Sanders to raise taxes, destroy healthcare

[pErvinalia]

But then again I don't expect somebody else to pay for my medical care. If I need it I'll either ask politely for help or I'll do without

Ask who?

Someone who I think might be willing to voluntarily assist me.

So you'd rather sponge off friends and relatives than have a national insurance system.

A government-run "insurance" system? Absolutely! Government can do NOTHING more efficiently or at lower cost than private enterprise.

It does healthcare at lower cost in almost all other advanced nations, as you've been shown evidence for repeatedly. Why do you keep lying?

[pErvinalia]

What's democracy got to do with the fact that spending more than we take in in tax receipts is a problem?

Who elected the people who do the spending? Who elected the people who cut the taxes? Do you think "government" is some intelligent alien entity that dropped down from the sky that does all this sua sponte?

Democracy got you the people who authorize the spending and democracy got you the people who cut taxes, so it's democracy that's fucking you in the ass. You love democracy so bend over and smile, princess, because you're getting exactly what you wished for, democracy, good and hard.

Now shut the fuck up.

Again, that says nothing about whether structural deficits are a PROBLEM or not. I can't believe after three attempts you still don't get what's going on. Democracy has nothing to do with whether it is a PROBLEM or not. It's a PROBLEM independent of the way it came about. Surely even you can understand this??

[Seth]

It does healthcare at lower cost in almost all other advanced nations, as you've been shown evidence for repeatedly. Why do you keep lying?

I don't, you keep being stupid.

And no it doesn't. It's bankrupting every country that uses it. Oh wait, you mean it lowers the amount YOU have to pay out of your pocket. Well, that may or may not be true, depending on whether the government thinks you're worth treating and can find someone to do it for the shitty pay they offer medical professionals, but the reason is because it has to steal it from everybody else's pocket to do so, and government automatically skims at least 30 percent of those ill-gotten gains right off the top merely to run the massive and inefficient bureaucracy required to run the system.

Socialized medicine is a sinecure for government bureaucrats first and foremost. For an excellent example of how well government run healthcare works take a look at the US Veterans Administration health care system. The new VA medical center in Denver was budgeted for 650 million and is now at more than 1.4 BILLION and it's not even finished yet.

And that's small potatoes.

The UK economy is about to implode due to the massive cost overruns of the NHS.

[Seth]

What's democracy got to do with the fact that spending more than we take in in tax receipts is a problem?

Who elected the people who do the spending? Who elected the people who cut the taxes? Do you think "government" is some intelligent alien entity that dropped down from the sky that does all this sua sponte?

Democracy got you the people who authorize the spending and democracy got you the people who cut taxes, so it's democracy that's fucking you in the ass. You love democracy so bend over and smile, princess, because you're getting exactly what you wished for, democracy, good and hard.

Now shut the fuck up.

Again, that says nothing about whether structural deficits are a PROBLEM or not.

Don't be stupider than you have been. The pejorative implication of your statement it perfectly clear and now you're trying to backpedal and move the goalposts.

I can't believe after three attempts you still don't get what's going on. Democracy has nothing to do with whether it is a PROBLEM or not. It's a PROBLEM independent of the way it came about. Surely even you can understand this??

It's only a problem if you consider the dearth of tax revenues flowing into the government to be a "structural deficit." Sane people like to call it "putting government on a diet" or "austerity programs" or other monikers that make it clear that just because government isn't getting what it wants and thinks it needs doesn't make it a problem for anyone but government bureaucrats in peril of having their paychecks withheld or losing their jobs.

You falsely assume that by anointing government spending as a sacred duty a "structural deficit" caused by a lack of tax revenues is a bad thing. It's not, it's a good thing.

In any event, you're merely trying to weasel out of the fact that whatever might be going on that you object to because taxes aren't high enough is the direct product of democratic determinism, it's just that you're on the "you're fucked" side of the issue and you don't like it. And therein lies the conundrum an ignorant socialist dupe who thinks that "democracy" is a good thing faces. You're damned if you bitch and you're fucked if you don't.

[pErvinalia]

It does healthcare at lower cost in almost all other advanced nations, as you've been shown evidence for repeatedly. Why do you keep lying?

I don't, you keep being stupid.

And no it doesn't. It's bankrupting every country that uses it.

No it hasn't. The US has a larger debt to GDP ratio than most of the countries with socialised medicine. More lying. Will you ever stop?

