The 2020 Presidential Election - Convention & General Election

[knapplc]

6 minutes ago, Frott Scost said:

 

The military budget increased by $82 billion from 2017 according to this article.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/06/19/u-s-military-budget-inches-closer-to-1-trillion-mark-as-concerns-over-federal-deficit-grow/

 

Sanders plan will cost $70 billion.  And lets remember, these plans are estimated over a 10 year period, not yearly.

 

https://www.nola.com/news/politics/article_bb20b634-2c55-56da-9a10-6ee76be1fe26.html

 

So, one year of Trump's military increase could pay for ten years of Bernie's college plan?

 

Seems like a fiscal conservative would be all for that!

[ActualCornHusker]

6 minutes ago, Frott Scost said:

 

The military budget increased by $82 billion from 2017 according to this article.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/06/19/u-s-military-budget-inches-closer-to-1-trillion-mark-as-concerns-over-federal-deficit-grow/

 

Sanders plan will cost $70 billion.  And lets remember, these plans are estimated over a 10 year period, not yearly.

 

https://www.nola.com/news/politics/article_bb20b634-2c55-56da-9a10-6ee76be1fe26.html

 

Thank you for that link. I'd have to see in-depth at how those numbers are calculated, because the actual yearly cost of tuition at public institutions is much higher

2 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

So, one year of Trump's military increase could pay for ten years of Bernie's college plan?

 

Seems like a fiscal conservative would be all for that!

 

I don't think you know what fiscal conservative means....

[knapplc]

1 minute ago, ActualCornHusker said:

I don't think you know what fiscal conservative means....

 

Instead of the ad hominem attacks, how about you have a real conversation for once?

[Ratt Mhule]

Just now, ActualCornHusker said:

 

Thank you for that link. I'd have to see in-depth at how those numbers are calculated, because the actual yearly cost of tuition at public institutions is much higher

 

Another thing I should add about the "free college" debate is that a student would still need to earn the grades necessary to be admitted.  So still not everyone would be allowed to go to college.

[ActualCornHusker]

14 minutes ago, Frott Scost said:

 

The military budget increased by $82 billion from 2017 according to this article.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/06/19/u-s-military-budget-inches-closer-to-1-trillion-mark-as-concerns-over-federal-deficit-grow/

 

Sanders plan will cost $70 billion.  And lets remember, these plans are estimated over a 10 year period, not yearly.

 

https://www.nola.com/news/politics/article_bb20b634-2c55-56da-9a10-6ee76be1fe26.html

 

3 minutes ago, Frott Scost said:

 

Another thing I should add about the "free college" debate is that a student would still need to earn the grades necessary to be admitted.  So still not everyone would be allowed to go to college.

 

Thank you for the info. I'd have to look at the breakdown of that more closely because the total of tuition at public universities yearly is much higher, and if it's "free" then many more people would attend. Sounds like an optimistic estimate like many of the other Bernie proposals.

[knapplc]

6 minutes ago, ActualCornHusker said:

 

 

Thank you for the info. I'd have to look at the breakdown of that more closely because the total of tuition at public universities yearly is much higher, and if it's "free" then many more people would attend. Sounds like an optimistic estimate like many of the other Bernie proposals.

 

@Frott Scost literally answered that question in the post you quoted:

 

'Another thing I should add about the "free college" debate is that a student would still need to earn the grades necessary to be admitted.  So still not everyone would be allowed to go to college.'

[ActualCornHusker]

1 minute ago, knapplc said:

 

@Frott Scost literally answered that question in the post you quoted:

 

'Another thing I should add about the "free college" debate is that a student would still need to earn the grades necessary to be admitted.  So still not everyone would be allowed to go to college.'

 

Oh hey, thanks for an actual reply of substance. Except it doesn't answer the question... So the claim is that there would not be an increase in attendance at public universities due to it being "free"?

[Moiraine]

I know what fiscal conservative means to Republicans. It means spend lots of $ on things that arouse your base all the while shouting that you’re fiscal conservatives.

[knapplc]

Just now, ActualCornHusker said:

Oh hey, thanks for an actual reply of substance.

 

ad hominem says what?

 

1 minute ago, ActualCornHusker said:

Except it doesn't answer the question... So the claim is that there would not be an increase in attendance at public universities due to it being "free"?

 

It does answer the question because there would still be the bar of grade requirements. College isn't like high school, where everyone is mandated to go. You have to earn your way in - and, you can earn your way out if you don't maintain those grades.

 

What you would need to show is that there is, currently, a vast pool of people who meet the grade requirements but are unable to attend college due to financial constraints, and that if those constraints were lifted, they would attend, thus creating a huge burden for taxpayers.

 

Find those stats and then you have a point that Bernie's plan creates an undue hardship on the taxpayer.

