2020 Presidential election

[Zombie]

I don't know much about the site, but according to govtrack.us, Obama was more liberal in Congress.

I guess that could be true, but I'd be surprised he had a more left wing record than Kucinich, who is famously far left, maybe Obama's short tenure gave an inaccurate picture of his political beliefs.

I just checked and the site doesn't include Kucinich's record prior to 2007. So yeah, grain of salt needed I think.

 

[fishonjazz]

******** you all expect me to answer your **** when you can't answer mine.

But unlike you all I will answer. Nobody right now. Nobody right now is offering a plan that economically makes sense. Biden at least has the audacity to call Warren's plan for the farce that it is but his plan is just as questionable. Money out of thin air!!! No Republican has a clue what to do either. Unlike you guys I'm not going to go for a plan just because it makes me feel happy. Id love nothing more than a plan that's well though out and planned. 52 trillion, lying about taxing the middle class, and telling people the rich will pay for everything is flat out stupid. I'm sorry but it is.

I'm not going for a plan either. I would probably vote for a person rather than a plan.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[Hotdog]

I'm not going for a plan either. I would probably vote for a person rather than a plan.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

Trump is the only president in modern history that is willing to try and implement the ideas he campaigned on. Its why he was elected. Everyone grew tired of being lied to on every campaign trail.

 

[One Brow]

Trump is the only president in modern history that is willing to try and implement the ideas he campaigned on.

Every new President tries to implement 60-80% of their campaign promises.

 

[Hotdog]

Every new President tries to implement 60-80% of their campaign promises.

True, but Trump went for 100%. Not saying he got it.

I wish more presidents were as transparent as him.

 

[Harambe]

Great, I mean great rebuttal. Whew. I'm aghast. My life has been so wrong. Thank you Harambe Jesus.

You're welcome. Harambe always forgives.

Just stop **** posting.

 

[Jazzta]

He wasn't more left wing than Kucinich, or Gravel, or arguably Edwards.

I would have taken Kucinich over Obama in a heartbeat.

 

[JazzyFresh]

You're welcome. Harambe always forgives.

Just stop **** posting

I was wondering when you weren't going to back up your claim.

 

[Harambe]

No I wasn't go ahead and bump it though.

Yes, yes you were.

What you're saying is "Warren. It's her claim"

What I'm reading is "No, you".

Private Insurance replacement($9T) + Wealth and Large Corporation tax(~$6T/year) + Tax Enforcement($2.3T) = $17.3T

20.5 - 17.3 = 3.2T

Not really as far off as you thought, is it? Mix in immigration reform(great way to increase tax revenue), adjustments away from military spending, reduction in overhead(seen in other countries w/ similar programs), fewer bankruptcy and hospital losses(which DOES result in fewer Hospital bankruptcies), and reduction in out of pocket costs(co-pays, etc that we can't trackas easily), and how close do you figure we get?

This is the plan that's been produced, and I've added further clarification in hopes to reach you.

I will further breakdown one of the harder to see savings changes, the overhead difference.

In 2016, the US spent 17.8% of its gross domestic product on health care, and spending in the other countries ranged from 9.6% (Australia) to 12.4% (Switzerland)

The next closest country, Switzerland is 12%

17.8%-12.4% = 5.4%

The current US GDP is $19.39T.

5.4% of $19.39T = $1.04T difference.

So in just one of those items that isn't directly outlined, even using the next closest country's GDP healthcare spending, we made up $1.04T.

20.5T -17.3T = 3.2T

3.2T -1.04T = $2.16T

Now we're down to only $2.16T we're short. You don't think we can make that up in additional revenue from Immigration reform, adjustments away from Military spending, fewer bankruptcies and hospital losses, and the reduction in out of pocket costs?

 

[JazzyFresh]

Yes, yes you were.



This is the plan that's been produced, and I've added further clarification in hopes to reach you.

I will further breakdown one of the harder to see savings changes, the overhead difference.



The next closest country, Switzerland is 12%

17.8%-12.4% = 5.4%

The current US GDP is $19.39T.

5.4% of $19.39T = $1.04T difference.

So in just one of those items that isn't directly outlined, even using the next closest country's GDP healthcare spending, we made up $1.04T.

20.5T -17.3T = 3.2T

3.2T -1.04T = $2.16T

Now we're down to only $2.16T we're short. You don't think we can make that up in additional revenue from Immigration reform, adjustments away from Military spending, fewer bankruptcies and hospital losses, and the reduction in out of pocket costs?

