Economics Thread

[57Brave]

Jonathan Larsen
‏Verified account @jtlarsen
9h9 hours ago

Jonathan Larsen Retweeted Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

We’re watching in real time as a

three-day member of Congress

inexorably forces the mainstream media to tell people

how marginal tax rates work.

And people are gonna love it.

[acesfull86]

From where I sit governance by " fiscal responsibility " and deregulation has gotten us trillions in debt, trash piled up in national parks , an infrastructure that would make the Soviet bloc proud and Donald Trump.
Perhaps that **** didn't work.

As long ad I am asking my (R) friends for explanations, who does this abstraction / bumper sticker of " fiscal responsibility" benefit ?
Definitely not those in debt for the better part of their 30s. Or families of those bankrupted by catastrophic disease or the parents from Sandy Hook.

I think this new congressional class is onto something.
Lets see

You drawing a line from governing by fiscal responsibility to the parents of Sandy Hook is a new level of ridiculousness

[57Brave]

Deregulation for deregulations sake be it fiscal or unimpeded access to weaponry.

The goal has been for 80 years to neuter the New Deal at any cost.
Never forget that

[57Brave]

Jeff Stein
‏Verified account @JStein_WaPo

For context, here's how much some things cost (/10 yrs):

-- Free college tuition plan: $800B
-- Universal pre-K plan: $75B
-- Forgive US student loan debt: $1.4T
-- Pipe replacement in Flint: $55M
-- Schumer/Pelosi plan for boosting teacher pay: $100B

[sturg33]

Yeah, well, so you say. Sort of like the Paul-ite claims of impending hyperinflation that you used to repeat. Get back to me when it happens. Conservatives have been forecasting the death of California for as long as I can remember.

I don't think you have a good grasp on the situation with the California pension situation. Either that, or you don't believe in math. It is enormously underfunded and the only solution they have seems to be to raise contributions from schools and police depts, etc. It's not overstating it to call it a crisis.

Maybe that text tax will work?

But don't worry, when it fails, they'll blame it on GOP and capitalism and ask the feds for help. And the feds will oblige because they've proven over and over again that they won't let big dogs fail.

Mention of suicide rates seems kind of spurious in light of the fact that the suicide rate in the US is at a 30-year high and continuing to climb. I guess people don’t know that the economy is expanding.

The studies have been done on this and 80% of them show a positive correlation between suicide rates and recessions.

Hmm, well, I’d just as soon do both. At least I’d rather make the poor and middle class more stable, comfortable, and prosperous.

What you're proposal to do this. Economic engineering? More government programs... how much money do you want to put in the hands of our government to piss away? The best way to help people is create an environment where they can earn money .

Rely on themselves for what? To provide affordable health care or education? I’m not sure how that’s possible. An individual can’t do that. A collection of individuals can, and should. I’d rather NOT rely on slogans or cant, though.

Rely on themselves for their earnings. Rely on themselves for financing their health. Rely on themselves to learn new skills. The internet has and will continue to make higher education irrelevant and useless. Once that bubble pops I'm glad we have self-sustaining methods.

Obamacare was never going to deliver large long-term reductions in costs.

Oh - good thing we did it then!

I’m not sure why you’re picking this as a battleground, though, because it’s long proven to be losing territory for you.

Oh I think I was ahead of the whole "Obamacare is a disaster, will raise costs, and will fail" movement... and here we are. Please government, save us with a bigger program!

Remember the conversation about Medicare For All when you insisted that I was wrong that the projection forecast cost savings, before you ultimately conceded that point? I can point to all the available study that shows such a mechanism to be cheaper and more efficient than the current system

Yes I remember. Those equations always assume the medicare 40% discount we have today will be adopted nationwide. Color me skeptical. As a guy who is engaged to a doctor, I can tell you how much hospitals hate medicare patients because they lose money on them. I'm sure they'll be eager to adopt it for everyone. And when they are forced to, we'll get our predicted reduction in care and investment.

Meanwhile, I LOL at the idea that the government can run anything efficiently at all. They never have. They never will. Their entire existence is to get bigger, not more efficient. But sure - go ahead and tell me how we supposedly can't pay for doctors, nurses, and medications today... but we'll be able to pay for doctors, nurses, medications, and a monstrous government bureaucracy tomorrow.

