Republican Candidates

[rylan1]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
Of course you will pay more taxes...
Furthermore, we all DO NOT agree that the current system needs reform. If you don't want insurance Rylan, you don't have to have it (medical). If you don't like the cost of healthcare then try to figure out a way to reform that... but many of us who pay for our own insurance or take jobs for medical benefits understand our priorities.
I have a job that covers all my insurance expenses... but I've been on the other side and understand the problems people face. With the current system we have the best way to reform it is with rules and basic standards along w/ competition. But we can take the case of Tobin who I think would agree with you on every other issue except for this one. Of course you feel nothing is wrong because it hasn't affected you... when it does to someone you are close to than you will see that the system does not benefit everyone.
If I told you your medical expenses would decrease, I could save you $2,500 and you could maintain the exact same insurance you have now..., you won't have to pay more taxes... and I will do this across the board...
- You would say no! That's bad for America!

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
I disagree because the tax cuts will still apply for everyone except for the highest earners.
I am gullable? You all just want to find ways to disagree w/ the policy.
I suggest you read it... It doesn't mandate coverage (except for children)... if don't want ins than you don't have to have it. What it does is it makes insurance universally affordable and gives you more options and competition... I think this is a key difference.
The plan also is supposed to save the average family $2,500 a year in premiums and expenses.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/pd...reFullPlan.pdf
I welcome critisism of the plan, but valid critisism... This industry needs reformed... so if you don't agree with it tell me why your candidate's plan is better.
Right now I don't know who I will vote for because none of the candidates reflect my core beliefs, or are really even close.
Just because it is change, doesn't mean it is good change. There is a difference. It is a socialist policy, it advocates healthcare for "children" up the age of 25. You are arguing that because it does not provide healthcare for everyone it is not a socialist program. What is to say in 4 years he says, well it has worked so well that we are going to expand the schip to include senior citizens, then everyone under the age of 35. And on from there, have you ever seen a government program stay the same, or not expand its reach to include more and more people. Just like now with that schip program, it started at 18 now the push is to 25.
So you argue that there will still be insurance, I'm not denying that, but what is the next step. It is proven that politicians will try to expand every government program they can.

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
...If I told you your medical expenses would decrease, I could save you $2,500 and you could maintain the exact same insurance you have now..., you won't have to pay more taxes... and I will do this across the board...
- You would say no! That's bad for America!
No, I would say you're dreaming.
Again, how much do you think the "rich" in this country should pay in taxes every year to pay for this wonderful plan? Define who the "rich" are?
Furthermore, it is "Universal" because it directly affects the Insurance Companies and Industry. If they are regulated to the point where they can't charge me what they want then you've removed the Free Market from the system.
As I said earlier; Why don't the Democrats take Insurance out of the equation?

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
If I told you your medical expenses would decrease, I could save you $2,500 and you could maintain the exact same insurance you have now..., you won't have to pay more taxes... and I will do this across the board...
- You would say no! That's bad for America!
I would say you were lying. Or just really stupid. For reasons stated above. Nothing is Free my friends.

 

[stdreb27]

Just like those morgage people who said, oh yeah we can get you into the house of your dreams for only 699 a month. You have to pay the fiddler some time...

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
I would say you were lying. Or just really stupid. For reasons stated above. Nothing is Free my friends.
What it is going to come down to is Rylan is going to have to say the "rich" need to pay more than they already are...
And businesses will need to be taxed more too of course.

 

[stdreb27]

Sometimes the simplest answer is often the wisest reason not to overtax the rich.
Don't buy the hand that feeds you...

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
Sometimes the simplest answer is often the wisest reason not to overtax the rich.
Don't buy the hand that feeds you...
That's thinking "long term". The Democratic nominees aren't thinking beyond November 08.
We live on a very small planet. If this plan goes through you'll see a mass exodus of investments and businesses from the USA. It simply won't make sense for the "rich" to continue to live and work in a country where 50%+ of their income is taken away and redistributed. Our economy will stagnate, interest rates and unemployment will climb, and the Dems will be forced to raise the taxes on the "middle class" who can't escape.

 

[rylan1]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
I would say you were lying. Or just really stupid. For reasons stated above. Nothing is Free my friends.
Nothing is free, I never said it was... but the program would be covered by letting the Bush Tax cuts lapse for those making $250K or more.
So as far as the comment about making the rich pay more its not an overtax... I think of it as they are paying what they should be paying... I just don't get why they need a break. We need the revenue and the elimination of their tax cut is not going to change their way if life.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
Nothing is free, I never said it was... but the program would be covered by letting the Bush Tax cuts lapse for those making $250K or more.
So as far as the comment about making the rich pay more its not an overtax... I think of it as they are paying what they should be paying... I just don't get why they need a break. We need the revenue and the elimination of their tax cut is not going to change their way if life.
But under the Bush tax cuts, Tax revenue has increased. And Historically lowering taxes has increased tax revenue.
That being said, it is raising taxes! You said that it wouldn't cost more. If taxes increase from current levels it will cost more.

 

[bang guy]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
But under the Bush tax cuts, Tax revenue has increased. And Historically lowering taxes has increased tax revenue.
That being said, it is raising taxes! You said that it wouldn't cost more. If taxes increase from current levels it will cost more.
Did tax revenue increase because of the cuts or did revenue increase because of increased government spending?

