• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

U.S. Politics

Page 2490 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
The last few pages illustrate the danger of putting numbers on proposals during an election. The same thing happened with the Green New Deal rollout. Trump ran on building a wall that Mexico would pay for. The GOP passed a trillion dollar tax reform that they told us would pay for itself. How is that working out for everybody? The GOP has won the messaging game hands down. The debate is fought entirely on the ground of their own making.

The reasons I think it is worth supporting Warren is not because she will pass M4A. (Almost certainly not happening in a million years). But because she will try to make health care more inclusive. Try to implement environmental reforms. Try to tackle income inequality. Try to reform higher education. Trump thinks everything is fine. If you do too, vote for Trump. But don't hyperventilate about the honesty of a candidate in the year 2019, when shameless lying is rife. The weakness that Warren started to show was how poor she was at this aspect of politics. Her 'only taxing the billionaires' remarks didn't sound very authentic.

I think the basic state of the race right now is that people would rather vote for Trump than vote for a Democrat if it means that their taxes will go up 1 cent.
But you can see here the hyperventilating done by some with every silly word or twitter from trump. It is almost as if no one remembers the past election. The focus now is not on any of the democrats but it is on impeachment that will go nowhere. The way to get him out is to defeat him.
 
Oct 28, 2019
71
24
230
An indigenous population where the Chinese pay about 6.5% of GDP (total cost) and struggle with suburban care (major doctor shortage) all while implementing pretty strong cost-control policies. Warren's plan spends more than 25% of GDP. We haven't even made it to free college yet. Probably not a great comparison.

Same thing with California. Sure, people can move to states where there are lower or no taxes. But where are they going to move to when it's a national law?
For Warren to suppose that high wage earners will continue to aggressively grow their income and wealth to have significant amounts taxed from them is (probably) silly. There are reasons people take risk and work long hours. If it was to enhance Federal revenue then we would likely see that already. In 2015 Warren Buffet reported an AGI of roughly $11.6 Million. He only paid $1.9 Million in taxes for an effective rate of 16%. I wonder why Buffet went ahead and deducted his charitable contributions of $3.5 Million? I mean, let's pretend that $3.5 Million was paid in additional tax under the Warren plan. What do you suppose Warren's charitable contributions would have been? Significantly less is the correct answer.

I realize that many people in America are greedy materialistic assholes (it was clear from the Stanford study that those who moved out of state did so not because they could no longer survive--though we have plenty of people in CA who can't right now--but because they were oh so afraid that they could't continue to accumulate hundred times more wealth than any sane, rational person needs for a decent living), but even by their standards, this is over the top. When are we going to get serious and point out that greed at this level is not just something to make jokes about--it's a mental illness?
This proves my point 100% and this is why Warren's assumptions are all wrong. If the tax rate is considered confiscatory and there is really no shade available the ultra wealthy will simply back it off. What's the point of a high income and accumulating wealth if it's going to be taxed at rates one feels are unfair? Wealth, for example, has already been taxed. So you think it's fair to tax it again because the wealthy are greedy. Fine by me but don't expect them to play along and Warren shouldn't either.

I find it ironic that while you argue that the large population of the U.S. makes a comparison of health care systems with other countries impossible, you have no problem making projections on financial changes based on other systems that differ even more drastically from the U.S. If anything, economies of scale should favor expanding health care to larger populations.
It's a false comparison. One goes to behavioral patterns the other is one of finance. Economies of scale don't work in the healthcare world because cost is not linear. For example, by far the most costly part of system is end of life care. More people in the system does not make end of life care less per person (and we will see that in a big way when boomer death rates peak).
 
I think Gadsen is onto something here. If policies go into place that restrict economic growth for its own sake (voluntarily or not), along with a set of policy practices that restrict medical industry growth for its own sake (along with insurance profiteering) and the implicit production of poor health than its entirely likely that the structure and attitudes around medical coverage will also change.

Weird and radical notions.

Sort of like changing the discourse that taxes are confiscatory but part of social life.
 
Oct 28, 2019
71
24
230
Clearly a roaring economy should have nearly flat revenue year to year. Makes sense to me.

