CNN reported it. * Michael Bloomberg: The billionaire businessman was better in this debate than in the last one in Las Vegas. But he wasn't good. Bloomberg committed a near-Freudian slip early in the debate when he started to say he "bought" a Democratic House majority before re-calibrating to say he helped Democrats reclaim the majority. https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/25/politics/who-won-south-carolina-debate/index.html
That will supposedly be solved by charging them a 40% penalty tax or something if they try to leave. As if there is no such thing as a gap between when an election ends and a President takes office. Plus without a day 1 executive order to put that into effect a law like that requires Congressional approval... Pretty sure these large business owners and shareholders aren't fools. They didn't create these companies into what they are by being ignorant with their money. How many of the hundreds of thousands of American workers who get laid off are going to "understand" that "Your CEO was greedy so we taxed him more and he closed down the factory that you've been working in for years to feed your children". But don't worry, we'll teach you how to code, all of you. We promise.
Your post reads like you're afraid of the mega-rich. Maybe they need another tax break?? Get some perspective here. We've had much higher tax rates in this country before .... back when America was "great". Then we had a much lower national debt, too, which now hangs like an albatross around any future presidents neck. Four decades of lowering the tax rate has seen four decades of an increasing debt. Funny how that is. Really, though, Bernie could likely get some of his proposals funded without "breaking the bank". His Medicare for all should be self-funding strictly as a matter of dollars and cents. From the Lancet article Bernie references: Published:February 15, 2020 Taking into account both the costs of coverage expansion and the savings that would be achieved through the Medicare for All Act, we calculate that a single-payer, universal health-care system is likely to lead to a 13% savings in national health-care expenditure, equivalent to more than US$450 billion annually (based on the value of the US$ in 2017). The entire system could be funded with less financial outlay than is incurred by employers and households paying for health-care premiums combined with existing government allocations. This shift to single-payer health care would provide the greatest relief to lower-income households. Furthermore, we estimate that ensuring health-care access for all Americans would save more than 68 000 lives and 1·73 million life-years every year compared with the status quo.
the rich, and their lawyers, always find a way around things. I'm not against a moderate increase on the wealthy, in particular the uber wealthy, start with lifting the cap on ss which will hit hard, on upper middle and up but they will deal with it. cap benefits over x as well, then hit capital gains with a bump over a million or 2. ss revenue is good but federal tax revenue is better. and again, the wealthy will work around a. much of that. boatloads of shelters and loopholes will give them tons of outs but I suspect that many of those current loopholes are already being maxed out. I personally thought the corporate cut was too aggressive, 5% less would likely have a similar result. (zero economics education so take with a grain of salt)
I'm not afraid of anybody I live in the real world. Like it or not we live in a Capitalist society. Money, all of it, is tied to these 1% billionaires in some fashion. So are millions of jobs that Americans depend on for their livelihood. 2008 ruined A LOT of Americans lives. This "vision" of Bernie Sanders and company is going to cause a recession at the very minimum rivaling 2008 and likely much worse than that which will have devastating effects on Americans. I'm not the only person who seems to get this either. The millions of Americans sounding the alarm on Bernie Sanders are not all mega rich greedy CEO's who don't want to be unable to afford a 5th yacht. Average Americans can see the writing on the wall as well.
Whether you agree with Sanders or not, one thing is clear. The very rich have historically paid more in taxes than they now do. Some of the richest have said they have no objection to paying more, but what happens? They get more tax breaks even as our debt increases. And, yes, you seem to be worried about offending these people as if they'll just pack up and move and we're out all that money. I got news for you. It ain't gonna happen. Personally, I don't agree with all of Sanders proposals and, even if I did, think he's reaching too far. Medicare 4 all is not reaching too far, however. Beyond that, I would only say that student loans should be restructured so as to give some relief to those owing, but not forgiven. Free college? Nope, but it should be more affordable. It once was, but seemed to rise in line with student loans. $15 minimum wage? Nope. $10 or $11, sure. That's in line with inflation.
There's the rub, but the current system is getting unstainable. Face it, with or without insurance, people get medical care. Some just have to wait til they're really sick for the system to deal with them, then it just leads to a worse outcome and is more expensive. In the end, we're paying for it anyway.
With the coronavirus out there, it was refreshing to learn that Biden was in charge of the responses to the ebola virus outbreak during the Obama Admin....remember he said he'd be all over this, and handle it much in the same way.....that lasted three years, was the worst in history, and killed over 11K people..... Yeah....so.....
CNN lying about Collusion had more effect then a few trolling Facebook ads. You understand that right? SnL turned more people off to Trump then Russia could ever have imagined “hurting Hillary”. The hoax is that Trump worked with them. It’s categorically false. No evidence was found to make it even remotely true, which makes all the investigations that were started based on that LIE even more erroneous.
the poor get Medicaid, disabled get Medicare, middle class buy or receive insurance, elderly get Medicare, the gap is the lower middle and illegals along with tons of volunteer uninsured. wouldn't it be cheaper to expand the assistance? were already paid down 20 million peeps with the aca. Medicare for more vs m4a? is there a chart somewhere that has the estimated demographics of the uninsured? (prolly mountains of data on that)
The Lancet article seems to reflect my intuitive sense. The work is in crafting the Goldilocks legislation that would realize those savings. I believe that Medicare 4 all would be the cheapest route if done correctly. If we could insure everyone and still save money, why not? One very nice thing about Medicare 4 all is that a person is not tied to a job just for the insurance. People would have more mobility in the job market. We need that as it is a fact that job security is not what it once was and many could put years into a job and find themselves pushed out through no fault of their own. It's just the way of the world these days and we need a medical care system that reflects that reality and is responsive to it.
Great cartoon! Today's Democrat Party: Socialists and Billionaires. Also... gotta' love the return of "chocker".
I see both sides, but dont have faith in govt efficiency. what happens to advantage plans, is there a premium, part b? its upsetting the apple cart for 80% to solve the problems of the 20%, the same 20% that are usually the problem in many other categories and get or need other assistance.
That 80% is just one layoff or business closure away from being a part of that 20%, to use your numbers. Job security, and with it benefits security (i.e. health insurance) is becoming a thing of the past. If the Lancet is correct in its estimation of a savings of $450 billion annually while covering everyone, what is there to be against? If Sanders (or anybody for that matter) implemented Medicare 4 all and nothing else, that savings amounts to half of our annual budget deficit. How is that a bad thing? Take that savings and tweak out a few other things (tax code and bloated military spending) and we're back to a balanced budget, or at least damn close.
Trump has repeatedly said he’d be willing to deal on DACA. He wanted Congress to solve it and it not be connected to an illegal EO
They couldn't go after Sanders all that hard because what he overtly believes in they secretly believe in; it's just that they are still pretending to have traditional values.
Here it is. The Outsourcing Prevention Act would “impose a tax on all companies that outsource jobs.” The proposed tax would be equal to “the amount of savings achieved by outsourcing jobs or 35 percent of its profits, whichever is higher.” Basically if corporations try to outsource overseas in order to avoid higher American taxes then they would be taxed equal to the amount of savings they achieve by leaving or 35% (not 40%) to try to make them not believe it worth it to leave. https://www.forbes.com/sites/timwor...rous-outsourcing-prevention-act/#50f5f9a94be0 This was his proposal a few years ago but I'm almost certain I heard either him or Warren say something very similar to that more recently during this current campaign.