Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 2:51:20 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2017 19:51:22 GMT -5
I disagree... because what he promised was "better than Obamacare, everyone will be covered, and it will be cheaper". That's not what he tried to push through Congress. It wasn't better than Obamacare, it wasn't cheaper, and most definitely not everyone would have been covered. I read OldCoyote 's post and thought the same. But then research showed me he was correct: Next, I will work with Congress to introduce the following broader legislative measures and fight for their passage within the first 100 days of my Administration: ... 5. Repeal and Replace Obamacare Act. Here Is What Donald Trump Wants To Do In His First 100 Days The situation reminded me of a time I was working with a group of young ladies on a Challenge Course. They were a "Home Ec." Club. If you think about all the different groups at a traditional high school (cheerleaders, athletes, band, drama, National Honor Society, etc), these gals weren't a fit for any of them. They were, however, a wonderful support group for each other. When I started to present them with challenges, I learned their group mantra. Each time they quickly failed to overcome the challenge and gave up, at least one would say, "As long as we do are best, that is the best we can do." My response of, "If your best isn't good enough, get better" was met with puzzled looks. I had a good conversation at the end of the day with the two adult women who ran the program getting them to see the problem with that self limiting attitude. President Trump, as @richardintn points out, you offered a vision of a better plan. This wasn't it. Give us this better plan then fight harder to get it passed. That's one version of his promise. I was going with several others mixed together: Here's "cover everybody": Here's "cheaper", "better", and "everybody"(the video won't re-post, but this is from the transcript): abcnews.go.com/Politics/transcript-abc-news-anchor-david-muir-interviews-president/story?id=45047602and
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 26, 2017 20:08:05 GMT -5
yep. he said that:
"they can have their doctors, they can have their plans, and everyone will be insured".
it is a total pipe dream.
so, he is either a terrible liar, or he is in way over his head and has no idea what he is doing, or both.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 2:51:20 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2017 20:16:05 GMT -5
more on Ryan as the fall guy... trump tweeted peeps to watch this show - opening bit was on Ryan. Since when is loyalty a positive thing for politicians? What happened to serving the people? voting your conscience? That went away a long time ago. About the time that Lobbyists became a "thing".
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Mar 27, 2017 10:16:58 GMT -5
The '90's with it's last vestiges of a generation willing to tolerate a modicum of austerity is long dead. And indeed you won't raise taxes. why? Partly because the people most affected by tax hikes are also the most influential when new legislation is being crafted, and partly because raising taxes on the 98% is unpopular to the point that it costs elections. Also, because I believe Pres. Trump is going to be in office until the end of the decade and the tax plan he's outlined (or anything resembling it) will by no means raise tax revenues. Beyond 2020, we'll see. I expect a Democratic president will get in and hike taxes on the middle class (what's left of it) and above. However at that point I'll likely renew the second part of my prediction: "within two years spending would rise by a commensurate amount, restoring the original shortfalls".
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 27, 2017 17:56:56 GMT -5
Partly because the people most affected by tax hikes are also the most influential when new legislation is being crafted, and partly because raising taxes on the 98% is unpopular to the point that it costs elections. Also, because I believe Pres. Trump is going to be in office until the end of the decade and the tax plan he's outlined (or anything resembling it) will by no means raise tax revenues. Beyond 2020, we'll see. I expect a Democratic president will get in and hike taxes on the middle class (what's left of it) and above. However at that point I'll likely renew the second part of my prediction: "within two years spending would rise by a commensurate amount, restoring the original shortfalls". ok, thanks. i agree with almost all of what you said above, except the part about raising taxes on the 2% being unpopular with the 98%. i don't know of any data that shows that.
|
|
Spellbound454
Senior Member
"In the end, we remember not the words of our enemies but the silence of our friends"
Joined: Sept 9, 2011 17:28:42 GMT -5
Posts: 3,990
|
Post by Spellbound454 on Mar 29, 2017 16:37:01 GMT -5
Either I missed this, or you and I were posting at the same time. Thanks for this info. 11% is 3.4% higher than our FICA, so if everyone paid 3.4% of their income, with some cap, it would cost us a lot less. I currently pay $8,500 and my company pays another huge sum (like another $8,500 maybe). I guess our contribution is about 4% of our combined income. But it would be $8,500 no matter what we earned. Does this include old age pensions for all Spellbound454 , or is the "state pension" just for government workers? If it for everyone, that 11% is incredibly cheap compared to what we pay. Our FICA (Federal Insurance Contributions Act) tax covers both Social Security (old age pension) and Medicare (old age medical coverage) Employees pay 6.2% for SSI and 1.45% for Medicare. This is matched by employers- so the total contribution, and that paid by the self employed, is 12.4% and 2.9% = 15.3%. But that is just for those two items! Health insurance varies per person, plan, company and state of course, but for my wife and I my payment is about 13% of my gross pay. (an individual policy would pay less of course) Then there is unemployment. That too varies by company and state, and in my state is paid by the employer. My cost is 3% of the first $12,000.00 of an employees wages. Overall, even if the British NHI does NOT include the equivalent of SSI (old age pension) it is far cheaper than comparable American coverages. Yes it does include pensions for all but it isn't much and you have to be 68 to get it these days. Most of us have additional pensions. Our system is a bit strapped for cash at the moment especially as the population is aging. The government is always juggling things around to make the numbers work out.
