I'm glad health care is being considered such an important issue. I honestly thought ti would take a back seat to other inside Beltway things. One thing about the guy I like, Biden, that bothers me is he just keeps saying let's "return" to Obamacare, and that really doesn't move the needle for anyone. IMO, the time has come for single payor or worst case a government option to get the ball movingf. I'm learning a great deal from the posts here. My hope is whatever the outcome of the primary and election, we end up with a much better medical system.

OaktownBear said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

It's real. . . and it's fantastic

Elizabeth Warren introduced her Medicare 4 All plan funding last week and she pulled it off with ZERO new taxes on the middle class.

Funny thing is, detractors immediately countered that taxes will go up on the middle class because the middle class will have higher take home income and that will be taxed. So, yeah, I guess middle class taxes will go up to the extent that middle class take home pay goes up. Take home pay will go up because you will get to keep the health insurance premium you are currently paying out. Health insurance premiums are a tax free deduction while take home pay is not. This increase in take home pay is worth $11 trillion and is bigger than the biggest tax cuts in the history of the country, and will be largely enjoyed by the middle class.

Medicare 4 All will cost the country less than current health care costs the country. Many costs will be shifted from the private sector (which is inefficient at managing health care due to market power imbalances caused by the consumers need to have health care which reduces their negotiating power) to government. In the Warren plan this results in a reduction of premiums and deductibles paid mostly by the middle class and an increase on taxes paid by the wealthy, more efficient health care insurance administration, and other government efficiencies explained below.

This plan is actually better than I expected from a fiscal standpoint. The average American will have more take home pay AND more financially secure health care.

So how is the plan funded?
- A wealth tax. A 2% tax on wealth over $50 million dollars and a 6% wealth tax on wealth over $1 billion dollars. This means if you own $50 million + $1 dollars you will pay a 2 cent wealth tax. If you own $1 billion dollars you will pay a wealth tax of ~$20 million dollars. If you own $2 billion dollars you will pay a wealth tax of ~$80 million, approximately 4% of your wealth. Yes, this has the added benefit of greatly reducing wealth inequality - a feature, not a bug.
- Raise capital gains taxes to equal income taxes for the 1% (I've advocated for this for a long time) and mark--to market for the 1% so they pay the tax every year at its current value. Also, the wealth inequality reduction here is a feature not a bug.
- Current company health care insurance premiums will be converted to a tax
- Current individual health care insurance premiums will become take home pay and will be taxed at the individuals income tax rate
- Better tax law enforcement (this is a real thing and not a gimmick. Republican Presidents and Legislatures over the years have worked to systematically reduce the ability of the IRS and government in general to enforce tax collection on the wealthy. In fact, today the IRS is more likely to audit the poor than the rich because the IRS can't afford to keep up with the legal fees of the rich. This is by design. It can be stopped and it will result in higher tax revenues).
- Tax on financial transactions
- Reduce accelerated depreciation
- Corporate tax on foreign earnings
- Immigration reform that will result in higher tax revenues (based on CBO analysis)
- Reduce defense spending

Keep in mind that detractors will tell you all this is unrealistic (likely some of the same people who told you the Trump tax cuts would pay for themselves, and that we could implement democracy in the Middle East if we just conquered Iraq, and that the Bill Clinton tax increases would ruin the economy, etc.). The same false criticisms of Obamacare will come out for this plan. The revenue increases won't happen, the government will fail to provide the services, we will all be bankrupted and subject to death panels. Don't believe this garbage. Don't buy into fear - fear that we can't do with health care what every other advanced country in the world does. U.S. healthcare is riddled up and down with inefficiencies. It is very reasonable to expect we can create a more efficient health care insurance system and Elizabeth Warren has the plan.

Every Democrat should support this plan.

---

Every Democrat should support BERNIE'S PLAN. It's real and it is not fantastic and I mean the literal definition of fantastic. I encourage every liberal to actually compare the plans. Bernie's coverage is every bit as good if not better and he has a realistic plan to pay for it (though he doesn't have every cent accounted for, his system could actually work)

The major difference is Bernie refuses to lie to you. In broad strokes Bernie takes the insurance premiums your employer pays and the insurance premiums you pay, and diverts them into a tax to fund Medicare. If you are poor, you pay a little less. If you are wealthy or upper middle class, you pay a little more. If you are in the middle you pay about the same. That won't fund the whole plan, but it gets us most of the way there in a fair and reasonable way that does not add ADDITIONAL cost for most Americans. That is why Bernie keeps saying it won't COST the middle class anymore.

Watch Warren leading up to and in the last debate. She keeps using Bernie's language that it wont cost more, but she refuses to say there will be any additional taxes. She stammers around not wanting to give the soundbite. Frankly, I was ready to scream at my television "Why can't you just say instead of paying private insurers, you will pay the Medicare plan and premiums won't go up?" That is fair and reasonable and simple to understand. The CURRENT Medicare system is funded through payroll tax. How is this hard? The other Democrats were trying to pin her down (and not Bernie who had already said this) because she was implying it would all be free.

So now she has doubled down on free. So let's summarize. Everyone who has no insurance will now get health care. In most cases the health care will be better than people got before. We will wipe out the average $10,000 each American pays for health care every year. And we will pay for it by taxing the rich, corporations, and cutting some spending and administrative costs. Oh, and just so you know, I really can't get this passed (yes, she said that). What she didn't say is "and of course since I can't get this passed, I can promise whatever I want. Free ice cream for all!" Simply stated, there are not enough rich people and corporations to pay for this.

