Democrat's Platform

I would say it's more of a concept of ownership that's the issue.

Often times I hear people saying tax cuts are giving money to people. It's not giving money to people not to take their money.

For instance remember the Amazon deal they were trying to strike in New York. one of the representatives said they shouldn't be giving Amazon 300 million dollars. because Amazon didn't come here they can use that money somewhere else.

What the representative didn't understand is without Amazon. Money doesn't exist. It wasn't giving them money, it was the government simply not taking it.

This is a fundamental conundrum that cannot be resolved. New debates about spending or taxation will lead anywhere until this is resolved.

do we earn the government's money or does the government take the money we are earn?

Depending on which way you lean philosophically speaking you'll have a different answer to that question.

 

No they're not and yes you can.

 

explain how you can have a right to the food I grow on my farm if I decide to shut my farm down?

 

Why would you shut your farm down?

 

How are you calculating infinite demand? If private health insurance is abolished, which I don't think will occur, demand will be controlled by law. There's no evidence to suggest changes in health coverage affect doctor visits. I'm a couple years away from Medicare, and I'll still be suffering from my current conditions on that day. Nothing will change, only who pays the bills, that's all.

 

If I'm losing money because I have to provide you with food regardless of whether you can pay or not how can I keep it open?

A business has to make money in order to function.

 

Eight years under AOC and the paper it's printed on will be worth more than the denomination.

 

And you presume a profit which would cover any increase in taxes. You can't prove it exists for every business. Restaurants in particular operate on razor-thin margins with food costs dramatically rising with COVID affecting the entire industry.

 

With the simple general supply - demand curves (the one shown in all econ 101 textbooks) if the price is zero the demand is infinite and the supply is zero. It is similar in the real world. If the cost of a routine doctor visit is 25 cents, most people will schedule one 2 to 4 times a year, or once a month, or, by some, once a week, because they can't be too sure and it costs nothing. The demand skyrockets as the price plummets. At the same time there are not enough doctors with the time to have all those demanded visits. Hence there would be allocation and rationing -- there is no other possible way. You say demand would be controlled by law. That is precisely allocation and rationing. But it is the bureaucrat 2000 miles away who is determining the rationing and deciding when you can see a doctor, not the supplier.

Things most certainly will change when you go on Medicare. For example, you cannot have (meaning Medicare will not pay for) more than one doctor checkup visit a year. You cannot ever get routine supplemental blood cholesterol tests. If you are over 75 you cannot get a lung cat scan for cancer screening. If you have your spleen removed (which is always done with a distal pancreatectomy as in my case) you cannot get the medically necessary (as declared by all medical providers, the CDC, and the NIH) follow-up inoculations. Further, if your private insurance covers things that Medicare doesn't, your private medicare supplement insurance won't cover them either per Medicare rules. I could go on but its already getting boring.

 

Good post. I think the mistake you're making is claiming people will flood doctors offices because it's free. I don't see that happening. I know no one outside of a hypochondriac who enjoys doctors appointments.

 

Correct, they chose not to change their platform this year. They remain the party of Trump. For now.

 

LOL! I'd LOVE to buy only American made goods ... where can I find some?

Maybe we need a temporary source of revenue to make up the deficit. Any thoughts?

 

Your local gun store. Might be time to get an M&P15.
https://www.bizjournals.com/boston/...-wesson-closing-springfield-distribution.html'

 

I already own a really good gun, but it's Italian.

 

The best idea is to decrease the deficit.

 

It’s theoretically possible but usually they’re citing a nominal number to boast of the cut’s success. As in, look at this number before we account for the rest, inflation etc.

The design of our tax cuts keep taking us backward. The reduction in revenue from the ‘17 corporate portion is roughly equal to the cut. Effectively we’ve taken a machete to revenue for decades.

 

Contradiction in terms.

 

Biden will change nothing substantial. He is just another puppet for the status quo and for the industry lobbyists funding his campaign. It is all smoke and mirrors just like Obama was. The chance for actual progressive change died in the primary.

 

The objective of government is not to tax the people. It is to serve the people.
That statement I objected to initially was the tax cut resulted in a reduction in revenue. That was not true. As I said before, we do not have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem. n.

 

The objective of government, under the US system, is to protect the rights to life, liberty, property, and self-determination.

 

Right. Serve the people.

When they reduced the tax rate and my taxes went down while the revenue going to government went is a good thing.

 

What would you cut? I would start with trimming some of the fat from the Defense budget, but most conservatives strongly disagree with that. I would also roll back the huge tax cut corporations got from Trump.

I've always found it interesting that so many conservatives wax nostalgic about the 1950s and would like things to return to that idyllic and prosperous era, but they don't want to return to the Eisenhower tax code that was largely responsible for creating such a strong middle class.

 

Trump is trying to reduce the defense budget by getting our allies to pay their fair share.

Tax cuts for corporations is misleading. It makes more sense for the shareholders or owners of the corporation to pay taxes on their earnings. For the corporation, a tax is simply another expense which results in higher prices or less revenue. By taxing the individual rather than corporation, , the corporation grows and prospers and allows it to make even more money for the investors which results in more tax revenue.

 

ROFMAO! Good one, TOG6!

In it's defense, my Beretta 96A1 has never jammed, and I can hit a target the size of a man's head at 30 feet eight times out of ten. It does fun things to cantaloupes. I should change my signature line to "51% sweetheart, 49% b!tch ... don't push it."

 

US military overexpenditure is, however, quite independent of allied expenditure trends. Its as if US militarism, in terms of public good delivery, is irrational...