Do conservatives think massive debt created by upper class tax cuts is okay?

[The Mark]

Why isn’t that (bolded above) ‘logic’ true for housing, food, utilities and clothing? Lack of (any of?) the above is extremely likely to negatively impact one’s health.

Not as significantly, unless the lack continues for an extended period and/or in extreme conditions. In the case of healthcare, denied or delayed care can mean death.

I suspect that is likely due to a combination of things. More competition and cheaper labor costs on the supply side, and in the worst situations, government subsidies and/or regulation allow people below a certain level of means to still purchase minimal food, housing, and I believe utilities and clothing. In some cases, at least - not all the programs for this are national. And charities, in some cases. A

 

[The Mark]

Republicans used to say tax cuts paid for themselves in increased revenue. They quit that some time ago.

Reality is tax cuts increase the wealth of the wealthy and is paid for with borrowed money.

View attachment 67546352View attachment 67546353View attachment 67546354

Money borrowed form the wealthy, in a lot of cases.
Via federal securities?

 

[StillServing]

Do I have to explain how debits and credits on a basic accounting sheet works? Because I half suspect you know how basic accounting works and are ignoring it on purpose rather than merely being uniformed.

The problem here is that you are assuming the relationship of tax rates to revenue is a mechanistic system where someone lifts a lever here and there is a predictable and repeatable effect there.

Rather, the relationship is not a mechanistic system but rather is described as systemic behavior—often referred to as a complex system. Here, you might lift a lever once and get effect X. The next time you lift the lever, you get effect Y and then the next effect is Z.

instead of a mechanistic system, we are dealing with human behavior which reacts to multiple, ever changing circumstances which are generally influenced by hundreds (thousands?) of decisions within society driven by citizens’ interest in conserving whatever wealth they have. Thus, just because tax rates go up, doesn’t mean you predictably get higher revenues. People react to these changes By changing behavior—investing less, hiring fewer employees, saving more, spending less, etc.

Take the Luxury Tax passed in the early 1990s. It was anticipated that taxing Americans buying yachts would bring in $34 million in revenues. Instead only an additional $16 million was raised the first year and but we spent an estimated $24 million in unemployment for the 25,000 Americans laid off from the yacht industry. (Btw, this also destroyed the American yacht industry which was a world leader. It has never recovered). What happened? The organism that is the economy made different sets of decisions.

This is why a correlation analysis of top marginal tax rates and revenue / GDP since 1950 shows statistically no correlation with personal top income tax rates and revenue. (r=-0.05, p=.67).

We also find a moderately strong negative correlation between capital gains tax rates and capital revenue /gdp rates clearly showing the fallacy of believing higher capital gains tax rates being in more revenue (r=-0.69, p<.001)

 

[Corbell]

What are Republicans doing about the waste in military spending?

At this point? Nothing. THey are in the process of a Transition.

So why does Canada spend less on healthcare, if a socialized system is more expensive than the US system according to conservatives?

Becuase the hybrid has the worst of both worlds. Also, the Canadian system delivers less. From what I have heard.

How much in that article I posted counts as corporate welfare?

I'm not reading the article. YOu have specific questions you can ask them.

Was the Iraq War worth the cost? Was it worth it?

Too early to tell.

Are you going to constantly avoid the question why Republicans didn't reduce the debt in the past when they had the opportunity to do so? I am sick of asking this question being ignored.

I already explained my position on that. ANy and all attempt at reducing spending is demonized so we lost that battle. Over and over again.

This is your world, the one you built. We run up the debt till the system crashes and burns. That's the plan, near as I can tell.

Right now, you lefties just took a hit. So you are trying to bait us into trying to be fiscal responsible again, so you can go back to terrorizing grandma about us cutting her check and then just win based on your lies.



So, yeah.

 

[StillServing]

He died 3 years ago, not 20 years ago, and his acolytes control conservative media, they believe what he believes. My point is Rush revealed the truth, fiscal conservatism cannot die because it was never real to begin with. The GOP will never, ever choose their supposed small government ideology over the whims of their corporate donors. The GOP thinks big government and debt is fine if it helps their donors.

The flaw with your argument is that you are using conservatives and the GOP interchangeably.

I am a Constitutional, free market, federalist conservative. And while I appreciated Limbaugh’s commentary of the political struggles between the GOP and Dems He was and is not among the foundational writers that true conservatism is built upon nor an influence in my conservatism

 

[The Mark]

It’s interesting that your solutions automatically shift towards giving the government more control over over 17% of the economy. What about actually having healthcare be market driven where consumers themselves have the information and ability to participate? A set of policy guidelines follows:

1. Forbid companies from directly purchasing health insurance for employees. Instead allow companies to provide tax free health care stipends that represent the companies cost is the health care or greater. Forbid health insurance companies dropping coverage due to this change

2. Mandate healthcare providers to publish a set of charges every six months to provide transparency and allow consumers to make healthcare decisions.