Let's talk about some broad numbers. And I'm going to use her numbers, rosy as they are. Her plan says that American workers will spend $11 trillion in insurance premiums in the next 10 years and she will eliminate that (and, by the way, assumes that there will be no impact on wages and salaries in the market, but let's not complicate things). The government will take on $11 trillion and burden over the next 10 years. Her very optimistic projections for the wealth tax is $2.75 trillion over 10 years. Not going to pay for it.
So she is taking on $1.1 trillion annually of health care burden AND that is just to cover the people who are already insured, not to add any uninsured or under insured. The entire revenues projected to be collected by the US government for 2020 is $3.6 trillion. The budget is $4.7 trillion. So somehow she is going to increase revenues by 30% without you paying anything, and she hasn't even started to pay to cover the currently uninsured yet. And we still have a huge deficit. THIS IS BY HER NUMBERS. It is a ridiculous claim which tells me she has no intent to follow through. Bernie intends to follow through, so he is telling you that what you pay for healthcare now, you will have to pay into the system. That is realistic. That is fair.

I have gone through many of the plans on Warren's website. You know the song 12 Days of Christmas? Where it always ends with "and a partridge in a pair tree!" Every Warren plan ends with "and I'll pay for it with wealth tax!" And if you read one plan, that is great. She can pay for it with a wealth tax. (at least by her numbers). But her plans overall are like the movie The Producers where they sell a 10% stake in the show to like a 100 people never planning on making any money. She can pay for 1 or 2 plans USING HER NUMBERS, but she can't come close to paying for all of them. But still she claims the wealth tax for each individual plan. As a for instance, she says she will pay for her plan to upgrade public schools and give a free college education (which depends, by the way, on states agreeing to pay half the tuition) with a wealth tax. And by her very dubious numbers, the wealth tax will pay for those two plans and at that point be entirely used up. But then she has like a million other plans like universal childcare that she says she can pay for with the wealth tax (by her figuring that plan would eat up 25% of the wealth tax) AGAIN, THESE ARE BY HER NUMBERS.

The reason why she stammered so much on paying for Medicare for all is that it was one plan that could not be paid for by the wealth tax. So having to do something, she went on to Bernie's website took a bunch of his taxation plans and heaped them on. Only that still didn't get her remotely close, so she called on Ronald Reagan and voodoo economics to fill the gap. There will be more taxes because people will earn more money bullshyte. Here's an example. Private health insurers spend a lot of administrative costs reviewing claims to deny people coverage. We won't be denying people coverage so won't have to pay those costs that just go to take your health coverage away. So here is the thing with that. Private insurers are not denying claims for the hell of it. They are denying claims to increase their profits. They are paying less to administer a system of denying claims then the cost of the health care they would have to provide if they didn't deny claims. RIGHT? They are not reducing profits in order to deny claims. So we may reduce the administrative cost of reviewing claims, but we will logically pay more IN PROVIDING THE HEALTHCARE THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY DENIED. That is a great thing. IT ISN'T A COST SAVINGS.

Let me explain that I do not love any of the candidates running. Leading up to the last debate, I was resolved that out of the candidates that seemed to have a realistic shot, Warren was probably my candidate. I had bought that she was a "more realistic Bernie". I was 95% there and I watched the debate to seal the deal. She had me in the office ready to close. I listened to that debate and had many W T F moments. So I did a lot of research mostly on her own site. And now I'm ticked off. She is selling snake oil. And I believe like in The Producers since she has made 20 promises she can't keep, she intends to keep none of them.

I am not the "same people that told you the Trump tax cuts would pay for themselves" If you want to look for people using the same arguments, look to Elizabeth Warren. No, she is not a racist, divisive, loud mouthed, lout, poor excuse for a human being, but on the policy front she is selling snake oil just as much he is. Further, she and her people are doing an absolutely fabulous job of painting everyone that challenges anything she says as not only not a liberal but as Trumpian corporate conservatives. It's despicable.

If liberals fail to challenge her on these issues now, you can bet the conservatives will easily uncover all of this in the general election. We better hope that people are stupid enough to buy it. I think that is a bad strategy for Democrats. We've seen educated voters who saw right through Trump coming to us in droves. This is not the time to challenge with stupidity on the other side.

I'm ticked off about this because I really care about these policies and have all my life. I would support virtually every policy she is proposing. To be clear, though, she isn't remotely the only one proposing them. She is the only one proposing them for free. I want Medicare for All. I want affordable childcare. I want public universities to go back to the promise of providing a free education. I realize there is a cost to doing those things. I'm willing to pay that cost. To effectuate those policies, we need to have a real conversation. Anyone promising these things for free has no intention of passing them.

If you like what Warren is selling, vote for Bernie. He has a lot of problems with reality too, but he is serious and he is trying. Warren has just released a bunch of complicated plan documents that are a big shell game. She is promising liberals everything they ever wanted with no means to get there and attacking every Democrat that challenges her. As several said at the debate, they want the same things they just don't by into her methods of getting them.

I have no idea who I'm voting for. I don't like being lied to. Warren will get my vote against one man in the crappy event that is the option given to me. (okay, not true. I'll also vote for her in the unlikely event I have to stop Tulsi Gabbard).

Professor there are many things I don't like about you, but I owe you an apology on this one, Warren is no liberal. She is using liberals. (I think you owe me an apology for painting me as a corporate conservative, but that is up to you.)

---

OaktownBear said:

---

Another Bear said:

---

What Warren needs is an infographic explaining clearly and concisely how MCFA works, and how you save money and what you can expect. You know, make it simple and clear. I understand this is early but you have to communicate this stuff.

Otherwise, bring it...American healthcare is basically a penalty on companies (compared to other industrialized nations) and individuals. I'll just say it - kill of the U.S. healthcare "insurance" industry. It's an useless middleman that sucks of resources without any kind of return and serves no other function.

---

The thing is, there is a great case for this and Bernie is making it. I firmly believe it will ultimately cost all of us less. If that is what she were promising, I'd cheer her on. She isn't promising it costing less. She is promising it for free. That is not possible. The ridiculous claim makes those that support Bernie's plan have to work 1000 times harder. Proposing and selling this plan will set the cause of universal healthcare back to 1992. She doesn't care as long as she gets some votes.

