Swing-state households would lose at least $70G within first year of Green New Deal, study finds

Discussion in 'United States' started by Josephwalker, Jul 30, 2019.

  1. FlamingLib

    FlamingLib Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2018
    Messages:
    3,903
    Likes Received:
    2,192
    Trophy Points:
    113
    For people with preexisting conditions, who couldn't get ANY coverage for ANY price prior to Obamacare, that was true: costs were reduced, and health insurance became affordable. Again, for people with preexisting conditions.

    For the rest of us, health insurance premiums have continued to increase, which Obama was not entirely truthful about. Perhaps he thought the program would be tweaked down the road so that it could work better, like most government programs? Instead of being sabotaged by a party that repealed it 80 bazillion times when they were a minority, but couldn't actually repeal it when they controlled government, and have no competing plan to offer? Perhaps that has something to do with the rising costs?

    Again, for people with preexisting conditions, Obamacare was a godsend. How old are you? Did you ever try and get health insurance before 2010? If you didn't have employer-based insurance, it was a nightmare, and the insurance companies had complete control over your healthcare decisions. Remember life-time caps? That was particularly bad. Say you had a quadruple bypass that cost $150,000 dollars, and now you need a stent put in five years later, but guess what! Your policy has a $150,000 lifetime cap! Which you already spent! So you can forget about that stent and just up and die. Obamacare changed that. That can't happen anymore. That used to happen. A lot.

    Or the GOP can actually put out a competing plan. It's been how many years?
     
    Last edited: Aug 2, 2019
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  2. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's the liberal way of looking at taxes alright. Far as I'm concerned corporations should pay no taxes because in reality they just pass that cost on to the consumer of whatever good or service they provide and it makes it more difficult for them to compete in the world econony.
     
  3. StarFox

    StarFox Banned

    Joined:
    May 1, 2018
    Messages:
    2,515
    Likes Received:
    2,876
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
     
  4. FlamingLib

    FlamingLib Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2018
    Messages:
    3,903
    Likes Received:
    2,192
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, that's the normal way of looking at it. If you owe X to the government and the government lets you pay X minus whatever, that's a subsidy. Who do you think pays for those tax breaks???

    Maybe they shouldn't, but the way it is NOW is that businesses pay taxes, and if you let business A pay LESS taxes than business B, because you want to encourage solar panel production, that's a subsidy.
     
    Last edited: Aug 2, 2019
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  5. FlamingLib

    FlamingLib Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2018
    Messages:
    3,903
    Likes Received:
    2,192
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What is that wall of text about, Starfox? Format it right.
     
    Last edited: Aug 2, 2019
  6. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No it's the liberals way of looking at things. You believe money earned is first the property of the state and they decide how much of it you can keep. Conservatives believe money earned is first the property of the earner and government takes a portion of it to fund itself but it's your money not there's. You don't owe the government a dime. You allow them to take a certain portion of your money to fund government.
    Pretty dramatic difference between your view and mine here isn't there.

    Government lets you keep verses earner lets government take.
     
    Last edited: Aug 2, 2019
  7. Old Man Fred

    Old Man Fred Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2017
    Messages:
    840
    Likes Received:
    253
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    We need to have Social Security, because people can not be trusted to properly save for their retirement, and are criticizing the shortsightedness and poor judgement of people?

    https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/infocus/environment/

    Here's a comprehensive list.

    Most notably is the vast, unprecedented expansion of marine wildlife preserves.

    Have you ever heard of SNAP? WIC? Medicaid? Social welfare spending increases population growth
     
  8. FlamingLib

    FlamingLib Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2018
    Messages:
    3,903
    Likes Received:
    2,192
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No. No government on Earth has ever existed without taxation. Taxation is not some liberal thing. I don't hear any conservatives saying the tax rate should be ZERO. Everyone except kooks believes taxation is necessary.

    I'm liberal. I don't believe that. I'm realistic enough to know that SOME taxation is inevitable and if we're going to have to pay taxes, it ought to be done fairly, and we've had a progressive tax code in place for the last hundred years.

    If you don't think you owe the government, try not paying the taxes the government says you owe them. Of course you know what would happen, and for good reason. Taxation doesn't work if there aren't penalties for the people who refuse to pay the money they owe to the government.

    Some taxation has to occur. You do not disagree with that, I assume. Then that means people are going to owe the government money, and the government will come collect, and there will be penalties if you don't pay. How can you disagree with any of this? What, you believe in NO taxation? No you don't. You're not a moron. You believe there shouldn't be penalties for not paying taxes? Again, you don't believe that because you're not a moron.

    What I believe and what you think I believe are two vastly different things.

    ???
     
    Last edited: Aug 2, 2019
  9. Old Man Fred

    Old Man Fred Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2017
    Messages:
    840
    Likes Received:
    253
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    That's a truly terrifying statement.