And let's not forget that nearly half of this country's health insurance is paid for by employers. I pay nothing at my company... once we take that away - and we do that by raising my taxes - that's a huge cost I'll have to bear that I don't currently. I'm not unique in this scenario.

and you have—as has been demonstrated repeatedly—nothing to underpin the assertion that a market-based system would be superior.

Market-based system works all around us across multiple industries and technologies. Of course, how foolish of me to assume it could also work for health care and education. Health care costs accounted for 5% of GDP before the year Medicare was introduced... today's it's over 18%. There are legit reasons for this, of course... but the fact that we haven't been able to find some savings in the enormous technology advancement since then is staggering to me.

You don’t like the funding mechanism for single-payer or MFA, sure, but you can’t rebut that it’s actually far more efficient than the current system

Well it's tough to rebut something with no means of data showing it. But I'm pretty comfortable betting that the government is not more efficient at anything than the private markets.

And, fwiw, that’s precisely what I mean when I say that I would trade the rich being slightly less rich for the poor and middle class being more stable and prosperous. That’s precisely the trade-off of MFA, while you’re left talking about a market-based solution that doesn’t exist anywhere in the world, and never has.

Curious what the proposed funding mechanism here is. Are you going to raise middle class taxes? Just rich people? Just corporate? What's the plan to get the $32T over 10 years (assuming that's the actual number which I think is a naive assumption).

Pretty much. Like I said, I’m content to “confiscate” more money from the very wealthy to provide more security, stability, and prosperity for the rest of society.

I think that's pretty sad. I suppose you'd be fine with me robbing my rich neighbor because he has a mansion and 3 teslas... If you're not, please explain to me the difference. The justice-serving Julio has already determined my neighbor is too rich and is fine with him being less rich.

I’m referring to sentiments that you’ve repeated many times, along the lines of what thethe said earlier—that capital’s influence on the electoral system is bad. That so-called crony capitalism is bad. You decry the influence of money on government, yet you view it, in your own words, as a flaw of government, not of capitalism.

That's correct. The government takes bribes and makes legislation to benefit certain companies, individuals etc. That's what corruption is, or better yet, that's what government is.

I’m asking, first, whether you think the government subsidies of industry that you oppose are a logical outgrowth of capitalism?

No. Because what you described is not capitalism.

You think that government is simply offering those subsidies, or do you think that they’re being solicited or bought?

I think they're being solicited and bought.

If the latter, do you think this is a perfectly rational consequence of capitalism, or not?

It has nothing to do with capitalism. It's a perfectly rational action of companies trying to server their best interests. The fact that they can find a willing corrupt partner is a flaw from the willing and corrupt partner.

Upthread you’re talking about corporatism vs capitalism. I confess that I see that as a distinction without a difference (with the caveat that “corporatism” has a specific definition which is apart from what you seem to be referring to) I see capital gaining an advantage in the marketplace and seeking to keep it by whatever means necessary.

Government gives Walmart subsidies. They just gave Amazon massive subsidies. They keep cab companies from dying. They bail out failed solar and car companies. That is government making decisions - picking winners and losers - not the market. The market has decided that cab companies should die. The government has been bought off to not allow it, for now.

What you seem to be saying is sort of a “No true Scotsman” proposition, which keeps your platonic ideal of capitalism forever pure. When capital behaves as it is rationally wont to, and seeks to purchase an advantage by subverting the government, you say “that’s not a bug in capitalism” So tell me: why not? And what’s the remedy, beyond laws and regulation? Surely that’s not the answer.

I dont' think you'd see so much money influencing if the other side didn't benefit so much from it. I don't think this is complicated. What's the remedy? How about a government that acts in a way in which its intended to act? I.e, protect rights, not interests. This can't be though because our government is massive and cannot get smaller.

But hey, at least all these congress people can leave congress as multi multi millionaires.