---

I don't really understand her game. Used to be a Republican. Took a hard U turn and started advocating liberal policies. Does she have values? Does she have deeply held beliefs?

The only thing I can figure, given her "I can be this and this and this all at the same time" rhetoric to Democratic influencers is that like 90% of all people who have run for the office, she just really wants to be President for her own selfish reasons. That doesn't make her evil, but I just don't see her grinding away at making change if she runs into obstacles. I see her saying, "Oh well, I tried. Re-elect me in 2024!"

Bernie is too old, but who else out there really wants to make meaningful change happen for someone other than the people who don't need it?

OaktownBear said:

---

Again, Bernie's plan actually works. He's honest. She's a big phony. You will get no healthcare plan from her.

---

We will get no healthcare plan from anybody. We barely got one with Democrats holding both House and Senate and Republicans still put up enough obstacles to combine with Democrats never being able to agree on anything.

The plan is a red herring. Who is going to keep fighting when politics start getting dirty?

Professor Turgeson Bear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

Again, Bernie's plan actually works. He's honest. She's a big phony. You will get no healthcare plan from her.

---

We will get no healthcare plan from anybody. We barely got one with Democrats holding both House and Senate and Republicans still put up enough obstacles to combine with Democrats never being able to agree on anything.

The plan is a red herring. Who is going to keep fighting when politics start getting dirty?

---

One thing I look for in a candidate is who is the political fighter. It's part of why I always supported Hillary over Obama.

Currently there are two big ideas that, to me, signal who is ready and willing to fight. 1) Adding justices to the Supreme Court to overcome the Republicans refusal to allow Obama to appoint a Justice and 2) ending the filibuster. Warren supports both of these and Sanders is opposed. You will never get meaningful health care reform with the filibuster in place. The filibuster's sole purpose is to thwart legislation, even if it has majority approval. It is the enemy of progress.

wifeisafurd said:

---

I'm glad health care is being considered such an important issue. I honestly thought ti would take a back seat to other inside Beltway things. One thing about the guy I like, Biden, that bothers me is he just keeps saying let's "return" to Obamacare, and that really doesn't move the needle for anyone. IMO, the time has come for single payor or worst case a government option to get the ball movingf. I'm learning a great deal from the posts here. My hope is whatever the outcome of the primary and election, we end up with a much better medical system.

---

I second this post

Elizabeth Warren's Plan to Finance Medicare for All Is a Disaster
https://jacobinmag.com/2019/11/elizabeth-warren-medicare-for-all-taxes-financing-plan

Professor Turgeson Bear said:

---

Elizabeth Warren's Plan to Finance Medicare for All Is a Disaster
https://jacobinmag.com/2019/11/elizabeth-warren-medicare-for-all-taxes-financing-plan

---

Jacobin magazine. Now there's a source I've never gone to for financial analysis.

dajo9 said:

---

Professor Turgeson Bear said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

Again, Bernie's plan actually works. He's honest. She's a big phony. You will get no healthcare plan from her.

---

We will get no healthcare plan from anybody. We barely got one with Democrats holding both House and Senate and Republicans still put up enough obstacles to combine with Democrats never being able to agree on anything.

The plan is a red herring. Who is going to keep fighting when politics start getting dirty?

---

One thing I look for in a candidate is who is the political fighter. It's part of why I always supported Hillary over Obama.

Currently there are two big ideas that, to me, signal who is ready and willing to fight. 1) Adding justices to the Supreme Court to overcome the Republicans refusal to allow Obama to appoint a Justice and 2) ending the filibuster. Warren supports both of these and Sanders is opposed. You will never get meaningful health care reform with the filibuster in place. The filibuster's sole purpose is to thwart legislation, even if it has majority approval. It is the enemy of progress.

---

This is a good point. It does seem to me that Warren is fudging her figures on her health care plan. But other Democrats are fudging and hand-waving about this stuff too. I don't know how Bernie expects to accomplish anything with the filibuster in place and a conservative court.

dajo9 said:

---

Professor Turgeson Bear said:

---

Elizabeth Warren's Plan to Finance Medicare for All Is a Disaster
https://jacobinmag.com/2019/11/elizabeth-warren-medicare-for-all-taxes-financing-plan

---

Jacobin magazine. Now there's a source I've never gone to for financial analysis.

---

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/warrens-plans-to-pay-for-government-health-care-arent-courageous-theyre-a-cop-out/2019/11/07/ed534e08-00d6-11ea-9518-1e76abc088b6_story.html

Professor Turgeson Bear said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Professor Turgeson Bear said:

---

Elizabeth Warren's Plan to Finance Medicare for All Is a Disaster
https://jacobinmag.com/2019/11/elizabeth-warren-medicare-for-all-taxes-financing-plan

---

Jacobin magazine. Now there's a source I've never gone to for financial analysis.

---

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/warrens-plans-to-pay-for-government-health-care-arent-courageous-theyre-a-cop-out/2019/11/07/ed534e08-00d6-11ea-9518-1e76abc088b6_story.html

---

Does this make any sense?:

Quote:

---

Warren would require companies with more than 50 employees plus any smaller ones that offer health insurance to pay a Medicare tax nearly equal to what they were previously spending for employee health insurance. Those payments would gradually adjust over time so that eventually they would all be paying the same amount for each employee. Meanwhile, small firms that never offered employee health insurance would pay no tax at all.


This arrangement manages to be both unfair and economically inefficient. Not only would the most responsible companies be saddled with higher operating costs than their smaller competitors to the tune of about $14,000 per employee but they would lose the advantage they once had of being able to use generous health benefits to attract and retain the best employees."

---

Yes that is what the plan says. Companies that have voluntarily offered good health insurance pay higher taxes than those that screwed over their employees.

