Total Posts:33|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

A Moderate-Liberal 10 Point Plan

Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2012 7:48:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Here is my plan.

1) Single-Payer healthcare, with policy influenced by a Health Planning Board. To pay for this, all funds for private insurance are switched to public system, and a 2% income tax hike and a 7% payroll tax for businesses is used.

2) Reform Income Tax:
10% -- up to $15,000
20% -- up to $70,000
25% -- up to $250,000
35% -- up to $1,000,000
45% -- up to $1,000,000,000
49% -- $1,000,000,000+

And cut mortgage deduction in 1/2 and end most tax loopholes and deductions.

3) Lower Corporate Tax to 25% AND eliminate all loopholes -tax within the USA instead of internationally.

4) Spending Cuts:
-------End earmarks
-------Close 1/3 of military bases
-------Reduce Defense Procurement by 15%
-------Reduce military spending by $1.5 trillion over 10 years
-------Reform Farm Subsidies
-------Reduce Federal Workforce by about 5%

5) Move Gas and oil subsidies to clean renewable energy

6) National Energy retrofitting program; or use state level retrofitting programs

7) End All Foreign Wars and Bring troops home

8) Invest in job creation, renewable clean energy, broadband infrastructure, housing, R&D programs, restore schools, train teachers, rebuild roads and bridges, and make sure users help pay for them (new spending)

9) New regulations on derivatives market

10) End payroll cap for employees for Social Security

Protects public health, Social Security, improves education system, improves environment, and American clean energy, as well as infrastructure. Revives the economy and cuts deficit by targeting main factors of the deficit (Bush tax cuts, wars, and recent recession).
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2012 7:51:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
49% for $1,000,000,000. Isn't that a little high? I think past $1,000,000 the tax rate should stagnate at around 35%.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2012 7:52:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Would you promote government subsidy in clean energy areas rather than the free market operate?
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2012 7:53:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/6/2012 7:52:45 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Would you promote government subsidy in clean energy areas rather than let the free market operate?

Fixed.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2012 7:53:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/6/2012 7:51:20 PM, 000ike wrote:
49% for $1,000,000,000. Isn't that a little high? I think past $1,000,000 the tax rate should stagnate at around 35%.

Really stagnate? Besides the 49% is at a billion dollars or more - so only the mega ultra rich would get a higher tax rate.

I would be satisfied if all the Bush tax cuts expired.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2012 7:59:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/6/2012 7:53:51 PM, Contra wrote:
At 3/6/2012 7:51:20 PM, 000ike wrote:
49% for $1,000,000,000. Isn't that a little high? I think past $1,000,000 the tax rate should stagnate at around 35%.

Really stagnate? Besides the 49% is at a billion dollars or more - so only the mega ultra rich would get a higher tax rate.

I would be satisfied if all the Bush tax cuts expired.

Yes, the mega ultra rich that invest money into the economy and make it grow.

Why can't liberals understand economics?
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2012 8:03:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/6/2012 7:59:52 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 3/6/2012 7:53:51 PM, Contra wrote:
At 3/6/2012 7:51:20 PM, 000ike wrote:
49% for $1,000,000,000. Isn't that a little high? I think past $1,000,000 the tax rate should stagnate at around 35%.

Really stagnate? Besides the 49% is at a billion dollars or more - so only the mega ultra rich would get a higher tax rate.

I would be satisfied if all the Bush tax cuts expired.

Yes, the mega ultra rich that invest money into the economy and make it grow.

Why can't liberals understand economics?

They haven't read the Fatal Conceit.
Or they think somehow money is more efficient in govts. hands.
Or they don't think the sole purpose of government is protecting life and liberty.
Not sure.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2012 8:04:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Nothing moderate about this. This is very, very far left. Socialized medicine and 49% tax rate. Can you say France?
President of DDO
UnStupendousMan
Posts: 3,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2012 8:05:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/6/2012 7:48:22 PM, Contra wrote:
Here is my plan.

1) Single-Payer healthcare, with policy influenced by a Health Planning Board. To pay for this, all funds for private insurance are switched to public system, and a 2% income tax hike and a 7% payroll tax for businesses is used.

I'm not really informed about this, so I cannot comment.