There’s no viable market without a similarly viable legal authority to make and enforce rules. In our system, that viable authority is us. The market is as regulated or unfettered as we decide it is. If given the latitude to do so, corporate entities will do whatever is necessary to turn a buck and stifle competition, including colluding with their nominal competitors. We’ve seen this specifically (to pull a near-random example) in the agricultural sector, where ADM’s in-house joke was “the competition is our friend and the customer is our enemy” but more broadly where corporate interests have, for decades, broadly colluded on multiple fronts to weaken the power of labor and depress wages. The multi-generational effort to destroy organized labor has been celebrated by every pro-capitalist entity. It’s anti-capitalist, according to your definition, because it’s involved co-opting the government. But it seems to me about as pure an expression of capitalism in practice as exists.

This all seems like the same argument as above. So I think my answers will be redundant.

So, do you think that Citizens United was wrongly decided, that money =/= speech, and that unlimited, anonymous political contributions should be illegal?

I think you should have the right to do whatever you wish with your property, and that includes your money (for now). I'm fine with me contributing millions of dollars to Justin Amash if it means it will help him beat AOC.

I'm not fine with corrupt politicians taking money and returning favors. I understand that that inevitably will happen due to human nature... but that sounds like a reason for less government, not more... doesn't it?

If you think that the hyper-rich making a concerted effort to destroy the power of organized labor is fine, say so, but don’t say in the same breath that it isn’t capitalism.

I think people should have the right to organize... I don't think the government should decide that it must be done this way.

People organizing is capitalism... Capitalism is the freedom to make free exchange of goods and services... if labor unions are the most efficient way to get it done, that's fine by me.

Either you’re ok with the idea that our political system is a wholly-owned subsidiary of capitalism or you’re not. You’re somehow simultaneously arguing that both major political parties are corrupt and irredeemable, and that the world that they’ve created is better than any alternative other than some Randian fantasyland that exists only in theory. Put a marker down. Accept that the current system is a product of capitalism or explain why it isn’t.

Our political system shouldn't be an economic one. The fact that corrupt politician's let money influence them at the expense of others is not capitalism's problem, it's their problem.

We have had, for a large portion of our country, one if not the freest economies in the world. It's a reason we're so prosperous... and have the means to have arguments like the ones we're having. But two of the largest areas in which our government has decided to get very involved (education and health care) the US has become much less competitive and great.

We are the richest country in the world. That doesn't mean we can't get better and richer. That's a loser's mentality... along the lines "some people have more money than me and thus I'm fine with taking from them"

I guess my marker is that I don't wanna live my life being envious and a loser, but rather have the freedom to make my own decisions and God willing, become rich.

[sturg33]

And, dumbest member of Congress? For real? What do you base THAT on?

That's true... I haven't heard from all 535 so I could be missing someone... but of everyone I had heard from... she's by far the most out of her league.

Based on her answer during 60 minutes, I'm pretty sure she JUST learned how the progressive income tax works.

Based on her twitter following, I'm pretty sure they just learned it too... that's good though.

I've watched her in numerous interviews and she very clearly donesn't know what she's saying. She gets confused by economic questions and is unable to fall from the script... When pressed on the math, she has no answer. She proposed several things that called for $40T in spending, and she came up with a solution to get us $2T of that.

The worst part of her is everytime someone legitimately challenges her, she claims things like "cat called" or "sexist" or the GOP thinks dancing is scandalous.

Then the folks on the interwebs say how obsessed we all are with her... when she's being shoved down our throats on friendly media 24/7... and she complains whenver anyone ever challenges.

The similarities to her and Trump are pretty interesting.

[sturg33]

perhaps then 70% isnt high enough
let's go to 85%
or
we have Mexico pay
..............................

as a side note, you're track record on economic policy forecasts borders on fantasy
Remind me, how many (R) ran on the tax cuts ?
And it was 79% if memory serves

Welp, I know math isn't your strong suit... but 85% gets you to around $96B assuming everyone pays up.

This is always the problem. There's not enough money to take at the top. You're going to have to get lower - substantially lower in order to raise the money you want to raise.

I don't know how many Rs ran on tax cuts... I know we have 3% GDP growth for the first time in a decade while also record tax revenue. But I'm being told in this thread that economic growth is bad... so who knows

It WAS 79%... much worse since before my new job. Unfortunately the rest of the country wasn't so lucky.