Where have I heard this:

Quote:

---

"A better, simpler and more progressive way to get employers to help pay for Medicare-for-all is to do it the way we already do impose a percentage tax on employers on all wages and salaries, regardless of firm size. That's what many European countries do. And that's what Bernie Sanders proposes, raising the employer share of the Medicare tax to just under 9 percent."

---

I beg of people who are in Camp Warren to read her plans. I suspect some of you are afraid of what you'd find. You should be. But if you don't read them now, I guarantee you Republicans will and will have plenty of ammunition come general election time.

Medicare for all - good idea

Warren's methods for paying for it - ridiculous.

Basically if a politician were to run on abolishing the social security tax but maintaining the benefit, they'd be laughed out of the race. Warren is running on adding a benefit that costs more than social security and doing it for free. It is the same thing.

OaktownBear said:

---

Professor Turgeson Bear said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Professor Turgeson Bear said:

---

Elizabeth Warren's Plan to Finance Medicare for All Is a Disaster
https://jacobinmag.com/2019/11/elizabeth-warren-medicare-for-all-taxes-financing-plan

---

Jacobin magazine. Now there's a source I've never gone to for financial analysis.

---

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/warrens-plans-to-pay-for-government-health-care-arent-courageous-theyre-a-cop-out/2019/11/07/ed534e08-00d6-11ea-9518-1e76abc088b6_story.html

---

Does this make any sense?:

Quote:

---

Warren would require companies with more than 50 employees plus any smaller ones that offer health insurance to pay a Medicare tax nearly equal to what they were previously spending for employee health insurance. Those payments would gradually adjust over time so that eventually they would all be paying the same amount for each employee. Meanwhile, small firms that never offered employee health insurance would pay no tax at all.


This arrangement manages to be both unfair and economically inefficient. Not only would the most responsible companies be saddled with higher operating costs than their smaller competitors to the tune of about $14,000 per employee but they would lose the advantage they once had of being able to use generous health benefits to attract and retain the best employees."

---

Yes that is what the plan says. Companies that have voluntarily offered good health insurance pay higher taxes than those that screwed over their employees.

Where have I heard this:

Quote:

---

"A better, simpler and more progressive way to get employers to help pay for Medicare-for-all is to do it the way we already do impose a percentage tax on employers on all wages and salaries, regardless of firm size. That's what many European countries do. And that's what Bernie Sanders proposes, raising the employer share of the Medicare tax to just under 9 percent."

---

I beg of people who are in Camp Warren to read her plans. I suspect some of you are afraid of what you'd find. You should be. But if you don't read them now, I guarantee you Republicans will and will have plenty of ammunition come general election time.

Medicare for all - good idea

Warren's methods for paying for it - ridiculous.

Basically if a politician were to run on abolishing the social security tax but maintaining the benefit, they'd be laughed out of the race. Warren is running on adding a benefit that costs more than social security and doing it for free. It is the same thing.

---

Sounds like a small issue that can be fixed in negotiations.

dajo9 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

Professor Turgeson Bear said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Professor Turgeson Bear said:

---

Elizabeth Warren's Plan to Finance Medicare for All Is a Disaster
https://jacobinmag.com/2019/11/elizabeth-warren-medicare-for-all-taxes-financing-plan

---

Jacobin magazine. Now there's a source I've never gone to for financial analysis.

---

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/warrens-plans-to-pay-for-government-health-care-arent-courageous-theyre-a-cop-out/2019/11/07/ed534e08-00d6-11ea-9518-1e76abc088b6_story.html

---

Does this make any sense?:

Quote:

---

Warren would require companies with more than 50 employees plus any smaller ones that offer health insurance to pay a Medicare tax nearly equal to what they were previously spending for employee health insurance. Those payments would gradually adjust over time so that eventually they would all be paying the same amount for each employee. Meanwhile, small firms that never offered employee health insurance would pay no tax at all.


This arrangement manages to be both unfair and economically inefficient. Not only would the most responsible companies be saddled with higher operating costs than their smaller competitors to the tune of about $14,000 per employee but they would lose the advantage they once had of being able to use generous health benefits to attract and retain the best employees."

---

Yes that is what the plan says. Companies that have voluntarily offered good health insurance pay higher taxes than those that screwed over their employees.

Where have I heard this:

Quote:

---

"A better, simpler and more progressive way to get employers to help pay for Medicare-for-all is to do it the way we already do impose a percentage tax on employers on all wages and salaries, regardless of firm size. That's what many European countries do. And that's what Bernie Sanders proposes, raising the employer share of the Medicare tax to just under 9 percent."

---

I beg of people who are in Camp Warren to read her plans. I suspect some of you are afraid of what you'd find. You should be. But if you don't read them now, I guarantee you Republicans will and will have plenty of ammunition come general election time.

Medicare for all - good idea

Warren's methods for paying for it - ridiculous.

Basically if a politician were to run on abolishing the social security tax but maintaining the benefit, they'd be laughed out of the race. Warren is running on adding a benefit that costs more than social security and doing it for free. It is the same thing.

---

Sounds like a small issue that can be fixed in negotiations.

---

Her whole method for paying for health care is a "small issue"?

Of course it could be fixed in negotiations. By her reneging on her promise to have it be free, which is exactly what she would do. My issue is not that her policy would ever be enacted. It is that she is lying about providing it for free to gain political points. You are enabling her bad political behavior by dismissing all criticism. Her plan for paying for Medicare doesn't work. Admit it.

It seems that she can shoot somebody on Fifth Avenue and her supporters will think it is okay. Okay, yeah, her plan doesn't work and she knows it. Details. Yeah, and she has a million $10 plans that she plans to pay for with the same $10 bill. Meh. Whatever it takes to get elected. She can work it out later.

I'll add this point about her lack of ethics. Attacking Biden as running in the wrong primary is disgusting and straight out of the Trump playbook. Question for you. If Biden should be running as a Republican, what message does that send to his supporters for how they should vote in the general election?

