Lib Challenge - How does raising taxes help?

Raising taxes right now is like throwing gasoline on fire. No one in their right mind would throw gasoline on a fire, right?

I thought the objective was to stimulate the economy and create more jobs here in the US. If that is the objective and that is the outcome that is desired than there is only one course of action that can do that.

The method is proven and tried and still cannot be argued away no matter how much dems and libs do not want to believe it.

I believe we all need to really look at this as probably the most imporant issue in this election and wake up to reality.

Wall Street has already had affected by this. The reason it keeps sliding is more and more businesses see the writing on the wall. They will be taxed more so they are starting to cut back and that is not helping the situation.
 
Werbung:
MM Hmmm, like that has worked for the last 8 years just like ol GW wanted right?

You just blew away your own argument. sigh no wonder we are in the situation we are in......

Well if you bothered to follow the economy you would notice that after the tax cuts from Bush we can expanded growth, increased revenues, and had more job creation. This happened two times actually.

Just because the housing bubble exploded, it does not mean that the Bush tax cuts did not work.

I suppose with your lack of understanding it should be no surprise really that Obama will be elected.
 
If you want to stimulate the economy, relieve employers and employees of the burden of their own health care and bring jobs home by making it more expensive to outsource than to hire here at home. If you traded lowering the minimum wage slightly, offset by universal healthcare accessible to lower-income people...while allowing wealthier people to choose their own "more premium" coverage then you've got a good recipe for the economy to come back.

People like to blame the mortgage problem. But most people want to pay their mortgages. They really, really do. And if they can find jobs and aren't consumed with money associated with health care premiums, guess what? They can stay in their homes, home values go back up all across the board and the market becomes stablized. Universal health care and penalizing outsourcing of american jobs are the twin answers to our economic woes.

Trickle down has failed. Trickle up will save us. You remedy the poison with the antidote. And yes very wealthy people...this message is for you: the antidote is sometimes bitter-tasting but in the end will do you too a world of good..;)
 
If you want to stimulate the economy, relieve employers and employees of the burden of their own health care and bring jobs home by making it more expensive to outsource than to hire here at home.

The government then has to pick up the bill, which is paid for in taxes. Typically once government gets its hands on something, the price goes up, not down. I do not see this saving anyone any money.

If you traded lowering the minimum wage slightly, offset by universal healthcare accessible to lower-income people...while allowing wealthier people to choose their own "more premium" coverage then you've got a good recipe for the economy to come back.

How do you ensure lower healthcare costs to low income people without big tax increases or deficit spending?

People like to blame the mortgage problem. But most people want to pay their mortgages. They really, really do.

Most people could have purchased a home they can afford too.

And if they can find jobs and aren't consumed with money associated with health care premiums, guess what? They can stay in their homes, home values go back up all across the board and the market becomes stablized. Universal health care and penalizing outsourcing of american jobs are the twin answers to our economic woes.

Without outsourcing, business have higher costs of operating. We already have the second highest business tax rate in the world. It is hard enough on business already.

I find it dubious that saving money on health care is going to save your house either. Before I was covered at work, I paid $1000 a year, which covered everything except buying medicine.

Trickle down has failed. Trickle up will save us. You remedy the poison with the antidote. And yes very wealthy people...this message is for you: the antidote is sometimes bitter-tasting but in the end will do you too a world of good..;)

How many wealthy people do you think are going to just sit around and have you tax them at huge rates? Most will just leave the country. Then you are out of luck. Most start up companies will simply start up overseas as well. That is not good either.

Another thing, with the stock market fall, a lot of "rich" people are not really all that rich. This makes the base that you can tax even smaller.
 
Universal health care and penalizing outsourcing of american jobs are the twin answers to our economic woes.

Trickle down has failed. Trickle up will save us.