ETA. As I am one of the lucky people who are paying more in tax since the reform bill passed..... you're welcome. I am helping make that set of figures work.
It's a shame the Country can't get a handle on the spending. A roaring economy is helping on nearly all fronts particularly lower income wage earners. Their incomes are rising the fastest of any group. This is actually fantastic news and runs contrary to Progressive policy. Instead of forcing $15/hour (increasing joblessness) an effort has been made to protect low-skilled workers and grow the economy and - magically - wages are rising (do to supply and demand issues).
 
It's a shame the Country can't get a handle on the spending. A roaring economy is helping on nearly all fronts particularly lower income wage earners. Their incomes are rising the fastest of any group. This is actually fantastic news and runs contrary to Progressive policy. Instead of forcing $15/hour (increasing joblessness) an effort has been made to protect low-skilled workers and grow the economy and - magically - wages are rising (do to supply and demand issues).
We live in Seattle and the $15/hr wage did nothing to slow down job growth. It actually attracts workers where we have shortages. The major beneficiaries? Lower wage workers. This is pretty much true on much of the West Coast for the time being. You don't need to go to far East of here to see wage stagnation, however. Smaller towns are continuing their death spirals as millennials head to the jobs. No policy has changed that for decades.

As for the "Country" getting a handle on spending; our current deficit wasn't helped by the last corporate handout designed to attract offshore corporate capital back to the US and "stimulate" investment. Instead it went to primarily stock buybacks and mergers. My taxes went up, not down.
 
Oct 28, 2019
71
24
230
I think Gads[d}en is onto something here. If policies go into place that restrict economic growth for its own sake (voluntarily or not), along with a set of policy practices that restrict medical industry growth for its own sake (along with insurance profiteering) and the implicit production of poor health than its entirely likely that the structure and attitudes around medical coverage will also change.

Weird and radical notions.

Sort of like changing the discourse that taxes are confiscatory but part of social life.
Taxes by definition are confiscatory and are also part of social life. Neither is new.

As far as structure and attitudes, we will see how much traction Warren's plan gets. It does not look promising so far.

“Medicare for All” was a nonstarter in Congress and predicted it would encounter opposition from Democrats as well as Republicans.

“I think it is going to be very difficult to even get a Democratic Congress to vote for that,” Biden said.
 
Oct 28, 2019
71
24
230
We live in Seattle and the $15/hr wage did nothing to slow down job growth. It actually attracts workers where we have shortages. The major beneficiaries? Lower wage workers. This is pretty much true on much of the West Coast for the time being. You don't need to go to far East of here to see wage stagnation, however. Smaller towns are continuing their death spirals as millennials head to the jobs. No policy has changed that for decades.

As for the "Country" getting a handle on spending; our current deficit wasn't helped by the last corporate handout designed to attract offshore corporate capital back to the US and "stimulate" investment. Instead it went to primarily stock buybacks and mergers. My taxes went up, not down.
Plenty of studies out there suggesting net job losses for mandated $15/hr. CBO estimates run anywhere from zero to 3.7 million.

Our deficit is a spending problem. Revenue has been growing but spending (base-line budgeting) is outpacing revenue growth. So much of it is mandated that, without changes in those mandates, there's no hope to outgrow the mandated increases.

Sounds like a great time to take 20% on the economy and turn it upside down while at the same time hoping for the best.

How about this: given the ease at which producers are expected to give an extra percent (here and there) how about freezing spending at 2019 levels for 2020. Then in Fiscal 2021 we reduce spending by 1% across the board for 10 consecutive years. Nothing major, but every program gets 99 cents for every dollar they received the year prior. Hard to know when the intersection would happen but by year 7 or 8 we would (should?) actually be running a surplus.
 
Taxes by definition are confiscatory and are also part of social life. Neither is new.

As far as structure and attitudes, we will see how much traction Warren's plan gets. It does not look promising so far.

“Medicare for All” was a nonstarter in Congress and predicted it would encounter opposition from Democrats as well as Republicans.

“I think it is going to be very difficult to even get a Democratic Congress to vote for that,” Biden said.
This would be more interesting if your arguments stayed consistent. Taxes are not understood as social for many of the virtual voters you make reference to as rejecting them absolutely.

Similarly, taxes cease being confiscatory when wealth is virtual and subject to the benefits and constraints of a sovereign nation (as opposed to say raw goods that could be held and defended outside the city-state).
 
