Yes, Flash, they are.
They are cut because revenues are reduced by tax cuts, which creates larger deficits.
Deficits that are then closed by cuts to spending.
I don't understand why you have such a mental block on that fact.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Didn't Conservatives staple teabags to their faces because of this very thing?
- Thread starter LV426
- Start date
Yes, Flash, they are.
They are cut because revenues are reduced by tax cuts, which creates larger deficits.
Deficits that are then closed by cuts to spending.
I don't understand why you have such a mental block on that fact.
They continue to increase and we borrow to pay for them
Again, Flash, you don't listen to people.
That's a bad habit of yours.
I gave you a perfect example of spending that didn't increase for four straight years (Pell Grants). Data and information you completely ignored in this thread because it was inconvenient to your narrative.
Pell Grants were just one example, but I also highlighted the lack of growth in Medicaid spending along the historical averages.
So two examples of government spending that didn't increase, or that increased nominally, that caused people to dip into their savings or home equity to cover.
Why did so many people go into debt in the 00's despite getting the second largest tax cut ever?!?! You refuse to even pose an answer to that question. It's pretty obvious why.
Suggesting tax cuts causes people to go into debt or save less because they have to spend their own money
The nominal increase to after-tax income did not replace 1:1 the increase in costs to health care and education.
That is simply the facts as they are.
Bush cut taxes, which created deficits, which forced cuts to spending and cuts to spending increases, which forced people to dip into their savings and home equity.
Again, Flash, why did household debt levels spike faster than any other time in the last 40 years, even though everyone got a tax cut??
Again, Flash, why were Mortgage Equity Withdrawls the primary driver of Bush's economy from 2001-2007, even though everyone got a tax cut??
None of that should have happened because according to you, after-tax income increased because of the tax cut.
So solve this riddle; after-tax income increased nominally, yet household debt levels increased at the fastest rates ever.
Again, Flash, you don't listen to people.
That's a bad habit of yours.
I gave you a perfect example of spending that didn't increase for four straight years (Pell Grants). Data and information you completely ignored in this thread because it was inconvenient to your narrative.
Pell Grants were just one example, but I also highlighted the lack of growth in Medicaid spending along the historical averages.
So two examples of government spending that didn't increase, or that increased nominally, that caused people to dip into their savings or home equity to cover.
Why did so many people go into debt in the 00's despite getting the second largest tax cut ever?!?! You refuse to even pose an answer to that question. It's pretty obvious why.
Well, I can't respond to all of your posts--there are hundreds.
I did respond to those facts. I understand what you are claiming, but what you totally ignore is any proof that Medicaid only expanding 1.5% a year has anything to do with the increasing debt and decreased savings for Americans. Many Medicaid services cannot impose out of pocket expenses so any decline in spending does not have to be made up by a person going into debt or decreasing their savings. If a person cannot make a $4.00 Medicare co-pay I doubt they were saving that money.
Rather than demanding higher taxes and higher Medicaid spending, why are you willing to do something about unnecessary spending and cut costs? Over half the people at my mother's nursing home paid an elder lawyer to get their relative qualified so Medicaid paid for their nursing home costs even though they could afford to pay or their elderly relative had money. The taxpayers should not be paying for those who can afford to pay for themselves.
If Pell Grants are not sufficient, cut off all those people who never show up for class but collect their residual cash to spend however they choose. And cut off those for-profit private schools that provide little or no educational benefits but exist almost 100% on federal grants and loans and often shut down in the middle of a semester with no student refunds. If there are empty seats in a classroom, let eligible students attend for free rather than supporting a federal bureaucracy and financial aid office in every college. They are thousands of classes cancelled every semester due to insufficient enrollment. That student gets a free education and we have saved billions.
The answer to everything is not more taxes and spending.
I did respond to those facts. I understand what you are claiming, but what you totally ignore is any proof that Medicaid only expanding 1.5% a year has anything to do with the increasing debt and decreased savings for Americans.
If Medicaid spends less on your health care, then that means you have to spend...more...right?
If Medicaid funding increases are reduced, that has the trickle down effect of increasing things like co-pays, co-insurance, and drug costs to the patient to make up for the gap from no increase to Medicaid.
Do you understand that?
Here, let me try to simplify it:
Say you get a procedure at a rural hospital that costs $10,000.
Medicaid pays, let's say, 65% of that $10K cost under current funding levels, which would put you as the patient on the hook for $3,500.
So let's say that Medicaid funding levels are frozen the following year, which means less Medicaid money. So because overall, there isn't an increase to Medicaid funding (because you froze it or grew it nominally), yet health care costs do increase each year, and health care costs rose at record rates during the 00's, so the Medicaid money has to be spread more thinly. So instead of paying 65% of the $10K cost, Medicaid pays only 50%. Which means how much is the patient on the hook for then?
