sunsporter1649 · 70-79, M
View 17 more replies »
@sunsporter1649 strangely, there are a hell of a lot of millionaires and billionaires who describe themselves as socialist. and when the masses start talking about eating the rich, they all of a sudden get nervous and go missing. LOL
whowasthatmaskedman · 70-79, M
@ReptilianFromPlanetCrush Now thats true.. Largely because the more enlightened rich have run the numbers and know it costs them less to support and assist the people who work for them and buy from them, So they can keep doing that, than run them into the ground.😷
jackjjackson · M
Don’t you just hate it when your words are twisted like a pretzel to be the opposite of what you said? @ReptilianFromPlanetCrush
fun4us2b · M
Debt is outpacing spending and our spending actually needs to increase to cover the recent mistakes....I hate fuckin politics....and everyone hates me because I'm a moderate, they say I'm a no good fence sitter....but we need actual management grade super smart people to come in and properly run things - not a bunch of law school drop outs and failed business hacks...*ducks and runs* but whatever...
whowasthatmaskedman · 70-79, M
@fun4us2b An excellent summary in street language. But its too late for this to be managed. America is having to borrow to meet the interest payments on what it already borrowed. Place borrowing more just to get to the next budget.. And interest rates will rise further. Or inflation will drain the future value out of the $US. Those are the choices..😷
jackjjackson · M
Your phone is ringing. There’s a MR GF on the line for you. @whowasthatmaskedman
Northwest · M
https://www.wsj.com/finance/investing/bonds-are-getting-hammered-and-wall-street-says-the-rout-wont-end-anytime-soon-895e0ad8
Bonds Are Getting Hammered, and Wall Street Says the Rout Won’t End Anytime Soon
With yields on 30-year U.S. Treasurys at 19-year highs, investors predict a new era in the bond market. And it looks a lot like 2007.
Bonds Are Getting Hammered, and Wall Street Says the Rout Won’t End Anytime Soon
With yields on 30-year U.S. Treasurys at 19-year highs, investors predict a new era in the bond market. And it looks a lot like 2007.
trollslayer · 51-55, M
whowasthatmaskedman · 70-79, M
@trollslayer Sadly I think the terrorists are in control of the plane and locked in the cabin. Its too late to stop this..(And I dont think a change of government will do anythinng constructive at this point. Although Trump certainly sped things up)😷
whowasthatmaskedman · 70-79, M
@Convivial And chances are that ONE wont be American. The Chinese can afford to throw more money and more resources and not have to produce immediatee results in favour of getting it right. Look where BYD has gone on that formula..😷
whowasthatmaskedman · 70-79, M
@BohoBabe Exactly. This goes all the way back to Nixon, and there is plenty of blame on all sides..Its not about politics. The nation has been stuffing itself at the buffet for decades and the bill is arriving..😷
Thinkerbell · 41-45, F
Ok, so I watched the whole 7 minutes of this clip, and NEVER ONCE did they mention in actual numbers precisely what this awful interest rate spike in long term bonds really is. Did I just waste 7 minutes of my life...? 🤔
And on another matter:
Um... before we do that, we have to eliminate the $2 trillion annual federal budget deficit, so I looked up some numbers.
The US federal government takes in about $2.5 trillion in individual income taxes. The top 1% of households in the US (which have $800 thousand or more in annual income) pay about 40% of the $2.5 trillion, or about $1 trillion total. These households currently pay an effective tax rate of about 26%.
https://theworlddata.com/top1-income-in-us/
If we now double the effective tax rate on these top earning households from 26% to 50%, they will now contribute about $2 trillion to the budget, an increase of $1 trillion over their current $1 trillion, which would only cover about half of the current government spending deficit of $2 trillion.
So no, I don't see how raising the tax rate on incomes of $1 million or more to 50% would make what you say possible. It doesn't even cover the current deficit, much less the proposed new "freebies." What am I missing...? 🤔
And on another matter:
"And we can pay for it all [free health care, free college, free housing, etc] by adding an income tax rate of 50% for all incomes over $1 Million."
Um... before we do that, we have to eliminate the $2 trillion annual federal budget deficit, so I looked up some numbers.