Oh wait, you mean it lowers the amount YOU have to pay out of your pocket.

No, the entire system is cheaper to run. We've provided you with endless publications to show you this. Your only defence is an idiotic Marxist conspiracy theory. :crazy:

The UK economy is about to implode due to the massive cost overruns of the NHS.

It's about to implode because of austerity.

[pErvinalia]

What's democracy got to do with the fact that spending more than we take in in tax receipts is a problem?

Who elected the people who do the spending? Who elected the people who cut the taxes? Do you think "government" is some intelligent alien entity that dropped down from the sky that does all this sua sponte?

Democracy got you the people who authorize the spending and democracy got you the people who cut taxes, so it's democracy that's fucking you in the ass. You love democracy so bend over and smile, princess, because you're getting exactly what you wished for, democracy, good and hard.

Now shut the fuck up.

Again, that says nothing about whether structural deficits are a PROBLEM or not.

Don't be stupider than you have been. The pejorative implication of your statement it perfectly clear and now you're trying to backpedal and move the goalposts.

What the fuck are you wibbling on about? I made a perfectly clear point that most neoliberal countries have structural deficits due to reduced taxation over the last 30 odd years. I used this fact as a justification for Sander's idea to raise taxes. You've been banging on about democracy for fuck knows reason. My point is simple and clear. Your point is addled and confused, as usual.

I can't believe after three attempts you still don't get what's going on. Democracy has nothing to do with whether it is a PROBLEM or not. It's a PROBLEM independent of the way it came about. Surely even you can understand this??

It's only a problem if you consider the dearth of tax revenues flowing into the government to be a "structural deficit." Sane people like to call it "putting government on a diet" or "austerity programs" or other monikers that make it clear that just because government isn't getting what it wants and thinks it needs doesn't make it a problem for anyone but government bureaucrats in peril of having their paychecks withheld or losing their jobs.

WTF?!? You initially agreed with me that it was a problem. Now you are saying that spending more than you tax is NOT a bad thing?!? Really? You think running deficits is a good thing? Your arguments are getting more and more confused as the last few months have gone on. Time to retire, champ.

You falsely assume that by anointing government spending as a sacred duty a "structural deficit" caused by a lack of tax revenues is a bad thing. It's not, it's a good thing.

Structural deficit is a GOOD thing?!? You're off your tree.

In any event, you're merely trying to weasel out of the fact that whatever might be going on that you object to because taxes aren't high enough is the direct product of democratic determinism, it's just that you're on the "you're fucked" side of the issue and you don't like it. And therein lies the conundrum an ignorant socialist dupe who thinks that "democracy" is a good thing faces. You're damned if you bitch and you're fucked if you don't.

I've said absolutely nothing about democracy. That's an addled strawman that you've invented, as usual.

[Seth]

It does healthcare at lower cost in almost all other advanced nations, as you've been shown evidence for repeatedly. Why do you keep lying?

I don't, you keep being stupid.

And no it doesn't. It's bankrupting every country that uses it.

No it hasn't. The US has a larger debt to GDP ratio than most of the countries with socialised medicine.

Non sequitur.

Oh wait, you mean it lowers the amount YOU have to pay out of your pocket.

No, the entire system is cheaper to run.

No it's not, it's just that the medicine provided is substantially inferior and harder to obtain...like having to wait months to get a simple MRI or being denied health care entirely because you're too expensive to treat. So much for the "free healthcare for all" bullshit.

We've provided you with endless publications to show you this.

You've provided endless Marxist propaganda, that much is true.

Your only defence is an idiotic Marxist conspiracy theory. :crazy:

The truth remains the truth even if you don't like it.

The UK economy is about to implode due to the massive cost overruns of the NHS.

It's about to implode because of austerity.

Austerity was implemented because the government was spending massively more than it could possibly collect, so no.

Your problem is that you want your goodies and largess from the public treasury even if it does bankrupt the nation for you to get it. That's the attitude of selfish pricks.

[Seth]

WTF?!? You initially agreed with me that it was a problem. Now you are saying that spending more than you tax is NOT a bad thing?!? Really? You think running deficits is a good thing? Your arguments are getting more and more confused as the last few months have gone on. Time to retire, champ.

Try again. I said nothing of the kind. I said running deficits is a BAD thing and that deficits are caused by rampant and out of control government spending authorized by liberal/left-wing elected officials who are pandering to the demands of the dependent class, which needs to be stopped.

