this is great

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Sort this how ever you what .. facts are the facts . And people will always be on wellfare regardless of race and there will never be universal income

Universal income exists for the wealthy. It's called dividends. 6% dividend returns on a million dollars invested will pay out 60 grand.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Universal income exists for the wealthy. It's called dividends. 6% dividend returns on a million dollars invested will pay out 60 grand.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And you and I can invest $500 in the same dividend-generating stock, and earn the same 6%.

The wealthy have more extra income to invest, Nebe, that is true. But is it bad?

If Bill Gates earns a million dollars in dividend income today, how exactly does that harm you or me?

[PaulS]

All this talk about what 1 person proposed and will never happened and yet I don’t believe I have seen anything about Trumpcare and his budget.

Trump’s budget proposes billions of dollars in cuts to programs that fund research into new cures, protect the country from infectious diseases and bioterrorism and provide care to the poor, the elderly and people with disabilities. The mortgage interest deduction would be eliminated for any mortgage below (I thought I read) 680K. Meals on wheels, National Endowment for the arts, and humanities, NOAA all will take huge cuts.

The CBO analysis said that Trumpcare would rob 23 million people of health insurance while leaving millions of others with policies that offer little protection from major medical conditions. All of this would give huge tax cuts for the richest Americans and corporations.

Medicaid provides health insurance to more than 75M Americans (and 60% of nursing home residents and millions of people with disabilities) would lose $834 billion over 10 years, according to the C.B.O. The president’s budget would take a further $610 billion from the program by “reforming it”. Taken together, this amounts to an estimated 45 percent reduction by 2026 compared with current law.

Trumpcare, would make it impossible for millions of people with pre-existing conditions like heart disease or diabetes to buy health insurance. That’s because the law would let states waive many of the requirements of Obamacare. It would also greatly increase the cost of insurance policies for older and poorer people. A 64-year-old earning $26,500 a year and living in a state not seeking waivers would have to pay $16,100 a year for coverage, nearly 10 times as much as she would under Obamacare (I guess they can hold off on purchasing an Iphone for the 1st months premium).

For Trumpcare alone estimates that almost all of the tax cuts in that legislation would flow to the rich: The top 1 percent would take home an average of $37,200 a year, while people with middle-class incomes would get a measly $300.

I have read some say this is a “good conservative budget”. Let there be no doubt that it hurts the poor and middle class and benefits the rich -is that what Pres. Trump promised the struggling middle class? I wonder if the auto correct will even let me type compassionate conservative?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

All this talk about what 1 person proposed and will never happened and yet I don’t believe I have seen anything about Trumpcare and his budget.

Trump’s budget proposes billions of dollars in cuts to programs that fund research into new cures, protect the country from infectious diseases and bioterrorism and provide care to the poor, the elderly and people with disabilities. The mortgage interest deduction would be eliminated for any mortgage below (I thought I read) 680K. Meals on wheels, National Endowment for the arts, and humanities, NOAA all will take huge cuts.

The CBO analysis said that Trumpcare would rob 23 million people of health insurance while leaving millions of others with policies that offer little protection from major medical conditions. All of this would give huge tax cuts for the richest Americans and corporations.

Medicaid provides health insurance to more than 75M Americans (and 60% of nursing home residents and millions of people with disabilities) would lose $834 billion over 10 years, according to the C.B.O. The president’s budget would take a further $610 billion from the program by “reforming it”. Taken together, this amounts to an estimated 45 percent reduction by 2026 compared with current law.

Trumpcare, would make it impossible for millions of people with pre-existing conditions like heart disease or diabetes to buy health insurance. That’s because the law would let states waive many of the requirements of Obamacare. It would also greatly increase the cost of insurance policies for older and poorer people. A 64-year-old earning $26,500 a year and living in a state not seeking waivers would have to pay $16,100 a year for coverage, nearly 10 times as much as she would under Obamacare (I guess they can hold off on purchasing an Iphone for the 1st months premium).

For Trumpcare alone estimates that almost all of the tax cuts in that legislation would flow to the rich: The top 1 percent would take home an average of $37,200 a year, while people with middle-class incomes would get a measly $300.

I have read some say this is a “good conservative budget”. Let there be no doubt that it hurts the poor and middle class and benefits the rich -is that what Pres. Trump promised the struggling middle class? I wonder if the auto correct will even let me type compassionate conservative?