[sturg33]

From where I sit governance by " fiscal responsibility " and deregulation has gotten us trillions in debt, trash piled up in national parks , an infrastructure that would make the Soviet bloc proud and Donald Trump.
Perhaps that **** didn't work.

As long ad I am asking my (R) friends for explanations, who does this abstraction / bumper sticker of " fiscal responsibility" benefit ?
Definitely not those in debt for the better part of their 30s. Or families of those bankrupted by catastrophic disease or the parents from Sandy Hook.

I think this new congressional class is onto something.
Lets see

Just to be clear here... you think "fiscally responsible" is why we're trillions in debt?

Are you actually this dumb? AOC probably agrees, by the way



So much fiscal responsibility.

And the left has it's hair on fire over a tiny short term government shut down.

It never gets smaller. But Julio assures me it's more efficient.

[sturg33]

Meanwhile, I love all of the newfound experts on twitter who just learned marginal tax rates used to be higher!

[thethe]

With all due respect Sturg do you expect 99% of the population to understand anything about our tax code?

[sturg33]

With all due respect Sturg do you expect 99% of the population to understand anything about our tax code?

Problem is now people are even more motivated to raise taxes because they just figured out there is a precedent. Julio reminded us upthread without factoring in effective tax rates.

Unfortunately, these people vote

[thethe]

Problem is now people are even more motivated to raise taxes because they just figured out there is a precedent. Julio reminded us upthread without factoring in effective tax rates.

Unfortunately, these people vote

When you are dealing with a group of people that don't understand how capital infusion of reducing taxes is helping cause job/wage growth there is nothing you can do. Couple that with a complete lack of understanding of what the Fed's role is and how monetary policy impacts lending habits as well as business decisions then you are left with talking to a wall. Its fine to have generic conversations but the expectation to reach some people who have becoming nothing short of ideologues is futile. I personally believe you are a bit too extreme but I am certainly more aligned with you than those on the left that would take every penny over 100K from hard working Americans.

[Julio3000]

I don't think you have a good grasp on the situation with the California pension situation. Either that, or you don't believe in math. It is enormously underfunded and the only solution they have seems to be to raise contributions from schools and police depts, etc. It's not overstating it to call it a crisis.

Maybe that text tax will work?

But don't worry, when it fails, they'll blame it on GOP and capitalism and ask the feds for help. And the feds will oblige because they've proven over and over again that they won't let big dogs fail.

Maybe so, or maybe they’ll muddle through. Like I said, I’ve been reading about the inevitable fall of California (and Scandinavia, for that matter) for as long as I can remember.

The studies have been done on this and 80% of them show a positive correlation between suicide rates and recessions.

So suicide rates haven’t been consistently rising throughout this expansion? They’re not at a 30-year high?

What you're proposal to do this. Economic engineering? More government programs... how much money do you want to put in the hands of our government to piss away? The best way to help people is create an environment where they can earn money .

Well, that’s just, like, your opinion, man.

Rely on themselves for their earnings. Rely on themselves for financing their health. Rely on themselves to learn new skills. The internet has and will continue to make higher education irrelevant and useless. Once that bubble pops I'm glad we have self-sustaining methods.

I think you missed the point. A huge swath of the population can’t finance their own health care at market rates.

Oh - good thing we did it then!

We did it to ensure that ensure that the most people possible had access to affordable quality care.

Oh I think I was ahead of the whole "Obamacare is a disaster, will raise costs, and will fail" movement... and here we are. Please government, save us with a bigger program!

I wonder why the efforts to repeal it failed, and Republicans were scrambling away from those efforts in midterms, then.

Yes I remember. Those equations always assume the medicare 40% discount we have today will be adopted nationwide.Color me skeptical. As a guy who is engaged to a doctor, I can tell you how much hospitals hate medicare patients because they lose money on them. I'm sure they'll be eager to adopt it for everyone. And when they are forced to, we'll get our predicted reduction in care and investment.