What she is doing is not "fighting". It is scorched earth against all who oppose anything she says. Heaven help us if both parties go down this path.

Oaktownbear, I'm starting to think you might be against Warren's M4All plan

dajo9 said:

---

Oaktownbear, I'm starting to think you might be against Warren's M4All plan

---

I'm for her plan. It's basically Bernie's plan. I'm not for how she claims she plans pay for it. I really have an issue with a candidate claiming they are going to pay for things with their magic unicorn that poops money and people pretending that is okay. And then said candidate calling anyone who points out there is no unicorn a Republican

This guy disagrees

https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/13/perspectives/elizabeth-warren-medicare-for-all-taxes-middle-class/index.html

BearsWiin said:

---

This guy disagrees

https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/13/perspectives/elizabeth-warren-medicare-for-all-taxes-middle-class/index.html

---

Mark Zandi:
"Her numbers add up and her plan fully finances the program without imposing any new taxes on middle class families,"

"I don't agree with Warren's vision for our health care system. But I admire that she has clearly and credibly laid out that vision and that she sought out the opinions of those who may disagree with her to provide independent validation of her numbers."

BearsWiin said:

---

This guy disagrees

https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/13/perspectives/elizabeth-warren-medicare-for-all-taxes-middle-class/index.html

---

I read the article. It provides no new analysis. It completely parrots what is on Warren's website. As another opinion piece I posted said, yeah, her numbers add up if you buy all of the ridiculous assumptions she uses in providing the numbers.

I'm happy to go through the article point by point, but I'm going to say this again. By her cost estimates (which everyone, including Bernie, says are significantly too low) she is adding a program that will cost substantially more per year than social security. If a candidate proposed that they could make social security free with no taxes on the middle class, they'd get laughed off the stage. Honestly, would you take it seriously? You are talking about a program that by her numbers costs an amount equivalent to roughly 30% of the current total federal tax revenue.

She is replacing over a trillion dollars a year that Americans currently pay into health insurance with a bunch of complex revenue proposals that would never get passed and would only fill the gap if many, many wildly speculative assumptions come true. Much of the analysis is of the voodoo economics variety - that policies will spur economic growth and thus lead to more tax revenue - it was bullshyte when Reagan said it and it is bullshyte now. From your article:

Quote:

---

Warren's plans for child care, housing and green manufacturing would spur economic growth and produce more tax revenue. Considering the economic impact of all her proposals (an analysis no one has done yet), it is very possible that total government revenues generated by her plans will exceed the total amount of new investments she proposes

---

That is the kind of analysis we are getting. I will give you all the government benefits you want and we will actually make more money.

She knows full well that she cannot fund this plan without Americans paying into the system what they currently pay. Which is what Bernie proposes. If we could ever convince Americans to make the leap to Medicare for all, a payroll tax essentially shifting the money paid into insurance today, and it is exactly the system Americans are used to with social security and medicare. It is easily sellable and builds on a current system so adds little administration cost or burden. She knows that is how it has to work. She got hammered at the debate so she went back and came up with a ridiculously complicated plan to theoretically pay for it without taxing anyone. It was a political ploy. If she were serious about passing the plan, this would not be her proposal.

dajo9 said:

---

It's real. . . and it's fantastic

Every Democrat should support this plan.

---

Elizabeth Warren's healthcare plan covers all illegal immigrants. This is fantastic for everyone sneaking into the country. Why wait in line and fill out forms when you can get the same things by sneaking in?

OaktownBear said:

---

BearsWiin said:

---

This guy disagrees

https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/13/perspectives/elizabeth-warren-medicare-for-all-taxes-middle-class/index.html

---

I read the article. It provides no new analysis. It completely parrots what is on Warren's website. As another opinion piece I posted said, yeah, her numbers add up if you buy all of the ridiculous assumptions she uses in providing the numbers.

I'm happy to go through the article point by point, but I'm going to say this again. By her cost estimates (which everyone, including Bernie, says are significantly too low) she is adding a program that will cost substantially more per year than social security. If a candidate proposed that they could make social security free with no taxes on the middle class, they'd get laughed off the stage. Honestly, would you take it seriously? You are talking about a program that by her numbers costs an amount equivalent to roughly 30% of the current total federal tax revenue.

She is replacing over a trillion dollars a year that Americans currently pay into health insurance with a bunch of complex revenue proposals that would never get passed and would only fill the gap if many, many wildly speculative assumptions come true. Much of the analysis is of the voodoo economics variety - that policies will spur economic growth and thus lead to more tax revenue - it was bullshyte when Reagan said it and it is bullshyte now. From your article:

Quote:

---

Warren's plans for child care, housing and green manufacturing would spur economic growth and produce more tax revenue. Considering the economic impact of all her proposals (an analysis no one has done yet), it is very possible that total government revenues generated by her plans will exceed the total amount of new investments she proposes

---

That is the kind of analysis we are getting. I will give you all the government benefits you want and we will actually make more money.

She knows full well that she cannot fund this plan without Americans paying into the system what they currently pay. Which is what Bernie proposes. If we could ever convince Americans to make the leap to Medicare for all, a payroll tax essentially shifting the money paid into insurance today, and it is exactly the system Americans are used to with social security and medicare. It is easily sellable and builds on a current system so adds little administration cost or burden. She knows that is how it has to work. She got hammered at the debate so she went back and came up with a ridiculously complicated plan to theoretically pay for it without taxing anyone. It was a political ploy. If she were serious about passing the plan, this would not be her proposal.

---

You seem to not understand big progressive policies. One of the benefits of prudent safety net policies is that they do grow the economy and drive up tax revenues.

Case in point - social security and medicare. Does their existence grow the economy? Of course they do because if they didn't exist aggregate demand would go way down because people would fear winding up starving and crippled in their old age so they would save every penny.