Thank you. I still don't buy it though as that 2.16 is 2/3 of what we already spend. If we spend 3.2 Trillion right now, an additional 2.16 is a 67% increase. That's a lot of money.

 

[JazzyFresh]

Then we spend 623 billion annually military. How much is the proposed cut? 100 billion is a huge chunk and still doesn't put a dent in that 2.1 trillion. A quick Google search says we spend 20 billion on immigration. Slash that by 3/4 and that's only 15 billion. So between a 1/6 military budget cut and a 3/4 immigration cut that's still only 115 billion.

 

[The Thriller]

Why do republicans think the only way to decrease debt Is to slash spending? There’s an entire other side of this that they never seem to talk about. Why don’t we ever talk about raising tax revenues?

We’ve seen how ineffective tax cuts have been in growing the economy and increasing revenues. So why don’t we raise taxes?

 

[JazzyFresh]

Why do republicans think the only way to decrease debt Is to slash spending? There’s an entire other side of this that they never seem to talk about. Why don’t we ever talk about raising tax revenues?

We’ve seen how ineffective tax cuts have been in growing the economy and increasing revenues. So why don’t we raise taxes?

Probably because 20-30% should be plenty.

 

[Getting Traded]

Why do republicans think the only way to decrease debt Is to slash spending? There’s an entire other side of this that they never seem to talk about. Why don’t we ever talk about raising tax revenues?

We’ve seen how ineffective tax cuts have been in growing the economy and increasing revenues. So why don’t we raise taxes?

Why don't we just cut the military budget by half and put it into infrastructure and other areas that would improve our society?

 

[JazzyFresh]

Where is my social security TAX going? Why are we running out of money?

 

[JazzyFresh]

Can't budget like an adult? Raise taxes!!!!

 

[JazzyFresh]

I'm also confused how raising tax to pay 52 trillion in medical expenses decreases debt?

Oh that's right, raise taxes more

But wait... We have free schooling to pay for

Raise them taxes

Environmental protection?

More

Free everything

Yup, you guessed it.

 

[Harambe]

Thank you. I still don't buy it though as that 2.16 is 2/3 of what we already spend. If we spend 3.2 Trillion right now, an additional 2.16 is a 67% increase. That's a lot of money.

You don't have to buy it. It's super ****ing expensive. And it's not like either of us have a team of dedicated professionals to find a way to make it work. But come on mang.. the least you could do is give it a chance and crunch numbers without a major breakdown into "liberals blah blah blah". That's not even coming to the table to talk.

Now that we're somewhat on the same page(or at least in a page adjacent), it has been stated by others in this thread that there's no chance it's going to pass. Not even if the plan generated a surplus. And it probably shouldn't. If it did, how would we convert the 2.69 million americans working for private insurance companies? No one's talked about that either. It goes well beyond dancing with Elephants, this is dancing with mountain ranges.

Swift, immediate change would be great... and it'll save the US GDP(all of us) a lot of cash. Change is a great motivator for innovation. But I still prefer Sanders to lead the charge on healthcare.

 

[The Thriller]

This is why I refer to Fox News in the evening as “White Supremacy Hour.” Because that is exactly what this is:

 

[JazzyFresh]

You don't have to buy it. It's super ****ing expensive. And it's not like either of us have a team of dedicated professionals to find a way to make it work. But come on mang.. the least you could do is give it a chance and crunch numbers without a major breakdown into "liberals blah blah blah". That's not even coming to the table to talk.

Now that we're somewhat on the same page(or at least in a page adjacent), it has been stated by others in this thread that there's no chance it's going to pass. Not even if the plan generated a surplus. And it probably shouldn't. If it did, how would we convert the 2.69 million americans working for private insurance companies? No one's talked about that either. It goes well beyond dancing with Elephants, this is dancing with mountain ranges.

Swift, immediate change would be great... and it'll save the US GDP(all of us) a lot of cash. Change is a great motivator for innovation. But I still prefer Sanders to lead the charge on healthcare.

I said no such thing as "liberals blah blah blah" I provided numbers to counter your argument and try to make people realize what a substantial number even one trillion is. You're saying we'll save money but you still haven't even broken down the 2.1 trillion we would be in the hole with. I pointed out the things you said would cover it and my quick math made that make no sense. Your more than welcome to break down how cutting the military budget and immigration reform equal even a sliver in 2.1 trillion dollars.