Trump about to squash the stimulus if they don’t bump from $600 to 2K
- Thread starter Elul77
- Start date
Wouldn't it be cheaper to just blast Egypt into oblivian?
I mean, I'm not saying we should do it, but if we have to make one choice or the other.....
As to the bills - I haven't kept up but I think the COVID bill was attached to the spending bill. As a rider or something. Not sure.
Personally I'm no fan of riders. I think each bill should pass or fail on it's own merit. I assume riders are done for efficiency (reduce the number of called votes in the senate) but I am not a fan.
I’m interested in your perspective.
I voted for Trump, but am not a “Trumpster.” Ready for him to disappear and for the party to stabilize.
I don't see the need for $2k I would rather see that money be targeted for industries that need the support.
It is fascinating to see what effect this has on the economy. It's a real world test of the Andrew Yang policy he promoted of universal income. He was one of the few candidates with pretty different ideas.
Where do you live in Florida? Wherever it is, I want you to google a comparison of population density between your town and NYC and LA. How many high rise apartment buildings are in your town? There are many factors that increase spread of the virus. If you really think that the best strategy at this point is to run around maskless without a care in the world, then I have no more energy to engage with you.
If you are going to do it then do it right. $600 is nothing and you know that. $600 does not even cover one of my car payments. Its not even 30% of day care for one kid. There should be more money, but it should be distributed more specifically to people more affected by the virus. Service industry workers (restaurant, hotel, large venues), healthcare workers who are busting there asses trying to cure our loved ones. Just blasting out money to everyone under $75K in income makes no sense.
And the way it has been handled on the business side has been egregious. You've heard all of the stories about big businesses getting PPE money. I applied for a business disaster relief loan in early March, heard nothing for months and then one day had $150K deposited into my business account. I tried 10 times to call the SBA after that, and was hung up on every time. Five months later I got an email from someone at SBA asking me if I had received any money from them. Last week they reached out to me asking me to provide more documentation. I am not one of those idiots that is going to buy a boat or ferrari with the money, it is sitting untouched in a business account and I am going to pay it back before the first payment is due. But the way it was handled was absolutely asinine.
I think your view that dems are the party of entitlements while republicans are against them is not accurate. What have repubs done to cut entitlements? It is a dirty secret that they talk about those things but never act on them. And if trump had been elected, I guarantee you that the repubs would have happily passed $2K checks.
$600 is nothing to us, but maybe to those who need a little help. I'd prefer no handouts, but if we're going to do it, I agree with your approach of targeting it more specifically. That's more reasonable than arbitrary Santa Clause checks for all (well not quite).
The loan management highlights the problem with letting the government run things - it was a mess. They don't have the bandwidth to manage business loans, but we want them to manage healthcare, college tuition, etc?
To that point, I agree the republicans don't do enough to reduce entitlements. On the flip side, they aren't trying to add new entirely new entitlements in addition to expanding existing ones.
Same boat here. One thing that infuriates me is people who lump everyone who voted for Trump in the same damn boat. I voted for the guy. Don't really like him. But the alternative is, to my eyes, even worse. Especially if Biden quits or kicks off mid-term.
One issue with that is that the government would do a shvt job of distributing the money. This just isn't something they are good at.
Another issue with some of these relief bills is that there are actually jobs out there, but if you make it more profitable to sit around doing nothing than actually get a job, which are people going to choose? This has more to do with the unemployment boost that was done earlier this year, than this current bill.
Which is what Graham and (I think) Tim Scott were trying to tell people when the first stimulus bill went out.
IMO the elephant in the room is asking Congress to vote on a supposedly 5600 page bill within 1-2 hours of getting the official text of the bill. Seems shady as hell.
Running around without a mask is a bad idea, but I will suggest that the overall best strategy for NYC might not be the best strategy for a town in Florida, or Greenville, SC, or somewhere else.
I agree with this 100%. That is why I have always said that where we screwed the pooch as a country was the lack of effective testing for a contact tracing system. 30 days to slow the spread was a terrible move by the trump admin. Iowa did not need to shut down at the same time that Seattle and NYC did. But lack of testing meant we didnt know what to do or who needed to shut down. We should have had the ability to shut down towns or counties, not the entire country.
I mean this just continues to highlight the ineptitude of the federal government. It's painfully obvious to everyone who isn't a complete leach that you should never, ever make more money not working than working. I understand that the first bill was rushed to save a tumbling economy, but they could have amended it so that the max benefit you received was 75% (or something similar) of your pre-layoff earnings. And this bill certainly should have such a provision.
By not targeting sectors, rolling out the handouts en masse, not capping benefits based on your previous earnings, etc - to me - it's just buying votes. And with the winds blowing toward socialist ideals, we're going to see more and more freebies being offered in exchange for votes - more handouts, free college, student debt erased, free healthcare and on and on. Just vote for us and we’ll give you all these goodies. And then we'll just make those a-holes who work their ass off and create jobs pay for it.
Last edited:
1. Trump has spent the last four years crippling the federal government. He has literally left thousands of positions unfilled. Similar to the pandemic team that Trump canned in 2018. When we need that apparatus, it is not there.
2. You are talking about "socialists" again and I assume you are referring to dems. Those first round of checks that went out, who personally signed those? Bernie? No, those were signed by Trump.
3. In terms of buying votes, the dems are not having to buy any right now. Trump gave them the votes gift wrapped for christmas by demanding the $2K payment that will undoubtedly be voted down by the republican senate. He set the GOP up for failure. I have to admit it is kind if funny. Yall have celebrated how much Trump "owns the libs", and now on his way out he is owning the repubs. And all because they are not going along with destroying our democracy and letting him be king.
4. Side note on the markets (which I know is your primary economic concern): Biden's bump has been bigger than Trumps in 2016. Almost double growth actually. ALL AMERICANS SHOULD BE CELEBRATING THIS. All the incoming president!
you were ok with the massive handout trump gave to farmers? to solve a crisis he created?
Not really, but that's a click lower than I typically have the bandwidth to follow.
1. I don't really know what he's done with federal positions. He's whiffed on a bunch of stuff, so I wouldn't be surprised.
2. Separate issues. Everyone in DC failed on the first round. Something needed to go out to prevent freefall (at least it seemed so at the time), but they should have corrected it to ensure that you couldn't earn more - or even equal - to what you were earning pre-Covid impact. That's on pubs, dems and Trump.
2b. I didn't say socialists. I said the winds blowing toward socialist ideals. As in, it's becoming mainstream in the democratic party to want entire new waves of entitlement programs like the ones I mentioned. And this isn't just crazy uncle Bernie. The senate majority leader is suggesting that Joe Biden circumvent congress and gift $50K of student debt forgiveness to everyone by executive order. That's extreme.
3. Yea, Trump gifted plenty of votes by being an asshole and acting emotionally rather than strategically.
3b. That doesn't change the fact that dems are actively looking for ways to pay for votes. Redistribution, free college, free healthcare, forgiving student debt, etc. See example of Chuck Shumer's position on student debt above. This isn't the fringe crazies in the party. It's the leadership.
4. I'm surprised and very happy about it. My stonks are doing great and my home value is through the proverbial roof. I start a new position on 1/4 that provides the opportunity to further accelerate things for my family financially - ironically due in some part to Covid. My last "break" happened during the Obama administration and I suspect my next leap forward will happen during Biden's term. I will happily celebrate that. I'm less concerned about the near-term though. My concern is the establishment of broader entitlement programs that create permanent dependence on the government. This will be bad for the country, for the economy and will ultimately be bad for the tax code too.
Ok. But your party supported those "hand-outs". And yet you blame "socialist winds".
Define bad?
Universal health care paid for by the government is "bad"?
You are conflating "costing a lot" with "bad" which, of course, we have diametrically opposed views on.
