Jump to content

US politics - wheeling and dealing, avoiding debt ceiling


Recommended Posts

51 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I guess we just view this differently. I think the likelihood of this happening in the next decade is certainly possible and am gaming things out from that scenario. 

They should, and demand it, but I have doubts that the plans they want to play hardball with will really work. I want to vastly expand the social safety net and that's going to cost a lot of money, hence why I don't like the idea of just going YOLO on the annual deficit or debt. 

Again, to pay for the programs we really need, it's going to cost a lot of money. Everyone who can will have to chip in. Just saying tax the rich isn't going to actually solve the problem, but we should tax the fuck out of the 1%. 

Maximizing? I take great joy in fucking over the hospital to help poor patients who can't pay their bills. And in general just help people pay as little as possible whereas the other people who do similar work always try to upcharge patients. It's a good bit of fun while doing the right thing. 

So, per you, most Americans don't have $400 to pay an unexpected expense, but need to chip in more.  Anything seem contradictory here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

Do we care that Mike Pence has officially announced his candidacy? Is this the first time an already VP is up against an already President in the primaries?

He thinks the people who tried to lynch him will vote for him?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

Do we care that Mike Pence has officially announced his candidacy? Is this the first time an already VP is up against an already President in the primaries?

One that didn't mind him getting murdered at that. 

But this probably happened in the 19th Century. 

19 minutes ago, Larry of the Lake said:

So, per you, most Americans don't have $400 to pay an unexpected expense, but need to chip in more.  Anything seem contradictory here?

I think someone making $80K can pay a little more. I don't want someone making $40K working two jobs to have to. But part of the trade would be a system where daycare is largely paid for and going to a public university means you have very little debt.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
46 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

One that didn't mind him getting murdered at that. 

But this probably happened in the 19th Century. 

I think someone making $80K can pay a little more. I don't want someone making $40K working two jobs to have to. But part of the trade would be a system where daycare is largely paid for and going to a public university means you have very little debt.  

Ok, trying to sort all this out.  The median US taxpayer in 2022 made about $54k.  And median household income about $78k.  Still want to increase taxes on "most" people?

Edited by Larry of the Lake
Household
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

Is this the first time an already VP is up against an already President in the primaries?

Well, there weren't primaries at the time, but the obvious answer to this would be 1940 - when FDR ran for a third time and was challenged at the Democratic Convention by his sitting VP John Nance Garner (as well as, interestingly, his former campaign manager James Farley).

Off the top of my head, that's the only time something like that happened (in 1912 obviously Teddy Roosevelt ran in the general as a former president.  Particularly both a former VP and a former president both running - pretty sure this is the first time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
54 minutes ago, Larry of the Lake said:

Ok, trying to sort all this out.  The median US taxpayer in 2022 made about $54k.  And median household income about $78k.  Still want to increase taxes on "most" people?

Yep. Just not on those who really can't afford it. And I'm not calling for a huge increase on households making less than six figures, but we need better social programs and that is going to cost money. Corporations and wealthy households need to pay a lot morehowever I do think everyone who can should also pay a bit more if we're going to have the services we need and deserve. 

Edited by Tywin et al.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly it's not even clear if better social programs will require more money. The obvious example is M4A vs the insane breaks we're giving private insurance and businesses to implement things. It's quite possible that social security could be made better in similar ways. Same for most of the UBI lite programs we have, where we're spending more on administration of private programs to ensure people aren't abusing the system instead of, ya know, giving more people money. k

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

One that didn't mind him getting murdered at that. 

But this probably happened in the 19th Century. 

I think someone making $80K can pay a little more. I don't want someone making $40K working two jobs to have to. But part of the trade would be a system where daycare is largely paid for and going to a public university means you have very little debt.  

 

1 hour ago, Kalnestk Oblast said:

Realistically given the costs of housing and inflation families making $80k cannot realistically pay more taxes. Nor should they. 

One of the points to note is that our system doesn't have a COLA built into it.  So, for instance, someone making $80,000 in the Bay Area is in a much different spot than a person making $80,000 in Minnesota.  This goes to things like phaseouts too.  I had a colleague describe income based phaseouts as a stealth tax on urban high tax blue states.  She's not wrong.  I'm not saying we should necessarily change this, but it is a thing and we should at least say it out loud.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Kalnestk Oblast said:

It's quite possible that social security could be made better in similar ways.

There are many social security proposals out there that would "fix" it without technically raising taxes on anybody.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Total BS what Okies have done here-

State school board approves application for first publicly funded religious charter school in the nation

https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/06/us/oklahoma-religious-charter-school

You just know if it were for a state funded Islam, Hindu, Buddhist temple or Native American Learning Center or any non Christian affiliated organization it would never see the floor of that states legislature.

Give me freedom from your state religion BS please!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

Total BS what Okies have done here-

State school board approves application for first publicly funded religious charter school in the nation

https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/06/us/oklahoma-religious-charter-school

You just know if it were for a state funded Islam, Hindu, Buddhist temple or Native American Learning Center or any non Christian affiliated organization it would never see the floor of that states legislature.

Give me freedom from your state religion BS please!

It absolute and complete horseshit. A blatently violation of the Establishment clause and a deliberate shot across the bow of existing Establishment Clause case law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...