|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Mar 22, 2016 19:43:07 GMT -6
Bryce they use a debt to,income ratio have been doing that for many years. Too much other debt and your not going to get a loan unless backed by the federal govt, the problem back in those days was banks where pushing loans thru on people with way too high debt to income ratio. Why? Because the Feds where backing such loans. Trying to give everyone the American Dream, when many could not afford the house payment as they where over financed and they moved many of those loans on the same day they closed on them. Banks surely had fault so did Barney Frank and Freddie and fanny.
Tman for not reading anything then how do you know I am wrong?
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Mar 23, 2016 6:38:20 GMT -6
I skim through then quickly, if its reposted stuff I don't even stop (meaning stuff you copy and paste) and I know those are wrong, because I've checked your sources for months and years, and always find they aren't real sources- so I don't waste my time-
what I keep saying- is rather that googling every post you make, why not be specific- which you NEVER do, with good reason, and actually debate?
bernies plans won't work-
WHAT plan and SPECIFICALLY tell me why it won't work
just you saying "they bad, me good" doesn't cut it
|
|
|
Post by bblwi on Mar 23, 2016 16:45:45 GMT -6
What do you think 25-30% of income is if not a debt ratio, always needs to be by your definition does it not, and no it is not totally the governments fault that the housing market went way too high, as we soon found out the system was set up to bail out the financial institutions that risked too much and not the people who bought too much house or were actually paid money to take on the loan by those selling mortgages on a percentage of loan volume basis. Sure the government has some fault but it is not the government's fault that those we feel should be business smart and ethical turned out to be neither and some not even legal at that.
Bryce
|
|
|
Post by RdFx on Mar 23, 2016 18:12:30 GMT -6
Bryce's comment hit the nail on the head (Sure the government has some fault but it is not the government's fault that those we feel should be business smart and ethical turned out to be neither and some not even legal at that.) Greedy would be another term !
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Mar 25, 2016 6:11:43 GMT -6
Yes it is a good portion of the govts fault they repealed the very act that kept banks under control, but again Freddie and Fannie was a govt boondoggle as well. Again lots of blame but to think the govt was just a tiny portion? no way dates backs years ago.
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Mar 25, 2016 6:14:12 GMT -6
Tman again the tax foundation laid out why any of Bernies plans as while will not work and I we also discussed why 15.00 min wage would do more harm than good, I also know an AR ban would do nothing as well. Just admit Bernies Plans are very socialist in nature and not the best thing for our country at all. Plenty of facts on the subjects he has brought up by many economist, which Bernie is surely not.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Mar 25, 2016 7:57:39 GMT -6
the tax foundation is a conservative think tank- I view their conclusions the same as I do Trumps or Cruzs- not worth the paper its written on.
so lets take 1 issue- $15 minimum wage-
you say it won't work- that it will cause inflation and reduc jobs.
and oyu aren't alone I nthinking that- the saem arguments have bene made by the same type of people every time the minimum wage was increased-
and what happened, each and everytime?
were the people, like you, that were against it- right?
and history shows us they not only were not right, but were damn wrong-
in that EVERY time it was increased, we had a period of prosperity, job growth, etc.
so pardon me, if I don't think the same 100 year old false arguments, are true this time around. after a while, one can see the sky is not falling, despite little chicks pointing to the sky.
so- in your words, why won't an increase in the minimum wage work?
include some of the $20 facts-
|
|
|
Post by bblwi on Mar 25, 2016 9:44:40 GMT -6
As long as you want to blame government then why not name the key senator that pushed that bill? Graham and he does not have a D in front of his name if your so against the Dem's for being bad financially. His bill allowed the sale of mortgages on the stock exchange because with housing going up so fast, money was not going into the Wall Street so he helped create a vehicle that would do both and yes that house of cards fell but only once so far, many are waiting for the next shoe to fall and it looks like it is the financial sector leading that one yet again.
Bryce
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Mar 25, 2016 9:48:52 GMT -6
banks that were too big to fail, are bigger and more consolidated now.