Your messiah wants to vastly raise Min Wage to a "Livable Wage", peg it to inflation, Unionize ALL business that has more than 5 employees, pretty much everything he wants to do cripples business domestically.... He's already planning to penalize business - for just remaining in business, hence the massive sell offs and lay offs that are being done in the stock market and in the workplace, all done in anticipation of the least business friendly candidate becoming president.

Trickle up will save us.... Are homeless guys suddenly going to start providing others with jobs? I expect someone like yourself to buy into such nonsense, considering the other nonsense you've spouted off about, but I don't see how so many Obama supporters can so easily dismiss reality and embrace such hyperbole.

Earlier this year you were telling Obama supporters that he was a GOP plant, sent to destroy the Democrat party... Now you think he's the second coming and his magical words will transform all humanity.... What other delights will your fertile imagination provide? We can only wait with baited breathe till your next post to find out.
 
What a purposeful moron you can be when you're trying to tailor what I actually said, to what you want to try to depict what I said as...:cool:

The government then has to pick up the bill, which is paid for in taxes. Typically once government gets its hands on something, the price goes up, not down. I do not see this saving anyone any money.

It's very simple. You start a universal health care pool and charge people, all people employed or not a very low premium. It isn't a tax anymore than insurance premiums are taxes. (Oh goodness knows they're much wor$e) Think about it. The premium is earmarked soley for the health-care pool of which we all draw from when we need to. And if there is a deficit in the pool, the government can bail that out and not Wallstreet. A much cheaper price friend..

Stabilizing health care IS stabilizing our economy. The root of everything lies at jobs not being availible. Jobs aren't availible because the american employee isn't attractive to business. They aren't attractive to business because they're expensive (duh...business 101 here folks). They're expensive because they don't have health care coverage and must be provided with said. They demand higher wages because they cannot afford private health care premiums and the inflated cost of living due directly to lobbying connected at it's very source to big profiteers raping the poor. The 800lb gorilla in the room that nobody wants to talk about is greedy mega-insurance companies. And guess who we just handed a big fat check to when times got tough for them? It was their own fault investing in mortgages that they themselves stripped americans of being able to afford!

AND WE BAILED THEM OUT!! How's that for your ultimate stupidity? They said bailing them out would help because they're such a big part of the world economy. Well guess what actually happened? CEOs took the money and ran (shocker!) and the world economy is swishing down the toilet at exactly the same rate as if we hadn't done a thing..

What we are witnessing is the dragon finally devouring the very last bit of its tail (its head) before it disappears. See now how trickle up is the remedy? It needs to throw up all that it devoured and return it to the tail for awhile before the feast can begin all over again..
 
What a purposeful moron you can be when you're trying to tailor what I actually said, to what you want to try to depict what I said as...:cool:

I keep hearing that personal attacks mean you do not have a valid argument.

It's very simple. You start a universal health care pool and charge people, all people employed or not a very low premium.

How is this different from the current system, outside of the fact that the poor people will now have to pay a premium that they cannot afford. If you charge a lower premium than is currently being charged, you will be losing money left and right.

It isn't a tax anymore than insurance premiums are taxes. (Oh goodness knows they're much wor$e) Think about it. The premium is earmarked soley for the health-care pool of which we all draw from when we need to. And if there is a deficit in the pool, the government can bail that out and not Wallstreet. A much cheaper price friend..

Can you opt out of the premiums? Do the premiums that are charged differ based on how much you earn? You will have to create a huge bureau to oversee this, which will spend a ton of money on staffing and other things.

Further, consider that the federal government's General Accounting Office (GAO) estimates that for every $10 spent on Medicare, $1 is lost to errors, waste, and intentional fraud. A January 2003 GAO report also placed Medicaid on a list of government programs at "high risk" of fraud, waste, abuse or mismanagement.

Seeing as how in 2004, Medicare spent around 260 billion dollars to cover only 41 million people, that would mean that 26 billion dollars was wasted.