2) Reform Income Tax:
10% -- up to $15,000
20% -- up to $70,000
25% -- up to $250,000
35% -- up to $1,000,000
45% -- up to $1,000,000,000
49% -- $1,000,000,000+

49%'s a little high. But I like progressive tax rates rather than regressive tax rates.

And cut mortgage deduction in 1/2 and end most tax loopholes and deductions.

Closing loopholes is a good thing. IDK about mortgage deduction, but that seems (key word!) like a good idea.

3) Lower Corporate Tax to 25% AND eliminate all loopholes -tax within the USA instead of internationally.

Double whammy of good.

4) Spending Cuts:
-------End earmarks

Good.

-------Close 1/3 of military bases

Good.

-------Reduce Defense Procurement by 15%

Good.

-------Reduce military spending by $1.5 trillion over 10 years

Good.

-------Reform Farm Subsidies

Good.

-------Reduce Federal Workforce by about 5%

Good, although I would like to add that the pay for the federal workforce needs to be lowered.

5) Move Gas and oil subsidies to clean renewable energy

Great. Lean away for fuels that are going to not be available cheaply in the long term (and is produced by a lot of unstable and unfreindly nations)

6) National Energy retrofitting program; or use state level retrofitting programs

?

7) End All Foreign Wars and Bring troops home

Agreed.

8) Invest in job creation,

Wisely. Just don't throw money at the problem.

renewable clean energy,

Eh. But I also would want more nuclear power in the mix (Fukushima? Failed only after one of Japan's biggest tsunamis)

broadband infrastructure,

Agreed.

housing,

NO. DESTROY HOUSES! That will decrease demands and open up space for community projects.

R&D programs,

Agreed, although I would like more spending on NASA.

restore schools,

Yes.

train teachers,

I would like schools to be able to fire teachers; there are a few teachers which I know need to be trained, but this seems like a waste of time.

rebuild roads and bridges,

Great.

and make sure users help pay for them (new spending)

Great.

9) New regulations on derivatives market

OH YES.

10) End payroll cap for employees for Social Security

?

Protects public health, Social Security, improves education system, improves environment, and American clean energy, as well as infrastructure. Revives the economy and cuts deficit by targeting main factors of the deficit (Bush tax cuts, wars, and recent recession).

I can't say the plan does EVERYTHING that is promised here, but I like it.
imabench
Posts: 21,230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2012 8:11:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/6/2012 7:48:22 PM, Contra wrote:
Here is my plan.

1) Single-Payer healthcare, with policy influenced by a Health Planning Board. To pay for this, all funds for private insurance are switched to public system, and a 2% income tax hike and a 7% payroll tax for businesses is used.

I like it

2) Reform Income Tax:
10% -- up to $15,000
20% -- up to $70,000
25% -- up to $250,000
35% -- up to $1,000,000
45% -- up to $1,000,000,000
49% -- $1,000,000,000+

And cut mortgage deduction in 1/2 and end most tax loopholes and deductions.

I like it

3) Lower Corporate Tax to 25% AND eliminate all loopholes -tax within the USA instead of internationally.

I like it

4) Spending Cuts:
-------End earmarks
-------Close 1/3 of military bases
-------Reduce Defense Procurement by 15%
-------Reduce military spending by $1.5 trillion over 10 years
-------Reform Farm Subsidies
-------Reduce Federal Workforce by about 5%

I like those two in the middle, the other four scare me a little

5) Move Gas and oil subsidies to clean renewable energy

I like it

6) National Energy retrofitting program; or use state level retrofitting programs

I like it

7) End All Foreign Wars and Bring troops home

I love it

8) Invest in job creation, renewable clean energy, broadband infrastructure, housing, R&D programs, restore schools, train teachers, rebuild roads and bridges, and make sure users help pay for them (new spending)

I definitely like that second to last one

9) New regulations on derivatives market

Meh

10) End payroll cap for employees for Social Security

Meh

Protects public health, Social Security, improves education system, improves environment, and American clean energy, as well as infrastructure. Revives the economy and cuts deficit by targeting main factors of the deficit (Bush tax cuts, wars, and recent recession).

I like it a lot
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
UnStupendousMan
Posts: 3,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2012 8:11:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/6/2012 7:59:52 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 3/6/2012 7:53:51 PM, Contra wrote:
At 3/6/2012 7:51:20 PM, 000ike wrote:
49% for $1,000,000,000. Isn't that a little high? I think past $1,000,000 the tax rate should stagnate at around 35%.