[funhusker]

I wouldn't be heartbroken to see Public Universities "raise" their standards if it becomes free.

 

I'm currently taking grad classes through UNK and paying around $1000 per class.  It has slipped my mind on more than one occasion this semester that I'm actually taking a class because it is so pathetic, pointless, and easy.  I'm more or less just cutting a check for a Master's degree...

[ActualCornHusker]

2 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

It does answer the question because there would still be the bar of grade requirements. College isn't like high school, where everyone is mandated to go. You have to earn your way in - and, you can earn your way out if you don't maintain those grades.

 

What you would need to show is that there is, currently, a vast pool of people who meet the grade requirements but are unable to attend college due to financial constraints, and that if those constraints were lifted, they would attend, thus creating a huge burden for taxpayers.

 

Find those stats and then you have a point that Bernie's plan creates an undue hardship on the taxpayer.

 

Right, that's basically what I'm asking. You'd have to get the answer to that before ever jumping on board - not just assume that . Then in addition to that, you'd have to ask the questions:

Is there an age limit? Would you have to take advantage of it straight out of high school, or could a 62-year-old take advantage of it? Would it be limited to 4 years and 1 degree, or would taxpayers be on the hook if someone were to take 7 years to get 3 degrees?

 

From there, you'd have to get an accurate look at the cost and assess if it's worth doing. 

[ActualCornHusker]

12 minutes ago, funhusker said:

I wouldn't be heartbroken to see Public Universities "raise" their standards if it becomes free.

 

I'm currently taking grad classes through UNK and paying around $1000 per class.  It has slipped my mind on more than one occasion this semester that I'm actually taking a class because it is so pathetic, pointless, and easy.  I'm more or less just cutting a check for a Master's degree...

 

I agree 100%. Many degrees at universities should be discontinued, and general ed courses should either be cut entirely, or severely decreased. I was into my 3rd semester at college before I ever got into material that was actually pertinent to my major. That's nothing but a money grab imo.

[Landlord]

Yall got too far in some of these lines of thinking for me to be quoting stuff several 15 post pages ago, but a few quick grenade lobbed thoughts:

 

 

• The top 1% paying more in taxes than the bottom _______ is not an argument made in good faith. If the top 1% make more money than the bottom 99%, but pay more in taxes than only the bottom 89%, well then they're not paying their fair share of taxes. How much they pay compared to adding up others just....doesn't matter. What rate of what they earn and own do they pay, and how does that compare to everyone else's is the only appropriate question when talking about the rich paying a fair share. 

 

• On that note, poor people shouldn't pay any taxes, a flat tax is a terrible idea, and the rich should be taxed more. Why? Because they can! If you tax everyone 20%, that is an absolutely devastating possibly life and death sort of chunk to take out of someone who's scraping to survive, while the richest among us will still live comfortable lives of excess, opportunity, and autonomy. Only some hateful/fearful rhetoric of selfish narcissism would lead someone to believe that it's 'evil' to tax the rich more. We do that to lift the burdens of everyone. Right now, the people actually taking risks, starting businesses, having the balls and courage to be daring in life are the ones getting f#&%ed up the butt with a disproportionate tax burden. 

 

• idk how i feel about the minimum wage thing. I don't know if Seattle is a great example of it working, either. Seattle is becoming more and more and more overrun by homeless people (a lot of them by choice) to levels that really seem unfathomable, and also a lot of fast food workers in the city are people that drive in from an hour+ away for that paycheck rather than actual low income residents. That would naturally be different if it was nationwide, though, I suppose.

[ActualCornHusker]

10 minutes ago, BlitzFirst said:

 

1. The 400 wealthiest Americans last year paid a lower total tax rate — spanning federal, state and local taxes — than any other income group.  This happened during the Tax Cut in 2017.  https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/17/opinion/taxes-inequality-charts.html

 

Keep in mind, that it's not just the 400 wealthiest Americans...it's the top 1% of earners who got a big break.  Read the article above...it's what is wrong.  Everyone in America should pay their fair share.  Why?  Because we all have access to the government and programs it runs to benefit us all as citizens...thus we all have a responsibility to support it.

 

During this same time frame, middle class income has DROPPED...while the rich continue to get richer.   In 1980, the poor and middle class saw the largest income growth.  Now they're seeing the worst growth.  See the chart below which was taken from https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/08/07/opinion/leonhardt-income-inequality.html

 

 

This is what needs fixed.  Taxes need to be more equal across the board.  Not only will it give the government more money to fund programs that are liabilities...it will also give the poor and middle class more money to spend which will benefit the economy in a positive way.

 

2.  I'm not the comptroller of the US (not am I an accountant or anything close to it) so I cannot answer that question and honestly, the size of the budget shouldn't matter...the BALANCE of it should.  Fixing taxes as I stated in #1 should help with the deficit.