On your point 3B, let’s Remember that it was Trump who delayed the initial round of COVID checks for 10 days so that they’d have his signature on it. And Trump who desperately tried to push through an illegal scheme to send seniors RX drug cards before the election. That was literally trying to buy votes (and it worked! The stimulus checks were a big reason Trump over-performed expectations among low-income voters of color).
I think it’s totally legit for you to oppose the policies you site. In fact, many Democrats oppose many of these policies. But it’s disingenuous to suggest that the Dems who support them are doing so because they want to buy votes:
“Free health care” = single payer, I assume. It’s not free, of course, because we’d raise taxes to pay for it. Most Dems who support it, including me, do so because the evidence from other countries who take this approach shows that they get much better health outcomes at a much lower cost. I, personally, am in favor of saving Americans money while improving their health.
“Free college.” I don’t support Bernie’s free college for everyone and most Ds don’t. I think Biden has it about right in proposing 2 years of free public university or community college for families making under $125 K. In today’s economy, a post-secondary education is a game changer and ensuring that working Americans have access to that would not only improve the lives of millions and reduce economic inequality, but make American significantly more competitive via a vis China and others in the 21st century economy. I think it’s be well worth the cost.
Forgiving student debt. In addition to being a huge anchor for millions of Americans, Education debt is a massive drag on the economy because it prevents people from starting businesses, moving jobs, buying homes, or any number of things. Moreover, Schumer and others are pushing this proposal under the assumption that Rs hold the Senate and McConnell spikes any further stimulus and this might be the only way to pump another trillion into the economy. If you, believe, as I do, that it is important to not make the same mistake we made in 2009 when we did far too little stimulus and ended up with a weaker recovery than we could have had, and to ensure that we have robust growth so that millions of Americans have better jobs and wages then this policy makes tons of sense.
“Redistribution.” I guess this means a more progressive tax system that taxes wealthy Americans and big corporations more so that we can invest in working and middle class Americans and small businesses. You can certainly argue against this if you oppose it, but those of us who support it do so because we think that is best for America (and we’re backed up by history and economics), not because we’re trying to buy votes. Considering that billionaires have seen their wealth skyrocket during the pandemic as working Americans and small businesses are struggling, I am all for asking them to pay more.
Again, you are entirely justified to argue against such policies (though I think you’re wrong). But you are assigning a motive to supporters of these policies that is simply unjustified propaganda.
I think it’s totally legit for you to oppose the policies you site. In fact, many Democrats oppose many of these policies. But it’s disingenuous to suggest that the Dems who support them are doing so because they want to buy votes:
“Free health care” = single payer, I assume. It’s not free, of course, because we’d raise taxes to pay for it. Most Dems who support it, including me, do so because the evidence from other countries who take this approach shows that they get much better health outcomes at a much lower cost. I, personally, am in favor of saving Americans money while improving their health.
“Free college.” I don’t support Bernie’s free college for everyone and most Ds don’t. I think Biden has it about right in proposing 2 years of free public university or community college for families making under $125 K. In today’s economy, a post-secondary education is a game changer and ensuring that working Americans have access to that would not only improve the lives of millions and reduce economic inequality, but make American significantly more competitive via a vis China and others in the 21st century economy. I think it’s be well worth the cost.
Forgiving student debt. In addition to being a huge anchor for millions of Americans, Education debt is a massive drag on the economy because it prevents people from starting businesses, moving jobs, buying homes, or any number of things. Moreover, Schumer and others are pushing this proposal under the assumption that Rs hold the Senate and McConnell spikes any further stimulus and this might be the only way to pump another trillion into the economy. If you, believe, as I do, that it is important to not make the same mistake we made in 2009 when we did far too little stimulus and ended up with a weaker recovery than we could have had, and to ensure that we have robust growth so that millions of Americans have better jobs and wages then this policy makes tons of sense.
“Redistribution.” I guess this means a more progressive tax system that taxes wealthy Americans and big corporations more so that we can invest in working and middle class Americans and small businesses. You can certainly argue against this if you oppose it, but those of us who support it do so because we think that is best for America (and we’re backed up by history and economics), not because we’re trying to buy votes. Considering that billionaires have seen their wealth skyrocket during the pandemic as working Americans and small businesses are struggling, I am all for asking them to pay more.
Again, you are entirely justified to argue against such policies (though I think you’re wrong). But you are assigning a motive to supporters of these policies that is simply unjustified propaganda.
On number 4, Biden’s Bump... just little update, he’s not the President yet... it’s still Obama’s economy remember
Yes, I think it's bad. I have access to the greatest healthcare in the world - through private insurance and private providers. How is the government going to do better?
Even a public option is going to shift the cost burden even more heavily to those with private insurance. Providers make less on patients with gov't plans and those with private insurance make up the difference. That cost shift would have to skew further to those providing for themselves and not relying on someone else to take care of them.
And yes it would cost a lot. A ton. And who is paying for that? And do we think the super efficient federal government is really going to roll out a wonderful healthcare system?
We have to separate things Trump did with my positions. Delaying checks to get his signature on them was dumb. A lot of his stuff was dumb. That has zero to do with my position on things.
Yes, we would raise taxes to pay for health care so it's not "Free." But it would be free to most people, because their taxes won't go up. So who are we saving money? People who already don't contribute much to the common fund? People who already get free healthcare (Medicaid) or subsidized healthcare (ACA)?
Other countries generally have a healthier population for other reasons than their healthcare system. Just look at obesity rates. We're the twelfth fattest country on the planet. It's gross. That has nothing to do with healthcare. It has to do with laziness, diet, lifestyle, genetics and other factors.
List of countries by obesity rate - Wikipedia
You will find our European counterparts (who I assume you are comparing us to) with roughly 15% lower obesity rates. That's over 40% less than the boat anchors on the American healthcare system. Maybe we should focus our efforts there instead of single payer healthcare?
Yes, a post-secondary education is a big deal. That's why you should work hard and earn it without the government's help. That's why there are 529 plans, pell grants, scholarships, grants and yes, loans that can be repaid through hard work. Hold on that topic.
One of my absolute favorite lines is when dems use Billionaires as the reason for a more progressive tax code - then they set arbitrary income thresholds ($200-$250K for Obama, $400K for Biden) as the level at which more punitive taxes will be introduced. Guess what - people in that income range often run the small business, or invest in the community, or have high skill jobs that are needed in the economy, or grow the economy through job creation and other means. Just say you want to punish people who make a nice living and don't try to hide it behind the Billionaire excuse. Or, design a tax policy that targets Billionaires and not small biz owners, docs and general working professionals.
Back to student debt payoff. Here are some points highlighting why it is a poor economic stimulus and actually isn't targeted at those who need the most help. It's also frankly unfair to reward people who overextended, or can't produce, or selected poor majors, or who generally should just pay their bills like the rest of us.
There is a debate over whether the President has the legal authority to cancel debt by executive order and whether or not it would be good policy overall. However, one thing is clear: student debt cancellation would be an ineffective form of stimulus, providing a small boost to the near-term economy relative to the cost. Assuming the loans would be forgiven tax-free, we estimate an economic multiplier of 0.08x to 0.23x.
- Student debt cancellation will increase cash flow by only $90 billion per year, at a cost of $1.5 trillion.
- Student debt cancellation is poorly targeted to those most likely to spend, given that nearly three-quarters of repayments would come from the top 40 percent of earners.
- Forgiving the full $1.5 trillion in loans will likely boost economic output during the current downturn by between $115 and $360 billion, a multiplier of 0.08x to 0.23x.
- Partial loan forgiveness would cost less than total but also offer a smaller economic boost. We don’t expect a significant improvement in the multiplier.
- Simply extending the current executive action to defer loan repayments and cancel interest would achieve much of the economic benefit of loan cancellation at only a very small fraction of the cost.
Forbes article:
Will Student Loan Forgiveness Really Stimulate The Economy?
According to a new report, the plan to cancel student loans won’t really stimulate the economy.
www.forbes.com
We have to separate things Trump did with my positions. Delaying checks to get his signature on them was dumb. A lot of his stuff was dumb. That has zero to do with my position on things.
Yes, we would raise taxes to pay for health care so it's not "Free." But it would be free to most people, because their taxes won't go up. So who are we saving money? People who already don't contribute much to the common fund? People who already get free healthcare (Medicaid) or subsidized healthcare (ACA)?
Other countries generally have a healthier population for other reasons than their healthcare system. Just look at obesity rates. We're the twelfth fattest country on the planet. It's gross. That has nothing to do with healthcare. It has to do with laziness, diet, lifestyle, genetics and other factors.
List of countries by obesity rate - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
You will find our European counterparts (who I assume you are comparing us to) with roughly 15% lower obesity rates. That's over 40% less than the boat anchors on the American healthcare system. Maybe we should focus our efforts there instead of single payer healthcare?
Yes, a post-secondary education is a big deal. That's why you should work hard and earn it without the government's help. That's why there are 529 plans, pell grants, scholarships, grants and yes, loans that can be repaid through hard work. Hold on that topic.
One of my absolute favorite lines is when dems use Billionaires as the reason for a more progressive tax code - then they set arbitrary income thresholds ($200-$250K for Obama, $400K for Biden) as the level at which more punitive taxes will be introduced. Guess what - people in that income range often run the small business, or invest in the community, or have high skill jobs that are needed in the economy, or grow the economy through job creation and other means. Just say you want to punish people who make a nice living and don't try to hide it behind the Billionaire excuse. Or, design a tax policy that targets Billionaires and not small biz owners, docs and general working professionals.
Back to student debt payoff. Here are some points highlighting why it is a poor economic stimulus and actually isn't targeted at those who need the most help. It's also frankly unfair to reward people who overextended, or can't produce, or selected poor majors, or who generally should just pay their bills like the rest of us.
There is a debate over whether the President has the legal authority to cancel debt by executive order and whether or not it would be good policy overall. However, one thing is clear: student debt cancellation would be an ineffective form of stimulus, providing a small boost to the near-term economy relative to the cost. Assuming the loans would be forgiven tax-free, we estimate an economic multiplier of 0.08x to 0.23x.
There are a number of benefits and costs associated with cancelling student debt. But as a stimulus measure, its "bang for buck" is far lower than many alternatives under consideration or the COVID relief already enacted.
- Student debt cancellation will increase cash flow by only $90 billion per year, at a cost of $1.5 trillion.
- Student debt cancellation is poorly targeted to those most likely to spend, given that nearly three-quarters of repayments would come from the top 40 percent of earners.
- Forgiving the full $1.5 trillion in loans will likely boost economic output during the current downturn by between $115 and $360 billion, a multiplier of 0.08x to 0.23x.
- Partial loan forgiveness would cost less than total but also offer a smaller economic boost. We don’t expect a significant improvement in the multiplier.
- Simply extending the current executive action to defer loan repayments and cancel interest would achieve much of the economic benefit of loan cancellation at only a very small fraction of the cost.
Forbes article:
Will Student Loan Forgiveness Really Stimulate The Economy?
According to a new report, the plan to cancel student loans won’t really stimulate the economy.
You are not wrong about obesity being an issue, but how would you tackle that issue? Every "lib" that has tried has been panned by conservatives and conservative media (see mayor bloomberg and Michelle Obama). This is America, and if you can't tell people what to eat dammit. We aint no communists!
By the way, the most obese states in the US are almost all red states (SC at #6). Republicans are voting against healthcare that they will most likely need more than anyone.
It's a good question. There needs to be a mix of carrot/stick.
On the positive side, health and nutrition education. Maybe even subsidies for healthy food options in poorer areas. Lack of both awareness and affordable access are both problems.
On the other side, I've said all along that I'm for the protection of unpreventable preexisting conditions. Obesity and its resulting complications are preventable. I think you should pay lower healthcare premiums if you take care of yourself and higher premiums if you don't. This is basic actuary stuff. Maybe even restrict how you can spend food stamps to healthier options.
BTW, this isn't the only issue. There are plenty of issues with our healthcare system that can be fixed in ways other than turning it over to the government. Wellness and nutrition, chronic disease mgt, prescription drug costs, tort reform, digital medicine, etc.
The two prevailing problems are population health and COST. Government run healthcare doesn't solve either.
It's a fair point about red states, but I'm not sure the specific areas that drive up these obesity rates are particularly red. The I95 corridor in SC drive most of the democratic voting as well and the highest obesity rates.
It's a good question. There needs to be a mix of carrot/stick.
On the positive side, health and nutrition education. Maybe even subsidies for healthy food options in poorer areas. Lack of both awareness and affordable access are both problems.
On the other side, I've said all along that I'm for the protection of unpreventable preexisting conditions. Obesity and its resulting complications are preventable. I think you should pay lower healthcare premiums if you take care of yourself and higher premiums if you don't. This is basic actuary stuff. Maybe even restrict how you can spend food stamps to healthier options.
BTW, this isn't the only issue. There are plenty of issues with our healthcare system that can be fixed in ways other than turning it over to the government. Wellness and nutrition, chronic disease mgt, prescription drug costs, tort reform, digital medicine, etc.
The two prevailing problems are population health and COST. Government run healthcare doesn't solve either.
It's a fair point about red states, but I'm not sure the specific areas that drive up these obesity rates are particularly red. The I95 corridor in SC drive most of the democratic voting as well and the highest obesity rates.
So it seems like with every issue that you and I debate on this site that there is a middle ground that will actually solve our problems. THE problem is that we will never get there because like you said, both parties are "buying" votes. They are pushing agendas popular with their constituents instead of trying to find middle ground that will actually improve the lives of every american. Honestly, you calling anything you don't like (e.g. modest tax raises) "socialism" doesnt help.
In my opinion, if we could solve three major problems in the next ten years then we would again become the best country in the world.
1. Term limits. get rid of career politicians. Send people to washington who are going to solve problems and think for themselves, not just do anything they are told to do to get reelected. Lose the lobbyists. Make campaign finance violation a treasonous crime.
2. Income inequality. I am not saying we need to take your money and give it to someone else, but we need to fix this problem. More people making more money would boost the economy through increased consumption, give more people access to healthy food, and increase America's leverage for better trade deals.
3. The environment. We are the only superpower in the world that has not been making major investments in renewable energy. Climate change is real, we can do something about it, and we can do it in a profitable way. We can create new industries and jobs instead of having to inevitably buy it from china. I have two good friends who were climate deniers. One lives in Miami, one on the battery in Charleston. Both have come around due to seeing their homes flood frequently.
If we could find middle ground and make progress on those issues, the country would be a better place.
Last edited:
I 100% agree that hostile partisanship is our biggest problem. There is no middle ground. And for the record, I don't call everything - including modest tax raises - socialism. I noted that the winds are blowing in that direction on specific new entitlement categories.
Agree on #1
Not sure how to fix #2, but it isn't tax increases. I think you have to fix everything from family dynamics to common sense education (basic personal finance, nutrition, trade schools, etc) to personal responsibility to drug addiction to whatever other underlying problems create poverty. It's a foundational problem not solved by the tax code. I'd even agree with ways to address taxes much further up the income ladder, where the effective rate curve begins to break sharply down instead of up (which is where Biden has targeted).
I actually agree on #3 to an extent. The republican position of "deny" is so dumb. Take the pragmatic stance of how to do positive things for the environment and accelerate the future of energy in a way that doesn't restrict small businesses, hurt our ability to compete and creates opportunities for new jobs and financial growth.
The tides are getting higher by me too BTW. Our king tide floods are creeping further into my back yard. And hurricane Irma blew away my 600' dock a couple of years ago with a fraction of the surge that Hugo had.
I'd have to know which positions he left open (I haven't kept up), but honestly, the Fed is a bloated monster already. IMO several positions need to be unfilled. But some are more important than others.
I agree to a point. "Treasonous crime" might be a bit overstated since it depends on what the actual crime is.
I think everyone would agree with this. The question is how do you do it?
But you can't just give people more money through higher minimum wage - you have to actually increase buying power.
You could stop right there actually. America is the ONLY Superpower out there. Understand that there are a lot of US states that are bigger than most European countries. France is about the size of Texas. Germany is about the size of Montana. England? Closest to Michigan. All of these are geographically, not by population.
And the ones that compare in size cannot project power and influence the way the US can. One could argue that we shouldn't have to, but we are the only ones who can do it.
Not really relevant to the discussion but just saying.
That's fair. But also, to be fair, my response was to your claim that all Dems wanted to do was to buy people's votes. My point was that it's one thing to oppose Dem policies on the merits, it's another to just claim that Dems only support those policies because they are trying to "buy votes" - particularly when the person most guilty of such actions is the current GOP president.
That said, while I disagree with most of your arguments in this post (and I'll get to why in a bit), this is the kind of debate that is good for democracy. Arguing on the merits. Not simply regurgitating Fox News talking points about how "socialist" Dems only want to "buy votes."
So now you're arguing that Medicare for all would not result in tax increases for most people? We just spent an entire election with Republicans breathlessly arguing that all Democrats would raise the taxes of regular people into oblivion because Bernie Sanders supports a single-payer system. So I'm glad you're willing to admit that was all a lie.
All that said, under a single-payer system, yes, most people's taxes would increase though, if we do it right, I'd hope we'd increase taxes on regular people less than those at the top. The details would matter a lot, but if we didn't it right, most regular people would see their taxes increase less than they currently pay in premiums so they'd be getting health care at a lower cost than they currently pay. Apparently you view that as a bug? I view it as a feature.
Businesses would also be freed of having to pay for their employee's health care, so this would be a huge boon to them, making American businesses more competitive. It would also result in workers feeling more free to leave jobs that they don't really want to be in but feel compelled to stay with because they rely on their employer-based care. This would encourage more dynamism and entrepreneurship, boost economic growth, and force companies to compete harder for talent, thus driving up wages.
So you'd end up with people who are currently uninsured getting covered at a modest cost, the vast majority of Americans paying less, and American businesses paying far less less in health care costs. The losers would be insurance companies, who would lose the massive profits they currently enjoy based on rent-taking, as well as higher-income Americans and large corporations, who would pay more in taxes. But since you'd be eliminating the current massive administrative and marketing costs, along with the rent-taking by insurance companies, as well as using the negotiating power of a single payer to drive down the costs of drugs and procedures, our entire economy would save huge amounts of money, so there would be a lot more winners than losers.
Other countries generally have a healthier population for other reasons than their healthcare system. Just look at obesity rates. We're the twelfth fattest country on the planet. It's gross. That has nothing to do with healthcare. It has to do with laziness, diet, lifestyle, genetics and other factors.
List of countries by obesity rate - Wikipedia
You will find our European counterparts (who I assume you are comparing us to) with roughly 15% lower obesity rates. That's over 40% less than the boat anchors on the American healthcare system. Maybe we should focus our efforts there instead of single payer healthcare?
Why does it have to be an either/or question? What you say absolutely has truth to it. The American lifestyle is, to use your own term, "gross" compares to most other First World countries. And while it has a lot to do with other things, it most certainly DOES have to do with a health care system that is built on fee-for-service and, thus, incentivizes treatment, rather than prevention. Single-payer systems are incentivized to spend money where it does the most public health good, rather than where it makes the most shareholder dollars, and therefore results in more spending on prevention such as programs to prevent childhood obesity.
Single payer healthcare: Pluses, minuses, and what it means for you - Harvard Health
...
www.health.harvard.edu
"A single payer system has more incentive to direct healthcare spending toward public health measures. For example, targeting funding towards childhood obesity prevention programs in elementary schools and daycares reduces the rates and complications of obesity more effectively and at lower costs than paying for doctor visits to recommend healthier diets and increased physical activity."
But I agree that we should go further to tackle America's obesity epidemic by implementing policies like soda taxes have been proven to decrease consumption of sugary drinks, particularly in children (in the same way cigarette taxes have been one of the most effective tools to reduce smoking rates).
Three years into soda tax, sugary drink consumption down more than 50 percent in Berkeley
Consumption of sugary drinks dropped 52 percent among Berkeley's low-income residents in the three years after the city enacted a penny-per-ounce excise tax on sugar-sweetened beverages in early 2015, a new study shows. The study, which is the first to document the long-term impacts of a soda...
www.sciencedaily.com
Two Top Medical Groups Call for Soda Taxes and Advertising Curbs on Sugary Drinks (Published 2019)
The American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Heart Association said the measures were necessary to combat the nation’s crisis of obesity and chronic disease
But beyond that, per capita health spending in the US is TRIPLE that of the OECD average, despite getting worse outcomes.
Per Capita Healthcare Costs — International Comparison
United States per capita healthcare spending is nearly three times the average of other developed countries.
www.pgpf.org
That doesn't happen solely because of difference in obesity rates. In fact, the reason isn't because we have more utilization (which would be the case if things like obesity were the driver), but because of higher administrative costs and because the lack of negotiating power from a single payer means we pay far higher prices for the same services.
U.S. Health Care Spending Highest Among Developed Countries | Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
The United States, on a per capita basis, spends much more on health care than other developed countries; the chief reason is not greater health care utilization, but higher prices, according to a study from a team led by a JHSPH researcher.
U.S. pays more for health care with worse population health outcomes
A Harvard study confirmed that the U.S. has substantially higher spending on health care, worse population health outcomes, and worse access to care than other wealthy countries; but there’s more to it than that.
news.harvard.edu
That's all nice in theory, but clearly isn't working in practice. 529 plans require enough wealth to save, which is great for people like me (and, I assume, you), but not great for the majority of Americans that just don't have the means to do that.
And if the cost of college were reasonable, then a system of loans supplemented by financial aid for families of lower means could work. But since the cost of college is growing exponentially, that system is now resulting in most people leaving college with a crushing amount of debt that drastically inhibits their ability to have a successful career and life - something that sucks the dynamism out our economy and reinforces the huge economic inequality facing this country. The systems works fine for the haves like me - I make several hundred thousand a year and already have enough saved so that my twin 8-year olds will be able to go wherever they want to go - but for most kids it leaves a choice of either foregoing college or saddling themselves with overwhelming debt for life.
And what exactly is the difference between a Pell Grant and free college? It's the government paying for people's college education. It's just a different name.
And why do we think it makes sense for the government to pay for K-12 education but not K-16? In the economy of the 21st century, grades 13-16 are just as critical as grades 9-12 were 20 or 30 years ago.
Yes, so goes the argument for trickle down economics that has been one of the most spectacular failures of the last 50 years. The idea that we should cut taxes for people at higher incomes because they are "job creators" and doing so will boost the economy has been totally and utterly debunked by history. Doing so doesn't help anyone but the rich:
50 years of tax cuts for the rich failed to trickle down, economics study says
Tax cuts for the wealthy didn't boost the economies of the U.S. and 17 other countries — but they did worsen income inequality.
www.cbsnews.com
Again, you're retreating to Fox News talking points to hide the fact that you don't have a leg to stand on. Neither I, nor most Democrats, want to "punish people who make a nice living." I'm one of those people and I'm advocating for higher taxes on myself. We want a tax system that produces enough revenue to fund programs that make it possible for regular families to get ahead of they work hard and play by the rules, while encouraging economic growth and asking those that have benefited the most from the American economic system to pay their fair share.
When Bill Clinton passed his deficit reduction package that increased taxes on higher earners, Republicans insisted that it would kill the economy and destroy jobs.
HOISTED: FLASHBACK: In 1993, GOP Warned That Clinton’s Tax Plan Would ‘Kill Jobs,’ ‘Kill The Current Recovery’
**Pat Garofolo**: FLASHBACK: In 1993, GOP Warned That Clinton’s Tax Plan Would ‘Kill Jobs,’ ‘Kill The Current Recovery’: "Republicans... have been apoplectic about Obama’s plan, claiming that it will kill jobs and cripple small businesses... >...“This is about stopping a job-killing tax hike on...
www.bradford-delong.com
Instead, it led to the longest economic expansion in American history and the first balanced budget in decades (which GWB then flushed down the toilet).
That's one reason why Moody's analysis found that Biden's tax and economic plans would be better for the economy than Trump's.
Biden, Democratic Victories Would Be Best Outcome For The Economy, Moody’s Says
Under Biden, 7.4 million more jobs would be added than under Trump, Moody’s estimates.
www.forbes.com
And if you really care about small businesses, then I don't think GOP tax policy is what you're looking for. They always say they want to tax cuts for small businesses but it ALWAYS is actually about handouts for big corporations.
The Republican Tax Plan's Break For Small Business Yields Huge Benefits... For Big Business
Section 199A was enacted as part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act to provide a tax break for "small businesses." A recent report by the Joint Committee of Taxation, however, revealed that nearly half of the benefit of Section 199A goes to those making more than $1,000,000 annually.
www.forbes.com
An econ professor turned small-business owner breaks down his 3 big problems with the GOP tax plan
An economics professor turned Jimmy John's franchisee breaks down why he doesn't think Republicans' tax plan helps small-business owners.
www.businessinsider.com
Why the Republican tax plans do nothing to help genuine small businesses
Republicans have been touting the benefits of their tax plans for “small businesses”—a term that conjures up images of neighborhood stores run by hardworking Americans carving out a modest living. But is this really who will benefit from the Republicans’ tax plan? No.
www.epi.org
But if you really want a plan that "targets Billionaires and not small biz owners, docs and general working professionals" may I suggest you check out Liz Warren's proposed wealth tax on billionaires that does exactly that?
Elizabeth Warren shares a 'calculator for billionaires' for her wealth tax plan
"Some billionaires seem confused about how much they would pay under my #TwoCentWealthTax," Warren tweeted on Thursday. "Don't worry, we've got a calculator for that, too."
Back to student debt payoff. Here are some points highlighting why it is a poor economic stimulus and actually isn't targeted at those who need the most help. It's also frankly unfair to reward people who overextended, or can't produce, or selected poor majors, or who generally should just pay their bills like the rest of us.
....
There are a number of benefits and costs associated with cancelling student debt. But as a stimulus measure, its "bang for buck" is far lower than many alternatives under consideration or the COVID relief already enacted.
Forbes article:
Will Student Loan Forgiveness Really Stimulate The Economy?
According to a new report, the plan to cancel student loans won’t really stimulate the economy.
No doubt education debt forgiveness is not the optimal way to do stimulus. If we had a functioning Republican Party, then the proper thing to do would be to negotiate a final stimulus plan that includes further expanded UI, aid to state and local government, investment in infrastructure, further direct payments, etc. And if Dems win both GA runoffs, we may be able to do something like that.
But if Mitch McConnell controls the senate, he has already made clear that his main goal will be to do all he can to ensure that Joe Biden (and America) fails, so he will kill any further stimulus. Thus, the need to find ways to juice the economy that don't require Congress. Moreover, that analysis from Forbes is much more pessimistic than most projections, which suggest that limited education debt relief would have a significant stimulating impact.
As for the argument that such a proposal would disproportionately impact wealthier people, that's true if we're talking about forgiving all educational debt, which is not what either I or Joe Biden or Chuck Schumer want to do. If it is limited to the first $10K or $50K then the people with whom it would have the largest impact would be working and middle-class Americans.
The case for cancelling student debt isn't political — it's practical. Here are the benefits of erasing $1.6 trillion, no strings attached.
President Biden rejected a Democratic plan to eliminate $50,000 of student debt per borrower, but supports relieving $10,000 per borrower.
www.businessinsider.com
Again, this is not the optimal policy, but since McConnell will never allow Dems to pass better policies, Biden will likely be limited in what he can accomplish via executive order. And this would be better than nothing for the country and its people.
Here's the thing. It's NOT "both sides."
Dems aren't perfect, but they've bent over backwards to try to find compromise over the last 15 years or so. Obama built a healthcare plan that was based on Romneycare and spent half a year trying to negotiate with Republicans - but Republicans wouldn't come to the table - as one of GWB's top aides noted back then:
GOP won't deal, health care law won't change
I'm going to get personal here. On the day that health care reform passed its final vote in the House, I posted on my blog a comment titled "Waterloo."
edition.cnn.com
Then Obama bent over backwards to pass a "grand compromise" to cut the deficit - and agreed to a compromise with John Boehner that, in my opinion, gave away way too much - but Tea Party Republicans wouldn't take YES for an answer and killed the deal.
But Republicans have become so ideologically extreme - and beholden to their crazy base - that they refuse to compromise. When you have one party who is determined to demonstrate that government doesn't work, guess what, government doesn't work.
Stuart Stevens, Mitt Romney’s top strategist:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...347b32-2be8-11ea-9b60-817cc18cf173_story.html
Steve Schmidt, top John McCain Strategist:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...f9fbd4-74c3-11e8-b4b7-308400242c2e_story.html
Norm Orenstein, longtime centrist and scold of both parties:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...-the-problem/2012/04/27/gIQAxCVUlT_story.html
An empirical look at moderation vs extremism by party:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ws-how-republicans-are-an-endangered-species/
That's fair. But also, to be fair, my response was to your claim that all Dems wanted to do was to buy people's votes. My point was that it's one thing to oppose Dem policies on the merits, it's another to just claim that Dems only support those policies because they are trying to "buy votes" - particularly when the person most guilty of such actions is the current GOP president.
That said, while I disagree with most of your arguments in this post (and I'll get to why in a bit), this is the kind of debate that is good for democracy. Arguing on the merits. Not simply regurgitating Fox News talking points about how "socialist" Dems only want to "buy votes."
So now you're arguing that Medicare for all would not result in tax increases for most people? We just spent an entire election with Republicans breathlessly arguing that all Democrats would raise the taxes of regular people into oblivion because Bernie Sanders supports a single-payer system. So I'm glad you're willing to admit that was all a lie.
All that said, under a single-payer system, yes, most people's taxes would increase though, if we do it right, I'd hope we'd increase taxes on regular people less than those at the top. The details would matter a lot, but if we didn't it right, most regular people would see their taxes increase less than they currently pay in premiums so they'd be getting health care at a lower cost than they currently pay. Apparently you view that as a bug? I view it as a feature.
Businesses would also be freed of having to pay for their employee's health care, so this would be a huge boon to them, making American businesses more competitive. It would also result in workers feeling more free to leave jobs that they don't really want to be in but feel compelled to stay with because they rely on their employer-based care. This would encourage more dynamism and entrepreneurship, boost economic growth, and force companies to compete harder for talent, thus driving up wages.
So you'd end up with people who are currently uninsured getting covered at a modest cost, the vast majority of Americans paying less, and American businesses paying far less less in health care costs. The losers would be insurance companies, who would lose the massive profits they currently enjoy based on rent-taking, as well as higher-income Americans and large corporations, who would pay more in taxes. But since you'd be eliminating the current massive administrative and marketing costs, along with the rent-taking by insurance companies, as well as using the negotiating power of a single payer to drive down the costs of drugs and procedures, our entire economy would save huge amounts of money, so there would be a lot more winners than losers.
Why does it have to be an either/or question? What you say absolutely has truth to it. The American lifestyle is, to use your own term, "gross" compares to most other First World countries. And while it has a lot to do with other things, it most certainly DOES have to do with a health care system that is built on fee-for-service and, thus, incentivizes treatment, rather than prevention. Single-payer systems are incentivized to spend money where it does the most public health good, rather than where it makes the most shareholder dollars, and therefore results in more spending on prevention such as programs to prevent childhood obesity.
Single payer healthcare: Pluses, minuses, and what it means for you - Harvard Health
...
"A single payer system has more incentive to direct healthcare spending toward public health measures. For example, targeting funding towards childhood obesity prevention programs in elementary schools and daycares reduces the rates and complications of obesity more effectively and at lower costs than paying for doctor visits to recommend healthier diets and increased physical activity."
But I agree that we should go further to tackle America's obesity epidemic by implementing policies like soda taxes have been proven to decrease consumption of sugary drinks, particularly in children (in the same way cigarette taxes have been one of the most effective tools to reduce smoking rates).
Three years into soda tax, sugary drink consumption down more than 50 percent in Berkeley
Consumption of sugary drinks dropped 52 percent among Berkeley's low-income residents in the three years after the city enacted a penny-per-ounce excise tax on sugar-sweetened beverages in early 2015, a new study shows. The study, which is the first to document the long-term impacts of a soda...www.sciencedaily.com
Two Top Medical Groups Call for Soda Taxes and Advertising Curbs on Sugary Drinks (Published 2019)
The American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Heart Association said the measures were necessary to combat the nation’s crisis of obesity and chronic diseasewww.nytimes.com
But beyond that, per capita health spending in the US is TRIPLE that of the OECD average, despite getting worse outcomes.
Per Capita Healthcare Costs — International Comparison
United States per capita healthcare spending is nearly three times the average of other developed countries.
That doesn't happen solely because of difference in obesity rates. In fact, the reason isn't because we have more utilization (which would be the case if things like obesity were the driver), but because of higher administrative costs and because the lack of negotiating power from a single payer means we pay far higher prices for the same services.
U.S. Health Care Spending Highest Among Developed Countries | Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
The United States, on a per capita basis, spends much more on health care than other developed countries; the chief reason is not greater health care utilization, but higher prices, according to a study from a team led by a JHSPH researcher.www.jhsph.edu
U.S. pays more for health care with worse population health outcomes
A Harvard study confirmed that the U.S. has substantially higher spending on health care, worse population health outcomes, and worse access to care than other wealthy countries; but there’s more to it than that.
That's all nice in theory, but clearly isn't working in practice. 529 plans require enough wealth to save, which is great for people like me (and, I assume, you), but not great for the majority of Americans that just don't have the means to do that.
And if the cost of college were reasonable, then a system of loans supplemented by financial aid for families of lower means could work. But since the cost of college is growing exponentially, that system is now resulting in most people leaving college with a crushing amount of debt that drastically inhibits their ability to have a successful career and life - something that sucks the dynamism out our economy and reinforces the huge economic inequality facing this country. The systems works fine for the haves like me - I make several hundred thousand a year and already have enough saved so that my twin 8-year olds will be able to go wherever they want to go - but for most kids it leaves a choice of either foregoing college or saddling themselves with overwhelming debt for life.
And what exactly is the difference between a Pell Grant and free college? It's the government paying for people's college education. It's just a different name.
And why do we think it makes sense for the government to pay for K-12 education but not K-16? In the economy of the 21st century, grades 13-16 are just as critical as grades 9-12 were 20 or 30 years ago.
Yes, so goes the argument for trickle down economics that has been one of the most spectacular failures of the last 50 years. The idea that we should cut taxes for people at higher incomes because they are "job creators" and doing so will boost the economy has been totally and utterly debunked by history. Doing so doesn't help anyone but the rich:
50 years of tax cuts for the rich failed to trickle down, economics study says
Tax cuts for the wealthy didn't boost the economies of the U.S. and 17 other countries — but they did worsen income inequality.
Again, you're retreating to Fox News talking points to hide the fact that you don't have a leg to stand on. Neither I, nor most Democrats, want to "punish people who make a nice living." I'm one of those people and I'm advocating for higher taxes on myself. We want a tax system that produces enough revenue to fund programs that make it possible for regular families to get ahead of they work hard and play by the rules, while encouraging economic growth and asking those that have benefited the most from the American economic system to pay their fair share.
When Bill Clinton passed his deficit reduction package that increased taxes on higher earners, Republicans insisted that it would kill the economy and destroy jobs.
HOISTED: FLASHBACK: In 1993, GOP Warned That Clinton’s Tax Plan Would ‘Kill Jobs,’ ‘Kill The Current Recovery’
**Pat Garofolo**: FLASHBACK: In 1993, GOP Warned That Clinton’s Tax Plan Would ‘Kill Jobs,’ ‘Kill The Current Recovery’: "Republicans... have been apoplectic about Obama’s plan, claiming that it will kill jobs and cripple small businesses... >...“This is about stopping a job-killing tax hike on...www.bradford-delong.com
Instead, it led to the longest economic expansion in American history and the first balanced budget in decades (which GWB then flushed down the toilet).
That's one reason why Moody's analysis found that Biden's tax and economic plans would be better for the economy than Trump's.
Biden, Democratic Victories Would Be Best Outcome For The Economy, Moody’s Says
Under Biden, 7.4 million more jobs would be added than under Trump, Moody’s estimates.
And if you really care about small businesses, then I don't think GOP tax policy is what you're looking for. They always say they want to tax cuts for small businesses but it ALWAYS is actually about handouts for big corporations.
The Republican Tax Plan's Break For Small Business Yields Huge Benefits... For Big Business
Section 199A was enacted as part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act to provide a tax break for "small businesses." A recent report by the Joint Committee of Taxation, however, revealed that nearly half of the benefit of Section 199A goes to those making more than $1,000,000 annually.
An econ professor turned small-business owner breaks down his 3 big problems with the GOP tax plan
An economics professor turned Jimmy John's franchisee breaks down why he doesn't think Republicans' tax plan helps small-business owners.
Why the Republican tax plans do nothing to help genuine small businesses
Republicans have been touting the benefits of their tax plans for “small businesses”—a term that conjures up images of neighborhood stores run by hardworking Americans carving out a modest living. But is this really who will benefit from the Republicans’ tax plan? No.
But if you really want a plan that "targets Billionaires and not small biz owners, docs and general working professionals" may I suggest you check out Liz Warren's proposed wealth tax on billionaires that does exactly that?
Elizabeth Warren shares a 'calculator for billionaires' for her wealth tax plan
"Some billionaires seem confused about how much they would pay under my #TwoCentWealthTax," Warren tweeted on Thursday. "Don't worry, we've got a calculator for that, too."www.cnbc.com
No doubt education debt forgiveness is not the optimal way to do stimulus. If we had a functioning Republican Party, then the proper thing to do would be to negotiate a final stimulus plan that includes further expanded UI, aid to state and local government, investment in infrastructure, further direct payments, etc. And if Dems win both GA runoffs, we may be able to do something like that.
But if Mitch McConnell controls the senate, he has already made clear that his main goal will be to do all he can to ensure that Joe Biden (and America) fails, so he will kill any further stimulus. Thus, the need to find ways to juice the economy that don't require Congress. Moreover, that analysis from Forbes is much more pessimistic than most projections, which suggest that limited education debt relief would have a significant stimulating impact.
As for the argument that such a proposal would disproportionately impact wealthier people, that's true if we're talking about forgiving all educational debt, which is not what either I or Joe Biden or Chuck Schumer want to do. If it is limited to the first $10K or $50K then the people with whom it would have the largest impact would be working and middle-class Americans.
The case for cancelling student debt isn't political — it's practical. Here are the benefits of erasing $1.6 trillion, no strings attached.
President Biden rejected a Democratic plan to eliminate $50,000 of student debt per borrower, but supports relieving $10,000 per borrower.
Again, this is not the optimal policy, but since McConnell will never allow Dems to pass better policies, Biden will likely be limited in what he can accomplish via executive order. And this would be better than nothing for the country and its people.
What a great credit you are to this board, wow!
That's fair. But also, to be fair, my response was to your claim that all Dems wanted to do was to buy people's votes. My point was that it's one thing to oppose Dem policies on the merits, it's another to just claim that Dems only support those policies because they are trying to "buy votes" - particularly when the person most guilty of such actions is the current GOP president.
That said, while I disagree with most of your arguments in this post (and I'll get to why in a bit), this is the kind of debate that is good for democracy. Arguing on the merits. Not simply regurgitating Fox News talking points about how "socialist" Dems only want to "buy votes."
So now you're arguing that Medicare for all would not result in tax increases for most people? We just spent an entire election with Republicans breathlessly arguing that all Democrats would raise the taxes of regular people into oblivion because Bernie Sanders supports a single-payer system. So I'm glad you're willing to admit that was all a lie.
All that said, under a single-payer system, yes, most people's taxes would increase though, if we do it right, I'd hope we'd increase taxes on regular people less than those at the top. The details would matter a lot, but if we didn't it right, most regular people would see their taxes increase less than they currently pay in premiums so they'd be getting health care at a lower cost than they currently pay. Apparently you view that as a bug? I view it as a feature.
Businesses would also be freed of having to pay for their employee's health care, so this would be a huge boon to them, making American businesses more competitive. It would also result in workers feeling more free to leave jobs that they don't really want to be in but feel compelled to stay with because they rely on their employer-based care. This would encourage more dynamism and entrepreneurship, boost economic growth, and force companies to compete harder for talent, thus driving up wages.
So you'd end up with people who are currently uninsured getting covered at a modest cost, the vast majority of Americans paying less, and American businesses paying far less less in health care costs. The losers would be insurance companies, who would lose the massive profits they currently enjoy based on rent-taking, as well as higher-income Americans and large corporations, who would pay more in taxes. But since you'd be eliminating the current massive administrative and marketing costs, along with the rent-taking by insurance companies, as well as using the negotiating power of a single payer to drive down the costs of drugs and procedures, our entire economy would save huge amounts of money, so there would be a lot more winners than losers.
Why does it have to be an either/or question? What you say absolutely has truth to it. The American lifestyle is, to use your own term, "gross" compares to most other First World countries. And while it has a lot to do with other things, it most certainly DOES have to do with a health care system that is built on fee-for-service and, thus, incentivizes treatment, rather than prevention. Single-payer systems are incentivized to spend money where it does the most public health good, rather than where it makes the most shareholder dollars, and therefore results in more spending on prevention such as programs to prevent childhood obesity.
Single payer healthcare: Pluses, minuses, and what it means for you - Harvard Health
...
"A single payer system has more incentive to direct healthcare spending toward public health measures. For example, targeting funding towards childhood obesity prevention programs in elementary schools and daycares reduces the rates and complications of obesity more effectively and at lower costs than paying for doctor visits to recommend healthier diets and increased physical activity."
But I agree that we should go further to tackle America's obesity epidemic by implementing policies like soda taxes have been proven to decrease consumption of sugary drinks, particularly in children (in the same way cigarette taxes have been one of the most effective tools to reduce smoking rates).
Three years into soda tax, sugary drink consumption down more than 50 percent in Berkeley
Consumption of sugary drinks dropped 52 percent among Berkeley's low-income residents in the three years after the city enacted a penny-per-ounce excise tax on sugar-sweetened beverages in early 2015, a new study shows. The study, which is the first to document the long-term impacts of a soda...www.sciencedaily.com
Two Top Medical Groups Call for Soda Taxes and Advertising Curbs on Sugary Drinks (Published 2019)
The American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Heart Association said the measures were necessary to combat the nation’s crisis of obesity and chronic disease
But beyond that, per capita health spending in the US is TRIPLE that of the OECD average, despite getting worse outcomes.
Per Capita Healthcare Costs — International Comparison
United States per capita healthcare spending is nearly three times the average of other developed countries.
That doesn't happen solely because of difference in obesity rates. In fact, the reason isn't because we have more utilization (which would be the case if things like obesity were the driver), but because of higher administrative costs and because the lack of negotiating power from a single payer means we pay far higher prices for the same services.
U.S. Health Care Spending Highest Among Developed Countries | Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
The United States, on a per capita basis, spends much more on health care than other developed countries; the chief reason is not greater health care utilization, but higher prices, according to a study from a team led by a JHSPH researcher.
U.S. pays more for health care with worse population health outcomes
A Harvard study confirmed that the U.S. has substantially higher spending on health care, worse population health outcomes, and worse access to care than other wealthy countries; but there’s more to it than that.
That's all nice in theory, but clearly isn't working in practice. 529 plans require enough wealth to save, which is great for people like me (and, I assume, you), but not great for the majority of Americans that just don't have the means to do that.
And if the cost of college were reasonable, then a system of loans supplemented by financial aid for families of lower means could work. But since the cost of college is growing exponentially, that system is now resulting in most people leaving college with a crushing amount of debt that drastically inhibits their ability to have a successful career and life - something that sucks the dynamism out our economy and reinforces the huge economic inequality facing this country. The systems works fine for the haves like me - I make several hundred thousand a year and already have enough saved so that my twin 8-year olds will be able to go wherever they want to go - but for most kids it leaves a choice of either foregoing college or saddling themselves with overwhelming debt for life.
And what exactly is the difference between a Pell Grant and free college? It's the government paying for people's college education. It's just a different name.
And why do we think it makes sense for the government to pay for K-12 education but not K-16? In the economy of the 21st century, grades 13-16 are just as critical as grades 9-12 were 20 or 30 years ago.
Yes, so goes the argument for trickle down economics that has been one of the most spectacular failures of the last 50 years. The idea that we should cut taxes for people at higher incomes because they are "job creators" and doing so will boost the economy has been totally and utterly debunked by history. Doing so doesn't help anyone but the rich:
50 years of tax cuts for the rich failed to trickle down, economics study says
Tax cuts for the wealthy didn't boost the economies of the U.S. and 17 other countries — but they did worsen income inequality.
Again, you're retreating to Fox News talking points to hide the fact that you don't have a leg to stand on. Neither I, nor most Democrats, want to "punish people who make a nice living." I'm one of those people and I'm advocating for higher taxes on myself. We want a tax system that produces enough revenue to fund programs that make it possible for regular families to get ahead of they work hard and play by the rules, while encouraging economic growth and asking those that have benefited the most from the American economic system to pay their fair share.
When Bill Clinton passed his deficit reduction package that increased taxes on higher earners, Republicans insisted that it would kill the economy and destroy jobs.
HOISTED: FLASHBACK: In 1993, GOP Warned That Clinton’s Tax Plan Would ‘Kill Jobs,’ ‘Kill The Current Recovery’
**Pat Garofolo**: FLASHBACK: In 1993, GOP Warned That Clinton’s Tax Plan Would ‘Kill Jobs,’ ‘Kill The Current Recovery’: "Republicans... have been apoplectic about Obama’s plan, claiming that it will kill jobs and cripple small businesses... >...“This is about stopping a job-killing tax hike on...www.bradford-delong.com
Instead, it led to the longest economic expansion in American history and the first balanced budget in decades (which GWB then flushed down the toilet).
That's one reason why Moody's analysis found that Biden's tax and economic plans would be better for the economy than Trump's.
Biden, Democratic Victories Would Be Best Outcome For The Economy, Moody’s Says
Under Biden, 7.4 million more jobs would be added than under Trump, Moody’s estimates.
And if you really care about small businesses, then I don't think GOP tax policy is what you're looking for. They always say they want to tax cuts for small businesses but it ALWAYS is actually about handouts for big corporations.
The Republican Tax Plan's Break For Small Business Yields Huge Benefits... For Big Business
Section 199A was enacted as part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act to provide a tax break for "small businesses." A recent report by the Joint Committee of Taxation, however, revealed that nearly half of the benefit of Section 199A goes to those making more than $1,000,000 annually.
An econ professor turned small-business owner breaks down his 3 big problems with the GOP tax plan
An economics professor turned Jimmy John's franchisee breaks down why he doesn't think Republicans' tax plan helps small-business owners.
Why the Republican tax plans do nothing to help genuine small businesses
Republicans have been touting the benefits of their tax plans for “small businesses”—a term that conjures up images of neighborhood stores run by hardworking Americans carving out a modest living. But is this really who will benefit from the Republicans’ tax plan? No.
But if you really want a plan that "targets Billionaires and not small biz owners, docs and general working professionals" may I suggest you check out Liz Warren's proposed wealth tax on billionaires that does exactly that?
Elizabeth Warren shares a 'calculator for billionaires' for her wealth tax plan
"Some billionaires seem confused about how much they would pay under my #TwoCentWealthTax," Warren tweeted on Thursday. "Don't worry, we've got a calculator for that, too."
No doubt education debt forgiveness is not the optimal way to do stimulus. If we had a functioning Republican Party, then the proper thing to do would be to negotiate a final stimulus plan that includes further expanded UI, aid to state and local government, investment in infrastructure, further direct payments, etc. And if Dems win both GA runoffs, we may be able to do something like that.
But if Mitch McConnell controls the senate, he has already made clear that his main goal will be to do all he can to ensure that Joe Biden (and America) fails, so he will kill any further stimulus. Thus, the need to find ways to juice the economy that don't require Congress. Moreover, that analysis from Forbes is much more pessimistic than most projections, which suggest that limited education debt relief would have a significant stimulating impact.
As for the argument that such a proposal would disproportionately impact wealthier people, that's true if we're talking about forgiving all educational debt, which is not what either I or Joe Biden or Chuck Schumer want to do. If it is limited to the first $10K or $50K then the people with whom it would have the largest impact would be working and middle-class Americans.
The case for cancelling student debt isn't political — it's practical. Here are the benefits of erasing $1.6 trillion, no strings attached.
President Biden rejected a Democratic plan to eliminate $50,000 of student debt per borrower, but supports relieving $10,000 per borrower.
Again, this is not the optimal policy, but since McConnell will never allow Dems to pass better policies, Biden will likely be limited in what he can accomplish via executive order. And this would be better than nothing for the country and its people.
There's a lot there and I'll address some, but wrapping up the year and don't have time for an essay. A few points:
- You clearly spend more time looking at this stuff than I do (or care to)
- I do not really watch Fox News. My wife and I work 80-100 hrs per week and we have two young boys. Pretty much the only time live TV on in our house is sports.
- We have a fundamental philosophical difference: You believe that the government should institute a program to fix a problem. I believe we should look for a solution to the cause of the problem and keep government limited.
Medicare for all....
It likely wouldn't result in notable tax increase for "most" people because a huge chunk either don't pay income tax or pay very little.
I don't think there is even broad support in the democrat party for a single payer system.
The US has the best healthcare in the world - the best technology, the best research, the best pharmaceutical development, the best talent, the best medical device advances, the best surgeons, etc. That was developed within the private market, competition, etc.
Competition and dynamism drive innovation and excellence. A single payer system would throttle that back.
I also don't think the economics of it would work out the way you say, unless there is an offset in access, quality, etc.
Again, the focus needs to be on cost reduction and population health. Drive cost out of the system and premiums come down. That solves a lot of problems. I expanded a bit in a reply to @nytigerfan above.
College...
This continues to highlight our philosophical difference. College is expensive and people have debt? BIG government program to pay off the debt and pay for college. Nah...
Instead, I would focus on why college became so expensive, how to bend back the cost curve and alternatives to traditional college that add value to the workforce.
I think it's ridiculous to just pay off one student's debt while another may have busted their ass to be a responsible human being and paid their bills. It's honestly an absurd concept.
Yes, so goes the argument for trickle down economics that has been one of the most spectacular failures of the last 50 years. The idea that we should cut taxes for people at higher incomes because they are "job creators" and doing so will boost the economy has been totally and utterly debunked by history. Doing so doesn't help anyone but the rich:
I didn't say that. I asked why are we targeting people making $200-$400K (as the last two dem administrations have done) while using the example of Billionaires? I'm a target of the new tax increases and I have more in common with a janitor than I do with Warren Buffet, but he and his secretary are routinely trotted out during these talking points. It's shameful manipulation.
But if you really want a plan that "targets Billionaires and not small biz owners, docs and general working professionals" may I suggest you check out Liz Warren's proposed wealth tax on billionaires that does exactly that?
Hard, hard pass. The last thing we need is a new category of taxes. Imagine the slippery slope of taxing wealth...
Instead, maybe leave the brackets the way they are and add a 40% bracket at $10M annual income. Add a surcharge to cap gains above $10M. Close a few loopholes. That begins to address the people who actually have wealth and not the working professionals like me.
Good conversation overall and I appreciate the points. I just don't look to the government to solve every problem. It would be nice if the government provided some guidance and resources to address the root cause of critical problems, though.
Something else I don't think I saw mentioned is that this whole set-value stimulus idea doesn't take into account that cost of living varies a LOT from place to place.
$600 would have paid my rent and would actually cover a month of my mortgage payment (not counting escrow for taxes and insurance).
That same $600 wouldn't cover 2 weeks somewhere like San Fran or NYC.
Not sure how much basic necessities (food, etc) vary place to place.
$600 would have paid my rent and would actually cover a month of my mortgage payment (not counting escrow for taxes and insurance).
That same $600 wouldn't cover 2 weeks somewhere like San Fran or NYC.
Not sure how much basic necessities (food, etc) vary place to place.
As I’ve said, doing a set value stimulus is not optimal, but given that McConnell is dead set against doing anything else, we are left with a choice between sub-optimal and nothing.
also, if you really believe the US has the best health care system in the world, then there’s just not going to be convincing you. That is just empirically false. We pay three times as much per capita as the rich world average and get significantly worse outcomes.
It’s one thing to say you have a fundamentally different philosophy than I do. That’s fine. But you are touting and empirically false conservative talking point to justify that philosophy.
On taxes, you actually sound like you’re not that far from where Biden is. Taxing cap gains at the same rate as other income and eliminating loopholes has been the centerpiece of his position forever. And I think adding another bracket for the super rich makes a ton of sense. I just also think we need to raise the corporate tax rate and rate for existing top brackets back to where they were during the strongest expansion of our economy in recent history.
When you compare our Health Care with other countries, what is factored in specific to spend? If we use the UK as an example, does the comparison capture supplemental spend on "private" insurance on top of the public?
I run a company that has about 90 employees in the UK. I subsidize private insurance for most of the employees because the public option often doesn't meet their needs, especially those with families. It's the same in Canada.
I think the last few points are for me:
I didn't say we had the best healthcare system in the world. I said we had the best healthcare in the world. I specifically named the categories. Big difference - and I'm right.
I am far from Biden on taxes. I don't want cap gains at ordinary income levels. Keep the 15/20 structure as-is and maybe add a 2.5% surcharge above $10M 5% above $25M. I'd actually raise the income threshold for the 20% ratchet as well as that little bugger clipped me this year.
I also wouldn't dream of increasing taxes on someone making $400K. The "super rich" bracket surely wouldn't start there - more like $10M like I mentioned. There is a chasm between our approaches, even if we're using similar levers.
Similar threads