Bernie asks this question- if the millions given out to political candidates by Goldman-Sachs and B of A and other Wall Street corps do nothing to influence votes and trade agreements and legislation........why do they do it.
As Bernie says- Wall street is many things, but stupid isn't one of them
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Mar 26, 2016 6:22:36 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Mar 26, 2016 6:24:10 GMT -6
I think you will find the agreement is there that his expectations are unrealistic and would cost 18-20 trillion and make the central govt between 40-50 percent larger than any time back to WW II era.
He will not win the nomination and when liberials start saying he is too far left you know he has problems LOL.
Notice when they tried to make a single payer system in his small state of Vermont, they said the price tag and disruption was just too enormous to tackle LOL? That is in a very small state yet some think we can do it nation wide and not have major disruption and cost to the tax payers? Really? He is a pie in the sky type of guy wants to be the robin hood of 2016 and beyond and bankrupt our country for the sake fo wealth and goods redistribution ? No thanks and the reason he has no chance with his ideas or becoming president,
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Mar 26, 2016 12:59:43 GMT -6
I love how you provide links- but then don't bother to read more than the 1st sentence-
for example- Friedman calculated that with the extra taxes and some tweaks, Sanders’ plan would provide ample coverage and even generate a surplus of $51 billion. Meanwhile, he said, middle-class families would still save thousands, inequality in care and costs would be dramatically reduced, and the overall population would be healthier.
sounds good to me!
|
|
|
Post by bblwi on Mar 26, 2016 14:32:29 GMT -6
I did not infer that you had deleted Graham. I just wanted you to know that partisan politics creates very strange working relationships and issues for our citizens. You continue to bash Dem's on gun rights issues and there may be reason to believe that many want more gun laws than you prefer. It is also a well known truism that many of the far right GOP gun rights advocates support many policies that are directed to be very harmful to many Americans, many of whom are in the situations they are in at no real fault of their own but they make very good talking points for the Conservative elitists. I find the fact that many who condemn people like me for being to Centrist or progressive in their eyes and anti American in our political views never raised a hand to defend our rights, never were in a forward positon, or combat yet we are the weak Americans. In fact many of these patriots in voice only worked hard to avoid serving our nation and they are today praised for their wise choices.
Bryce
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Mar 27, 2016 6:25:54 GMT -6
Tman again you pick out the only positive from one person LOL. I knew you could find the needle in the haystack good job! The rest goes onto tell you why his ideas are off and would cost far more than anyone can afford and hurt our jobs and economy. Like the pint made running the numbers on healthcare even with all the taxes raised he is still 600 billion short of what was spent on health care last year. And that number we know will not be going down, so we know the Liberial left and emir answer is to raise taxes even more on the so called rich LOL. The pot has to go empty at some point.
For others to read and decide if sanders has any idea what he is doing also read the lefty NY times that are against the Bernies plan as well.
Sanders proposes to expand Medicare, the health safety net that covers those over 65, to all Americans. He hasn’t released a full plan yet, but he points to previous legislation he’s introduced, namely a 2013 bill for a single-payer Medicare-for-all system, as his general gameplan.
To pay for it, Sanders would impose broad-based taxes: a 6.7 percent payroll tax on employers and a 2.2 percent tax on individual incomes under $200,000 or joint incomes under $250,000. (Progressively higher rates for higher-income earners are described in his 2013 bill.)
Sanders’ campaign says his Medicare-for-all plan would save the average American family $3,855 to $5,173 in annual health care costs.
Instead of an insurance premium, a family making $50,000 — roughly the median family income — would only pay $1,100 in health care income taxes. That’s $3,855 less than what it would pay out-of-pocket for the average premium ($4,955, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation) and $5,173 less if a deductible ($1,318, for individual coverage) is factored in.
As for employers, the 6.7 percent payroll tax means employers would put up $3,350 for family coverage. That’s also thousands less than the average employer premium contribution of $12,591.
Health policy experts say, however, that listing the health care income tax as the only cost to families is misleading.
Missing details
It’s unclear whether Sanders would eliminate deductibles and co-pays. These costs currently exist under Medicare, and his 2013 bill makes no mention of changing the system. But the breakdown from his campaign lists both as $0.