Really stagnate? Besides the 49% is at a billion dollars or more - so only the mega ultra rich would get a higher tax rate.

I would be satisfied if all the Bush tax cuts expired.

Yes, the mega ultra rich that invest money into the economy and make it grow.

Why can't liberals understand economics?

The mega-ultra-rich may throw a lot of money around, but the group of people called the "middle class" input more money into the economy. Or at least so I'm told.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2012 8:13:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/6/2012 7:53:51 PM, Contra wrote:
At 3/6/2012 7:51:20 PM, 000ike wrote:
49% for $1,000,000,000. Isn't that a little high? I think past $1,000,000 the tax rate should stagnate at around 35%.

Really stagnate? Besides the 49% is at a billion dollars or more - so only the mega ultra rich would get a higher tax rate.

I would be satisfied if all the Bush tax cuts expired.

I don't think its ever right to take away half of someone's money just because they have so much. The government should collect only what is necessary to provide everyone with healthcare, maintain a monetarily subdued military, and provide welfare, infrastructure, and any government jobs & state-funded institutions. If that can be done with a lesser tax rate than 49%, then it should.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Starcraftzzz
Posts: 487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2012 8:17:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/6/2012 7:51:20 PM, 000ike wrote:
49% for $1,000,000,000. Isn't that a little high? I think past $1,000,000 the tax rate should stagnate at around 35%.

Why is it high? It doesn't decrease anyone standard of living, according to the Laffer Curve it doesn't decrease revenue. Why should income above 1million be taxed at the same rate as income at 25,000?

At 3/6/2012 7:52:45 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Would you promote government subsidy in clean energy areas rather than the free market operate?

Yes because in the free market the health and environmental costs of fossil fuels are not included Just another example of the failings of the free market.

At 3/6/2012 7:59:52 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 3/6/2012 7:53:51 PM, Contra wrote:
At 3/6/2012 7:51:20 PM, 000ike wrote:
49% for $1,000,000,000. Isn't that a little high? I think past $1,000,000 the tax rate should stagnate at around 35%.

Really stagnate? Besides the 49% is at a billion dollars or more - so only the mega ultra rich would get a higher tax rate.

I would be satisfied if all the Bush tax cuts expired.

Yes, the mega ultra rich that invest money into the economy and make it grow.

Why can't liberals understand economics?
Yes because all those investments into CDO's, suprime mortgages, and bubbles really helped the economy out. /sarcasm.
Not to mention that higher taxes on the rich result in more equality which results in more GDP growth in itself.

At 3/6/2012 8:03:39 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 3/6/2012 7:59:52 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 3/6/2012 7:53:51 PM, Contra wrote:
At 3/6/2012 7:51:20 PM, 000ike wrote:
49% for $1,000,000,000. Isn't that a little high? I think past $1,000,000 the tax rate should stagnate at around 35%.

Really stagnate? Besides the 49% is at a billion dollars or more - so only the mega ultra rich would get a higher tax rate.

I would be satisfied if all the Bush tax cuts expired.

Yes, the mega ultra rich that invest money into the economy and make it grow.

Why can't liberals understand economics?

Or they think somehow money is more efficient in govts. hands.
Well when it comes to health care, insurance, welfare, retirement, schools, transportation, prisons, courts and utilities they government is more efficient. Also an increase in taxes on the rich does not mean an increase in government spending, it could also mean a decrease in taxes for other people or corporations
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,337
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2012 8:19:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/6/2012 7:48:22 PM, Contra wrote:
Here is my plan.

1) Single-Payer healthcare, with policy influenced by a Health Planning Board. To pay for this, all funds for private insurance are switched to public system, and a 2% income tax hike and a 7% payroll tax for businesses is used.

2) Reform Income Tax:
10% -- up to $15,000

Do you have any clue the billions of dollars of revenue you would reap in if you could just get that one teir passed?
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2012 8:43:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The plan would not get a single vote from Democrats, never mind Republicans.

The "no foreign wars" means that anyone can attack the US without fear of retaliation. Oddly civil wars would still be allowed. Congress can cut off any military action by cutting the funding. Failing to do so it the modern backhanded way of approving.