A much better post, with things worth discussing. If Trump (or anyone in either party) proposes things that gut badly needed social programs for the benefit of the wealthy, that absolutely needs to be called out.

Trump is proposing to eliminate many federal income tax deductions. But you failed to point out that he is proposing tax rate decreases to offset this. So unless you know what the offsetting (presumably lower) tax rates are, you can't say who will see a net tax increase and who will see a tax decrease. If I lose my mortgage interest deduction, but my tax rate goes down by more than enough to offset that, I am happy. Right?

The National Endowment of the Arts - why the hell should a coal miner in west Virginia be subsidizing opera tickets for the swells in Manhattan? Let them pay for their own opera tickets. We love fishing the way many people love art (except in a much less pretentious way). So why aren't we entitled to federal subsidies to make it cheaper for us to pursue what we love? The NEA makes absolutely zero sense to me, I can't believe it still exists.

I don't want to see huge numbers of people lose insurance.

"All of this would give huge tax cuts for the richest Americans and corporations."

True., But what you failed to point out (again), is the flip side to that coin. Meaning, if corporations get a huge tax windfall, at least SOME of those corporations will invest in growth, which will create some jobs, which means more people will have insurance through work. Will it be 23 million? Beats me. But you can't judge a proposal based solely on what gets cut. You have to compare the pros and cons, not just look at the cons.

"Let there be no doubt that it hurts the poor and middle class " When you focus on what's getting taken away, and completely ignore the extras that will be provided (like tax rate decreases and possibly more good jobs and more offshore money coming back to the US) sure it looks that way. But that's not the honest way to evaluate such things.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

A much better post, with things worth discussing. If Trump (or anyone in either party) proposes things that gut badly needed social programs for the benefit of the wealthy, that absolutely needs to be called out.All analysis of both the budget and Trumpcare state exactly that.

Trump is proposing to eliminate many federal income tax deductions. But you failed to point out that he is proposing tax rate decreases to offset this. So unless you know what the offsetting (presumably lower) tax rates are, you can't say who will see a net tax increase and who will see a tax decrease. If I lose my mortgage interest deduction, but my tax rate goes down by more than enough to offset that, I am happy. Right?Yes, but what about us who no longer have a mortgage bc we either took a less than normal term (like 15 or 20 years) or made extra payments to bring down the mortgage - housing expert say the average price of a house will fall 10% - 20%. The price of a house is where most of middle America has the majority of their wealth. Why make his proposal such that the only people who will benefit have an mortgage over 680K? Those folks are not middle America. I actually don't think there sb a mortgage deduction.

The National Endowment of the Arts - why the hell should a coal miner in west Virginia be subsidizing opera tickets for the swells in Manhattan? Let them pay for their own opera tickets. We love fishing the way many people love art (except in a much less pretentious way). So why aren't we entitled to federal subsidies to make it cheaper for us to pursue what we love? The NEA makes absolutely zero sense to me, I can't believe it still exists.BC in a civilized country we spend $ things that don't benefit us so other benefit. Like $ towards meals on wheels, WIC, fuel subsidies for the poor, etc. Otherwise we end up like Pakistan - The rich living in gated communities.

I don't want to see huge numbers of people lose insurance. I don't either but that is what the CBO says will happen W/Trumpcare - 23M while the top 1% benefit from decreased taxes.

"All of this would give huge tax cuts for the richest Americans and corporations."

True., But what you failed to point out (again), is the flip side to that coin. Meaning, if corporations get a huge tax windfall, at least SOME of those corporations will invest in growth, which will create some jobs, which means more people will have insurance through work. Will it be 23 million? Beats me. But you can't judge a proposal based solely on what gets cut. You have to compare the pros and cons, not just look at the cons.There is no way of knowing what the corp. will do w/their money. When taxes got cut in the past, much of the $ was given out as dividends so while I would benefit, the people that Pres Trump appealled to the most are prob. not going to get a dividend check.

"Let there be no doubt that it hurts the poor and middle class " When you focus on what's getting taken away, and completely ignore the extras that will be provided (like tax rate decreases and possibly more good jobs and more offshore money coming back to the US) sure it looks that way. But that's not the honest way to evaluate such things.

Rather than say someone is not being honest, the honest way to look at his budget proposal and his health care proposal is to recognize that in total the poor will loose out and the rich will benefit.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Rather than say someone is not being honest, the honest way to look at his budget proposal and his health care proposal is to recognize that in total the poor will loose out and the rich will benefit.

