Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'West Mall' started by BrntOrngStmpeDe, Jan 25, 2021.
With an increasing population and overall revenue, we could conceivably lower taxes and raise spending.
If I am taxed 8% on $90, that's 7.20. If I'm taxed 7.5% on $100, it's 7.50. I'm not teaching math here. I know y'all get that, but it's important to have this in the convo or the messaging takes precedence over content.
And obviously the difference between the dems and reps is WHAT WE SPEND ON. That's fair.
Defense is one of the core issues that I think must be a federal, not a state or county expense. Whereas many social programs SHOULD, imo, be run and funded at the state and local levels.
Also, I think we should have raised the Social Security/Medicare age long ago. It was supposed to be meant for the elderly who can't work anymore. My buddy's COO is mid-80s and killing it.
^ Then he is still contributing to SS and not taking from it
Good for him
My problem is the rosy predictions on revenue growth never match the reality of the revenue lost.
I think both can be handled federally to get the benefit of the Feds buying power and revenue management. For example, Medicare/Medicaid and Prescriptions benefit the power of volume purchasing. I'm a proponent of Universal Healthcare so understand that's my bias.
Agreed. It should have been raised to 72 - 75 before the boomers began pulling on the funds. That will ultimately be a tragic mistake of leadership.
What I want is not a consideration. what I see is a country headed for a reckoning. Two sides that have de-humanized the other that no longer can have dialog and view the other side as the enemy.
This is why there is going to be a bloodletting, not because I want one, I'm just reading the tea leaves.
I don't want it, I just see it coming. I will however fight to keep my freedom and protect the people I care about. I will not give up my guns at least not without a fight.
Don't we start to correct that by each side holding your politicians accountable? Democrats chose a middle candidate, not a demagogue. Republicans, your move.
I have dear friends that I disagree with. Some vehemently. We will not be letting blood.
I don't think democrats chose a middle candidate. I think (ironically enough) that they needed to coalesce around an old white male to bring their constituency along. 50+ EO's is not middle, particularly from a guy that spent his life in the process. Abiding by the legislative process and having to compromise would have been middle. Acknowledging that he only represents 52% of America and 48% want many other things would be middle. Just because the left has gotten a whole lot 'Lefter' over the last 20 years does not make Joe Biden..."middle".
I can't defend every rosy prediction, but if you look at actual revenue levels in the wake of tax cuts, they almost always increased. Sometimes there will be one year when they don't, but they do generally go up. So is every rosy prediction right? No, but they're closer to reality than claims that the tax cuts are huge deficit drivers.
Where things go wrong is the political and budgetary machinations necessary to deliver tax cuts (when Republicans are in charge) and to protect them (when Democrats are in charge). This is how it usually goes.
GOP - We need to cut taxes.
Democrats - No chance in hell. Have you seen the deficit? We can't afford them, and we'll do whatever we can to stop them. We'll filibuster, hold up must-pass legislation, etc.
GOP - Well, we don't really want your votes, because we want the issue. However, what's it going to take to keep you from going to war to stop them?
Democrats - Well, if there's enough money for tax cuts, then there should also be enough for a lot of new spending on health, education, welfare, and infrastructure we want.
GOP - We can't afford all that. Look at the deficit.
Democrats - Then no deal.
GOP - If you'll let us have 90 percent of the tax cuts and some new spending on the Pentagon and some infrastructure spending on stuff that's more red state-friendly, we'll let you have 80 percent of your new spending.
Democrats - OK. We still won't vote for the tax cuts and blame them when the deficit explodes from all this new spending, but we'll acquiesce to them.
When Democrats are in power pushing to get rid of the tax cuts, largely the same dynamic takes place. You'll notice what happens. Both parties claim to care about the deficit, but when it's time to make a deal, the deficit is of no real priority at all. They're both bullshiters.
Think about the Trump tax cuts. When they passed, what also happened? The budget caps under the sequester were busted, and the Pentagon got a significant additional boost. Something similar happened with the Bush tax cuts. A real deficit hawk may still have pushed for some tax relief, but he would have subordinated the tax relief to hold down the deficit.