"More regulation on derivatives" means that you have no idea what regulations you want, but that you think an extra pound and a half of regulation will always be good.

Republicans strongly favor eliminating loopholes. The purpose of a 72,000 page tax code with incentives for some things and penalties for others is so the government can influence the detailed decisions about what you ought to do with your money. Liberals figure an outright requirement would be too much, so they settle for tax incentives. Obamacare turns the corner on that with explicit requirements that you must spend money exactly as the government deems wise, never mind ere incentives.
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2012 8:47:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/6/2012 7:48:22 PM, Contra wrote:
Here is my plan.

2) Reform Income Tax:
10% -- up to $15,000

Are you actually going to require those to pay an effective 10%, or are they still going to have the deductions that allow them to get net money back on their returns?

3) Lower Corporate Tax to 25% AND eliminate all loopholes -tax within the USA instead of internationally.

Are you wanting to lower or raise the effective corporate tax rate?
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2012 8:53:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/6/2012 8:17:42 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:

Why is it high? It doesn't decrease anyone standard of living, according to the Laffer Curve it doesn't decrease revenue. Why should income above 1million be taxed at the same rate as income at 25,000?

Really? Where is the Laffer curve published for the present economy?

We don't know where the country is on the Laffer curve, but we have some hints. Maryland and Oregon increased state income tax rates in recent years and revenue dropped. New York increased their tax rates and got only a small percentage of what was expected from a simple calculation.

Billionaires are well-equipped to avoid the high rates. they can leave capital gains unrealized, so it's not income, or they can move money out of the country altogether. Keep in mind that Federal taxes are added to state and local taxes.
MrBrooks
Posts: 831
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2012 8:56:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/6/2012 7:48:22 PM, Contra wrote:
Here is my plan.
4) Spending Cuts:
-------End earmarks
-------Close 1/3 of military bases
-------Reduce Defense Procurement by 15%
-------Reduce military spending by $1.5 trillion over 10 years
-------Reform Farm Subsidies
-------Reduce Federal Workforce by about 5%

I'd say close 1/3 of all OVERSEAS military bases. We've already actually closed a lot of bases at home, packing them up and moving them overseas. There is no reason to reduce the number of bases at home, since they are cheaper to maintain and keep in operation. Also, I'd recommend increasing the National Guard and Navy's funding, while decreasing the funding of the Army and Air Force.

Continued control of the seas makes the United States impervious to invasion from other global powers or coalitions, while a bloated Army budget won't really help us out unless the enemy actually manages to invade. Furthermore more funding to the Navy means more funding to the Marine Corps, which is an essential element to continue keeping a military presence in Asia and Europe.

Most of the bilateral and multilateral training between countries is conducted through MEUs (Marine Expeditionary Unit.) These units travel throughout Europe conducting good will and military training with our allies, while maintaining a military presence in the region. The 22nd MEU was actually the force that carried out the mission in Libya.

We don't really need permanent bases if we maintain a strong Department of the Navy. I'd say the only permanent base we should keep is the one in Okinawa, to counter China's influence in East Asia.
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2012 9:19:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/6/2012 8:43:40 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
The plan would not get a single vote from Democrats, never mind Republicans.

The "no foreign wars" means that anyone can attack the US without fear of retaliation. Oddly civil wars would still be allowed. Congress can cut off any military action by cutting the funding. Failing to do so it the modern backhanded way of approving.

"More regulation on derivatives" means that you have no idea what regulations you want, but that you think an extra pound and a half of regulation will always be good.

Republicans strongly favor eliminating loopholes. The purpose of a 72,000 page tax code with incentives for some things and penalties for others is so the government can influence the detailed decisions about what you ought to do with your money. Liberals figure an outright requirement would be too much, so they settle for tax incentives. Obamacare turns the corner on that with explicit requirements that you must spend money exactly as the government deems wise, never mind ere incentives.

A plan that is somewhat similar to mine has been approved by the Congressional Progressive Caucus - besides the retrofitting program, Single Payer healthcare, and cutting the corporate tax.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2012 9:20:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/6/2012 8:04:38 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
Nothing moderate about this. This is very, very far left. Socialized medicine and 49% tax rate. Can you say France?

