Americans Paid $90 Billion MORE In Taxes After Republican Tax Cut

[LV426]

The higher the percentage of GDP spent by the government slows the economy.

WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG.

How could you be so fucking wrong? Simple; you're too fucking lazy to do the work.

In fact, higher levels of government debt do not translate to lower economic growth.

How do I know that? Because I do my research because Conservatives lie about everything and will deliberately lie to push a false point.

Only a fucking idiot still thinks high levels of government debt correspond to poor GDP growth, even after the study that initially said that was corrected because it was wrong.

[LV426]

Because anybody who follows politics know the Democrats will not raise taxes enough to pay for all those programs

WTF are you talking about?

You're the ones who screech that raising the tax rate to 90% (which it was for almost 20 years) is too high!

You're the ones who screech that any tax increase is too high.

It's like we are in bizarro world now...Democrats don't want to raise taxes high enough to pay for it? AOC just said the other day she wanted a 70% top tax rate.

FFS, Flash, you are 100% a sophist.

[LV426]

It will hurt too many of their wealthy supporters--thus, irresponsible.

Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren don't take campaign contributions from the mega-wealthy, and their average donations are under $30.

So you just say whatever stupid shit comes to your mind, and you think that position is entitled to serious consideration why?

lus those programs only make the problems worse because they incentivize the wasteful spending.

What is "wasteful spending"? What are you even fucking talking about? Why is it that you use vague, ambivalent phrases whenever you debate? Because you are actually very insecure in what you're saying so you give yourself wiggle room.

What a fucking fraud.

[LV426]

Simple. If you cut taxes without spending cuts you increase the deficit and debt---simple economics.

First off, this is you admitting tax cuts cause deficits and debt.

Secondly, deficits and debt don't have an impact on the economy. We know this because you all tried to pretend it did, and were caught lying about it.

So you didn't actually answer why spending has to be cut in order for tax cuts to work. You haven't made the connection...and the connection you are trying to make, that high levels of debt correspond to poor economic growth, is fucking wrong and a lie!

You don't want consumers spending too much borrowed money

OK, but every time taxes have been cut the last 40 years, household debt increased and personal savings plummeted.

I've posted this same chart at least two dozen times, and never once have you bothered to reconcile it with your bullshit beliefs:

download.png

So you say you like facts, but you don't. You like having your bias confirmed, and you will use any piece of lying bullshit you can to do that.

[LV426]

I'm not ideologically opposed to government spending---only wasteful government spending--like the $60 billion Medicare says is fraud.

Which amounts to less than the amount of fraud committed by Rick Scott himself.

Also, if you want to prevent fraud, you have to fund agencies that police it.

But you don't want to increase spending in order to fight fraud...so really, your position is masturbatory; you oppose increasing spending to fight fraud because of fraud that comes from lower spending on oversight.

Total fucking masturbation.

[LV426]

They are free to the people getting the benefits.

No they're not! They're funded by payroll taxes everyone pays!

You don't know the first thing about the proposal you are opposed to!

The entire purpose of M4A is to do away with premiums and OOPE and replace it entirely with a payroll tax of about 6%.

According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, the average worker spends $5,000 a year on premiums and $1,500 a year on deductibles and OOPE, with the employer paying an average of $15,000 per employee. So, the average worker spends a total of $6,500 a year on their health care if they get it through their employer.

Sanders' M4A proposal calls for a 6% payroll tax as the premium.

Real Median Household Income in the US is $61K/yr.

So...let's do some math...you like math, right? Everyone likes math.

So 6% of $61K = $3,660

Now, is $3,660 > or < $6,500 in Flashtardia?

Be honest.

[LV426]

When somebody else is paying there is no reason to keep spending down.

Everyone is paying because M4A is funded by payroll taxes.

So it's not "free"...it's "free at the point of care". You're still paying your premium in your payroll taxes. Only, instead of paying the Medicare tax and the premium + deductibles and OOPE, you're just paying a flat payroll tax.

Not hard to understand, which begs the question; why are you having such trouble understanding it?

[LV426]

The hostility is high in you this morning. As usual, your post has more personal insults, vulgarity, and hatred than any logical or useful information.

Flash demands everyone make him comfortable enough so that he might make a bad faith effort to engage your argument.

Total entitlement complex.

[LV426]

Your hostility usually increases as the day progressives---by tonight your blood pressure (and hatred) will be sky high.

You find yourself slipping and falling back on your poor judgment that is substituted for conventional wisdom; you fall back on old, debunked arguments and then you fall back on lame attempts to dismiss that by attacking my style.

What a coward. What a lazy fucking fraud.

[Flash]

WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG.

How could you be so fucking wrong? Simple; you're too fucking lazy to do the work.

In fact, higher levels of government debt do not translate to lower economic growth.

How do I know that? Because I do my research because Conservatives lie about everything and will deliberately lie to push a false point.

Only a fucking idiot still thinks high levels of government debt correspond to poor GDP growth, even after the study that initially said that was corrected because it was wrong.

Read carefully. You posted a statement about percent of GDP spent by government and then switch to government debt.

According to the CBO economic projections as debt increases we should expect to see slower economic growth in the 2020's. Interest on the debt will increase $7 trillion over the next ten years. That takes away from "public investment" (spending). The CBO says each person could increase his annual income by $5,500 if we lowered our debt to the historical average of 42%. Economic studies estimate the current debt level is slowing the economy about 1% annually.

https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/201...331-LTBO-2.pdf

Thomas Grennes, Michael Fan, and Mehmet Caner in “New Evidence on Debt as an Obstacle to US Economic Growth.”

[Flash]

Everyone is paying because M4A is funded by payroll taxes.

So it's not "free"...it's "free at the point of care". You're still paying your premium in your payroll taxes. Only, instead of paying the Medicare tax and the premium + deductibles and OOPE, you're just paying a flat payroll tax.

Not hard to understand, which begs the question; why are you having such trouble understanding it?

At $14 trillion over a decade it is definitely not free. The payroll tax will have to be much higher than currently if it is going to pay for itself (rather than have the wealthy pay for everything).

But when the government (or private heath insurance) pays for our healthcare, we aren't concerned with the costs. I get calls weekly wanting to give me free stuff because Medicare will pay for it.

[Flash]

Flash demands everyone make him comfortable enough so that he might make a bad faith effort to engage your argument.

Total entitlement complex.

I don't think I am entitled to free government programs paid for by the wealthy--that is your proposal.

[Wolverine]

Every rational, sober adult would complain if someone pissed in their soup, dispshit.

Apparently you don't.

Speaks volumes.

That is a very typical Liberal post, does nothing to address the FACT that they just had their ass handed to them!

[Flash]

WTF are you talking about?

You're the ones who screech that raising the tax rate to 90% (which it was for almost 20 years) is too high!

You're the ones who screech that any tax increase is too high.

It's like we are in bizarro world now...Democrats don't want to raise taxes high enough to pay for it? AOC just said the other day she wanted a 70% top tax rate.

FFS, Flash, you are 100% a sophist.

I didn't propose raising taxes---read carefully. I said the Democrats are never going to raise it enough to cover all their spending programs. I didn't say they should. You type before you think.

[CharacterAssassin]

That is a very typical Liberal post, does nothing to address the FACT that they just had their ass handed to them!

Why do you enjoy eating piss-soup?