Oct 28, 2019
71
24
230
This would be more interesting if your arguments stayed consistent. Taxes are not understood as social for many of the virtual voters you make reference to as rejecting them absolutely.

Similarly, taxes cease being confiscatory when wealth is virtual and subject to the benefits and constraints of a sovereign nation (as opposed to say raw goods that could be held and defended outside the city-state).
Nonsense. Very few people reject Government (Montana Freemen) completely. The overwhelming majority understand the benefits and constraints of a civilized sovereign Nation and are more than willing to pay for it. However there's a point where people in large (enough) numbers become less willing.
 
We live in Seattle and the $15/hr wage did nothing to slow down job growth. It actually attracts workers where we have shortages. The major beneficiaries? Lower wage workers. This is pretty much true on much of the West Coast for the time being. You don't need to go to far East of here to see wage stagnation, however. Smaller towns are continuing their death spirals as millennials head to the jobs. No policy has changed that for decades.

As for the "Country" getting a handle on spending; our current deficit wasn't helped by the last corporate handout designed to attract offshore corporate capital back to the US and "stimulate" investment. Instead it went to primarily stock buybacks and mergers. My taxes went up, not down.
Strange mine went down not up. You must make more money than I do.
 
We live in Seattle and the $15/hr wage did nothing to slow down job growth. It actually attracts workers where we have shortages. The major beneficiaries? Lower wage workers. This is pretty much true on much of the West Coast for the time being. You don't need to go to far East of here to see wage stagnation, however. Smaller towns are continuing their death spirals as millennials head to the jobs. No policy has changed that for decades.

As for the "Country" getting a handle on spending; our current deficit wasn't helped by the last corporate handout designed to attract offshore corporate capital back to the US and "stimulate" investment. Instead it went to primarily stock buybacks and mergers. My taxes went up, not down.
How is reducing corporate tax from 35 to 21 percent not a good thing? The USA was well above other major nations.
https://taxfoundation.org/us-corporate-income-tax-more-competitive/
 
Plenty of studies out there suggesting net job losses for mandated $15/hr. CBO estimates run anywhere from zero to 3.7 million.

Our deficit is a spending problem. Revenue has been growing but spending (base-line budgeting) is outpacing revenue growth. So much of it is mandated that, without changes in those mandates, there's no hope to outgrow the mandated increases.

Sounds like a great time to take 20% on the economy and turn it upside down while at the same time hoping for the best.

How about this: given the ease at which producers are expected to give an extra percent (here and there) how about freezing spending at 2019 levels for 2020. Then in Fiscal 2021 we reduce spending by 1% across the board for 10 consecutive years. Nothing major, but every program gets 99 cents for every dollar they received the year prior. Hard to know when the intersection would happen but by year 7 or 8 we would (should?) actually be running a surplus.
Plenty of studies suggest......we have real world experience with $15/hr in our regional economy. You didn't read the balance of my point where there are no jobs; mandating an arbitrary wage accomplishes nothing. Here it does but our cost of living is the equalizer much like San Francisco and Vancouver BC.

You'll get no argument on the excess government spending but it is not the "Country". It is currently a partisan political war to deny almost any decent program funding or reduce bad spending if it affects a particular political party's interests. Both Dems and GOP are guilty of it and the scorched earth prezidont deflects constantly by attempting to privatize public lands and resources. All to distract from whatever other slight of hand his puppeteers are perpetrating.
 
It's weird that everything is sooooo. Stupid.
why run the government like a business?
why not run it like a household?
nobody buys a car or house cash..Most Americans pay (in payments)
Deficit spending.
Why do we have student loans? Because the students and parents don't have @$100-150,000 on hand to pay up front.
New roof?
water heater?
Americans don't have any money. Few have @$3-20,000 in hard currency. Credit is our creed.
we need to build bridges,roads,schools and dams w credit.
we need to borrow money for the things that are important.not debt service.
saying " no new taxes " is stupid when we need to spend money. Having tax as a 3rd rail is holding all of us back..schools,roads,..everything else!!!
stop buying tanks and aircraft carriers..
Potholes and schools.
Hot meals for the very old and the very young..better return on investment..guaranteed
 