Single Payer isn't socialized medicine. The government doesn't own the health care infrastructure with Single Payer. In reality, Single Payer reduces bureaucracy as well.

About the tax rate - kind of surprised at the flak it caught here.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2012 9:21:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/6/2012 9:19:18 PM, Contra wrote:
At 3/6/2012 8:43:40 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
The plan would not get a single vote from Democrats, never mind Republicans.

The "no foreign wars" means that anyone can attack the US without fear of retaliation. Oddly civil wars would still be allowed. Congress can cut off any military action by cutting the funding. Failing to do so it the modern backhanded way of approving.

"More regulation on derivatives" means that you have no idea what regulations you want, but that you think an extra pound and a half of regulation will always be good.

Republicans strongly favor eliminating loopholes. The purpose of a 72,000 page tax code with incentives for some things and penalties for others is so the government can influence the detailed decisions about what you ought to do with your money. Liberals figure an outright requirement would be too much, so they settle for tax incentives. Obamacare turns the corner on that with explicit requirements that you must spend money exactly as the government deems wise, never mind ere incentives.

A plan that is somewhat similar to mine has been approved by the Congressional Progressive Caucus - besides the retrofitting program, Single Payer healthcare, and cutting the corporate tax.

Ya, the most liberal group in congress approved a disasterous plan that was similiar to this. Shocker.
President of DDO
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2012 9:31:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/6/2012 9:21:03 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 3/6/2012 9:19:18 PM, Contra wrote:
At 3/6/2012 8:43:40 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
The plan would not get a single vote from Democrats, never mind Republicans.

The "no foreign wars" means that anyone can attack the US without fear of retaliation. Oddly civil wars would still be allowed. Congress can cut off any military action by cutting the funding. Failing to do so it the modern backhanded way of approving.

"More regulation on derivatives" means that you have no idea what regulations you want, but that you think an extra pound and a half of regulation will always be good.

Republicans strongly favor eliminating loopholes. The purpose of a 72,000 page tax code with incentives for some things and penalties for others is so the government can influence the detailed decisions about what you ought to do with your money. Liberals figure an outright requirement would be too much, so they settle for tax incentives. Obamacare turns the corner on that with explicit requirements that you must spend money exactly as the government deems wise, never mind ere incentives.

A plan that is somewhat similar to mine has been approved by the Congressional Progressive Caucus - besides the retrofitting program, Single Payer healthcare, and cutting the corporate tax.


Ya, the most liberal group in congress approved a disasterous plan that was similiar to this. Shocker.


I didn't know that balancing the budget, protecting and extending the life of S.Security, and producing a surplus in 10 years was a bad thing.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2012 9:32:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/6/2012 9:31:16 PM, Contra wrote:
At 3/6/2012 9:21:03 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 3/6/2012 9:19:18 PM, Contra wrote:
At 3/6/2012 8:43:40 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
The plan would not get a single vote from Democrats, never mind Republicans.

The "no foreign wars" means that anyone can attack the US without fear of retaliation. Oddly civil wars would still be allowed. Congress can cut off any military action by cutting the funding. Failing to do so it the modern backhanded way of approving.

"More regulation on derivatives" means that you have no idea what regulations you want, but that you think an extra pound and a half of regulation will always be good.

Republicans strongly favor eliminating loopholes. The purpose of a 72,000 page tax code with incentives for some things and penalties for others is so the government can influence the detailed decisions about what you ought to do with your money. Liberals figure an outright requirement would be too much, so they settle for tax incentives. Obamacare turns the corner on that with explicit requirements that you must spend money exactly as the government deems wise, never mind ere incentives.

A plan that is somewhat similar to mine has been approved by the Congressional Progressive Caucus - besides the retrofitting program, Single Payer healthcare, and cutting the corporate tax.


Ya, the most liberal group in congress approved a disasterous plan that was similiar to this. Shocker.


I didn't know that balancing the budget, protecting and extending the life of S.Security, and producing a surplus in 10 years was a bad thing.

Yeah. Right.

I'll believe that when I see it.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2012 9:38:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/6/2012 9:32:13 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 3/6/2012 9:31:16 PM, Contra wrote:
At 3/6/2012 9:21:03 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 3/6/2012 9:19:18 PM, Contra wrote:
At 3/6/2012 8:43:40 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
The plan would not get a single vote from Democrats, never mind Republicans.