|
|
emma1420
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 28, 2011 15:35:45 GMT -5
Posts: 2,430
|
Post by emma1420 on Mar 29, 2017 16:51:53 GMT -5
Partly because the people most affected by tax hikes are also the most influential when new legislation is being crafted, and partly because raising taxes on the 98% is unpopular to the point that it costs elections. Also, because I believe Pres. Trump is going to be in office until the end of the decade and the tax plan he's outlined (or anything resembling it) will by no means raise tax revenues. Beyond 2020, we'll see. I expect a Democratic president will get in and hike taxes on the middle class (what's left of it) and above. However at that point I'll likely renew the second part of my prediction: "within two years spending would rise by a commensurate amount, restoring the original shortfalls". ok, thanks. i agree with almost all of what you said above, except the part about raising taxes on the 2% being unpopular with the 98%. i don't know of any data that shows that. In general, I think a lot of people in this country are open to raising taxes on the top 2% and themselves! Granted I live in Kansas which is currently undergoing a budget crisis (the same crisis we've been in for the last few years), and people have voted to increase their income taxes by who they voted for in the state legislator. And in my area they routinely vote to increase their property taxes and sales taxes to make sure that the public schools are fantastic and build stuff. So I think people are willing to pay more in taxes if they know what they are getting for that money. If Trump presented a plan saying that he had a way to reduce healthcare costs significantly, including direct and indirect costs, and indicated that it could be paid for by a modest income tax increase. I suspect at least half of people in this country would be supportive, providing that the specific policy details had been provided, at least for a temporary tax hike to see how it worked. I know I would be, and I can't stand Trump. I get, and I think a lot of other people do as well, that shit isn't free. We have to pay for it. And I don't mind paying for the things that I want. Granted, I'm not interested in having a tax hike because Trump wants to buy some new weapons for the military, but for things that benefit the people I'm open to.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,439
|
Post by thyme4change on Mar 29, 2017 17:24:50 GMT -5
You can raise taxes on me if it keeps someone covered...as long as you raise taxes on the people that make more than me.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,345
|
Post by swamp on Mar 29, 2017 17:33:50 GMT -5
You can raise taxes on me if it keeps someone covered...as long as you raise taxes on the people that make more than me.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 2:51:20 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2017 20:08:30 GMT -5
You can raise taxes on me if it keeps someone covered...as long as you raise taxes on the people that make more than me.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,193
|
Post by tallguy on Mar 29, 2017 20:26:05 GMT -5
That's easy for you all to say when you have a GOP House, Senate, and president. Ain't none of 'em raising taxes on the people who make more! The whole idea seems to be, "If you can't it on the backs of the little guys, it just ain't worth doin'!"
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 2:51:20 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2017 21:04:46 GMT -5
That's easy for you all to say when you have a GOP House, Senate, and president. Ain't none of 'em raising taxes on the people who make more! The whole idea seems to be, "If you can't it on the backs of the little guys, it just ain't worth doin'!" I said it back when the Dems were in control as well... I think taxes SHOULD go up. Also: In my "perfect America" taxes would be collected to be spent NEXT YEAR. Then, when "next year" comes, they know how much money they have available, and can apportion it appropriately. Borrowing would be allowed, but ONLY in times of war OR National disaster (if there were no funds to bail out other countries during external disasters... I'd feel bad, but no money is no money.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,439
|
Post by thyme4change on Mar 29, 2017 23:00:02 GMT -5
That's easy for you all to say when you have a GOP House, Senate, and president. Ain't none of 'em raising taxes on the people who make more! The whole idea seems to be, "If you can't it on the backs of the little guys, it just ain't worth doin'!" I said it back when the Dems were in control as well... I think taxes SHOULD go up. Also: In my "perfect America" taxes would be collected to be spent NEXT YEAR. Then, when "next year" comes, they know how much money they have available, and can apportion it appropriately. Borrowing would be allowed, but ONLY in times of war OR National disaster (if there were no funds to bail out other countries during external disasters... I'd feel bad, but no money is no money. Maybe you should run for President.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 2:51:20 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2017 23:10:27 GMT -5
I said it back when the Dems were in control as well... I think taxes SHOULD go up. Also: In my "perfect America" taxes would be collected to be spent NEXT YEAR. Then, when "next year" comes, they know how much money they have available, and can apportion it appropriately. Borrowing would be allowed, but ONLY in times of war OR National disaster (if there were no funds to bail out other countries during external disasters... I'd feel bad, but no money is no money. Maybe you should run for President. I'd love to... don't have enough money though. You can't run for office unless you have, at the very least, enough money to support yourself without actually working.... while you are "on the campaign trail".
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Mar 29, 2017 23:17:24 GMT -5
Maybe you should run for President. I'd love to... don't have enough money though. You can't run for office unless you have, at the very least, enough money to support yourself without actually working.... while you are "on the campaign trail". I'll speak to Putin. Maybe he can bankroll you.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 2:51:20 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2017 23:39:43 GMT -5
I'd love to... don't have enough money though. You can't run for office unless you have, at the very least, enough money to support yourself without actually working.... while you are "on the campaign trail". I'll speak to Putin. Maybe he can bankroll you. No thanks. Non-US funds would NOT be welcome in my campaign's coffers (nor my personal ones).
|
|