 

3.  Let's get one thing straight.  ObamaCare WAS NOT universal healthcare.  Any links or information provided that discuss it as a reason or a pro/con for or against Medicare for all or universal healthcare are moot and false equivalency.

 

In 1960, healthcare cost $146 per person.  In 2017, that now checks in at $10,739.  Do you still wonder why Medicare is a liability? 

 

The two trust funds that power Medicare are funded by:

•     Payroll taxes paid by most employees, employers, and people who are self-employed
•     Income taxes paid on Social Security benefits
•     Interest earned on the trust fund investments
•     Medicare Part A premiums from people who aren't eligible for premium-free Part A

Taxes.  THE MOST IMPORTANT THING to fix.  If we fix taxes, then paying for things like this won't be a problem.  As for driving down costs, having universal health care has driven the prices down below what the US pays in ALL G7 COUNTRIES that have it.  It's not rocket surgery right?

 

Regarding #3 - I'm not specifically referring to Obamacare. The system was a mess long before the (Un)Affordable Care Act went into effect. The main thing our healthcare system lacks is transparency in pricing, in addition to the monstrous administration costs (as a result of too much government intervention) and cronyism of insurance & drug companies. If prices for procedures and medical products were required to be stated up-front by all medical offices, it would be a giant step in the right direction.

 

Quote

 

Price tags also insure that everybody pays the same amount. We currently have a health-care system in which providers charge patients wildly different prices depending on their insurance. That injustice will end if we insist on legally mandated price tags and require that every patient be charged the same price.

As a side benefit, we will also see massively lower administrative costs. They are currently extremely high because once a doctor submits a bill to an insurance company, the insurance company works hard to deny or discount the claim. Thus begins a hideously costly and drawn-out negotiation that eventually yields the dollar amount that the doctor will get reimbursed. If you have price tags for every procedure and require that every patient be charged the same price, all of that bickering and chicanery goes away. As does the need for gargantuan bureaucracies to process claims.

 

 

Agree on #2 in regards to balancing the budget, but I disagree that the size of the budget doesn't matter. If it doesn't matter, why not just confiscate 100% of everyone's income and have the government provide all goods and services? I know that's hyperbole...

 

#1 

This will be our main point of disagreement. The left's assumption is that raising taxes on the rich will bring in more revenue to the treasury. That assumption is false, and I invite you to read about Hauser's Law.

 

Quote

From 1930 to 2010, tax-revenue collection in the United States has never topped 20.9 percent, averaging 16.5 percent of GDP over 80 years. This despite the drastic historical fluctuation in tax rates on the wealthiest Americans.

 

So in summary, higher taxation has been shown over and over to stifle economic activity and reinvestment, resulting in lower GDP and not having a considerable effect on federal tax revenues. 

 

My assertion is that money is better off in the hands of individuals than our wasteful, corrupt government so that new jobs are created, new technologies and processes are developed, and society as a whole benefits as a result.

[ActualCornHusker]

21 minutes ago, Landlord said:

Yall got too far in some of these lines of thinking for me to be quoting stuff several 15 post pages ago, but a few quick grenade lobbed thoughts:

 

 

• The top 1% paying more in taxes than the bottom _______ is not an argument made in good faith. If the top 1% make more money than the bottom 99%, but pay more in taxes than only the bottom 89%, well then they're not paying their fair share of taxes. How much they pay compared to adding up others just....doesn't matter. What rate of what they earn and own do they pay, and how does that compare to everyone else's is the only appropriate question when talking about the rich paying a fair share. 

 

• On that note, poor people shouldn't pay any taxes, a flat tax is a terrible idea, and the rich should be taxed more. Why? Because they can! If you tax everyone 20%, that is an absolutely devastating possibly life and death sort of chunk to take out of someone who's scraping to survive, while the richest among us will still live comfortable lives of excess, opportunity, and autonomy. Only some hateful/fearful rhetoric of selfish narcissism would lead someone to believe that it's 'evil' to tax the rich more. We do that to lift the burdens of everyone. Right now, the people actually taking risks, starting businesses, having the balls and courage to be daring in life are the ones getting f#&%ed up the butt with a disproportionate tax burden. 

 

• idk how i feel about the minimum wage thing. I don't know if Seattle is a great example of it working, either. Seattle is becoming more and more and more overrun by homeless people (a lot of them by choice) to levels that really seem unfathomable, and also a lot of fast food workers in the city are people that drive in from an hour+ away for that paycheck rather than actual low income residents. That would naturally be different if it was nationwide, though, I suppose.

 

Those are good thoughts so I appreciate you chiming in. Regarding your 1st and 2nd point, I'd refer you to my last post in response to BlitzFirst