No, they absolutely do not. This number is pure bunk. Here’s a short précis:

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2018/08/m...bernie-sanders

Meanwhile, I LOL at the idea that the government can run anything efficiently at all. They never have. They never will. Their entire existence is to get bigger, not more efficient. But sure - go ahead and tell me how we supposedly can't pay for doctors, nurses, and medications today... but we'll be able to pay for doctors, nurses, medications, and a monstrous government bureaucracy tomorrow.

See the article above, and remember that the Mercatus study, which emanated from a right-leaning think tank, arrived at the same numbers as others did. And those were predicated on cost-savings through efficiency of single-payer, which is in turn predicated on real-world data, based on existing programs. These numbers are borne out in study of single-payer systems in other countries. So you’re all about data, yet when presented with data, you’re only about preconceived notions and snark.

And let's not forget that nearly half of this country's health insurance is paid for by employers. I pay nothing at my company... once we take that away - and we do that by raising my taxes - that's a huge cost I'll have to bear that I don't currently. I'm not unique in this scenario.

Market-based system works all around us across multiple industries and technologies. Of course, how foolish of me to assume it could also work for health care and education. Health care costs accounted for 5% of GDP before the year Medicare was introduced... today's it's over 18%. There are legit reasons for this, of course... but the fact that we haven't been able to find some savings in the enormous technology advancement since then is staggering to me.

If you don’t see why delivery of health care is different from other service sectors, I’m not sure what to tell you.

So that increase in spending has delivered what? Guaranteed care for every American over X age? Seems like you’re eliding that fact.

Well it's tough to rebut something with no means of data showing it. But I'm pretty comfortable betting that the government is not more efficient at anything than the private markets.

Medicare administrative costs are 2% of operating expenses. Private insurers administrative costs are 17% of revenue. Medicare and Medicaid premiums have risen substantially less than private insurance premiums.

Curious what the proposed funding mechanism here is. Are you going to raise middle class taxes? Just rich people? Just corporate? What's the plan to get the $32T over 10 years (assuming that's the actual number which I think is a naive assumption).

I don’t know, but most Americans would pay substantially less in tax increases than they would gain in reduced health care spending.

That's correct. The government takes bribes and makes legislation to benefit certain companies, individuals etc. That's what corruption is, or better yet, that's what government is.

No. Because what you described is not capitalism.

Heh. Of course not. A system that developed under capitalism and exists purely within that framework is not capitalist at all.

I think they're being solicited and bought.

So taking a bribe is wrong but paying one is not?

It has nothing to do with capitalism. It's a perfectly rational action of companies trying to server their best interests. The fact that they can find a willing corrupt partner is a flaw from the willing and corrupt partner.

Haha, listen to yourself.

I don’t suppose those companies and their principals had anything to do with electing those individuals, or with perpetuating the system that allows the graft. Certainly not. That’s not capitalism. So it’s rational for them to seek any advantage in order to maximize shareholder value...isn’t that the essence of capitalism?

Government gives Walmart subsidies. They just gave Amazon massive subsidies. They keep cab companies from dying. They bail out failed solar and car companies. That is government making decisions - picking winners and losers - not the market. The market has decided that cab companies should die. The government has been bought off to not allow it, for now.

Again, why are they giving those subsidies and why is it not a logical outgrowth of capitalism? We’re not talking about an abstraction that exists only in a textbook. We’re talking about practical application here.

I think you should have the right to do whatever you wish with your property, and that includes your money (for now). I'm fine with me contributing millions of dollars to Justin Amash if it means it will help him beat AOC.

I'm not fine with corrupt politicians taking money and returning favors. I understand that that inevitably will happen due to human nature... but that sounds like a reason for less government, not more... doesn't it?

This seems to me to be a distinction without a difference.

Our political system shouldn't be an economic one. The fact that corrupt politician's let money influence them at the expense of others is not capitalism's problem, it's their problem.

Whew.

We have had, for a large portion of our country, one if not the freest economies in the world. It's a reason we're so prosperous... and have the means to have arguments like the ones we're having. But two of the largest areas in which our government has decided to get very involved (education and health care) the US has become much less competitive and great.

Again, name me a country with a great health care system without substantial government involvement.

[sturg33]

.

Maybe so, or maybe they’ll muddle through. Like I said, I’ve been reading about the inevitable fall of California (and Scandinavia, for that matter) for as long as I can remember.