[pErvinalia]

It does healthcare at lower cost in almost all other advanced nations, as you've been shown evidence for repeatedly. Why do you keep lying?

I don't, you keep being stupid.

And no it doesn't. It's bankrupting every country that uses it.

No it hasn't. The US has a larger debt to GDP ratio than most of the countries with socialised medicine.

Non sequitur.

WRong as usual. Failure to pay debts is the very definition of being bankrupt.

Oh wait, you mean it lowers the amount YOU have to pay out of your pocket.

No, the entire system is cheaper to run.

No it's not, it's just that the medicine provided is substantially inferior and harder to obtain

Non-sequitur. The two aren't mutually exclusive. So are you agreeing or disagreeing that it's cheaper outside the US or not

Your only defence is an idiotic Marxist conspiracy theory. :crazy:

The truth remains the truth even if you don't like it.

Do you realise how nuts this sounds? Seriously. Aren't you embarrassed?

The UK economy is about to implode due to the massive cost overruns of the NHS.

It's about to implode because of austerity.

Austerity was implemented because the government was spending massively more than it could possibly collect, so no.

actually yes. Austerity leads to less demand and higher unemployement (which leads to less demand, rinse repeat). That's why the UK is fucked. They have low demand and high unemployment. You can't run an economy like that.

Your problem is that you want your goodies and largess from the public treasury even if it does bankrupt the nation for you to get it. That's the attitude of selfish pricks.

Nup. I want rational economic policy, not neoliberal nepotism and corruption.

[pErvinalia]

WTF?!? You initially agreed with me that it was a problem. Now you are saying that spending more than you tax is NOT a bad thing?!? Really? You think running deficits is a good thing? Your arguments are getting more and more confused as the last few months have gone on. Time to retire, champ.

Try again. I said nothing of the kind. I said running deficits is a BAD thing and that deficits are caused by rampant and out of control government spending authorized by liberal/left-wing elected officials who are pandering to the demands of the dependent class, which needs to be stopped.

Nope. You said: "It's only a problem if....". That is, it's not always a problem. That is, sometimes a structural deficit is good or neutral. That's utterly retarded. You can't run an economy where you take in less than you spend because of financial structural reasons. You can do it from time to time for investment purposes, but to do it all the time is utterly retarded economic thinking that I would have thought even you could see that idiocy of.

[Seth]

WRong as usual. Failure to pay debts is the very definition of being bankrupt.

A high GDP to debt ratio isn't bankruptcy. The pertinent question is whether or not the nation CAN pay it's debts, which the US can and the UK cannot.

Oh wait, you mean it lowers the amount YOU have to pay out of your pocket.

No, the entire system is cheaper to run.

No it's not, it's just that the medicine provided is substantially inferior and harder to obtain

Non-sequitur. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

They are exactly mutually exclusive. You can have cheap medicine or you can have good medicine, but you can't have both.

So are you agreeing or disagreeing that it's cheaper outside the US or not

A Lada is cheaper than a Mercedes Benz. That doesn't make them equal in any way at all.



Austerity was implemented because the government was spending massively more than it could possibly collect, so no.
[/quote]

actually yes.

And why was it doing that? Because it was pandering to the lumpen proletarian demand for "free" health care, which isn't even remotely "free," ever.

Austerity leads to less demand and higher unemployement (which leads to less demand, rinse repeat). That's why the UK is fucked. They have low demand and high unemployment. You can't run an economy like that.

This presumes that the government is the source of wealth, which is not the case. Austerity leads to less government spending which means lower tax burdens and thus more capital being available for generating wealth, which generates jobs, which generates wealth, rinse, repeat.

Your problem is that you want your goodies and largess from the public treasury even if it does bankrupt the nation for you to get it. That's the attitude of selfish pricks.

Nup. I want rational economic policy, not neoliberal nepotism and corruption.

Capitalism is rational economic policy. The only rational economic policy in fact. Moreover you have provided zero evidence that "neoliberal nepotism and corruption" is in fact the case anywhere.

[Seth]

WTF?!? You initially agreed with me that it was a problem. Now you are saying that spending more than you tax is NOT a bad thing?!? Really? You think running deficits is a good thing? Your arguments are getting more and more confused as the last few months have gone on. Time to retire, champ.