The US federal government takes in about $2.5 trillion in individual income taxes. The top 1% of households in the US (which have $800 thousand or more in annual income) pay about 40% of the $2.5 trillion, or about $1 trillion total. These households currently pay an effective tax rate of about 26%.
https://theworlddata.com/top1-income-in-us/
If we now double the effective tax rate on these top earning households from 26% to 50%, they will now contribute about $2 trillion to the budget, an increase of $1 trillion over their current $1 trillion, which would only cover about half of the current government spending deficit of $2 trillion.
So no, I don't see how raising the tax rate on incomes of $1 million or more to 50% would make what you say possible. It doesn't even cover the current deficit, much less the proposed new "freebies." What am I missing...? 🤔
Thinkerbell · 41-45, F
@whowasthatmaskedman
OK, but the question remains: where to make the cuts?
As you can see from the chart, almost half of US expenditures presently go for Medicare and Social Security. Even if military spending were cut to zero, there would not be enough money to extend Medicare to everyone, unless the quality of that care were substantially reduced and/or doctors were paid a lot less (what would the American Medical Association say about that?).
That leaves only the "discretionary" pie slice to provide all the other proposed freebies. Doesn't work without massive tax hikes, and not just on the wealthy. The middle class would also be hit very hard.
OK, but the question remains: where to make the cuts?
As you can see from the chart, almost half of US expenditures presently go for Medicare and Social Security. Even if military spending were cut to zero, there would not be enough money to extend Medicare to everyone, unless the quality of that care were substantially reduced and/or doctors were paid a lot less (what would the American Medical Association say about that?).
That leaves only the "discretionary" pie slice to provide all the other proposed freebies. Doesn't work without massive tax hikes, and not just on the wealthy. The middle class would also be hit very hard.
whowasthatmaskedman · 70-79, M
@Thinkerbell I really should bail here, because as I said, I am about the numbers. Not the politics. But I do have a thought or two you might be interested in.US medical costs can historically be up to ten times what they are in other western countries for the same service or equipment. Use Japan, Canada or Australia as an example. I feel this is linked to universal health cover. Heres my logic. A government that covers the health costs of its citizens keeps close oversight on the Procedures, pharmaceuticals and equipment in use. Going back some years, an MRI machine made in Japan, cost a Japanese Hospital ten percent of what the same spec MRI machine made by GE in America cost an American hospital. And I dont think I have to point out some of the excesses of the US pharmaceutical industry. My point being that US medical costs really shouldnt be as high as they are. And The Pentagon really should be looking to procure what it needs to defend America. Not attack everywhere in the world.. But again. Thats politics..😷
Thinkerbell · 41-45, F
@whowasthatmaskedman
You are right, American medical costs are excessive, but nowhere near by a factor of 10. I checked the numbers. In Canada, the government spends about $5,000 USD per capita for health care. The corresponding per capita figure for American Medicare and Medicaid is about $10,000 USD, so it's greater by about a factor of 2, but actually less than that, since older people are more likely to be seriously ill than younger ones.
That's strictly by the numbers, not politics.
You are right, American medical costs are excessive, but nowhere near by a factor of 10. I checked the numbers. In Canada, the government spends about $5,000 USD per capita for health care. The corresponding per capita figure for American Medicare and Medicaid is about $10,000 USD, so it's greater by about a factor of 2, but actually less than that, since older people are more likely to be seriously ill than younger ones.
That's strictly by the numbers, not politics.
AthrillatheHunt · 56-60, M
@AthrillatheHunt nobody wants to face that reality. or what it would ever take to fix it.
AthrillatheHunt · 56-60, M
@ReptilianFromPlanetCrush yup. Playing the role of bad cop would doom that party for 3/4 election cycles just by mentioning it .
jackjjackson · M
jackjjackson · M
Your statements are ridiculous and correcting you is a waste of my taste. @whowasthatmaskedman
whowasthatmaskedman · 70-79, M
@jackjjackson Then feel free to stop wasting it..😷
jackjjackson · M
I did a long time ago. When I bother it’s to make for of you for writing them. @whowasthatmaskedman