    What about construction?
     
  10. bradt93

    bradt93 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2016
    Messages:
    1,687
    Likes Received:
    743
    Trophy Points:
    113
    AOC's idea will never be implemented in this country, count on it. She's just a left wing lunatic in a small group of rogue congresswomen.
     
  11. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's a different frame of mind and a different way of looking at who's money we are talking about here .

    Its not a subsidy because the government is giving you nothing that you didn't earn yourself.
    A subsidy is what wind and solar gets. They get other people's money to enable them to stay in business.
    See the difference now?
     
    Last edited: Aug 2, 2019
  12. FlamingLib

    FlamingLib Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2018
    Messages:
    3,903
    Likes Received:
    2,192
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Could something like the Hoover Dam have been built by a private company? Government is often required for labor-intensive massive-scale projects.
     
    Derideo_Te likes this.
  13. FlamingLib

    FlamingLib Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2018
    Messages:
    3,903
    Likes Received:
    2,192
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Look, I think we're agreeing with each other a lot here, and this is semantics. Instead of subsidy just say "preferential treatment". The point would be the same: no industries should get preferential treatment from the government. But a lot of industries DO get preferential treatment, including fossil fuel, in the form of tax breaks. That shouldn't happen, agreed?
     
    Old Man Fred likes this.
  14. Old Man Fred

    Old Man Fred Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2017
    Messages:
    840
    Likes Received:
    253
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    I was responding to "industries" or "sectors" developing exclusively from government deciding they could.

    Public works, do to the inherent nature of their development, which typically involves the forcible seizure of private property, would probably never happen without the force of government.
     
    Josephwalker likes this.
  15. FlamingLib

    FlamingLib Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2018
    Messages:
    3,903
    Likes Received:
    2,192
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I consider the Hubble Telescope a "public work". I don't think that would have been built by the private sector. Where's the profit motive? But we're drifting from the core topic.
     
  16. FlamingLib

    FlamingLib Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2018
    Messages:
    3,903
    Likes Received:
    2,192
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I typed a long post to this, but I don't know what happened. But yes, we need to have Social Security, because people can not be trusted to properly save for their retirement. That is absolutely true. Most people are TERRIBLE when it comes to saving, esp. in this country, and S.S. exists to save them from themselves.
     
    Last edited: Aug 2, 2019
  17. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    My main point here is tax breaks are not subsidies. Subsidies are grants of other people's money so by that defintion fossil fuel gets no subsidies.
    As far as tax breaks for certain industries goes you have to remember that certain industries incur cost that are specific to that industry so yeah "special" tax breaks have to be carved out for them. That's far from giving them subsidies though and the words taxes and subsidies should never be used in the same sentence except to define the difference between the two.
     
  18. Old Man Fred

    Old Man Fred Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2017
    Messages:
    840
    Likes Received:
    253
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    There's many things that exist solely because the government has an appetite for financial and human losses not compatible with private industry.

    The V-22 Osprey, which is truly a marvel of modern engineering and aerospace design, exists solely because government was willing to ignore significant loss of life until they got it right.
     
  19. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Then would you be okay with people who on their own would set aside and invest a certain portion of their income being exempt from mandatory inclusion into SS?
     
  20. Old Man Fred

    Old Man Fred Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2017
    Messages:
    840
    Likes Received:
    253
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    When it comes down to it I would opt out of Social Security in a heartbeat, even if I was 45, but that's not what I was posting about.

    The comment I was responding to was one that was poking fun at the shortsightedness and poor judgement of individuals, that caused them to make poor financial decisions.

    I found it odd that a liberal would make such a criticism.
     
  21. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yeah the OP topics pretty much dead and really it was DOA because liberals refused to discuss it choosing instead to claim it's not true without presenting alternative cost estimates.
     
  22. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't know why. Liberals always think we are stupid children that need a mommy government looking out for our best interest
     
  23. FlamingLib

    FlamingLib Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2018
    Messages:
    3,903
    Likes Received:
    2,192
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes.

    ETA: After thinking about this, I'm mostly "no".
     
    Last edited: Aug 2, 2019
  24. Old Man Fred

    Old Man Fred Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2017
    Messages:
    840
    Likes Received:
    253
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    For a "flaming liberal" you seem to be very practical and reasonable.

    Not many of you left.
     
  25. FlamingLib

    FlamingLib Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2018
    Messages:
    3,903
    Likes Received:
    2,192
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It's pragmatic. Most people really are terrible with money. We're going to feed and house them and buy them insulin anyway. We might as well make people pay into it. But yeah, if you could prove your retirement account was healthy, there's no need to be in S.S. The problem is what if they take that nest egg in their sixties and do something stupid with it. Now they're broke, with no S.S, so what are you going to do with them? The only people who should be exempted are those with private pension plans they pay into.
     
    Last edited: Aug 2, 2019

Share This Page