How much tax revenue do these programs generate through higher economic growth relative to the costs of these programs (the benefits of these programs directly contributing to the economy anyway)? I dont know but I'm sure it is substantial.

The fact you don't understand this component of progressive economic policies tells me you are not the person to follow for information on these programs.

dajo9 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

Quote:

---

Warren's plans for child care, housing and green manufacturing would spur economic growth and produce more tax revenue. Considering the economic impact of all her proposals (an analysis no one has done yet), it is very possible that total government revenues generated by her plans will exceed the total amount of new investments she proposes

---

That is the kind of analysis we are getting. I will give you all the government benefits you want and we will actually make more money.

She knows full well that she cannot fund this plan without Americans paying into the system what they currently pay. Which is what Bernie proposes. If we could ever convince Americans to make the leap to Medicare for all, a payroll tax essentially shifting the money paid into insurance today, and it is exactly the system Americans are used to with social security and medicare. It is easily sellable and builds on a current system so adds little administration cost or burden. She knows that is how it has to work. She got hammered at the debate so she went back and came up with a ridiculously complicated plan to theoretically pay for it without taxing anyone. It was a political ploy. If she were serious about passing the plan, this would not be her proposal.

---

You seem to not understand big progressive policies. One of the benefits of prudent safety net policies is that they do grow the economy and drive up tax revenues.

Case in point - social security and medicare. Does their existence grow the economy? Of course they do because if they didn't exist aggregate demand would go way down because people would fear winding up starving and crippled in their old age so they would save every penny.

How much tax revenue do these programs generate through higher economic growth relative to the costs of these programs (the benefits of these programs directly contributing to the economy anyway)? I dont know but I'm sure it is substantial.

The fact you don't understand this component of progressive economic policies tells me you are not the person to follow for information on these programs.

---

Consumption and investment have the same effect on GDP. Perhaps you should have taken an economics class (or remembered what they taught you in that class).

Professor Turgeson Bear said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

Quote:

---

Warren's plans for child care, housing and green manufacturing would spur economic growth and produce more tax revenue. Considering the economic impact of all her proposals (an analysis no one has done yet), it is very possible that total government revenues generated by her plans will exceed the total amount of new investments she proposes

---

That is the kind of analysis we are getting. I will give you all the government benefits you want and we will actually make more money.

She knows full well that she cannot fund this plan without Americans paying into the system what they currently pay. Which is what Bernie proposes. If we could ever convince Americans to make the leap to Medicare for all, a payroll tax essentially shifting the money paid into insurance today, and it is exactly the system Americans are used to with social security and medicare. It is easily sellable and builds on a current system so adds little administration cost or burden. She knows that is how it has to work. She got hammered at the debate so she went back and came up with a ridiculously complicated plan to theoretically pay for it without taxing anyone. It was a political ploy. If she were serious about passing the plan, this would not be her proposal.

---

You seem to not understand big progressive policies. One of the benefits of prudent safety net policies is that they do grow the economy and drive up tax revenues.

Case in point - social security and medicare. Does their existence grow the economy? Of course they do because if they didn't exist aggregate demand would go way down because people would fear winding up starving and crippled in their old age so they would save every penny.

How much tax revenue do these programs generate through higher economic growth relative to the costs of these programs (the benefits of these programs directly contributing to the economy anyway)? I dont know but I'm sure it is substantial.

The fact you don't understand this component of progressive economic policies tells me you are not the person to follow for information on these programs.

---

Consumption and investment have the same effect on GDP. Perhaps you should have taken an economics class (or remembered what they taught you in that class).

---

You're going to have to elaborate because I don't follow how what you said relates to what I said

He equated Liz's M4A revenue proposals to Reaganesque trickle-down economics. Jawdropping.

dajo9 said:

---

Professor Turgeson Bear said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

Quote:

---

Warren's plans for child care, housing and green manufacturing would spur economic growth and produce more tax revenue. Considering the economic impact of all her proposals (an analysis no one has done yet), it is very possible that total government revenues generated by her plans will exceed the total amount of new investments she proposes

---

That is the kind of analysis we are getting. I will give you all the government benefits you want and we will actually make more money.

She knows full well that she cannot fund this plan without Americans paying into the system what they currently pay. Which is what Bernie proposes. If we could ever convince Americans to make the leap to Medicare for all, a payroll tax essentially shifting the money paid into insurance today, and it is exactly the system Americans are used to with social security and medicare. It is easily sellable and builds on a current system so adds little administration cost or burden. She knows that is how it has to work. She got hammered at the debate so she went back and came up with a ridiculously complicated plan to theoretically pay for it without taxing anyone. It was a political ploy. If she were serious about passing the plan, this would not be her proposal.

---

You seem to not understand big progressive policies. One of the benefits of prudent safety net policies is that they do grow the economy and drive up tax revenues.

Case in point - social security and medicare. Does their existence grow the economy? Of course they do because if they didn't exist aggregate demand would go way down because people would fear winding up starving and crippled in their old age so they would save every penny.

How much tax revenue do these programs generate through higher economic growth relative to the costs of these programs (the benefits of these programs directly contributing to the economy anyway)? I dont know but I'm sure it is substantial.

The fact you don't understand this component of progressive economic policies tells me you are not the person to follow for information on these programs.

---

Consumption and investment have the same effect on GDP. Perhaps you should have taken an economics class (or remembered what they taught you in that class).

---

You're going to have to elaborate because I don't follow how what you said relates to what I said

---

Case in point - social security and medicare. Does their existence grow the economy? Of course they do because if they didn't exist aggregate demand would go way down because people would fear winding up starving and crippled in their old age so they would save every penny.

Professor Turgeson Bear said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Professor Turgeson Bear said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

Quote:

---

Warren's plans for child care, housing and green manufacturing would spur economic growth and produce more tax revenue. Considering the economic impact of all her proposals (an analysis no one has done yet), it is very possible that total government revenues generated by her plans will exceed the total amount of new investments she proposes

---

That is the kind of analysis we are getting. I will give you all the government benefits you want and we will actually make more money.