This means that for each person covered by Medicare, the government wastes around 630 dollars per person per year. In what Medicare wastes yearly, most of these people could pay more than half of their premiums.

Further, given the above statistics, (26 billion dollars a year is wasted) it would seem to me that the "bailout" cost is not a better price. Given that you will have to continue the funding of this year in and year out, as opposed to a 1 time bailout (that might actually make you money), I do not think it is a good comparison.

Medicare was enacted in 1965. This was 43 years ago. So, if current trends continue and are accurate, in the next 43 years of Medicare existence, we can expect to spend $10,750,000,000,000 and waste and astonishing $1,118,0000,000,000.

Our $700,000,000,000 rescue package pails to the money that will just be wasted by Medicare.

Stabilizing health care IS stabilizing our economy. The root of everything lies at jobs not being availible. Jobs aren't availible because the american employee isn't attractive to business. They aren't attractive to business because they're expensive (duh...business 101 here folks). They're expensive because they don't have health care coverage and must be provided with said.

Many companies do not offer benefits to people just starting out. Many companies certainly do not give benefits to people working at minimum wage. How does cutting the minimum wage slightly and basically nationalizing healthcare fix anything you are advocating?

They demand higher wages because they cannot afford private health care premiums and the inflated cost of living due directly to lobbying connected at it's very source to big profiteers raping the poor.

It is not lobbyists that set healthcare costs.

The 800lb gorilla in the room that nobody wants to talk about is greedy mega-insurance companies. And guess who we just handed a big fat check to when times got tough for them? It was their own fault investing in mortgages that they themselves stripped americans of being able to afford!

In fairness we gave the rescue money to financial wings of companies and to banks. Yes AIG gives insurance, but it was not AIG insurance wing that caused their problems, it was their financial group.

Speaking of regulation in the banking industry, did anyone else notice that AIG had to ask the government for permission to loan its financial branch money from one of its profitable branches. That does not make much sense to me. It would seem with no regulation they simply could have just done so.

AND WE BAILED THEM OUT!! How's that for your ultimate stupidity? They said bailing them out would help because they're such a big part of the world economy. Well guess what actually happened? CEOs took the money and ran (shocker!) and the world economy is swishing down the toilet at exactly the same rate as if we hadn't done a thing..

The credit market has improved, and that is the first step. Panic selling around the globe is still in full swing, but the bailout worked to unfreeze credit markets (its intended goal) and that is the first step to a turnaround.

What we are witnessing is the dragon finally devouring the very last bit of its tail (its head) before it disappears. See now how trickle up is the remedy? It needs to throw up all that it devoured and return it to the tail for awhile before the feast can begin all over again..

No, trickle up is not the remedy.
 
Can you opt out of the premiums? Do the premiums that are charged differ based on how much you earn?

No, you cannot opt out of the premiums anymore than you can opt out of having some health care premium bill coming in monthly. The "horrible" difference between your and my system is that the premium will be laughingly affordable. I'm talking under $50 bucks a month. That's just one round of drinks for your buddies after work one day. Instead of buying them drinks, you'll be buying your beloved capitalistic system a horde of healthy workers to make you even richer. Remember: invest first, payoff later...

The premiums don't differ. But anyone who wants different coverage can opt to call their (under $50 remember..) premium a "tax" (actually: an investment see above paragraph, or the current economic crises spawned from no health care) and go get another insurance policy they like.
 
No, you cannot opt out of the premiums anymore than you can opt out of having some health care premium bill coming in monthly. The "horrible" difference between your and my system is that the premium will be laughingly affordable. I'm talking under $50 bucks a month. That's just one round of drinks for your buddies after work one day. Instead of buying them drinks, you'll be buying your beloved capitalistic system a horde of healthy workers to make you even richer. Remember: invest first, payoff later...

The premiums don't differ. But anyone who wants different coverage can opt to call their (under $50 remember..) premium a "tax" (actually: an investment see above paragraph, or the current economic crises spawned from no health care) and go get another insurance policy they like.

But the other 'horrible' difference is, your idea doesn't work. You can look at any government run system and see the negative results. You can talk about how wonderful it should work all you want, just like you can talk about how communism should work. The facts remain, communism has failed every time it's tried. Socialistic health care is no different.

Not only has it failed every time it is tried in other countries, it has failed when it's been tried in the US as well.

Hawaii ending universal child health care

Obama supported socialized child care plan failed in Hawaii. Let's nationalize it so it can fail nationwide. Sure socialism failed every single time in the history of the world, but Obama promises hope and change, so let's try a universally failed system again with him leading it...
 
What a purposeful moron you can be...

:)

You start a universal health care pool and charge people, all people employed or not a very low premium. It isn't a tax anymore than insurance premiums are taxes. (Oh goodness knows they're much wor$e) The premium is earmarked soley for the health-care pool of which we all draw from when we need to. And if there is a deficit in the pool, the government can bail that out and not Wallstreet. A much cheaper price friend..

A: Health care pooling is part of what's causing the current problem. When you tie everyone's health care together, you end up paying a higher premium because other people with horribly unhealthy life styles end up driving up costs.

B: Since the current system has group cost pooling, using the same system already employed will not lower cost.

C: Any charge that can not be opted out of, is a tax. If I can't choose to opt-out of socialized care, like I can with any freedom based market, then it is a tax.

D: Government in control of Health Care will be as bad as Social Security. Every year they take the money from SS and spend it, even though it's supposed to be earmarked solely for SS. Health Care will be no different. They will take the money and blow it like they do all the money they get.

Stabilizing health care IS stabilizing our economy. The root of everything lies at jobs not being availible. Jobs aren't availible because the american employee isn't attractive to business. They aren't attractive to business because they're expensive (duh...business 101 here folks). They're expensive because they don't have health care coverage and must be provided with said. They demand higher wages because they cannot afford private health care premiums and the inflated cost of living due directly to lobbying connected at it's very source to big profiteers raping the poor. The 800lb gorilla in the room that nobody wants to talk about is greedy mega-insurance companies. And guess who we just handed a big fat check to when times got tough for them? It was their own fault investing in mortgages that they themselves stripped americans of being able to afford!

Health care costs are a fraction of the total cost of employing someone. The largest reason there are no jobs is because of the minimum wage and taxes which makes it unprofitable to hire people. Inflated cost of living is also due largely to taxes and the minimum wage. The only reason the poor have jobs is because of profit. Without profit the poor would have nothing. Please show one or any example of a major insurance company getting any bail out? I'm just curious, this is the first I ever heard someone imply it.

AND WE BAILED THEM OUT!! How's that for your ultimate stupidity? They said bailing them out would help because they're such a big part of the world economy. Well guess what actually happened? CEOs took the money and ran (shocker!) and the world economy is swishing down the toilet at exactly the same rate as if we hadn't done a thing..

Name the CEO who took the many and ran? Where'd he run to? How do you know he's got the money? Some sort of support for you crazy allegations would be nice. But even if true, conservatives warned of this. Why didn't you tell your socialists in congress to not pass it? The democrats are in control, why didn't you stop them? You voted them in, didn't you!?!

What we are witnessing is the dragon finally devouring the very last bit of its tail (its head) before it disappears. See now how trickle up is the remedy? It needs to throw up all that it devoured and return it to the tail for awhile before the feast can begin all over again..

Trickle up is the rememdy?? LOL Ok, you tell me which homeless person is paying your wage?
 
No, you cannot opt out of the premiums anymore than you can opt out of having some health care premium bill coming in monthly. The "horrible" difference between your and my system is that the premium will be laughingly affordable. I'm talking under $50 bucks a month. That's just one round of drinks for your buddies after work one day. Instead of buying them drinks, you'll be buying your beloved capitalistic system a horde of healthy workers to make you even richer. Remember: invest first, payoff later...