The 6.7 percent payroll tax should also be counted as a worker cost, since it most likely would come out of wages rather than employers’ pockets, experts said. That’s because the sticker price of employer-based insurance isn’t what employers are actually spending.
Employers "pay nothing for insurance in reality," as health care is a fringe benefit of a total compensation package, said Gerard Anderson, a professor of health policy at Johns Hopkins University. So when employers stop providing insurance and are required to pay into single-payer, less money will be available for paychecks.
With this adjustment, the average family would save $505 to $1,823 a year.
Like a free lunch, of course, there ain’t no such thing as free health care. So where is the money to provide universal coverage coming from?
A clean bill of health?
As far as we can tell, Sanders’ plan has not yet been analyzed by independent think tanks or academics. So we ran back-of-the-envelope estimates for revenue from Sanders’ health care taxes using 2013 tax return data from the Internal Revenue Service.
By our napkin calculations, those making more than $200,000 — roughly the top 5 percent of income earners — would contribute about $117 billion to the single-payer system, while everyone else would pay in $126 billion. Payroll taxes yield an additional $432 billion for a total of $675 billion.
That’s still $599 billion short of what the country actually spent on health care in 2013 ($949 billion in premiums and $325 billion for out-of-pocket expenses, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services).
Sanders says his system would make up for that shortfall by trimming costs, as the government would have more leverage to negotiate with health providers.
Experts agreed that single-payer gets you more bang for your buck by reducing administrative overhead, hospital and doctor's’ fees, and prescription drug prices. But some say Sanders is overestimating the potential reductions.
With Sanders’ proposed taxes, costs would need to be trimmed by roughly 42 to 47 percent — a tall order when "the most generous estimates of how much you could cut cost are on the order of 20 percent," said Sherry Glied, a professor of health policy and economics at New York University who’s served in the George H.W. Bush, Clinton and Obama administrations.
"And there are a lot of people who don’t believe those numbers are possible," she said. "Single-payer saves money, but it doesn’t save all the money in the system."
Joseph Antos, a health policy economist with the conservative American Enterprise Institute, said, "The kind of money he’s talking about goes way beyond any plausible guess about how much inefficiency can be ‘wrung out of the system’ — a phrase that makes one think this should be easy when it is very difficult to do."
Brighter views
Others, however, are more optimistic that Sanders’ plan could be actuarially sound.
"The tax rates are probably on the low side of what would be necessary, but not out of the ballpark," said Peter Hussey, a healthy policy analyst at the RAND Corporation, adding that they would work only with significant cost savings and lower benefits.
Hussey pointed to other financing models with higher taxes. In Sanders’ own Vermont, the proposed single-payer state system would require a payroll tax of 11.5 percent and a sliding income tax of 0 to 9.5 percent. A national single-payer system would require a payroll tax of 11.7 percent, according to the National Institute for Health Care Reform.
Gerald Friedman, a health economist at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, analyzed a different 2013 Medicare-for-all bill proposed by Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., and concluded it would be enough to cover everyone, upgrade benefits and save the country $5 trillion over a decade.
But beyond a 6-percent income tax and a sliding payroll tax of 3 to 6 percent, that would require a financial transaction tax (Sanders included this in his 2013 bill but has since committed the tax to free college tuition) as well an estate tax, a capital gains tax and a cap on high-income tax deductions. (Sanders has proposed these but hasn’t said they’ll be used to pay for health care.)
Friedman calculated that with the extra taxes and some tweaks, Sanders’ plan would provide ample coverage and even generate a surplus of $51 billion. Meanwhile, he said, middle-class families would still save thousands, inequality in care and costs would be dramatically reduced, and the overall population would be healthier.
Bitter pills
Even if we set aside the issue of a potentially unbalanced ledger, experts point out several other problems with Sanders’ simple promise of savings.
First, it’s not guaranteed that workers will have the same quality or amount of care under a Medicare-for-all system.
Most employer-based health insurance policies currently have more comprehensive coverage than traditional Medicare, pointed out William Hsiao, a leading health economist at Harvard University who designed universal coverage systems for Vermont, China, Sweden, and South Africa, to name a few.
