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

[LV426]

LV426 is arguing with a straw man, again. I never said government was not productive vs. private companies.

That is what you're saying, Flash. You're talking vaguely and ambiguously about government not being productive, and you're planting movable goalposts as to what "productive" means, to allow yourself wiggle room as you find your position increasingly untenable.

I talked about eliminating those jobs which are not productive or useful.

Three things:

1. You don't even know what those jobs are, which is why it's all ambiguous and vague.
2. You are applying your own personal, ever-changing, goalpost-shifting standard as to what "productive" and "useful" are, when you've done nothing to earn that entitlement.
3. Your real goal is to get rid of government entirely simply because you are opposed to the institution of government.

[Flash]

Both Medicare and Aetna do the exact same thing; administrate reimbursement to providers.

Yet, according to Flash, Medicare is wasteful and Aetna isn't, even though Aetna spends 15,000% more of its budget on administration for fewer people than Medicare does.

Another lie. I never said a word about Aetna or private insurance.

Another straw man. I said Medicare estimates its own waste and fraud at $60 billion. At 1 billion transactions a year it is impossible to review all of these. When they do find fraud the company the government has already paid has moved (or never existed).

LV426 makes up imaginary posts he then argues with.

[LV426]

Do you favor weapons systems the military does not need, military bases that are unnecessary, reconstruction projects in Afghanistan and Iraq that are never completed but have been paid for, students getting Pell grants who never attend class and are failing, etc. etc.

Again with this fake Pell Grant thing you maintain -WITHOUT PROOF- happens. The only proof you have is your word...and why the fuck should anyone believe you.

Furthermore, if that is such a problem for you that it has you so hysterical, then you should be arguing for an increase in the budget for enforcement operations. But you oppose increasing government spending as a matter of principle. So basically, your argument is just masturbation.

As for the military spending, I've been saying since the beginning that the military budget is a welfare program mostly for defense companies and unemployable trash, and that its budget does not justify it as a defense against the true threats we face; Climate change, cyberwarfare, pandemics.

[LV426]

These functions are not productive but the public is being forced to pay for them.

Pell grants aren't productive? What?

The military spending is productive in that it keeps unemployable losers, employed. I'm all for cutting the military, but not because it's wasteful or unproductive, because it doesn't address the actual threats we face.

LV426 does not care if government wastes his money because he thinks all government spending is good.

I've been arguing for a dramatic cut in military spending since I've joined these boards, and the reason (see, I give reasons for things whereas you just submit your shit personal judgment) is because our military is not cut out for 21st century warfare, clearly.

As a matter of principle, government spending has a higher return on its investment than any other form of economic stimulative policy, including tax cuts.

[Flash]

Your real goal is to get rid of government entirely simply because you are opposed to the institution of government.

Another brilliant conclusion based on 0 evidence or support--like most of your posts.

[LV426]

Another lie. I never said a word about Aetna or private insurance.

By saying government is wasteful, the implication you are making is that the private sector is not.

Your philosophy that you've said on these boards before is that government is more wasteful than the private sector...but you base that not on experience, evidence, or data. You base that on propaganda that has been driven into your empty head by Conservatives since the day you were born. You didn't come to the conclusion that government is wasteful, because you have no way of determining that. You learned it from someone else; someone with an agenda to undermine the institution of government in order to destroy it.

I said Medicare estimates its own waste and fraud at $60 billion.

Wait a second...so you're moving the bar again. Now you're lumping the waste in with the fraud? How much of that $60B is waste, and how much is fraud? Or are you going to now stretch the definition of waste to mean "fraud" and vice versa? Even if the waste is $60B, that's still a smaller percentage than the average insurance company spends on administration, waste, and fraud.

Unless...you don't think insurance companies have ever acted fraudulently.

At 1 billion transactions a year it is impossible to review all of these.

Not if you staff up an agency to do precisely that...but that would require an increase in spending, which you are fundamentally opposed to. So how is your position on this not masturbation?

When they do find fraud the company the government has already paid has moved (or never existed).

So...it's the private company engaging in fraud, not Medicare.

And Medicare could suss out the fraud if it had a fully-staffed and fully-funded enforcement agency to police that sort of thing.

How much do you want to bet that eliminating or cutting enforcement operations was one of the key parts of Trump's HHS under Price and whoever the fuck is now acting HHS secretary?