50 bucks how often? A year? $50 a year times 300 million people (give or take) means that the communal fund has $15,000,000,000. To run Medicare for 1 year (which only insures 41 million people) it takes $250,000,000,000 (give or take). Somehow the numbers simply are not adding up.

The premiums don't differ. But anyone who wants different coverage can opt to call their (under $50 remember..) premium a "tax" (actually: an investment see above paragraph, or the current economic crises spawned from no health care) and go get another insurance policy they like.

I do not buy that any of this problem is due to healthcare. Aside from that, none of the numbers are adding up. Given your current plan it would only 3 years before we had official wasted more than we did on the bailout. So your plan to cover this is another bailout?
 
Here's the difference between privatized insured health care and government. Profit.

Private insurance companies are in it for pure profit and don't give me any altruistic crapola because we know this is so. So patients, instead of living beings become "bottom lines". If you don't believe me, talk to any MD who deals with private insurance adjusters and claims handlers.

The government (us) isn't in healthcare for profit. Sure, both systems are problematic, but thanks to the failed trickle-down-devil-may-care systems, we will be forced to tend to the crises in a socialized way.

And speaking of socialism. I've given you clones quite a few opportunities recently to join in my bemoaning of the recent bank/insurance co. socialist bailout. Haven't heard hardly a whimper about it.

Apparently those socialist programs that benefit the already super-rich aren't as "evil" as the ones that bail out the working poor eh?;)
 
This thread was supposed to be how raising taxes helps create jobs. Of course there is no evidence to validate this. And there never will be because it can't happen.

So talking about health care is not valid. Is it a problem, yes, but so are all the crooked people in politics and business.
 
Here's the difference between privatized insured health care and government. Profit.

Private insurance companies are in it for pure profit and don't give me any altruistic crapola because we know this is so. So patients, instead of living beings become "bottom lines". If you don't believe me, talk to any MD who deals with private insurance adjusters and claims handlers.

So are you here to tell me that everything over $15,000,000,000 a year spent on health care is pure profit for insurance companies?

The government (us) isn't in healthcare for profit. Sure, both systems are problematic, but thanks to the failed trickle-down-devil-may-care systems, we will be forced to tend to the crises in a socialized way.

You can make this argument if you want, but so far all you have done is tell us that $15,000,000,000 will pay for everyone's healthcare needs.

And speaking of socialism. I've given you clones quite a few opportunities recently to join in my bemoaning of the recent bank/insurance co. socialist bailout. Haven't heard hardly a whimper about it.

I have been against the bailout from the start. I know many of the others have been as well. Maybe you need to go back through the old posts.

Apparently those socialist programs that benefit the already super-rich aren't as "evil" as the ones that bail out the working poor eh?;)

See above.
 
Werbung:
Few facts about the Bush tax cuts in 2003.
The 2003 tax cuts lowered income, capital gains, and dividend tax rates. These policies were designed to increase market incentives to work, save, and invest, thus creating jobs and increasing economic growth. An analysis of the six quarters before and after the 2003 tax cuts (a short enough time frame to exclude the 2001 recession) shows that this is exactly what happened.

1) GDP grew at an annual rate of just 1.7 percent in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. In the six quarters following the tax cuts, the growth rate was 4.1 percent.

2) Non-residential fixed investment declined for 13 consecutive quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. Since then, it has expanded for 13 consecutive quarters.

3) The S&P 500 dropped 18 percent in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts but increased by 32 percent over the next six quarters. Dividend payouts increased as well.

4) The economy lost 267,000 jobs in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. In the next six quarters, it added 307,000 jobs, followed by 5 million jobs in the next seven quarters.

Heritage Foundation

Now I have no doubt your first reaction will be to attack the Heritage Foundation, but the numbers are there and confirmed by the CBO.
 
Back
Top