What made John Kasich effective is that he knew how to exploit the different factions on the Democratic side and was willing to play ball himself. He worked with Blue Dogs (meaning the old school Charlie Stenholm-types) who were real deficit hawks and detested the whole game, and as an Ohioan he was used to playing ball with farmer/labor-friendly fiscal and social moderates like Tim Penny or Jim Trafficant. Furthermore, though he was a tax cutter, he was less rigid about giving it all to the top earners or making the cuts as big.
So when he ran the Budget Committee, he'd take a harder line on spending in practice and in rhetoric. He'd appeal to the Blue Dogs by taking a harder line on spending, and he'd make the tax cuts smaller and a bit more family oriented (more oriented toward child tax credits with smaller cuts in the top bracket and capital gains rates), which appealed to ag and labor-oriented Democrats. The result was smaller but still meaningful tax relief but less spending and ultimately a balanced budget. The Senate had guys like this too - Pete Domenici, Bill Roth, and Bob Packwood would make similar deals with guys like Kent Conrad, Byron Dorgan, and Harry Reid (back before he joined the leadership). And for all their obvious faults, Newt Gingrich, Bob Dole, and Bill Clinton were willing to accept this framework.
I don't know if that kind of dealmaking is possible anymore, but it worked when it was tried.
As a lifelong Healthcare guy, I'll never agree that universal Healthcare is better for 100% of America.
I don't agree that dealing with the homeless and mentally ill (schizophrenia, not depression), or helping poor children with education needs is better in federal programs. They're too cookie cutter and end up being worked out by "government employees." Theseare better off run by local or state nonprofits who also raise money from people in the community (lowering taxation needs) where people in the community donate their time and energy (lowering overall cost). Mission based Orgs are more aware of unique community needs not federal cookie cutter perspectives on how to help .
Joe Biden was electable. Bernie, Warren and Kamala are too big-mouthed and/or scary. Joe practically got a life-time award. Now he can cruise and executive order as much as he can and try to keep those Liberal extremists off his a**.
Warren is truly a piece of work. She got her a** handed to her in the primary but has doubled down n her arrogance, lobbing verbal hand grenades from her perch.
We need to figure out how we can make universal health care access a thing. You or Deez could still pay $xxx/month to iron out the issues of making it better for America. Like a Medicare add on policy.
I don't agree on the issues like homelessness, mental health, etc. That said, I don't have much of a plan.
There's a real angel of man down in Austin who has done much for the homeless community. Building structures, feeding, counseling, training etc. My wife attended a conference recently and he was the guest speaker. He said in spite of all the work and care only ONE homeless person was rehabilitated (successful re-entry into a self-sufficient off the streets life) out of over 300.
He basically said, they can't be fixed.
At what point is it a mental health issue and society make the decision to stick them in a facility? What are we to do? Austin is turning into a trash can because of it. Liberals are in support of them camping out wherever. It's really bad.
I remember being appalled by that same assertion in some show I watched on the homeless situation. Completely shocked me. It might have been one of the shows about Portland but I cannot remember. It was quite disturbing.
Related to Universal Coverage, several things...
Here's where I'm just right of center: the young and the old. Those who CANNOT take care of themselves. No child should go uninsured because their parents are
ne'er do wells. There's too much data that suggests the economy is much better off long term if we make sure our kids are healthy now. Medicaid needs to be able to cover all children. period. Not only is it the decent thing. It's good math long term. People in healthcare understand that expanding Medicaid for those who really need it is better for the country in many ways.
I (as was a majority of physicians in Texas (largely Republican)) was for the ACA (Obamacare) with one stipulation...the no insurance "tax." The govt shouldn't FORCE people to do things that are OBVIOUSLY about a personal choice. But employers should not increase the margins by not allowing preexisting conditions to be covered. Very poor for the long term health of these people in many situations. I would never dismantle ACA. I would remove a couple of parts though.
Health Insurance is not a right. It's so clearly not in the constitution. If you can work and don't, you should not have meniscus surgery given to you by the federal government. I'm against this on principle. I don't mind saying that there are varying levels of physicians and hospitals. Some are fantastic and some are fine. The free market rewards the great hospitals and doctors. They don't take crappy insurance. Universal healthcare would remove any incentive for the average hospitals to improve and no incentive for the fantastic ones to stay that way. Regression to the mean in a different sense. Volumes sure, but in large markets that won't be an issue.