Try again. I said nothing of the kind. I said running deficits is a BAD thing and that deficits are caused by rampant and out of control government spending authorized by liberal/left-wing elected officials who are pandering to the demands of the dependent class, which needs to be stopped.

Nope. You said: "It's only a problem if....". That is, it's not always a problem. That is, sometimes a structural deficit is good or neutral. That's utterly retarded. You can't run an economy where you take in less than you spend because of financial structural reasons.

Exactly. So what does a rational economy do? Cut spending.

Irrational economies run by Marxist fuckwits turn the equation on its head and assume that all government spending is both rationally necessary and utterly immune from being wasteful, inefficient, corrupt and socially destructive. Further, Marxist fuckwits think that the solution to spending too much is to tax more rather than cutting spending, which is pure idiocy.

[pErvinalia]

....

[pErvinalia]

WRong as usual. Failure to pay debts is the very definition of being bankrupt.

A high GDP to debt ratio isn't bankruptcy. The pertinent question is whether or not the nation CAN pay it's debts, which the US can and the UK cannot.

You claimed that countries with socialised medicine have gone bankrupt. So which ones? Australia, Canada, Scandanavia, Germany, Netherlands etc haven't gone bankrupt. And the US can't pay it's debts back. This is widely acknowledged even by you in the past (where you've said Merka can do what it likes and not pay the debts back). What's retarded about this is that you don't seem to understand that GDP is the best measure of economic activity to determine whether debts can be repaid. A high debt to GDP ratio is an indicator that you are in greater debt and will have greater trouble paying it back. And as I said, the US has higher debt to gdp ratio than most other advanced nations. Facts, Seth. I know they are inconvenient to your biased world view. But you don't get to invent your own facts. Sorry, champ.

Oh wait, you mean it lowers the amount YOU have to pay out of your pocket.

No, the entire system is cheaper to run.

No it's not, it's just that the medicine provided is substantially inferior and harder to obtain

Non-sequitur. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

They are exactly mutually exclusive. You can have cheap medicine or you can have good medicine, but you can't have both.

Oh my god, I can't believe how far you have fallen from grace. You claimed that non-US healthcare is more expensive. You then claimed it is cheaper because (after again claiming it wasn't) it wasn't the same level of quality that the US enjoys. That's why they aren't mutually exclusive. You can have cheaper healthcare and less quality healthcare. This is so obvious I'm shocked I even need to point this out. Are you feeling ok at the moment? I'd suggest you probably need to seek some healthcare.

So are you agreeing or disagreeing that it's cheaper outside the US or not

A Lada is cheaper than a Mercedes Benz. That doesn't make them equal in any way at all.

Who said they are equal you dishonest fuck?!! All I said was that it's cheaper! So now you are yet again agreeing that it is cheaper outside the US than inside the US? Or are you wibbling something else now?!

Austerity leads to less demand and higher unemployement (which leads to less demand, rinse repeat). That's why the UK is fucked. They have low demand and high unemployment. You can't run an economy like that.

This presumes that the government is the source of wealth, which is not the case.

All government spending is economic activity. If you remove that from the equation, then you remove the associated revenue from the economy. This is basic stuff that even you should be able to understand.

Austerity leads to less government spending which means lower tax burdens

No it doesn't because austerity doesn't lower taxes, they have already been lowered over 30+ years leading to structural deficits. Austerity only cuts spending and employment. Both of which are a hit to an economy.

Your problem is that you want your goodies and largess from the public treasury even if it does bankrupt the nation for you to get it. That's the attitude of selfish pricks.

Nup. I want rational economic policy, not neoliberal nepotism and corruption.

Capitalism is rational economic policy. The only rational economic policy in fact. Moreover you have provided zero evidence that "neoliberal nepotism and corruption" is in fact the case anywhere.

[/quote]
You know very well that government policy is owned by big money and big industries (big coal, big oil, big pharma, big tobacco, military industrial complex etc). It could be argued that free market capitalism is rational (I'd argue otherwise, but at least proponents can assemble an argument in favour), but it's simply not possible to argue that nepotism and corruption is rational economic policy.

[Seth]

WRong as usual. Failure to pay debts is the very definition of being bankrupt.

A high GDP to debt ratio isn't bankruptcy. The pertinent question is whether or not the nation CAN pay it's debts, which the US can and the UK cannot.

You claimed that countries with socialised medicine have gone bankrupt. So which ones?