So you deliberately create an environment for fraud to thrive by cutting operational enforcement, then point at the fraud your cuts to operational enforcement didn't catch as an example of fraud perpetrated by the government.

[LV426]

Another brilliant conclusion based on 0 evidence or support--like most of your posts.

Flash, all this time you've been screeching about how the government is wasteful and full of fraud, even though you admit it's private companies defrauding the government.

So what conclusion am I supposed to reach from that?

[Flash]

Pell grants aren't productive? What?

They are profitable for college employees, but do not produce anything when 1) a student never attends a class 2) fails most of his classes 3) is paid by the school to sign up because he is poor and will qualify for loans and grants that he will not pay back 4) private for-profit schools close in the middle of a semester and students lose everything they paid 5) receive very poor educations from schools just seeking their money 6) schools use loopholes to qualify students for grants or loans that should not be getting them.

LV426 thinks if money goes to "education" people must actually be getting an education even though millions are wasted with no educational benefits. On the other hand, many students do benefit from these loans and grants and I have no problem with them.

However, we could do much of this cheaper with little waste when we take away the incentive of students and colleges to take advantage of the taxpayers money. Because the money provides jobs or adds to GDP is less important than making the public pay programs with zero return.

[LV426]

They are profitable for college employees, but do not produce anything when 1) a student never attends a class 2) fails most of his classes 3) is paid by the school to sign up because he is poor and will qualify for loans and grants that he will not pay back 4) private for-profit schools close in the middle of a semester and students lose everything they paid 5) receive very poor educations from schools just seeking their money 6) schools use loopholes to qualify students for grants or loans that should not be getting them.

LV426 thinks if money goes to "education" people must actually be getting an education even though millions are wasted with no educational benefits. On the other hand, many students do benefit from these loans and grants and I have no problem with them.

However, we could do much of this cheaper with little waste when we take away the incentive of students and colleges to take advantage of the taxpayers money. Because the money provides jobs or adds to GDP is less important than making the public pay programs with zero return.

Well, gee, if we had free public colleges, we wouldn't need Pell Grants, would we?

[LV426]

LV426 thinks if money goes to "education" people must actually be getting an education even though millions are wasted with no educational benefits.

Like what do you mean? Other than the obviously fake anecdotes you shared, what are you talking about?

If we had free public colleges, we wouldn't need Pell Grants.

So...who is the one who wants to get rid of Pell Grants? Me.

Who is the one who wants to keep them, leading to the possibility of the abuse you invented? You.

However, we could do much of this cheaper with little waste when we take away the incentive of students and colleges to take advantage of the taxpayers money.

The problem here is that everything you are saying is being filtered through your biased prism. You say students and colleges take advantage of taxpayer money, but then you say they don't in literally the sentence before.

Your post is full of self-contradictions.

Because the money provides jobs or adds to GDP is less important than making the public pay programs with zero return.

Pell Grants have zero return? You literally JUST SAID "On the other hand, many students do benefit from these loans and grants and I have no problem with them."

SMH.

[Flash]

Flash, all this time you've been screeching about how the government is wasteful and full of fraud, even though you admit it's private companies defrauding the government.

So what conclusion am I supposed to reach from that?

Conclude that greed lies with individuals---private or public and neither is immune from taking advantage.

When government (or anybody) makes money available private companies, government institutions, and individuals will find ways to take advantage of it. Much of it is not fraud because it is perfectly illegal---but very wasteful.

I guess you think it is ok if doctors, dentists, chiropractors, ambulance companies, medical supply houses fraudulently take billions from the government--after all, all that fraud and waste provides them a job. You don't care if it is not productive; at least that is the attitude you have toward government waste.

[Flash]

Making shit up; that's all you have isn't you brain dead, dishonest lying leftist hack?

Moron:
2017 Revenue = $3.316 Trillion.
2018 Revenue = $3.330 Trillion.

LV426 Uses calendar year rather than fiscal year because it fits his (alternative) facts.

[Flash]

Except that when Obama was President, he reduced the deficits by letting tax cuts for the rich expire, which slowed the growth of debt.

What a load of fucking horseshit.

Inaccurate, LAZY fucking horseshit.

Even with the MILD 2001 recession, the 2001 budget was still in surplus.

You see the Deficit/surplus number for 2001? $120B SURPLUS.