"All analysis of both the budget and Trumpcare state exactly that"

And all of the media are reporting that Trump "shoved" a foreign leader when he barely put his hands on the guy. And every analysis of the election had Hilary winning in an electoral rout. I'm not saying that all of the criticism is unfounded, I'm saying that people have gone bonkers trying to make the guy look bad.

"Why make his proposal such that the only people who will benefit have an mortgage over 680K? "

I agree. But you can't judge the effect of a tax plan when he hasn't released what the new tax rates will be. That's a critical part of assessing who gets helped and who gets hurt. Right?

"BC in a civilized country we spend $ things that don't benefit us so other benefit"

Well, in the last post, you repeatedly said you were opposed to gutting the poor to help the rich. I'm not sure then, why you support an organization that takes money from the poor and uses it to provide discounted opera tickets to the uber wealthy at the Met. You're saying the ends justify the means?

"Like $ towards meals on wheels"

Oh, but of course. A program that takes money from coal miners and uses it to pay a guy in Manhattan to make a painting of Jesus drowning in urine, is the same as a program that takes money from the self-sufficient to feed the desperately poor. Gotcha.

"There is no way of knowing what the corp. will do w/their money."

I bet you didn't express that concern when Obama announced his stimulus plan. Paul, if you ran a business, and your corporate income tax rate got cut in half, would you propose to bury the money in your backyard?

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"All analysis of both the budget and Trumpcare state exactly that"That is what the CBO says. Until this year, everyone agreed while they would be wrong on some things they were the best non political budget forecaster, estimator of cost, etc.

And all of the media are reporting that Trump "shoved" a foreign leader when he barely put his hands on the guy. Come on, he shoved him aside. I wouldn't let someone do that to me. He has no decorum. I would think most parents would not let their child do that or let another child do that to their child. I think there were even assigned places to stand. I think JK Rowling said "You tiny, tiny, little man" And every analysis of the election had Hilary winning in an electoral rout. I'm not saying that all of the criticism is unfounded, I'm saying that people have gone bonkers trying to make the guy look bad.

"Why make his proposal such that the only people who will benefit have an mortgage over 680K? "

I agree. But you can't judge the effect of a tax plan when he hasn't released what the new tax rates will be. That's a critical part of assessing who gets helped and who gets hurt. Right?Agreed - and why I thought the 1 page budget he originally released was a joke. In addition to no rates, there was nothing on the income levels for each tier.

"BC in a civilized country we spend $ things that don't benefit us so other benefit"

Well, in the last post, you repeatedly said you were opposed to gutting the poor to help the rich. I'm not sure then, why you support an organization that takes money from the poor and uses it to provide discounted opera tickets to the uber wealthy at the Met. You're saying the ends justify the means? I'm saying that we can argue about how much $ NPR gets but the fact is that much of the discretionary budget benefits the poor and it is devestated by his budget.
"Like $ towards meals on wheels"

Oh, but of course. A program that takes money from coal miners and uses it to pay a guy in Manhattan to make a painting of Jesus drowning in urine, is the same as a program that takes money from the self-sufficient to feed the desperately poor. Gotcha.That is not a gotcha - the amount of money spend on the arts is a miniscule amount of the budget.

From a search
Trump reportedly wants to cut cultural programs that make up 0.02 percent of federal spending

“The Corporation for Public Broadcasting would be privatized,” the Hill's Alexander Bolton reports, “while the National Endowment for the Arts and National Endowment for the Humanities would be eliminated entirely

So let's look at the 2016 appropriations for the three programs identified in that quote above and compare them with the overall outlays of the federal government. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting received $445 million in 2016. (It gets additional funding from donors like you.) NEA got $148 million. NEH requested the same. The Congressional Budget Office figures that about $3.9 trillion was spent by the government during the fiscal year.

Put another way, if you make $50,000 a year, spending the equivalent of what the government spends on these three programs would be like spending less than $10.



"There is no way of knowing what the corp. will do w/their money."

I bet you didn't express that concern when Obama announced his stimulus plan. I was in favor of Bush's 2008 and Obama's stimulas plans bc the economy was in the dumps. not 4.4% unemployment.Paul, if you ran a business, and your corporate income tax rate got cut in half, would you propose to bury the money in your backyard?

What I propose to do w/my $ is different from what a large corp would do. To your point I might invest it.