She knows full well that she cannot fund this plan without Americans paying into the system what they currently pay. Which is what Bernie proposes. If we could ever convince Americans to make the leap to Medicare for all, a payroll tax essentially shifting the money paid into insurance today, and it is exactly the system Americans are used to with social security and medicare. It is easily sellable and builds on a current system so adds little administration cost or burden. She knows that is how it has to work. She got hammered at the debate so she went back and came up with a ridiculously complicated plan to theoretically pay for it without taxing anyone. It was a political ploy. If she were serious about passing the plan, this would not be her proposal.

---

You seem to not understand big progressive policies. One of the benefits of prudent safety net policies is that they do grow the economy and drive up tax revenues.

Case in point - social security and medicare. Does their existence grow the economy? Of course they do because if they didn't exist aggregate demand would go way down because people would fear winding up starving and crippled in their old age so they would save every penny.

How much tax revenue do these programs generate through higher economic growth relative to the costs of these programs (the benefits of these programs directly contributing to the economy anyway)? I dont know but I'm sure it is substantial.

The fact you don't understand this component of progressive economic policies tells me you are not the person to follow for information on these programs.

---

Consumption and investment have the same effect on GDP. Perhaps you should have taken an economics class (or remembered what they taught you in that class).

---

You're going to have to elaborate because I don't follow how what you said relates to what I said

---

Case in point - social security and medicare. Does their existence grow the economy? Of course they do because if they didn't exist aggregate demand would go way down because people would fear winding up starving and crippled in their old age so they would save every penny.

---

Wait a second. . . Your argument here is that if I buy a stock in the secondary capital markets (or a bond or put money in a savings account) you think that is part of the "I" in the GDP equation ?

It is you, not me, that needs to go back to school.

BearsWiin said:

---

He equated Liz's M4A revenue proposals to Reaganesque trickle-down economics. Jawdropping.

---

I'm not equating them on moral grounds. My response to Reagan trickle-down economics was always give the tax cuts and spending to the poor and middle class who will immediately spend it thus juicing the economy just as much, and they will buy stuff from rich people at least the poor and middle class will have had one shot at the money in the cycle.

It basically boils down to this. Reagan said tax cuts will juice the economy and thus increase tax revenue. That is why it was called voodoo economics. Warren says spending will juice the economy and thus increase tax revenue. It is a pipe dream that either would do that in any major way. As for dajo's argument about "big progressive policies", using social security as an example, so I guess social security is free now, then.

I'm for big progressive policies. And big progressive policies require taxes to pay for them. In my opinion investing our tax dollars in big progressive policies has a great return on investment in terms of benefit to society compared to other government spending. But they do not raise tax revenue to pay for themselves. You need the taxes to pay for them.

Again, you cannot increase government spending by 25% without bringing in revenue from the vast majority of tax payers. It isn't possible.

BearsWiin said:

---

This guy disagrees

https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/13/perspectives/elizabeth-warren-medicare-for-all-taxes-middle-class/index.html

---

Let me address one issue in your article. On the wealth tax the article says

Quote:

---

Criticism that Warren is overestimating the revenue she can hope to generate from the wealth tax is overblown. She addresses these concerns by saying she will empower and appropriately fund the Internal Revenue Service to go after those who willfully avoid paying their taxes. Enforcing our tax laws and best practices on tax compliance can generate significant revenue. Closing America's tax gap the difference between taxes owed and taxes paid would help Warren get the revenue she needs

---

This has no grounding in reality. She has experts talking about wealth tax theoretically. There is ample evidence of how wealth taxes have worked in practice.

9 European countries enacted wealth taxes decades ago and have since eliminated them simply because they did not work. They had very high administrative costs and poor return. You are creating a whole new tax which creates a whole new requirement of producing valuations. You have a yacht, has to be valued. Jewelry. Has to be valued. Car. Has to be valued. How much do you think it is going to cost the IRS in time and expense to track all that down while expensive accountants and lawyers are minimizing it at every turn? I can tell you that the government index says my house is worth about 60% what I can get for it on the market.

There are 3 European countries with national wealth taxes. Two of them bring in little revenue even though the tax reaches down under $200K of wealth. Belgium just started a wealth tax on securities 2 years ago so the jury is still out. However, it is safe to say that Europe's experience is that wealth taxes have failed to bring in much revenue. Why do you think we will succeed?

Quote:

---

"They can be really difficult to administer and ensure even a moderate compliance rate," Daniel Bunn, the director of Global Projects at the nonpartisan Tax Foundation, told Business Insider of the European wealth tax experience.
He added that it became difficult for governments to justify the high administrative cost of enforcement as the rich were able to move assets and capital out of the country into lower-taxed jurisdictions, often within Europe.
Instead, Bunn said, European countries did away with it and doubled down on enforcing income taxes among others.

---

That bolded part is even more important for the US. There is an amendment to the Constitution that explicitly allows for an INCOME tax that is not apportioned directly to the states. Otherwise it was held to be unconstitutional. A wealth tax was not included in the amendment. It will face very serious court challenges if passed. Increasing capital gains taxes and adding a higher income tax bracket for the wealthy and eliminating the ability to reset the clock on capital gains on death are all already constitutional

If passed a wealth tax would require a completely new process to administer. Income taxes are already calculated. You are just changing the rates. Payroll taxes already have a system. You are just adding to it. No new administrative burden.

As a new tax, there is ample opportunity for accountants and lawyers to find tax avoidance techniques that they are not doing now because there is no tax. In Europe people just moved assets to countries that didn't have a wealth tax. There would be less of this with income tax because they are already taxes that the wealthy pretty much employ every technique they can to avoid. There isn't much they can do that they aren't already doing.