While Sanders argues that single-payer will make the health system more efficient, "we have seen no evidence of this from the Medicare program, whose cost has grown substantially faster than the economy for most of the last 50 years," Antos said.
Second, reduced costs could also create issues with access. Lower drug prices limit funding for research and development, lower physicians’ salaries disincentivize people going into medicine, lower fees could bankrupt hospitals, and people would have less choice in health plans, listed Hussey.
And finally, experts expressed skepticism that lawmakers would ever pass Sanders’ single-payer system, which would require a tax increase of hundreds of billions.
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Mar 27, 2016 6:33:08 GMT -6
Bryce you darn skippy that I am against any new gun laws that limit the freedoms of people and guns! Specially when the left touts these as life saving measures and ar needed, their is zero proof that they have ever done as they have prescribed. They use the terms to guise others into voting for such reduction in our rights.
We have to defend and protect our constitution and the amendments of such. Millions and millions have the same feelings on this issue and it does polarize people even further. Remember the gallop poll that stated 40 percent of the people who are pro gun would change a vote on the issue by itself and where someone stands, while others on he left say that only 20 percent would change on the issue of guns. 2-1
The programs you say could harm people, where is it shown that the republicans have harmed such? I do not remember for many years where they were harmed? Reagan,Bush,Bush what did they exactly do to harm the down trodden?
I am all for helping people that need it, but not those scamming the system and certainly not for those that want to widen the system even further as the end result is more people fitting under the umbrella of the central govt and more beholden to such.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Mar 27, 2016 7:49:12 GMT -6
what does the word "history" mean to you?
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Mar 27, 2016 8:11:40 GMT -6
a quote from Bernie, which will, like the roof, be over your head-
"You think I'm giving away free stuff?
WRONG!
I'm just suggesting your tax dollars get used for valuable public services instead of wasting billions on wall street bailouts, oil wars, and corporate subsidies.
Because its the BILLIONAIRES that are getting the free stuff!"
what a novel concept- and something TC and his hero Donald, just don't seem to get.
top 2 GOP candidates get swamped in a head to head with either Bernie or Hillary- so despite reading inane comments from those that rely on tag lines "women are pigs" "women should get on their knees" as TC's man Donald Trump continues to say, will be even more upset the day after the election
|
|
|
Post by bblwi on Mar 27, 2016 11:01:35 GMT -6
Pretty easy to say you will defend our Constitution, but talk is not costly, service is.
Bryce
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Mar 28, 2016 15:56:07 GMT -6
Tman betting he would say the same about Indian reservations as well..........
Playing Robin Hood and wealth redistribution is going to end up with some getting something for next to nothing.
Those that sign up for FREE college and do not graduate what is the penalty? Is Bernie going to make them pay it all back? If not that is called free.
Bryce, I have done public service and I also have many members of my family who served from World War II, through the Korean War, Vietnam and my brother served in the air force as do many others who give their time and put their lives on the line to protect our freedoms and constitution. I can bet you many have been and are appalled at the handling of our military under Obama. I knew a navy seal who retired once Clinton took office, he wanted nothing to do with him, he had very good reasons for such. Called it a career and took his pension.
They are also upset that some think they know what is best for all, like gun issues, when the facts clearly slap them in the face and tell those with anti gun sentiment that what they claim never work out and it is nothing more than a grab for guns and freedoms. No different than those that try and push things at funerals,taking away of the symbols of Christmas etc. we are a country going down the tubes, some can see it, others can't.
|
|
|
Post by bblwi on Mar 28, 2016 16:54:45 GMT -6
So you blame Obama for the state of our military as a way to duck the issue of not volunteering to serve when you had the chance if you believe so strongly in the Constitution. I am very willing to be that public service in our family and service in our wars is very high as well, and we don't go around making that an issue about politics that have little or nothing to do with the time frames when the need was there. The moment of integrity is not when it suits you it is when the situation calls for the need. I served our county in Nam for a president that lied to the nation but that did not deter my service or cause me to blame others for the situation I was called to serve for.
Bryce
|
|