Like I mentioned before about social services being local, we know there are ministry clinics and Federally Qualified Health Clinics that take care of the poor. They do get access to basic primary care. And hospitals aren't allowed (by law) to turn people away from the ER. The free clinics and FQHCs are supported federally, but also require local donations and volunteers. It gives access to the uninsured in a more cost effective way. And they know who needs care and who is trying to game their system, whereas the feds would not be able to deal with them as well or as easily.
We have systems in place. I fall into a compassionate conservatism that believes the poor are better off being taken care of by local nonprofits, faith based ministries, etc. Local orgs know the needs better. Encourage local nfps by tax breaks on donations, continued non taxation for charities, etc.
I think it was Kant who said that out of the crooked timber of humanity nothing straight can be built. If he did not, I will
this is the part where one size fits all falls apart. Trying to cure the incurable from DC is going to waste a lot without much benefit. Families do this a lot better but so many are dysfunctional and useless to the stray members of their herd
my solution is to watch a lot of football and take long walks and admire my wife and kids
Well it seems Trump has no plans to go away. The test for whether Trump is worth a damn for the party won't be if he can primary other GOP that don't salute the Trump brand, it will be if he can help GOP candidates take several Dem seats in 2022. He won't do that though. He'll take the low hanging fruit and primary an existing GOP rep that wasn't Trumpy enough.
Any clown who supported these stupid impeachments needs to be pushed out. Seriously, if you call yourself a republican and you go along with left-wing nonsense then you don't belong with us. It's that simple. Don't get me wrong. If Trump had done something illegal then he should be given the boot but he didn't. This "mah feewings" BS is starting to to seep into the republican party and it needs to go. These same republicans also support globalism, China bending us over the table and endless wars in the Middle East. I'm not sad to see them get ousted.
So we should basically apply a Führer oath to Donald Trump. What could possibly go wrong?
Dude, if you get that thought going through your head after reading my post then do me a favor and don't bother responding to me.
Well, here's my concern. You're advocating expelling people from the party based on lack of commitment and disloyalty to a man (much like the Führer oath) rather than on support for a policy agenda, ideology, or the rule of law. So I would get shitcanned, but a Bernie Bro who backed Trump just to screw with the Democratic establishment would be welcome.
Are you for real? From the guy who was happy to John Birch any republican who thought election fraud was real? Anybody who wants to impeach our president based on feelings over reason needs to be shitcanned. Yes, that does include you. If you want to think with your feelings then you're free to join with the dems. Did you see the dems' talking points in the impeachments? It's a joke.
So you're taking that position out of spite because I wanted the QAnon people and extremists on the election rigging issue John Birched?
Here is the problem right now. Trump is not advocating much on policy, he is telling everyone "ONLY I CAN SAVE YOU!!!... but in order for me to save you, you must vow allegiance." Trump is not advocating ideals, Trump is advocating Trump.
*********!! This is the definition of Cult of Personality.
Trump will find Trumpy candidates and primary sitting GOP in safe GOP seats so that the only real contest is the primary. He will not work or put his name behind candidates that will have to fight against sitting Dem's. He knows his candidate would get dusted and it will look like his brand is diminished.
I think there's a little misunderstanding between us, @Mr. Deez. I'm saying this if you're a politician. When you said you would be pushed out I thought you were talking about if you were a politician. I don't want a purity test for our voting base. However, the RINOs who vote for this impeachment nonsense need to lose their jobs.
Anyone who voted to not certify the election should lose their seat for undermining the republic.
It sounds like Trump university, steaks, ties, etc. the sooner you guys get rid of that clown the more you can be taken serious.
You mean all of the dems who did the same in 2000, 2004, and 2016? I hate to tell you but it's perfectly legal and democrats have used it in more elections than republicans.
Summary: Just politicians need to vow allegiance to Trump, but principles are ok for rank and file Republicans. Politicians with them should be excised as RINOs!
That position would be laughable if it wasn't so sad. Cult of Personality personified yet the others are "feelers". Cognitive dissonance is a foundational characteristic for many Trump supporters.
Being taken serious by a lib doesn't really mean squat to me. You libs are on the level of Q supporters. Just like Q no matter how often you're shown to be wrong you keep thinking you have all of the answers.