Funny or not.
California has a grid problem. What will solve it! A new\ improved grid. How long will that take? 7-10 years.
why ?
not enough high voltage ,heavy line workers.
Colorado.
billions in hiway projects planned,designed and in a state of waiting.
why?
not enough quality,qualified workers to bid, or start the projects.
this is nation wide
 
An indigenous population where the Chinese pay about 6.5% of GDP (total cost) and struggle with suburban care (major doctor shortage) all while implementing pretty strong cost-control policies. Warren's plan spends more than 25% of GDP. We haven't even made it to free college yet. Probably not a great comparison.
You claimed that the large relatively heterogenous American population was a major impediment to universal health insurance. China has a population several times larger than that of the U.S., so by your logic they shouldn't even be able to attempt universal coverage. Yet they have gone some way in that direction.

Wealth, for example, has already been taxed. So you think it's fair to tax it again because the wealthy are greedy. Fine by me but don't expect them to play along and Warren shouldn't either.
I didn't say that wealth should be taxed again because the rich are greedy. I said that objecting to a tax of one penny on ten dollars seems silly. If you're rich and want to keep your wealth, there are much more appropriate hills to die on.

Economies of scale don't work in the healthcare world because cost is not linear. For example, by far the most costly part of system is end of life care. More people in the system does not make end of life care less per person (and we will see that in a big way when boomer death rates peak).
In the first place, while it's true that care for the elderly near the end of life is "more costly", it doesn't represent even close to the majority of health care spending. It's more like 25%. So it hardly eliminates the possibility of economies of scale.

In the second place, economies constantly result from advances in treating diseases, even the major diseases that account for most deaths. Since these new advances require a lot of research, and often initially are applicable only to relatively small populations of people with some disease (e.g., pharmacological approaches that are designed for people with certain genetic factors), they are harder to finance in small populations.
 
Oct 28, 2019
71
24
230
Plenty of studies suggest......we have real world experience with $15/hr in our regional economy. You didn't read the balance of my point where there are no jobs; mandating an arbitrary wage accomplishes nothing. Here it does but our cost of living is the equalizer much like San Francisco and Vancouver BC.

You'll get no argument on the excess government spending but it is not the "Country". It is currently a partisan political war to deny almost any decent program funding or reduce bad spending if it affects a particular political party's interests. Both Dems and GOP are guilty of it and the scorched earth prezidont deflects constantly by attempting to privatize public lands and resources. All to distract from whatever other slight of hand his puppeteers are perpetrating.
Can we agree Seattle, like Silicon Valley, has a different dynamic than a typical American marketplace? That said there hasn't been enough time to fully evaluate the cost/benefit of $15 minimum wage and it's adaptability to less dynamic marketplaces. The point is - with voracious competition for labor because of an expanding economy along with at least some worker protection (border/immigration tightening) - wages are increasing organically as opposed to arbitrarily. Even in Seattle hours worked is a issue as employers try and manage cost of labor relative to revenue and it's not possible to measure who never was hired and who decided not to start a business or locate a business there. Also wait and see how it goes with Boeing (they are in real trouble) and the City's ongoing desire to tax large employers on a per-employee basis.
 
Oct 28, 2019
71
24
230
You claimed that the large relatively heterogenous American population was a major impediment to universal health insurance. China has a population several times larger than that of the U.S., so by your logic they shouldn't even be able to attempt universal coverage. Yet they have gone some way in that direction.



I didn't say that wealth should be taxed again because the rich are greedy. I said that objecting to a tax of one penny on ten dollars seems silly. If you're rich and want to keep your wealth, there are much more appropriate hills to die on.



In the first place, while it's true that care for the elderly near the end of life is "more costly", it doesn't represent even close to the majority of health care spending. It's more like 25%. So it hardly eliminates the possibility of economies of scale.

In the second place, economies constantly result from advances in treating diseases, even the major diseases that account for most deaths. Since these new advances require a lot of research, and often initially are applicable only to relatively small populations of people with some disease (e.g., pharmacological approaches that are designed for people with certain genetic factors), they are harder to finance in small populations.
Universal care is different than Medicare for all. Somehow China keeps the cost to 6.5% of GDP. Even then they are looking at some pretty draconian cost control measures.