The "no foreign wars" means that anyone can attack the US without fear of retaliation. Oddly civil wars would still be allowed. Congress can cut off any military action by cutting the funding. Failing to do so it the modern backhanded way of approving.

"More regulation on derivatives" means that you have no idea what regulations you want, but that you think an extra pound and a half of regulation will always be good.

Republicans strongly favor eliminating loopholes. The purpose of a 72,000 page tax code with incentives for some things and penalties for others is so the government can influence the detailed decisions about what you ought to do with your money. Liberals figure an outright requirement would be too much, so they settle for tax incentives. Obamacare turns the corner on that with explicit requirements that you must spend money exactly as the government deems wise, never mind ere incentives.

A plan that is somewhat similar to mine has been approved by the Congressional Progressive Caucus - besides the retrofitting program, Single Payer healthcare, and cutting the corporate tax.


Ya, the most liberal group in congress approved a disasterous plan that was similiar to this. Shocker.


I didn't know that balancing the budget, protecting and extending the life of S.Security, and producing a surplus in 10 years was a bad thing.

Yeah. Right.

I'll believe that when I see it.

Here you go, straight from the source:

http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov...

(its been evaluated too, it isn't just a wild estimate)
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2012 9:40:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/6/2012 9:38:16 PM, Contra wrote:
At 3/6/2012 9:32:13 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 3/6/2012 9:31:16 PM, Contra wrote:
At 3/6/2012 9:21:03 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 3/6/2012 9:19:18 PM, Contra wrote:
At 3/6/2012 8:43:40 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
The plan would not get a single vote from Democrats, never mind Republicans.

The "no foreign wars" means that anyone can attack the US without fear of retaliation. Oddly civil wars would still be allowed. Congress can cut off any military action by cutting the funding. Failing to do so it the modern backhanded way of approving.

"More regulation on derivatives" means that you have no idea what regulations you want, but that you think an extra pound and a half of regulation will always be good.

Republicans strongly favor eliminating loopholes. The purpose of a 72,000 page tax code with incentives for some things and penalties for others is so the government can influence the detailed decisions about what you ought to do with your money. Liberals figure an outright requirement would be too much, so they settle for tax incentives. Obamacare turns the corner on that with explicit requirements that you must spend money exactly as the government deems wise, never mind ere incentives.

A plan that is somewhat similar to mine has been approved by the Congressional Progressive Caucus - besides the retrofitting program, Single Payer healthcare, and cutting the corporate tax.


Ya, the most liberal group in congress approved a disasterous plan that was similiar to this. Shocker.


I didn't know that balancing the budget, protecting and extending the life of S.Security, and producing a surplus in 10 years was a bad thing.

Yeah. Right.

I'll believe that when I see it.

Here you go, straight from the source:

http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov...

(its been evaluated too, it isn't just a wild estimate)

Assuming this doesn't change(which it will), we'll talk in 10 years.

Is this raising taxes on corporations as well?
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2012 9:43:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Assuming this doesn't change(which it will), we'll talk in 10 years.

Is this raising taxes on corporations as well?


It won't pass, the progressives don't have the votes to pass their budget plans.

No the plan does nothing on corporate taxation (a difference).
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2012 9:46:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
They say it will drop the debt to 65% of GDP by 2021, but I don't see how. We will add to the debt every year by their calculations, and we are already at 99%(if I recall)
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2012 9:47:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/6/2012 9:46:41 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
They say it will drop the debt to 65% of GDP by 2021, but I don't see how. We will add to the debt every year by their calculations, and we are already at 99%(if I recall)

The high debt was caused by the great recession, the wars, and the Bush tax cuts. Most people just blame Obama's "binge spending".
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2012 9:50:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 3/6/2012 9:47:57 PM, Contra wrote:
At 3/6/2012 9:46:41 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
They say it will drop the debt to 65% of GDP by 2021, but I don't see how. We will add to the debt every year by their calculations, and we are already at 99%(if I recall)

The high debt was caused by the great recession, the wars, and the Bush tax cuts. Most people just blame Obama's "binge spending".

Yes, but to add to the debt by 2% a year, and still reduce debt as % of GDP by 3 % every year... they seem to be saying our GDP will grow by at least 5% every year.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13