back?" Hardly laissez faire economics.

6167 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/21/17 , edited 10/22/17
Nothing to really discuss until we get more details. Also that 1 trillion dollar cut seems a bit misleading. I don't think the entire Medicare budget even hits 1 trillion. From what I have heard, they just have an outline. Until they actually come up with a working tax plan everything is pretty much pure speculation.

Sure we can pick pieces here and there and say how evil they are, but they are also looking into limiting 401(k) contributions. It is one of the ways people in the upperclass defer their taxes to a later time when they expect their income to be lower and thus pay less taxes. Without the whole picture, it is just people cherry picking certain parts.

Honestly, I expect the thing won't even pass the Senate as it comes closer to completion. They only passed it with 51 votes meaning if they lose 2 votes it is over. Once details start getting ironed out, I find it hard to believe someone isn't going to jump ship. Just look at the attempts to repeal the Affordable Care Act.
mxdan 
12384 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / A Husk.
Online
Posted 10/22/17 , edited 10/22/17

Tyrconnell wrote:


mxdan wrote:

... Tax cut. (Title cut off)

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2017/10/19/51-gop-senators-just-voted-cut-15-trillion-medicare-and-medicaid-give-super-rich-and

I mean, laissez faire is part of the reason we got into the crash in the first place. .


The crash came about because the Government put pressure (read lawsuits) on the mortgage companies to toss out such unfair concepts as "can this person pay the mortgage back?" Hardly laissez faire economics.



The banks created too much money. Every time a bank makes a loan, new money is created. In the run up to the financial crisis, banks created huge sums of new money by making loans. In just 7 years, they doubled the amount of money and debt in the economy.

Then they used this money to push up housing prices and speculate on the financial markets. Very little of the trillion that banks created between 2000-2007 went to businesses outside of the financial sector.

Around 31% went to residential property, which pushed up house prices faster than wages.
A further 20% went into commercial real estate (office buildings and other business property).
Around 32% went to the financial sector, and the same financial markets that eventually imploded during the financial crisis.
But just 8% of all the money that banks created in this time went to businesses outside the financial sector.
A further 8% went into credit cards and personal loans.

What caused the financial crisis is basically our unregulated and powerful financial institutions doing what they do: Make money. Laissez faire is a part of this because we are willing to let them do what they will until things get bad. With congress being the mess that it is things are rarely fixed correctly.
9153 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / U.S.A
Offline
Posted 10/22/17 , edited 10/22/17
The total US budget is 3.6 trillion
568 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/22/17 , edited 10/22/17

mxdan wrote:


Tyrconnell wrote:


mxdan wrote:

... Tax cut. (Title cut off)

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2017/10/19/51-gop-senators-just-voted-cut-15-trillion-medicare-and-medicaid-give-super-rich-and

I mean, laissez faire is part of the reason we got into the crash in the first place. .


The crash came about because the Government put pressure (read lawsuits) on the mortgage companies to toss out such unfair concepts as "can this person pay the mortgage back?" Hardly laissez faire economics.





What caused the financial crisis is basically our unregulated and powerful financial institutions doing what they do: Make money. Laissez faire is a part of this because we are willing to let them do what they will until things get bad. With congress being the mess that it is things are rarely fixed correctly.


Unregulated? What color is the sky in your world? While I admit that the numerous regulations in the U.S. never matched the wonderous record (both in number and in results) of that of the well regulated USSR, to call it unregulated is totally false.
mxdan 
12384 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / A Husk.
Online
Posted 10/22/17 , edited 10/22/17

Tyrconnell wrote:

Unregulated? What color is the sky in your world? While I admit that the numerous regulations in the U.S. never matched the wonderous record (both in number and in results) of that of the well regulated USSR, to call it unregulated is totally false.


You are taking that term way to literally and ignoring my premise. In context of what it needs to be, yes, it is unregulated. You can throw around red herrings but that still doesn't change the fact that part of what lead to the economic crash was a failure in regulating our financial sector and lack of oversight.
7290 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / F / USA
Offline
Posted 10/22/17 , edited 10/23/17

mxdan wrote:


Tyrconnell wrote:


mxdan wrote:

... Tax cut. (Title cut off)

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2017/10/19/51-gop-senators-just-voted-cut-15-trillion-medicare-and-medicaid-give-super-rich-and

I mean, laissez faire is part of the reason we got into the crash in the first place. .


The crash came about because the Government put pressure (read lawsuits) on the mortgage companies to toss out such unfair concepts as "can this person pay the mortgage back?" Hardly laissez faire economics.



The banks created too much money. Every time a bank makes a loan, new money is created. In the run up to the financial crisis, banks created huge sums of new money by making loans. In just 7 years, they doubled the amount of money and debt in the economy.

Then they used this money to push up housing prices and speculate on the financial markets. Very little of the trillion that banks created between 2000-2007 went to businesses outside of the financial sector.

Around 31% went to residential property, which pushed up house prices faster than wages.
A further 20% went into commercial real estate (office buildings and other business property).
Around 32% went to the financial sector, and the same financial markets that eventually imploded during the financial crisis.
But just 8% of all the money that banks created in this time went to businesses outside the financial sector.
A further 8% went into credit cards and personal loans.

What caused the financial crisis is basically our unregulated and powerful financial institutions doing what they do: Make money. Laissez faire is a part of this because we are willing to let them do what they will until things get bad. With congress being the mess that it is things are rarely fixed correctly.


Correction: banks in the US do not make money through loans. The Federal Reserve makes money through loans to banks who then loan said money.

But I agree that the American financial sector does wield too much power in this country. The Dodd-Frank laws were basically written by these large financial institutions to crush any smaller banks out there while doing nothing to prevent another financial crisis which as previously stated was due in large part to government coercing banks into making loans they knew people could not pay back.

What should be done is many of these large banks need broken up, at the very least investment and commercial banking sectors should be separated like they were before the Clinton era Glass-Steagall Act, but as reinstating this was unpopular with Democrats this was never done.
84976 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
41 / M
Offline
Posted 10/23/17 , edited 10/23/17

mxdan wrote:

You are taking that term way to literally and ignoring my premise. In context of what it needs to be, yes, it is unregulated. You can throw around red herrings but that still doesn't change the fact that part of what lead to the economic crash was a failure in regulating our financial sector and lack of oversight.


While lack of regulation over a couple very specific accounting and investing rules in the financial sector may have had a part, the size of that part is debatable. There were many factors that contributed to the problem, and it wasn't just "those evil banks". While I find factcheck.org to have a rather "left-wing" bent, this article seemed to be a pretty fair assessment of things, and the blame was spread rather widely: http://www.factcheck.org/2008/10/who-caused-the-economic-crisis/


I don't really know what is in this current Senate budget, so I can't speak to what it does or doesn't do. The claims regarding "cuts" to spending of various programs in the budget like Medicare or Medicaid are often specious. The budget is just that, a budget. It is doesn't change what is actually spent, it changes what is budgeted for expenditure, and often much if not all of the "cut" is to expected growth of the budget to programs that are automatically increased under the budget. It's all a big financing trick that gets people going, when the biggest question for the budget should be, is it realistic. That Rand Paul voted against it is probably the most concerning thing, as his biggest hang-up with the budget bills is whether they are financially sound.
First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.