A wealth tax will also never pass. It is basically philosophically a taking of property by the government and philosophically that is a bedrock principle no-no in our nation's history. Tax income if you must, but the federal government does not take property.

Then lastly, she is using the (ridiculously inflated) revenue multiple times over to pay for her plans. It is like if little Timmy says "Mom. I want a candy bar." Mom says "That costs a dollar. Where will you get that?" "The next door neighbor says he'll give me a dollar to mow the lawn" "Okay!". "Mom. I want a soda." Mom says "That costs a dollar. Where will you get that?" "The next door neighbor says he'll give me a dollar to mow the lawn" "Okay!" "Mom. I want a toy." Mom says "That costs a dollar. Where will you get that?" "The next door neighbor says he'll give me a dollar to mow the lawn" "Okay!" Over and over.

My issue is not that she has a different way of raising revenue than I would. It is that she is proposing something that might sound okay but is practically speaking so monumentally stupid there is no way I believe that she believes it. That makes her a liar.

On the wealth tax: does the free products I get from Facebook, Google, Bear Insider (assuming I'm not a subscriber) add to my wealth? Google's free products certainly add value to our business. MIT economists found their values are high relative to the other goods because so many people find these services are essential to their jobs or everyday living, making them reluctant to give up these goods even in exchange for high monetary values. But that value is not income under current IRS rulings. If it isn't income and it adds value, it must then be wealth? What is left, right? Forget all the battles about value of art or yachts or whatever the rich supposedly have lurking in their toy closet. Or even attempting to somehow qualify closely held businesses or intangibles. Defining and quantifying wealth is an absurdly hard and time consuming thing to do. Bette to have a luxury tax on specific items.

dajo9 said:

---

Professor Turgeson Bear said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Professor Turgeson Bear said:

---

Consumption and investment have the same effect on GDP. Perhaps you should have taken an economics class (or remembered what they taught you in that class).

---

You're going to have to elaborate because I don't follow how what you said relates to what I said

---

Case in point - social security and medicare. Does their existence grow the economy? Of course they do because if they didn't exist aggregate demand would go way down because people would fear winding up starving and crippled in their old age so they would save every penny.

---

Wait a second. . . Your argument here is that if I buy a stock in the secondary capital markets (or a bond or put money in a savings account) you think that is part of the "I" in the GDP equation ?

It is you, not me, that needs to go back to school.

---

You should never argue economics with an economics major.
https://snbchf.com/monetary-fiscal-policy/what-drives-the-economy-consumer-spending-or-savinginvestment/

You are operating under the Paradox of Thrift, a Keynesian theory that is outdated.

From the above link:

Quote:

---

It is vital to have a proper balance in the economy between consumption and saving/investment. Both are necessary to the foundation of wealth and prosperity. But consumer spending should not be promoted at the expense of saving and investment.


Be wary of statements such as:
"Consumer spending drives the economy."
"Consumer spending represents two-thirds of the economy."
"Increasing saving won't help the economy."

Remember that saving is an important ingredient of economic performance over the long run. Tax cuts that encourage saving and investment more than consumption are not necessarily bad. Avoid statements such as:
"Tax cuts won't stimulate the economy if they are saved." Or:
"Tax cuts for the wealthy are ineffective because the wealthy spend less than the middle class."

---

Professor Turgeson Bear said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Professor Turgeson Bear said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

Professor Turgeson Bear said:

---

Consumption and investment have the same effect on GDP. Perhaps you should have taken an economics class (or remembered what they taught you in that class).

---

You're going to have to elaborate because I don't follow how what you said relates to what I said

---

Case in point - social security and medicare. Does their existence grow the economy? Of course they do because if they didn't exist aggregate demand would go way down because people would fear winding up starving and crippled in their old age so they would save every penny.

---

Wait a second. . . Your argument here is that if I buy a stock in the secondary capital markets (or a bond or put money in a savings account) you think that is part of the "I" in the GDP equation ?

It is you, not me, that needs to go back to school.

---

You should never argue economics with an economics major.
https://snbchf.com/monetary-fiscal-policy/what-drives-the-economy-consumer-spending-or-savinginvestment/

You are operating under the Paradox of Thrift, a Keynesian theory that is outdated.

From the above link:

Quote:

---

It is vital to have a proper balance in the economy between consumption and saving/investment. Both are necessary to the foundation of wealth and prosperity. But consumer spending should not be promoted at the expense of saving and investment.


Be wary of statements such as:
"Consumer spending drives the economy."
"Consumer spending represents two-thirds of the economy."
"Increasing saving won't help the economy."

Remember that saving is an important ingredient of economic performance over the long run. Tax cuts that encourage saving and investment more than consumption are not necessarily bad. Avoid statements such as:
"Tax cuts won't stimulate the economy if they are saved." Or:
"Tax cuts for the wealthy are ineffective because the wealthy spend less than the middle class."

---

---

OMG our Bernie Sanders proponent really IS a Reaganomics supply sider. What a fraud.

It gets even better. Our Bernie Sanders "supporter" linked to an article by an economist from the Austrian school of economics, basically the opposite of everything Sanders supports economically.

A complete and total fraud. I don't know his agenda but now that I think about it, I really don't care. Exposed.

It seems out pal the Professor is contrarian troll. He's using his Bernie "cred" to discredit Liz Warren while he's really a RWNJ, tea bagger or Russkie. It really doesn't matter which.

Another Bear said:

---

It seems out pal the Professor is contrarian troll. He's using his Bernie "cred" to discredit Liz Warren while he's really a RWNJ, tea bagger or Russkie. It really doesn't matter which.

---

Yep, he's no more a Sanders supporter than oski003. Weird how RWNJ's are willing to spend so much energy on an obscure, meaningless forum promoting false personas propaganda. It's a weird mindset.

Or he's a Russkie from Petrograd. Here's his twitter profile.

https://twitter.com/ProfTurgeson?lang=en

What a waste of otherwise useful technology