How Hillary will pay for her universal healthcare plan

[Bronk]

Originally posted by MORAY37
That has to be the singular dumbest thing posted I've ever seen.

Please cite one instance where the above has happened.

Take Florida's new cut on property tax that just was just passed.  Suddenly municipalities are laying off fireman and police, and cutting education.... sounds like revenue must have gone up!

Handing out the extortion money to those unions over multi years had nada to to with it ehhh?

[john9001]

Originally posted by MORAY37

Suddenly municipalities are laying off fireman and police, and cutting education....  

why is it when a govt runs out of our money it's always fireman, police and education that get cut? Everyone else that works for govt must be more important.

[68Wooley]

Could always get the Chinese to pay for universal health care. They've been very accommodating over the last 8 years.

[TwentyFo]

Originally posted by lazs2

Look at your lives people...  every day it seems a new fee or tax is put on you.. most are hidden but they grow till one day you say "what is this $1 a month internet for negros fee on my cell phone?"

lazs

Seriously... you have some issues.

[TwentyFo]

I'm sorry to say, but taxes are a necessary evil. How are we going to be able to conduct a war and decrease taxes at the same time? Why wouldn't you want to increase taxes to atleast provide better equipment for the troops? Quit using political bias to justify your stances.

[Dos Equis]

See Rule #4

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Originally posted by TwentyFo
I'm sorry to say, but taxes are a necessary evil. How are we going to be able to conduct a war and decrease taxes at the same time? Why wouldn't you want to increase taxes to atleast provide better equipment for the troops? Quit using political bias to justify your stances.

Increasing taxes WILL NOT provide better equipment for the troops. Increasing taxes will not increase revenue. Look at the states with the highest taxes. They can't keep companies in their states to generate employment. You cannot tax your way to prosperity. You cannot tax your way to better roads, better schools, or anything else. The only thing you can tax your way into is bankruptcy. Political bias has nothing at all to do with it. Basic common sense and a fundamental grasp of economics has everything to do with it. Read Thomas Sowell instead of Karl Marx and Nikolai Lenin and you'll begin to understand that you cannot continue to take more and more from those who produce and expect them to continue to produce.

[Bronk]

Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Increasing taxes WILL NOT provide better equipment for the troops. Increasing taxes will not increase revenue. Look at the states with the highest taxes. They can't keep companies in their states to generate employment. You cannot tax your way to prosperity. You cannot tax your way to better roads, better schools, or anything else. The only thing you can tax your way into is bankruptcy..

Yup R.I. is an excellent example of this. don't believe it, just look it up.

[Trell]

isn't this the same way Mitt Romney  wants to pay for health care?,  or is his way a little more pro business?  He just want to start out by fining people that dont have it..


Democrats take the money for services
Republicans force people to pay big businesses for those services...

Difference,  The big businesses get rich.

[Shamus]

You forget that Romney is not a liberal democrat, therefore his idea is better ...oh wait they are the same idea, my bad.

shamus

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

No, Romney (and McCain) is a liberal Republican. The REAL Republicans, the CONSERVATIVE Republicans, (Duncan Hunter and Fred Thompson) are both out of the race. Once again leaving us the choice between the lesser of two evils, both in the primaries and the general election. As usual, we're screwed.

[bj229r]

There is an invisible line where increasing taxes anywhere past is counter-productive--it destroys incentive, or just forces people to hide their money from taxation, thus hiding it from our economy. Leftists don't acknowledge such a line exists, at least not in public


(note McCain was against afore-mentioned 2003 tax cuts)


link

In 2000 and 2001, the end of the dot-com bubble, the 9/11 attacks and a series of corporate scandals sent the economy into a tailspin. During the downturn, high taxes limited economic growth and kept receipts down. Although Americans were making some of the largest per-household tax payments in our nation's history, revenues plummeted in 2002 and 2003. When the major tax-relief measures kicked in, they restored the economy to health and helped deliver quarter after quarter of strong growth.

Republicans' decision to reduce taxes on capital gains and dividends provides a good case study in effective tax policy. When we enacted these measures in 2003, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that revenues would decline by $27 billion over the next two years. Instead, it turned out that the tax cut stimulated investment and increased revenues by $26 billion — a $53 billion difference.

link

In 1980, President Carter and his supporters in the Congress and news media asked, "how can we afford" presidential candidate Ronald Reagan's proposed tax cuts?

Mr. Reagan's critics claimed the tax cuts would lead to more inflation and higher interest rates, while Mr. Reagan said tax cuts would lead to more economic growth and higher living standards. What happened? Inflation fell from 12.5 percent in 1980 to 3.9 percent in 1984, interest rates fell, and economic growth went from minus 0.2 percent in 1980 to plus 7.3 percent in 1984, and Mr. Reagan was re-elected in a landslide.

 

 Despite the fact that federal revenues have varied little (as a percentage of GDP) over the last 40 years, there has been an enormous variation in top tax rates. When Ronald Reagan took office, the top individual tax rate was 70 percent and by 1986 it was down to only 28 percent. All Americans received at least a 30 percent tax rate cut; yet federal tax revenues as a percent of GDP were almost unchanged during the Reagan presidency (from 18.9 percent in 1980 to 18.1 percent in 1988).

What did change, however, was the rate of economic growth, which was more than 50 percent higher for the seven years after the Reagan tax cuts compared with the previous seven years. This increase in economic growth, plus some reductions in tax credits and deductions, almost entirely offset the effect of the rate reductions. Rapid economic growth, unlike government spending programs, proved to be the most effective way to reduce unemployment and poverty, and create opportunity for the disadvantaged.

[Xargos]

"Where am I?"
    "In the Village."
    "What do you want?"
    "Information."
    "Whose side are you on?"
    "That would be telling…. We want information. Information! INFORMATION!"
    "You won't get it."
    "By hook or by crook, we will."
    "Who are you?"
    "The new Number Two."
    "Who is Number One?"
    "You are Number Six."
    "I am not a number — I am a free man!"

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by Trell
isn't this the same way Mitt Romney  wants to pay for health care?,  or is his way a little more pro business?  He just want to start out by fining people that dont have it..


Democrats take the money for services
Republicans force people to pay big businesses for those services...

Difference,  The big businesses get rich.

Itgs a little deeper then that difference.
Lets look at Hillarys plan for example.
Now lets call it what it really is.

Its another form of social security tax.

really I shouldnt even need to say anymore then that.

Would have worked great if both parties left it alone to do and be there for what it was intended for.
Problem is. they dont.
What happened with social security? Soon as it showed a surplus. the government started borrowing from it.
Problem is. They never bother to pay it bac.
End result, a Social security shortfall. Now there isnt enough money in it to provide for those that put it there.

True Big businesses get rich. thats what businesses large or small are in business for.
Im not in business to loose money or break even.

equally true is with most government social programs. the money gets mismanaged.
And instead of big business getting rich. Its the local polititions and their cronies who get rich instead.

Just look at the New Orleans levi situation.

Millions put in to fix the levis. Most of it went not to fix the levies but into the local polititions pockets.

Either way. we loose

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by angelsandair
Well on my signature, i have the quotes of an actual speech that Hillary Clinton said.

"We are taking the rights away from the people for their own good"-Hillary Clinton

Wouldnt happen to have the speach she said that in handy or the source would ya?

I'd like to use it. but it makes it a little bit more legitimate if it can be showed in its entirety