|
|
Post by evileeyore on Mar 4, 2020 22:32:37 GMT
Look, this is the Political Comedy thread, not the Clown World thread. Take the arguments to the Second Verse or Nothing To See Here threads where they belong!
I'll post more comedy when I find something to laugh about....
|
|
|
|
Post by Kzach on Mar 5, 2020 0:40:02 GMT
Look, this is the Political Comedy thread, not the Clown World thread. Take the arguments to the Second Verse or Nothing To See Here threads where they belong! I'll post more comedy when I find something to laugh about.... I'm laughing at you. |
|
|
|
Post by Kzach on Mar 5, 2020 0:41:21 GMT
Republicans revell in the pain and sadness of others. I voted for Biden and intend to vote for him in the General. I am happy with my vote. I also re-registered as No Party Preference, for what that is worth. A lot of Bernie Bros were extremely aggressive and rude this election cycle, and yeah I am revelling in their impotent rage right now, because they deserve to take one on the chin for their bad behavior. Like I said. You like the misery of others. You're a terrible person. |
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on Mar 5, 2020 2:00:18 GMT
Seriously. It's logic. Their plans will cost money. Taxing the rich won't be enough to offset the cost. So they'll have to raise taxes on everyone. It's also a pie in the sky promise, because there is no way in hell they'll get enough bi-partisan support on both sides of the isle to pass it.
The more logical idea is to oh, I don't know...
Actually fucking regulate the medical and pharmaceutical industries. If you control how much they can charge somebody, then it becomes affordable.
It's not rocket science.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kzach on Mar 5, 2020 3:08:37 GMT
No, it's not. The talking point is ment to appear like logic, but it is not. This is why it is called a "logical fallacy". Fallacy means faulty, by the way. |
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on Mar 5, 2020 12:34:35 GMT
You really don't understand basic math do you? It's simple.
It costs alot of money to run a program like medicare for all. There isn't enough rich people to pay for all of this. So they will naturally have to raise taxes on everyone to offset the cost, or raise the deficit. Probably both. It will also never pass congress. Never.
A more reasonable solution is to regulate how much hospitals/doctors/pharm companies can charge for their products. That will drive costs down, which will in turn make insurance more affordable or in some cases not needed.
So explain to me why it's a logical fallacy? I'll be waiting.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kzach on Mar 5, 2020 14:53:44 GMT
No, it is not. Economics is really complexe, unlike talking points made for cable TV. They are simple and short because pundits have little time to talk on tv, and simple and short information, even false and misleading one, propagates more easily. Plus dumb folk like you feel smart when they regurgitate what they've been told to think. But it has little to do with a complexe reality. |
|
|
|
Post by cyphersmith on Mar 5, 2020 17:53:26 GMT
You really don't understand basic math do you? It's simple.
It costs alot of money to run a program like medicare for all. There isn't enough rich people to pay for all of this. So they will naturally have to raise taxes on everyone to offset the cost, or raise the deficit. Probably both. It will also never pass congress. Never.
A more reasonable solution is to regulate how much hospitals/doctors/pharm companies can charge for their products. That will drive costs down, which will in turn make insurance more affordable or in some cases not needed.
So explain to me why it's a logical fallacy? I'll be waiting.
So, Sanders' plan includes taxes on everyone, a payroll tax. And like every payroll tax, it is paid for by both the employer and employee, 4% for the employee and 12% for the employer. That level, of course, is not enough to pay for Medicare for All. The next step is something that won't affect the poor, and also won't affect most in the middle class. Treat capital gains as regular income. Then, finally, add additional tax brackets above the current max, up to 52% for income over $10 million. But here's the reason it's a Republican talking point. That 12%? That's LESS than employers are currently paying (the average is around 16%). And that 4%? Again, it's LESS than employees are generally paying (the average here is something like 6%). In other words, most people will be paying less for medical insurance than they are paying now. AND, they won't be paying anything else. No medical on home or auto insurance. No copays. No coinsurance costs. No deductibles. Tell me again why we aren't doing this? |
|
|
|
Post by Kzach on Mar 5, 2020 18:15:28 GMT
You really don't understand basic math do you? It's simple.
It costs alot of money to run a program like medicare for all. There isn't enough rich people to pay for all of this. So they will naturally have to raise taxes on everyone to offset the cost, or raise the deficit. Probably both. It will also never pass congress. Never.