Now imagine that health care cost was $100,000 instead of $10,000, and with Medicaid paying a lower % of that cost -again, because Medicaid's funding was frozen and had to spread costs out more thinly- would mean the patient is on the hook for more.
And Medical Debt is the #1 cause of bankruptcies...before and after the ACA.
Many Medicaid services cannot impose out of pocket expenses
What do you mean "Many Medicaid Services"?
This feels like a goalpost that will be shifted.
Rather than demanding higher taxes and higher Medicaid spending, why are you willing to do something about unnecessary spending and cut costs?
Because spending isn't the problem, Flash! We've been over this.
Clinton increased spending by 32% from 1993-2001 and left office with a budget surplus.
So increasing spending doesn't lead to deficits, cutting taxes does.
After 8 years of Clinton increasing spending 32%, he left office with a budget surplus.
That surplus was immediately erased by the tax cut that passed in 2001.
So without changing anything spending-wise, we went from a surplus to a deficit in one year. How? TAX CUTS.
Over half the people at my mother's nursing home paid an elder lawyer to get their relative qualified so Medicaid paid for their nursing home costs even though they could afford to pay or their elderly relative had money.
I doubt this anecdote, and it feels like you're making it up.
Regardless, if they qualified for Medicaid, they qualified for Medicaid.
The taxpayers should not be paying for those who can afford to pay for themselves.
OMFG this gets to exactly my point.
So you said before that you personally witnessed (yeah fucking right, but OK) people hiring lawyers to get their elderly relatives qualified for Medicaid.
So that means that family was paying out of their own pocket for their elderly relative's nursing home care.
So let's say that nursing home care is so expensive that it's forcing those families to borrow or take a line of credit out on their homes in order to cover the cost of their elderly relative's health care.
So Flash, could that explain why so many people were going into debt in the 00's despite getting a tax cut?
That families were dipping into their savings, just like the families you heaped scorn on for enrolling their elderly relatives in Medicaid so they don't have to bear the burden of those costs, dip into their personal savings, and/or borrow against the equity in their homes????
The taxpayers should not be paying for those who can afford to pay for themselves
Unless you know the specific financial circumstances of everyone doing that, this is just you being a huge fucking asshole.
You don't know if those elderly people and/or their families are paying out of pocket for that care.
You also don't know if that care costs so much that they're forced to dip into their personal savings and/or their home equity.
You make assumptions of people, based on nothing, that you then use as the support of what is ultimately a thoughtless argument over health care.
People paying for health care for their elderly relatives means they're not spending that money in the consumer market. And they have to get that money from somewhere, so from where are they getting it? Not from the nominal boost to after-tax income vis-a-vis the Bush Tax Cuts, right? So from where are these people getting the money to pay for their elderly relatives' nursing home care? FROM THEIR PERSONAL SAVINGS AND/OR HOME EQUITY.
So...reaching back to my chart showing the decline of personal savings and the rise of household debt, do you now understand maybe why personal debt levels increased so much from 2001-2007?
If Pell Grants are not sufficient, cut off all those people who never show up for class but collect their residual cash to spend however they choose
WTF are you talking about?
Do you think people don't go to class because they get Pell Grants?
WTF?
You are clueless.
And cut off those for-profit private schools that provide little or no educational benefits but exist almost 100% on federal grants and loans and often shut down in the middle of a semester with no student refunds.
I'm totally fine with that, but those businesses are protected by Conservatives like Betsy DeVos. Conservatives who also profit from them...again, LIKE BETSY DEVOS.
So it's not "bothsides", is it?
Only one side champions those schools.
Is it the Democrats, or is it the side with the guy who literally had one of those very "schools" you're talking about (Trump University, in case there was any doubt as to whom I was referring)?
If there are empty seats in a classroom, let eligible students attend for free rather than supporting a federal bureaucracy and financial aid office in every college
OR we could just make all Public Colleges tuition free.
That would be easier and cheaper for everyone.
It wouldn't cost a lot either. We could pay for it by repealing the Russia Tax Cut.
They are thousands of classes cancelled every semester due to insufficient enrollment. That student gets a free education and we have saved billions.
That's not really a realistic plan, Flash, and you know that.
What's realistic is making all public colleges tuition free, which would remove the need for those families and students to have to borrow to attend.
Those free Public Colleges can be paid for by repealing the Russia Tax Cut.
The answer to everything is not more taxes and spending.
Never said it was, but the answer to most government program performance and operational issues is more taxes and spending.
Clinton raised taxes and increased spending 32% and saw arguably the greatest economic expansion in a generation, perhaps in all of American history.
But that shouldn't have happened, according to the dogma you are disseminating here.
Unless you know the specific financial circumstances of everyone doing that, this is just you being a huge fucking asshole.
You don't know if those elderly people and/or their families are paying out of pocket for that care.