3. Forbid insurance companies from forbidding service from non-network providers if the cost is less than the network price. Encourage a 75% rebate ti the consumer if they find a healthcare tacitly that is cheaper than the network provider.

4. Allow for consumers to purchase health insurance out of state.

5. Remove caps to HSA contributions.

6. Reform tort law to lessen defensive healthcare.

7. Emphasize as a national priority fitness and good diets to reduce the incidence of obesity

None of these measures appear to address the underlying issue I see, which is healthcare being a for-profit industry.

What we need is a solution or set of solutions that creates a situation where, if someone who resides in our nation is sick, they can be absolutely sure that if they reach a location providing care, they will get care for the health issue they are having, and not face unreasonable financial costs as a result.
Ideally, this would mean any and all necessary care is free and paid for entirely by taxes, IMO.



As for the policy guidelines you propose:

I do not understand option 1. Does companies purchasing health insurance for all employees somehow increasing prices? Why would forbidding it change things? How

I think option 2 is trying to make healthcare providers show their books so we know how much profit they are making? Please clarify. Maybe not exactly that.

The issue I have with option 3 is that forbidding service should not be on the table as an option, at all.

I'm not sure allowing purchasing health insurance from in another state would clash with regulations in the state you live in. How would this reduce costs?

HSA's only help if you have the money to contribute to them, and some idea what your costs will be. It also does nothing to lower the costs, just makes paying them less impactful on a budget.

For point 6, are you saying we need to cut down on the number of lawsuits healthcare providers face, because they are driving up their costs and thus their prices? Might be feasible, depending how it's done.

Point 7 is all well and good, but you run into the issue where food deserts and small budgets mean good diets are unaffordable.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Not as significantly, unless the lack continues for an extended period and/or in extreme conditions. In the case of healthcare, denied or delayed care can mean death.

That’s why we have EMTALA.

I suspect that is likely due to a combination of things. More competition and cheaper labor costs on the supply side, and in the worst situations, government subsidies and/or regulation allow people below a certain level of means to still purchase minimal food, housing, and I believe utilities and clothing. In some cases, at least - not all the programs for this are national. And charities, in some cases. A

Defending the public subsidy of various things based on a ‘means test’ is quite Progressive, but IMHO should be limited to the elderly and disabled.

 

[Yes_Minister]

The flaw with your argument is that you are using conservatives and the GOP interchangeably.

I am a Constitutional, free market, federalist conservative. And while I appreciated Limbaugh’s commentary of the political struggles between the GOP and Dems He was and is not among the foundational writers that true conservatism is built upon nor an influence in my conservatism

And what if you done to push back against hypocrites like Rush? Nothing?

Also aren't the Republicans in the House choosen in primaries?

 

[The Mark]

That’s why we have EMTALA.

It isn't enough, especially when people avoid going to the emergency care due to fear of the debt that will result.

 

[Yes_Minister]

At this point? Nothing. THey are in the process of a Transition.

What have Republicans done in the past to reduce waste in military spending?

Becuase the hybrid has the worst of both worlds. Also, the Canadian system delivers less. From what I have heard.

So by that metric, adopting a public system in the US would cost less then?

I'm not reading the article. YOu have specific questions you can ask them.

I shouldn't have to spoon feed everything to you.

Too early to tell.

Didn't Vance and Trump say it was a waste of money?

I already explained my position on that. ANy and all attempt at reducing spending is demonized so we lost that battle. Over and over again.

This is your world, the one you built. We run up the debt till the system crashes and burns. That's the plan, near as I can tell.

Right now, you lefties just took a hit. So you are trying to bait us into trying to be fiscal responsible again, so you can go back to terrorizing grandma about us cutting her check and then just win based on your lies.



So, yeah.

Then stop pretending you actually care about it, because you are coming with excuses not to care about this issue.

 

[StillServing]

And what if you done to push back against hypocrites like Rush? Nothing?

Also aren't the Republicans in the House choosen in primaries?

Well, Rush stopped taking my calls a few years ago.

I imagine I have participated in our democracy the same way you have. I’ve donated money in primaries to those who I feel are most committed to the same governing principles that I have. I have, on occasion, volunteered on these campaigns and I’ve voted.

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

Do conservatives think massive debt created by upper class tax cuts is okay?