A more reasonable solution is to regulate how much hospitals/doctors/pharm companies can charge for their products. That will drive costs down, which will in turn make insurance more affordable or in some cases not needed.
So explain to me why it's a logical fallacy? I'll be waiting.
So, Sanders' plan includes taxes on everyone, a payroll tax. And like every payroll tax, it is paid for by both the employer and employee, 4% for the employee and 12% for the employer. That level, of course, is not enough to pay for Medicare for All. The next step is something that won't affect the poor, and also won't affect most in the middle class. Treat capital gains as regular income. Then, finally, add additional tax brackets above the current max, up to 52% for income over $10 million. But here's the reason it's a Republican talking point. That 12%? That's LESS than employers are currently paying (the average is around 16%). And that 4%? Again, it's LESS than employees are generally paying (the average here is something like 6%). In other words, most people will be paying less for medical insurance than they are paying now. AND, they won't be paying anything else. No medical on home or auto insurance. No copays. No coinsurance costs. No deductibles. Tell me again why we aren't doing this? You can't do math! Where will the money come from!? |
|
|
|
Post by Devoid on Mar 5, 2020 23:16:36 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Devoid on Mar 5, 2020 23:22:04 GMT
![]() Perhaps there is an ointment for those afflicted... |
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on Mar 6, 2020 1:03:03 GMT
So, Sanders' plan includes taxes on everyone, a payroll tax. And like every payroll tax, it is paid for by both the employer and employee, 4% for the employee and 12% for the employer. That level, of course, is not enough to pay for Medicare for All. The next step is something that won't affect the poor, and also won't affect most in the middle class. Treat capital gains as regular income. Then, finally, add additional tax brackets above the current max, up to 52% for income over $10 million. But here's the reason it's a Republican talking point. That 12%? That's LESS than employers are currently paying (the average is around 16%). And that 4%? Again, it's LESS than employees are generally paying (the average here is something like 6%). In other words, most people will be paying less for medical insurance than they are paying now. AND, they won't be paying anything else. No medical on home or auto insurance. No copays. No coinsurance costs. No deductibles. Tell me again why we aren't doing this? You can't do math! Where will the money come from!?
Here's a link: This describes what Bernie is planning.
Here's the math:
it still takes money out of people's pockets on top of what they're already paying. When you're working two or three jobs just to break kinda even, that's alot of money. Even then, there will be projected short falls. That means raising taxes.
It's a nice idea, but in reality, it's just not feasible.
|
|
|
|
Post by cyphersmith on Mar 6, 2020 1:43:07 GMT
You can't do math! Where will the money come from!?
Here's a link: This describes what Bernie is planning.
Here's the math:
it still takes money out of people's pockets on top of what they're already paying. When you're working two or three jobs just to break kinda even, that's alot of money. Even then, there will be projected short falls. That means raising taxes.
It's a nice idea, but in reality, it's just not feasible.
So, they're ignoring the current spending by government to lie. |
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on Mar 6, 2020 2:36:23 GMT
The tax cuts weren't a good idea either.
See the comedy?  |
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on Mar 6, 2020 3:18:45 GMT
You really don't understand basic math do you? It's simple.
It costs alot of money to run a program like medicare for all. There isn't enough rich people to pay for all of this. So they will naturally have to raise taxes on everyone to offset the cost, or raise the deficit. Probably both. It will also never pass congress. Never.
A more reasonable solution is to regulate how much hospitals/doctors/pharm companies can charge for their products. That will drive costs down, which will in turn make insurance more affordable or in some cases not needed.
So explain to me why it's a logical fallacy? I'll be waiting.
So, Sanders' plan includes taxes on everyone, a payroll tax. And like every payroll tax, it is paid for by both the employer and employee, 4% for the employee and 12% for the employer. That level, of course, is not enough to pay for Medicare for All. The next step is something that won't affect the poor, and also won't affect most in the middle class. Treat capital gains as regular income. Then, finally, add additional tax brackets above the current max, up to 52% for income over $10 million. But here's the reason it's a Republican talking point. That 12%? That's LESS than employers are currently paying (the average is around 16%). And that 4%? Again, it's LESS than employees are generally paying (the average here is something like 6%). In other words, most people will be paying less for medical insurance than they are paying now. AND, they won't be paying anything else. No medical on home or auto insurance. No copays. No coinsurance costs. No deductibles. Tell me again why we aren't doing this? Because the totality of it is still not enough to cover his plan. After steps one and two, we still need a lot more. |
|