So the 2001 recession, which was so mild that GDP growth for 2001 was still positive at 1.9%, didn't result in a deficit in 2001, nor would it because the 2001 recession ended by October 2001.

Flash won't even do the bare fucking minimum anymore.

He's gone full Conservative; entitled fucking laziness.

As usual LV426 chooses numbers that support his political views. He thinks ranting, insults, and vulgarity will make readers overlook his cherry picked numbers just like he couldn't explain why consumer spending and disposable income continued to increase after tax cuts when he claimed people had less money to spend because somebody cut their benefits.

Why don't we used updated data from the Treasury Department

FY 2001 (Deficit/Surplus)
Oct: 11,321
Nov: 23,690
Dec: −32,66
Jan: −76,379
Feb: 48,168
Mar: 50,662
Apr: −189,796
May: 27,919
Jun: −31,862
Jul: −2,820
Aug: 79,990
Sep: −35,271

YTD: -127,045

https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/file...ts/mts0302.pdf (Table 1, p.2)

There was a deficit for six month of the FY2001 fiscal year. This shows a deficit for the entire year, but whatever annual figure we choose it is obvious the 2001 recession of 8 months affected the deficit/surplus and there was no surplus for much of the year.

Debt:
1996: 5,224,810,939,135.73
1997: 5,413,146,011,397.34
1998: 5,526,193,008,897.62
1999: 5,656,270,901,615.43
2000: 5,674,178,209,886.86
2001: 5,807,463,412,200.06

Despite this "surplus" even before 2001 the debt continued to increase every year. It is only a "surplus" if we don't count some of the spending. Claiming a surplus while your debt is increasing is good PR but not an accurate picture. People use publicly held debt or intergovernmental debt when convenient.

[Flash]

Again with this fake Pell Grant thing you maintain -WITHOUT PROOF- happens. The only proof you have is your word...and why the fuck should anyone believe you.

Furthermore, if that is such a problem for you that it has you so hysterical, then you should be arguing for an increase in the budget for enforcement operations. But you oppose increasing government spending as a matter of principle. So basically, your argument is just masturbation.

As for the military spending, I've been saying since the beginning that the military budget is a welfare program mostly for defense companies and unemployable trash, and that its budget does not justify it as a defense against the true threats we face; Climate change, cyberwarfare, pandemics.

Because you are too lazy to check out the Pell Grant problem--it might not fit your politics. You are willing to accept the waste for military but not for social programs--what a crock. Government waste is government waste.

Ask any college professor if he has students who were enrolled but never attended class. It may not be a large percentage, but would amount to many millions of dollars.

You justify wasted spending as providing jobs but that same (lame) explanation would apply to money for defense contractors for much higher wages. Welfare for defense contractors is money their wealthy friends just like Medicare and Medicaid is money for their wealthy doctor, dentist, chiropractor, hospital and medical supply friends and food stamps is welfare for their wealthy farmers, food processors and distributors, truckers, and super market friends and college loans and grants is welfare for their wealthy board of regent, contractor, and administrative friends. Now mental health professionals are rubbing their hands together in anticipation of money coming their way as part of any effort to stop mass shootings.

That does not mean these programs do not provide some good services and benefits, but most of the money goes to wealthy interests both Democratic and Republican. You defend government spending for the very things you attack.

[Flash]

So...it's the private company engaging in fraud, not Medicare.

And Medicare could suss out the fraud if it had a fully-staffed and fully-funded enforcement agency to police that sort of thing.

Finally, you understand. The private companies are taking advantage of government programs. The people are committing fraud and Medicare is letting them by paying almost anybody that asks for money.

Your black-white mentality wants to blame private companies and defend low income recipients. It is both. It is also because of the way government funds that encourages spending. Much of the waste is not fraud because a lot of it is legal. Free trips to medical appoints enrich ambulance companies for those who do not need it, chiropractors picking up kids in vans after school and giving them adjustments, giving children root canals, et.

Liberals are willing to believe in government fraud and welfare if you couch it in terms of private businesses benefiting but not if you include low-income because we can't criticize those people. Conservatives do just the opposite.

Fully staffing offices to investigate fraud would be very expensive and could never check out the 1 billion Medicare transactions per year. You would spend more on government investigators than the waste---but that would be ok because more government employees is always good according to LV426.