I was using the Securities tax an example of a tax increase on the middle class. By the way, it's not that it's a tax on one penny on ten dollars, it's a tax on the value of the transaction. Every transaction. Even one's where there's a loss because, believe it or not, not every trade actually produces a profit. It reminds me of the City of Los Angeles and their business gross revenue tax. Profitable or not the tax gets paid.

End of life care (last year) consumes about 25% of the entire medicare spend. That's an enormous amount of resources. So scale can swing those numbers dramatically in the wrong direction and we will see this play out in the next couple of decades and advancements are not going to keep up with ageing. People ares still going to die even if it's a year later than what actuaries predict today.
 
You seem to be able to post discrete excuses for every point you’re challenged as measured against some fictive total economy as the final arbiter of useful life rather than engage the actual qualities of discussion outside an abstract market. The latest excuse being that disenfrachised exurban and rural citizens can best be brought into successful compliance with life in the 21st century through the quantitative forces of the market. And governed that way as well. Maybe an economics thread would be useful for you.
 
I remember Bush and Obama both trying hard to get a catch phrase like @" shovel ready " to take hold it never really did. Kind of a socialism hybrid thought were both guys constantly made funny statements that made it look like the government could create jobs. Trump has played close to the line, but like everything else he has done it's all just talk. Donald doesn't make direct claims that the government is creating jobs, he has a much more personal approach were he takes credit for jobs.
As others have said before, a job really is not a job unless it is equal or better than the one it replaces. While I find many economic decisions crazy,he is not alone.
Elizabeth Warren and Bernie both says crazy stuff, but in a sit down interview Joe Biden did w Jane Woodruf I got a chuckle when Biden used an example of fast food workers needing to sign non disclosure and non compete contracts. Biden I guess was trying to show how dog eat dog it is at even the lowest levels of our economy.
Out of all this there are a few things that don't pass the smell test..the biggest one for me is the employment numbers posted w huge numbers of auto workers striking ..?
 
Oct 28, 2019
71
24
230
You seem to be able to post discrete excuses for every point you’re challenged as measured against some fictive total economy as the final arbiter of useful life rather than engage the actual qualities of discussion outside an abstract market. The latest excuse being that disenfrachised exurban and rural citizens can best be brought into successful compliance with life in the 21st century through the quantitative forces of the market. And governed that way as well. Maybe an economics thread would be useful for you.
I haven't been challenged and economics are boring. Economic Reality might be a more winnowed thread and it might benefit you.
 
Well if you define “economic reality” as how things are based on after the fact studies I’ll pass. Recently you’ve claimed that people will vote Trump to avoid taxes but also vouch that they recognize the inherently social component of taxation. I’ll invite you to reconcile that with any number of studies that indicate a marked deterioration of social existence under recent economic practices.
 
Can we agree Seattle, like Silicon Valley, has a different dynamic than a typical American marketplace? That said there hasn't been enough time to fully evaluate the cost/benefit of $15 minimum wage and it's adaptability to less dynamic marketplaces. The point is - with voracious competition for labor because of an expanding economy along with at least some worker protection (border/immigration tightening) - wages are increasing organically as opposed to arbitrarily. Even in Seattle hours worked is a issue as employers try and manage cost of labor relative to revenue and it's not possible to measure who never was hired and who decided not to start a business or locate a business there. Also wait and see how it goes with Boeing (they are in real trouble) and the City's ongoing desire to tax large employers on a per-employee basis.
We can agree on the dynamic and it involves the cities North and South of Seattle as well. Starbucks is going to $15/hr here, Amazon already does in an effort to find work force. Trade unions are escalating their wage levels to keep up with the open market, too. Boeing will work out of their problem and their presence is not as pronounced except in Everett, North of Seattle. Amazon is opening it's next major office complex in Bellevue just East of Seattle to make a point to the Seattle City Council. Today's election will be somewhat of a referendum on how Seattle residents embrace the socialist approach pressed by the existing council. That leaves Amazon with only 13 million square feet of office in Seattle....only. Our common opinion should include that forcing wages in areas of inactivity would discourage job growth. Idaho, Montana have low employment increase rates and jobless rates and are increasing minimum wage. They're steady but not spectacular in growth. Ohio and surrounding areas are experiencing less of everything. Forcing a wage increase there isn't likely to accomplish much.
 
Reactions: Chris Gadsden

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS