(02-05-2018 10:53 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(02-05-2018 10:37 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(02-05-2018 10:19 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-05-2018 09:59 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(02-05-2018 09:47 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Not until 2009.
But there won't be any reduction until politicians grow a pair. The only way out that I see is a consumption tax. Even at a very low rate, a consumption tax will raise massive revenues. It must be introduced only when accompanied by massive reduction or elimination of income taxes.

Damn President Obama and his financial crash.

Well, let's see, the crash supposedly ended in 2009. But the deficits continued. Why?

Largely because revenues hovered around 15% of GDP until 2012. It took 4 years to get revenues and subsequent spending up/ back down to their customary levels of 18 to 20% of gdp.

Which corresponds to the republicans taking back the house.

No, it corresponds to the economy simply getting back on track.

(02-05-2018 10:54 AM)cb4029 Wrote:  Destroying America. Sad.

Destroying Obamas america, with bigger paychecks.

(02-05-2018 10:55 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(02-05-2018 10:53 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(02-05-2018 10:37 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(02-05-2018 10:19 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-05-2018 09:59 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  Damn President Obama and his financial crash.

Well, let's see, the crash supposedly ended in 2009. But the deficits continued. Why?

Largely because revenues hovered around 15% of GDP until 2012. It took 4 years to get revenues and subsequent spending up/ back down to their customary levels of 18 to 20% of gdp.

Which corresponds to the republicans taking back the house.

No, it corresponds to the economy simply getting back on track.

But Obama did that in 2009. Thanks, Obama.

(02-05-2018 11:20 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-05-2018 10:55 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(02-05-2018 10:53 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(02-05-2018 10:37 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(02-05-2018 10:19 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Well, let's see, the crash supposedly ended in 2009. But the deficits continued. Why?

Largely because revenues hovered around 15% of GDP until 2012. It took 4 years to get revenues and subsequent spending up/ back down to their customary levels of 18 to 20% of gdp.

Which corresponds to the republicans taking back the house.

No, it corresponds to the economy simply getting back on track.

But Obama did that in 2009. Thanks, Obama.

Did what?

Owl you said we are borrowing 10 trillion. You didn’t say that over 10 years. BTW. I agree with your solution. It makes the most sense to me. Let’s have policies that encourage business at home but let’s have a social safety net. Let’s have a Bismarck health plan. Better than what we have now by far. We should be paying it through VAT. Makes out imports more expensive and our exports cheaper. It’s a little odd to me that we but heads as often as we do because I do believe you have a better grasp on solutions than either party. I have researched these solutions and I believe they Do have merit.

So there’s that

IMHO, it's a bipartisan issue being driven by social security and medicare.

They borrowed like 5.4 trillion from Social Security? But we have money for Trump Tax cuts...... morons

Borrowing went down under Obama. SMH

(02-05-2018 11:30 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Owl you said we are borrowing 10 trillion. You didn’t say that over 10 years. BTW. I agree with your solution. It makes the most sense to me. Let’s have policies that encourage business at home but let’s have a social safety net. Let’s have a Bismarck health plan. Better than what we have now by far. We should be paying it through VAT. Makes out imports more expensive and our exports cheaper. It’s a little odd to me that we but heads as often as we do because I do believe you have a better grasp on solutions than either party. I have researched these solutions and I believe they Do have merit.

So there’s that

I support Owl’s proposal on the Bismarck plan and would like to see a VAT as well. I don’t think senior’s could afford supplemental insurance, however.

(02-05-2018 11:36 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  They borrowed like 5.4 trillion from Social Security? But we have money for Trump Tax cuts...... morons

Someone already mentioned it in the thread earlier, but if the GDP increases by 1%, then that adds roughly a trillion to the revenue into the gov't. In theory, we could grow ourselves out of a deficit; however, the obligations for social security and medicare will be too great for economic growth to cover the spending. On top of that, you would have to have very high, sustained GDP growth until the baby boomers largely die off. I don't see that happening.

Question becomes, where do the spending cuts come from? As it looks today, roughly 62% of the spending is in social security, medicare and welfare. The cuts have to come from there.

https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/fed...60#usgs302

(02-05-2018 11:30 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Owl you said we are borrowing 10 trillion. You didn’t say that over 10 years. BTW. I agree with your solution. It makes the most sense to me. Let’s have policies that encourage business at home but let’s have a social safety net. Let’s have a Bismarck health plan. Better than what we have now by far. We should be paying it through VAT. Makes out imports more expensive and our exports cheaper. It’s a little odd to me that we but heads as often as we do because I do believe you have a better grasp on solutions than either party. I have researched these solutions and I believe they Do have merit.
So there’s that

You said we are borrowing a trillion for the tax cuts. That's over ten years too. This is one of my pet peeves. Democrats take a ten-year number and compare to to a one-year number. "Wow, the tax cuts will add $1.5 trillion to the deficit, which is $895 billion." Do you not see the blatant misrepresentation there?

Sorry, but I thought that the relevant number to compare your ten-year number with was another ten-year number, not then-year deficit or the 240-year accumulated debt. Silly me.

If you and I, as far apart as we are on so many issues, can agree on the best solution, why can't the likes on Schumer and McConnell and Pelosi and Ryan agree? I'll tell you why, because both teams have been putting team ahead of country for so long that they have lost the ability to do anything else.

(02-05-2018 10:48 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-05-2018 10:43 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Owl. Our debt is 20 trillion + our deficit is 895 billion. neither of those numbers are 10 trillion. That's why I asked you where you were getting your numbers. Now where are you getting 10 trillion borrowed???????????

Simple, because the $1.5 trillion alleged revenue reduction from the tax cut is a 10 year number. Take your $895 billion deficit number (your number) and multiply it by 10 and you get $8.95 trillion. And the deficit is projected to grow. In January 2017, CBO said $9.427 trillion by 2027. That's pretty much $10 trillion, right?

You have to compare apples to apples.

Ouch, that one is going to leave a mark.

(02-05-2018 11:47 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(02-05-2018 11:30 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Owl you said we are borrowing 10 trillion. You didn’t say that over 10 years. BTW. I agree with your solution. It makes the most sense to me. Let’s have policies that encourage business at home but let’s have a social safety net. Let’s have a Bismarck health plan. Better than what we have now by far. We should be paying it through VAT. Makes out imports more expensive and our exports cheaper. It’s a little odd to me that we but heads as often as we do because I do believe you have a better grasp on solutions than either party. I have researched these solutions and I believe they Do have merit.
So there’s that

I support Owl’s proposal on the Bismarck plan and would like to see a VAT as well. I don’t think senior’s could afford supplemental insurance, however.

They do now under Medicare. And they do in France, Germany, Holland, and Switzerland, among other countries.

The VAT would be potentially a greater concern for seniors, but there are ways to phase it in. 30+ other countries have made it work.

As a senior, I say bring it on.

(02-05-2018 02:00 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-05-2018 11:47 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(02-05-2018 11:30 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Owl you said we are borrowing 10 trillion. You didn’t say that over 10 years. BTW. I agree with your solution. It makes the most sense to me. Let’s have policies that encourage business at home but let’s have a social safety net. Let’s have a Bismarck health plan. Better than what we have now by far. We should be paying it through VAT. Makes out imports more expensive and our exports cheaper. It’s a little odd to me that we but heads as often as we do because I do believe you have a better grasp on solutions than either party. I have researched these solutions and I believe they Do have merit.
So there’s that

I support Owl’s proposal on the Bismarck plan and would like to see a VAT as well. I don’t think senior’s could afford supplemental insurance, however.

They do now under Medicare. And they do in France, Germany, Holland, and Switzerland, among other countries.

The VAT would be potentially a greater concern for seniors, but there are ways to phase it in. 30+ other countries have made it work.

As a senior, I say bring it on.

But a Bismark system wouldn't cover a knee replacement or hip replacement at 80% like Medicare... therefore supplemental insurance would be a necessity and it would likely be sky high.

I want a balanced budget without drastic cuts. You will never get Grover Norquist on board. You also take power out of lobbyist hands with a VAT. The more I read into it the more I like it but that will turn off 90% of the spin room. Somehow someway we need people to put our countrymen ahead of party.

Those that work should be better off than those that don't? You have to have a hybrid system. I would pick up the costs for everything until your 25-26ish. Then pick up the tab again in your 70's. I wonder what lengthening the eligibility ages would do. That is a cut you could live with. I want taxes increased too. It has to be sensible.

(02-05-2018 02:07 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(02-05-2018 02:00 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-05-2018 11:47 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(02-05-2018 11:30 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Owl you said we are borrowing 10 trillion. You didn’t say that over 10 years. BTW. I agree with your solution. It makes the most sense to me. Let’s have policies that encourage business at home but let’s have a social safety net. Let’s have a Bismarck health plan. Better than what we have now by far. We should be paying it through VAT. Makes out imports more expensive and our exports cheaper. It’s a little odd to me that we but heads as often as we do because I do believe you have a better grasp on solutions than either party. I have researched these solutions and I believe they Do have merit.
So there’s that

I support Owl’s proposal on the Bismarck plan and would like to see a VAT as well. I don’t think senior’s could afford supplemental insurance, however.

They do now under Medicare. And they do in France, Germany, Holland, and Switzerland, among other countries.
The VAT would be potentially a greater concern for seniors, but there are ways to phase it in. 30+ other countries have made it work.
As a senior, I say bring it on.

But a Bismarck system wouldn't cover a knee replacement or hip replacement at 80% like Medicare... therefore supplemental insurance would be a necessity and it would likely be sky high.

It would cover it, you just might have to wait, like in single-payer/single-provider systems if you wanted to get it on the "free" side. Or you could go to the "pay" side to get it quicker. Or you could buy supplemental insurance to pay for it. In France, 99+% have basic coverage, and 90% buy supplemental, which is cheap. We could keep Medicare as a supplement to Bismarck basic if we wanted to. Bismarck would subsidize the cost of Medicare by about $150 billion per year.

(02-05-2018 02:08 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  I want a balanced budget without drastic cuts. You will never get Grover Norquist on board. You also take power out of lobbyist hands with a VAT. The more I read into it the more I like it but that will turn off 90% of the spin room. Somehow someway we need people to put our countrymen ahead of party.

Move to Norway. Ain't happening here.

(02-05-2018 11:47 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(02-05-2018 11:30 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Owl you said we are borrowing 10 trillion. You didn’t say that over 10 years. BTW. I agree with your solution. It makes the most sense to me. Let’s have policies that encourage business at home but let’s have a social safety net. Let’s have a Bismarck health plan. Better than what we have now by far. We should be paying it through VAT. Makes out imports more expensive and our exports cheaper. It’s a little odd to me that we but heads as often as we do because I do believe you have a better grasp on solutions than either party. I have researched these solutions and I believe they Do have merit.

So there’s that

I support Owl’s proposal on the Bismarck plan and would like to see a VAT as well. I don’t think senior’s could afford supplemental insurance, however.

https://www.medicare.gov/supplement-othe...digap.html

#mensa

(02-05-2018 02:14 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(02-05-2018 11:47 AM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(02-05-2018 11:30 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Owl you said we are borrowing 10 trillion. You didn’t say that over 10 years. BTW. I agree with your solution. It makes the most sense to me. Let’s have policies that encourage business at home but let’s have a social safety net. Let’s have a Bismarck health plan. Better than what we have now by far. We should be paying it through VAT. Makes out imports more expensive and our exports cheaper. It’s a little odd to me that we but heads as often as we do because I do believe you have a better grasp on solutions than either party. I have researched these solutions and I believe they Do have merit.

So there’s that

I support Owl’s proposal on the Bismarck plan and would like to see a VAT as well. I don’t think senior’s could afford supplemental insurance, however.

https://www.medicare.gov/supplement-othe...digap.html

#mensa

I’m familiar with Medicare supplemental insurance.