"Going", and all of them. It's an inexorable fact of mathematics and economics.

Oh my god, I can't believe how far you have fallen from grace. You claimed that non-US healthcare is more expensive.

To the economy, not to any particular individual thief.

You then claimed it is cheaper because (after again claiming it wasn't)

No, not "cheaper", "inferior."

it wasn't the same level of quality that the US enjoys.

As is demonstrably the case.

That's why they aren't mutually exclusive. You can have cheaper healthcare and less quality healthcare.

Yes, you can, but that's not what I said.

So are you agreeing or disagreeing that it's cheaper outside the US or not

A Lada is cheaper than a Mercedes Benz. That doesn't make them equal in any way at all.

Who said they are equal you dishonest fuck?!! All I said was that it's cheaper!

Yes, I know that's what you said, you dishonest fuck.

So now you are yet again agreeing that it is cheaper outside the US than inside the US? Or are you wibbling something else now?!

It's cheaper to the patient because it's inferior. It's more expensive to the taxpayers for the government to run it than for private industry to do so because of government inefficiency and bureaucratic overhead.

Do try to keep up.

Austerity leads to less demand and higher unemployement (which leads to less demand, rinse repeat). That's why the UK is fucked. They have low demand and high unemployment. You can't run an economy like that.

This presumes that the government is the source of wealth, which is not the case.

All government spending is economic activity.

Indeed, negative economic activity. Government creates nothing, it only consumes wealth and it does so by TAKING it from the productive class.

If you remove that from the equation, then you remove the associated revenue from the economy.

Untrue. "Government revenue" isn't created by the Revenue Fairy, it's taken from the taxpayers. And when its taken from the taxpayers it reduces the spendable capital of the taxpayer from whom it was taken, thus making that individual's spending on products and services for his benefit smaller, which reduces the demand for goods and services, which reduces production of goods and services, which drives up prices for increasingly unavailable goods and services, which costs consumers more, which slows the economy, which leads to layoffs and firings and bankruptcies, which leads to a failing economy.

The problem with your idiotic understanding is that you think that the general public and the economy benefit more from government spending than from consumer spending. This is simply not the case because regardless of the magnitude of government spending that actually drives production (of tanks, weapons, whatever) at least 30 percent if not more of the money the government has to steal from the taxpayers who earned it goes to the government bureaucracy that administers and manages government spending, and there is absolutely nothing more rife with fraud, waste and corruption than a government bureaucracy, and all of the money that goes to bureaucrats benefits nobody but the bureaucrats because it's stolen money to begin with that could have, and would have been better spent by the taxpayer who worked to earn it.

This is basic stuff that even you should be able to understand.

I do understand it. It's you who is utterly ignorant of economics.

Austerity leads to less government spending which means lower tax burdens

No it doesn't because austerity doesn't lower taxes, they have already been lowered over 30+ years leading to structural deficits. Austerity only cuts spending and employment. Both of which are a hit to an economy.

Um, austerity cuts TAX COLLECTION, which means that those uncollected (and therefore unspent by the government) taxes remain in the bank accounts of the people who earned them, who spend them on what THEY want to spend them on, not what the government wants to spend them on. Same result, minus the 30 or more percent of waste, fraud and corruption inherent in any government bureaucracy.

So, the dollar in taxes I don't have to pay to the government to pay for some fat-cat bureaucrat's big party or a JDAM is worth a dollar to me rather than being worth 70 cents (at best) to me by way of "benefits" provided by the government from that dollar, whatever form those benefits may take.

Your problem is that you want your goodies and largess from the public treasury even if it does bankrupt the nation for you to get it. That's the attitude of selfish pricks.

Nup. I want rational economic policy, not neoliberal nepotism and corruption.

Capitalism is rational economic policy. The only rational economic policy in fact. Moreover you have provided zero evidence that "neoliberal nepotism and corruption" is in fact the case anywhere.

[/quote]

You know very well that government policy is owned by big money and big industries (big coal, big oil, big pharma, big tobacco, military industrial complex etc).

No I don't and neither do you. Much less have you ever provided a single shred of evidence showing this to be true.

It could be argued that free market capitalism is rational (I'd argue otherwise, but at least proponents can assemble an argument in favour), but it's simply not possible to argue that nepotism and corruption is rational economic policy.

All you have to do now is prove that "nepotism" and "corruption" control the economy. Good luck with that.