Like I said... you are free to not believe in math. Without a change in policy, or a massive increase in revenue, they will need help. They are trying to drive revenue and people are leaving the state

So suicide rates haven’t been consistently rising throughout this expansion? They’re not at a 30-year high?

That was not my point, and I think you know that. My point was, there is a rise in suicide rates during economic recessions when compared to the proceeding rates

Well, that’s just, like, your opinion, man.

I asked you for your solution and all I got was this.

I think you missed the point. A huge swath of the population can’t finance their own health care at market rates.

Our healthcare market sucks and it's highly subsidized. We spend more on health care, both publicly and privately, than any other country. This mix match of private/public is not effective. I want to go one way, you want to go another.

We did it to ensure that ensure that the most people possible had access to affordable quality care.

Then we failed.

I wonder why the efforts to repeal it failed, and Republicans were scrambling away from those efforts in midterms, then.

Because it is impossible to remove an entitlement in this country. Once we go M4A, there's no going back

No, they absolutely do not. This number is pure bunk. Here’s a short précis:

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2018/08/m...bernie-sanders

The numbers were from the author of the study you referenced.

See the article above, and remember that the Mercatus study, which emanated from a right-leaning think tank, arrived at the same numbers as others did. And those were predicated on cost-savings through efficiency of single-payer, which is in turn predicated on real-world data, based on existing programs. These numbers are borne out in study of single-payer systems in other countries. So you’re all about data, yet when presented with data, you’re only about preconceived notions and snark.

From the author himself:

“It is likely that the actual cost of M4A would be substantially greater than these estimates, which assume significant administrative and drug cost savings under the plan, and also assume that health care providers operating under M4A will be reimbursed at rates more than 40 percent lower than those currently paid by private health insurance.”

Blahous used the text of Sanders’ bill to guide assumptions. For example, he said, the bill says health care providers will be reimbursed for patients at Medicare payment rates. Blahous said Medicare payment rates are projected by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to be roughly 40 percent lower than those paid by private insurers, so he built those assumed savings into his estimate.

But in the report, Blahous cautions that the assumption is suspect.

[I]t is not precisely predictable how hospitals, physicians, and other healthcare providers would respond to a dramatic reduction in their reimbursements under M4A, well below their costs of care for all categories of patients combined. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Office of the Actuary has projected that even upholding current-law reimbursement rates for treating Medicare beneficiaries alone would cause nearly half of all hospitals to have negative total facility margins by 2040. The same study found that by 2019, over 80 percent of hospitals will lose money treating Medicare patients — a situation M4A would extend, to a first approximation, to all US patients. Perhaps some facilities and physicians would be able to generate heretofore unachieved cost savings that would enable their continued functioning without significant disruptions. However, at least some undoubtedly would not, thereby reducing the supply of healthcare services at the same time M4A sharply increases healthcare demand. It is impossible to say precisely how much the confluence of these factors would reduce individuals’ timely access to healthcare services, but some such access problems almost certainly must arise.

Anticipating these difficulties, some other studies have assumed that M4A payment rates must exceed current-law Medicare payment rates to avoid sending facilities into deficit on average or to avoid triggering unacceptable reductions in the provision and quality of healthcare services. These alternative payment rate assumptions substantially increase the total projected costs of M4A.

“To argue that we can get to that level of savings by getting rid of the health insurance middleman is inconsistent with my study,” Blahous said. “To lend credibility to the $2 trillion savings number specifically, one would have to argue that we can make those 40 percent cuts to providers at the same time as increasing demand by about 11 percent, without triggering disruptions of access to care that lawmakers and the public find unacceptable.”

The report similarly uses assumptions in the Sanders bill about savings on administrative costs and on the cost of prescription drugs. Blahous describes these assumptions as “aggressive” and his report includes arguments that suggest they are unlikely.

Said Blahous: “If you ask somebody ‘How much would something cost?’ and if they responded with, ‘Well, if you assume X the cost would be Y, but that’s an unrealistic assumption, actual costs would be higher’ – it’s not accurate to say ‘He says the cost is Y!’ When I wrote that ‘actual costs’ would be higher, I meant it. And I haven’t simply said that in response to comments like the candidate’s – I had previously put it front and center on the study itself.”