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by Bang Guy
Did tax revenue increase because of the cuts or did revenue increase because of increased government spending?
Tax revenue isn't going to increase because of an increase in government spending. When you start taking a percentage of profit on the company that won the government contract. It is not enough to offset the increased revenue.
Depending on some assumption you make in your economic models, it can be explained by people are more efficiently using their money, than the government is at using your money. Simply put if a wise and wealthy man gets to keep more of his money, then he is going to make more money with the tax cut money. Then taxes will be paid on the additional money earned. This historically has been enough to offset the immediate reduction in government revenue caused by the tax cut.
Likewise after the clinton tax hike, revenues were falling towards the end of the presidency.

 

[stdreb27]

Won't effect poor people? More than 90 percent of the 7.8 million families who now don't pay taxes thanks to Bush's tax cuts make less than $50,000 a year.

 

[bang guy]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
Tax revenue isn't going to increase because of an increase in government spending.
If the government borrows an additional, say trillion, from China to spend on a war for example:
Defense contractors get the trillion in exchange for products such as missiles, rifles, uniforms, kevlar, HumVees, deisel, jet parts, construction, etc. The Government gets about 15% of that right back as corporate taxes.
That just increased revenue 150 Billion.
These companies obviously hired additional employees to handle, manufacture, manage, transport, inspect, etc. The Government gets about 20% of these wages in the form of income tax.
That just increased revenue another 100 Billion.
These employees are required to contribute 7.65% of their income to Social Security and their company must match for a total of 15.3%. This is addition money the Social Security Administration collected. Instead of going into the Social Security Administration, the Federal Government takes it (as revenue) and writes the Social Security Administration an IOU.
That just added an additional 76.5 Billion.
The suppliers for these companies also go a booming business as do their employees wit hthey addition taxes.
This adds an additional 50 Billion in NEW revenue for the federal government.
The way I see it, tax revenues increase a LOT just by doing the borrow & spend. Well, to me 376.5 Billion is a lot, in Washington perhaps it's not.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by Bang Guy
If the government borrows an additional, say trillion, from China to spend on a war for example:
Defense contractors get the trillion in exchange for products such as missiles, rifles, uniforms, kevlar, HumVees, deisel, jet parts, construction, etc. The Government gets about 15% of that right back as corporate taxes.
That just increased revenue 150 Billion.
These companies obviously hired additional employees to handle, manufacture, manage, transport, inspect, etc. The Government gets about 20% of these wages in the form of income tax.
That just increased revenue another 100 Billion.
These employees are required to contribute 7.65% of their income to Social Security and their company must match for a total of 15.3%. This is addition money the Social Security Administration collected. Instead of going into the Social Security Administration, the Federal Government takes it (as revenue) and writes the Social Security Administration an IOU.
That just added an additional 76.5 Billion.
The suppliers for these companies also go a booming business as do their employees wit hthey addition taxes.
This adds an additional 50 Billion in NEW revenue for the federal government.
The way I see it, tax revenues increase a LOT just by doing the borrow & spend. Well, to me 376.5 Billion is a lot, in Washington perhaps it's not.
I am basically assuming that the percentage increase of spending by the government is unchanged (increasing at the same pace) or statistically irelevant, (to accurately acount for what you are discussing would mean we would have to subtract what we spent after we borrowed minus what we would have spent had we not borrowed) and I don't think there is going to be that much of a difference since at the federal level they are not required to make a budget in the black. And we all know there is no such thing as a budget cut in washington, unless it is for the military.

 

[mfp1016]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
So as far as the comment about making the rich pay more its not an overtax... I think of it as they are paying what they should be paying... I just don't get why they need a break. We need the revenue and the elimination of their tax cut is not going to change their way if life.
So, let me get this right, you are entitled to their money because it won't affect their lifestyle? I don't believe I'll be alive long enough to write down even a fraction of why that is so wrong on every level.

 

[mfp1016]

Originally Posted by mfp1016
If I don't plan on using it why should I pay for it?
Ryaln you never answered me on this.
Also you never answered if you pay more than the minimum for taxes....

 

[mfp1016]

Originally Posted by Rylan1
I have a job that covers all my insurance expenses... but I've been on the other side and understand the problems people face. With the current system we have the best way to reform it is with rules and basic standards along w/ competition. But we can take the case of Tobin who I think would agree with you on every other issue except for this one.
a) You're right, me, Journeyman, stereb, and all the other boisterous republicans on this board are trust-fund kids, never worked a day in our lives, and have no idea what its like to be as you put it "on the other side." Hahahaha, I can't speak explicitly for either Journeyman or stereb, but I find it rather offensive that you think that Democrats are the only ones who see the other side. You don't know any of our backgrounds, so don't go about using those silly qualifiers to try and establish a grain of crediblity.
b)Tobin, sadly passed away. Don't put words in his mouth, that is simply a matter of respect.

 

[stdreb27]

That is oxymoronic, a California College professor. Who worked in the oil business and is a republican. hehe. How did they hire you?

 

[stdreb27]

As a 2nd generation american I want to protect the system that allowed my family to reach the level of prosperity that it has reached in a short period of time. I strongly believe that plans such as oboma, and Hillary, foster a malignant idealogy that says government is the answer. They do not support individual accountability.
I believe history has demonstraited that the socialist and keynsian control systems not only don't work but fail; yet these people and this party continue to try to promote tried and failed ideology. And that is why I'm not a democrat, that is why I don't support Obama's plan, because I see that it IS going to take money out of my pocket by allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire. And it will add millions to the rosters of government handouts. How better increase government power but by aclimating the children all the children to a government handout.