You also don't know if that care costs so much that they're forced to dip into their personal savings and/or their home equity.
You make assumptions of people, based on nothing, that you then use as the support of what is ultimately a thoughtless argument over health care.
People paying for health care for their elderly relatives means they're not spending that money in the consumer market. And they have to get that money from somewhere, so from where are they getting it? Not from the nominal boost to after-tax income vis-a-vis the Bush Tax Cuts, right? So from where are these people getting the money to pay for their elderly relatives' nursing home care? FROM THEIR PERSONAL SAVINGS AND/OR HOME EQUITY.
So...reaching back to my chart showing the decline of personal savings and the rise of household debt, do you now understand maybe why personal debt levels increased so much from 2001-2007?
Yes, I do know. We had a meeting so they could explain to us how to get our relative qualified. These people have to pay the lawyer $10,000 up front for him to get their relative qualified. If they and/or their relative already qualified they did not need an attorney or have to go through legal loopholes.
For example, one person told me his mother had a retirement account of $400,000 (plus Social Security). If they spent that money (all but $2,000) on a new house, car, furniture for the mother with the stipulation that she intended to move back to that house when she got out of the nursing home (which she would never do) she would qualify. Then, the guy and his family moved into that home. The state comes after that person when the mother dies to recover the cost the state paid, but there is an easy way around that also.
Pick up a paper sometimes and read about all the medical providers in your area that get charged with Medicare and Medicaid fraud.
Qualifying elderly for Medicaid when they have assets of their own only shows why government spending increases so much giving the relatives more more to spend therefore less debt and more savings.
Yes, I do know. We had a meeting so they could explain to us how to get our relative qualified. These people have to pay the lawyer $10,000 up front for him to get their relative qualified. If they and/or their relative already qualified they did not need an attorney or have to go through legal loopholes.
This is all anecdotal bullshit that I simply cannot accept because you're relaying your bias on this, and I feel like I'm not getting the full story.
Plus, there's no way to verify it either, so for all I know this could be an "ends justifying the means" thing with you, where you lie in order to help your flailing argument.
But even still, dipping into savings to pay $10K for a lawyer so you don't have to pay $100K later on makes all the sense in the world to me.
For example, one person told me his mother had a retirement account of $400,000 (plus Social Security). If they spent that money (all but $2,000) on a new house, car, furniture for the mother with the stipulation that she intended to move back to that house when she got out of the nursing home (which she would never do) she would qualify. Then, the guy and his family moved into that home. The state comes after that person when the mother dies to recover the cost the state paid, but there is an easy way around that also.
Again, I feel like I'm not getting the full story.
I feel like you're skewing things here, being somewhat vague about it, because you know there's no real way to verify.
How old is the mother?
Is she in care now?
Who pays for her care now?
How much do they pay for her care now?
Pick up a paper sometimes and read about all the medical providers in your area that get charged with Medicare and Medicaid fraud.
You mean like the current Senator from Florida and Trump ally who supported tax cuts and is now crafting Trump's health care bill? That guy?
I also don't understand the argument; so because some level of fraud exists, we should just get rid of both programs?
Do you...do you know how much fraud exists in the private sector?
That's not really a realistic plan, Flash, and you know that.
What's realistic is making all public colleges tuition free, which would remove the need for those families and students to have to borrow to attend.
Those free Public Colleges can be paid for by repealing the Russia Tax Cut.
Never said it was, but the answer to most government program performance and operational issues is more taxes and spending.
Clinton raised taxes and increased spending 32% and saw arguably the greatest economic expansion in a generation, perhaps in all of American history.
But that shouldn't have happened, according to the dogma you are disseminating here.
But you could still save hundreds of millions by cutting off all those Pell Grants to people who have no intention of attending class but are getting $500 to enroll by the (private) college or attend public college but never attend class and have never passed a single class. The college keeps letting them attend because it gets state money for each student plus their tuition.
My plan is more practical than tuition free public colleges. Colleges would admit anybody and make sure they all passed to keep the money coming--destroying the value of a college degree. That is already happening too much because of Pell Grants and the online class bonanza.
Qualifying elderly for Medicaid when they have assets of their own only shows why government spending increases so much giving the relatives more more to spend therefore less debt and more savings.
"Assets of their own"
So literally what I said before; people dipping into their assets or home equity in order to pay medical bills is the cause of the spike in household debt increases.
You just confirmed it here!
You're saying that people must liquidate their assets (OR BORROW IF THEY HAVE NO MORE ASSETS TO LIQUIDATE) in order to pay for their own health care, even though Medicaid exists and can reduce and/or eliminate the need for people to do that, freeing them up to spend that money in the consumer economy, pay down their own debt, or invest it.
Whether you realize it or not, you just made the best argument for expansion of Medicaid.