Trump’s Wasteful Tax Cuts Lead To Continued Trillion Dollar Deficits In Expanding Economy

If tax cuts actually paid for themselves, they would reduce deficits based on faster growth. Deficits shot up in the wake of the 2017 supply-side tax cuts. And CBO forecasts that those deficits will continue to stay high -- the opposite of tax cuts paying for themselves.

www.google.com

It was not the tax cuts that were the problem it was the spending. Our government is wasteful to put it nicely. That is a fact. I hope new leadership can shed some light on this wasteful spending and get government working more efficiently.

 

[rahl]

Becuase the hybrid has the worst of both worlds. Also, the Canadian system delivers less. From what I have heard.

Single payer systems provide better care at a fraction of the cost of the US system.

 

[rickc]

It was not the tax cuts that were the problem it was the spending. Our government is wasteful to put it nicely. That is a fact. I hope new leadership can shed some light on this wasteful spending and get government working more efficiently.

That 1980 inflection point on any graph you pick.
Income disparity, federal debt, growth in the wealth of the 1%
Could it be Reagan cutting the top marginal rate from 70% to 22%? You bet!

 

[ttwtt78640]

It isn't enough, especially when people avoid going to the emergency care due to fear of the debt that will result.

Isn’t that fear based on having to *gasp* being asked to pay for services rendered?

 

[Yes_Minister]

It was not the tax cuts that were the problem it was the spending. Our government is wasteful to put it nicely. That is a fact. I hope new leadership can shed some light on this wasteful spending and get government working more efficiently.

I am kinda sick of having to explain debits and credits on an accounting sheet.

Why didn't the Republicans reduce spending from 2016 to 2018?

 

[ttwtt78640]

That 1980 inflection point on any graph you pick.
Income disparity, federal debt, growth in the wealth of the 1%
Could it be Reagan cutting the top marginal rate from 70% to 22%? You bet!

View attachment 67546375View attachment 67546376

Hmm… why didn’t demorats raise the marginal FIT rate(s)? Could it be that they are also beholden to the donor class and their lobbyists?

After all, since continuous annual federal deficit (stimulus?) spending results in a congress critter re-election rate of over 90% then it would be politically foolish for them to change that policy.

 

[The Mark]

Isn’t that fear based on having to *gasp* being asked to pay for services rendered?

No, it's based on the prices for those services being so high they will not be able to pay them easily, if at all.

 

[ttwtt78640]

No, it's based on the prices for those services being so high they will not be able to pay them easily, if at all.

Are you asserting that a government single-payer medical care insurance program would have the power to set (control or limit) prices?

If so, then it’s easy to understand why medical care goods/services providers would oppose it.

 

[rickc]

Hmm… why didn’t demorats raise the marginal FIT rate(s)? Could it be that they are also beholden to the donor class and their lobbyists?

After all, since continuous annual federal deficit (stimulus?) spending results in a congress critter re-election rate of over 90% then it would be politically foolish for them to change that policy.

Have you ever heard of Grover Norquest. Republicans in congress take the Grover Norquist pledge to never raise taxes.

Any attempt by Democrats to raise taxes are shut down by Republicans. Obama tried. Biden tried. Maybe one day when democrats have a filibuster proof majority.....

 

[The Mark]

Are you asserting that a government single-payer medical care insurance program would have the power to set (control or limit) prices?

If so, then it’s easy to understand why medical care goods/services providers would oppose it.

Of course, it would cut into their profits.

 

[aociswundumho]

Are you asserting that a government single-payer medical care insurance program would have the power to set (control or limit) prices?

They would have to. Otherwise the monster they themselves have created would eat them alive. I'm sure you're familiar with the negative consequences of price controls.

If so, then it’s easy to understand why medical care goods/services providers would oppose it.

Yes, and they are politically powerful.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Have you ever heard of Grover Norquest. Republicans in congress take the Grover Norquist pledge to never raise taxes.

Any attempt by Democrats to raise taxes are shut down by Republicans. Obama tried. Biden tried. Maybe one day when democrats have a filibuster proof majority.....

Hmm… how did PPACA pass?

 

[ttwtt78640]

Of course, it would cut into their profits.

Bills like HR 676 (Medicare for all) would have outlawed those profits.

 

[NatMorton]

Do conservatives think massive debt created by upper class tax cuts is okay?

Trump’s Wasteful Tax Cuts Lead To Continued Trillion Dollar Deficits In Expanding Economy

If tax cuts actually paid for themselves, they would reduce deficits based on faster growth. Deficits shot up in the wake of the 2017 supply-side tax cuts. And CBO forecasts that those deficits will continue to stay high -- the opposite of tax cuts paying for themselves.

www.google.com

Do you think a false premise is a problem?