You might want to take note about the little tidbit of hospitals losing money on medicare patients

If you don’t see why delivery of health care is different from other service sectors, I’m not sure what to tell you.

I'm not clear what's so different... There's a buyer, there's a seller, there's a product. There are competitors

So that increase in spending has delivered what? Guaranteed care for every American over X age? Seems like you’re eliding that fact.

Yes, and it's not a sustainable fiscal model for our country. I know, I know... you'll believe it when you see it.

Medicare administrative costs are 2% of operating expenses. Private insurers administrative costs are 17% of revenue. Medicare and Medicaid premiums have risen substantially less than private insurance premiums.

I'll refer you to this article
https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapot.../#62660b9a140d

I don’t know, but most Americans would pay substantially less in tax increases than they would gain in reduced health care spending.

I'd like to understand how... like I said, a ton of people in this country get their health care through their employer. Almost half the country pays no taxes now... so I suspect they won't either. Curious where this revenue will be pulled from

Heh. Of course not. A system that developed under capitalism and exists purely within that framework is not capitalist at all.

By this logic, our soon to be socialist economy is also capitalism because it started there

So taking a bribe is wrong but paying one is not?

They're both wrong. But taking the bribe is not capitalism. It's the opposite.

Haha, listen to yourself.

I don’t suppose those companies and their principals had anything to do with electing those individuals, or with perpetuating the system that allows the graft. Certainly not. That’s not capitalism. So it’s rational for them to seek any advantage in order to maximize shareholder value...isn’t that the essence of capitalism?

You're trying to argue that the government making laws to benefit certain companies over others is capitalism.

It's not.

I don't know how else to tell you that. It's the opposite. You can say that one naturally leads to the other... but the other isn't the same thing. And if you agree that capitalism lends to corruption in our government, why do you insist on giving government so much power to be corrupted?

Again, why are they giving those subsidies and why is it not a logical outgrowth of capitalism? We’re not talking about an abstraction that exists only in a textbook. We’re talking about practical application here.

I don't know how many times I have to answer the same question. The government subsidizing Amazon to get them in their cities is not a free market economy

Do you actually believe it is or are you simply turning more into 57 each day?

This seems to me to be a distinction without a difference.

I want politicians to protect freedom and rights. I know that it's fun to mock freedom on the left these days, but I am fine with trying to ensure that one candidate beats another in an attempt to keep people like Julio deciding who has too much money

Again, name me a country with a great health care system without substantial government involvement.

I don't care what other countries do.

We did here pretty well until the 70's.

--------------------------------------

I'm still wondering if I can go rob my rich neighbor and give what I take to homeless people? If not, why?

[sturg33]

And, dumbest member of Congress? For real? What do you base THAT on?

Timely

[thethe]

Interesting how the left talks about morality and yet they push aside religion.

Who determines what is moral?

[57Brave]

and this hand fits neatly inside the "what propaganda glove".


Brian Stelter
‏Verified account @brianstelter
2h2 hours ago

This is how @FoxAndFriends tricks viewers:

@Kilmeade said @AOC "wants people taxed as high as 80, 90%

if you make $10 million or more."

Huh?

She said "60 or 70%" on "your 10 millionth dollar."

[thethe]

Oh yeah - I'm sure its going to stop there once they realize that it only pays for a small fraction of her outrageous proposals.

[57Brave]

This is where the conversation goes off of the rails.


Why cant we discuss issues based on what really happened --
She didnt say that .


There is a lot to unpack discussing raising the rates and ways of increasing revenue. When falsehoods or projections based on outright lies enter the picture
we get nowhere.
Tell me if I am wrong but wasn't this same issue (muddying the water) raised over WMD / Iraq ?
Or proof the Sadaam Hussein was the mastermind of 9/11 ?

Do you ever learn

[thethe]

I have no clue how you formulate your tangential arguments.

What do you think the next logical step will be after its realized that raising taxes on the > 10M dollars won't work to pay for anything close to these proposals? Where is the money going to come from?