Bernie Sanders: We Will Raise Taxes On Anyone Making Over $29,000 To Fund Government Health Care

[Flopper]

The Bottom Line....

If we totally BLEW UP all government health care and made it a totally FREE MARKET with posted online prices for reference....

PRICES WOULD DROP 70% in a year....


Want to cut the cost of health care??

Then CUT GOVERNMENT OUT OF IT, because for the duration of government's interference with health care starting with LBJ, health care costs have vastly outpaced inflation, and that's putting it mildly... Nurses make $150k per year!!!

The problem is not the government. It's, our "got mine" culture of entitlement. Politicians, never known for their bravery, precisely represent the people. Our leaders are paralyzed by the very thought of asking their constituents to make short-term sacrifices for long-term rewards. The writing is on wall, but no one wants to read it. The time to limit government in healthcare and a number of other parts of the economy has long past.

What we should be doing is making the system we have work better, because it's all we have and all we are going to have, short of some kind of apocalypse. There is no way the American people are going to support a government that does not provide for basic needs for those that can't support themselves because most Americans are beneficiaries of that support.

 

[LaDairis]

Our leaders are paralyzed by the very thought of asking their constituents to make short-term sacrifices for long-term rewards

BULLSHIT

Our "leaders" in the Congress ARE the PROBLEM.

They make our money VANISH.

Healthcare in America is 5 fold too expensive because "government" cannot resist the urge to steal, lie, and commit fraud.

 

[Zorro!]

All you rich folks making $14 an hour need to bear the burden.

Sanders: Families Making $29,000 Will ‘Pay More In Taxes’ For Medicare For All - The Partnership for America’s Health Care Future

And while these idiots drum their lips, Trump works on something meaningful:

IT’S NOT THE CRIME, IT’S THE COVERUP: Hospitals Sue Trump to Keep Negotiated Prices Secret.

“The nation’s hospital groups sued the Trump administration on Wednesday over a new federal rule that would require them to disclose the discounted prices they give insurers for all sorts of procedures.”​

Trump could always just ban price discrimination, and require them to charge the same price to all comers. I mean, if they’re so against disclosure. Meanwhile, the Trump Administration hits the right note:

“Hospitals should be ashamed that they aren’t willing to provide American patients the cost of a service before they purchase it.”​

 

[dblack]

All you rich folks making $14 an hour need to bear the burden.

Sanders: Families Making $29,000 Will ‘Pay More In Taxes’ For Medicare For All - The Partnership for America’s Health Care Future

And while these idiots drum their lips, Trump works on something meaningful:

IT’S NOT THE CRIME, IT’S THE COVERUP: Hospitals Sue Trump to Keep Negotiated Prices Secret.

“The nation’s hospital groups sued the Trump administration on Wednesday over a new federal rule that would require them to disclose the discounted prices they give insurers for all sorts of procedures.”​

Trump could always just ban price discrimination, and require them to charge the same price to all comers. I mean, if they’re so against disclosure. Meanwhile, the Trump Administration hits the right note:

“Hospitals should be ashamed that they aren’t willing to provide American patients the cost of a service before they purchase it.”​

Great. More big government regulation. Just what we need.

 

[Zorro!]

All you rich folks making $14 an hour need to bear the burden.

Sanders: Families Making $29,000 Will ‘Pay More In Taxes’ For Medicare For All - The Partnership for America’s Health Care Future

And while these idiots drum their lips, Trump works on something meaningful:

IT’S NOT THE CRIME, IT’S THE COVERUP: Hospitals Sue Trump to Keep Negotiated Prices Secret.

“The nation’s hospital groups sued the Trump administration on Wednesday over a new federal rule that would require them to disclose the discounted prices they give insurers for all sorts of procedures.”​

Trump could always just ban price discrimination, and require them to charge the same price to all comers. I mean, if they’re so against disclosure. Meanwhile, the Trump Administration hits the right note:

“Hospitals should be ashamed that they aren’t willing to provide American patients the cost of a service before they purchase it.”​

Great. More big government regulation. Just what we need.

Slip, slip, slipping: The Confiscation Is the Point: Progressives Admit It’s About Seizing Wealth, Not Helping People. “The confiscation of wealth alone is the whole point of the progressive enterprise.”

They hate you and want you dead. Or at least under the boot. Because they’re garbage people who compensate for their awfulness by exploiting and oppressing others.

The New York Times profiled a new group of progressive economic minds for whom economic principles are entirely irrelevant. “Generations of economists, across much of the ideological spectrum, have long held that higher taxes reduce investment, slowing economic growth,” the Times began. “Ms. Warren and other leading Democrats say the opposite.” Who are you going to trust?

This premise, it turns out, is a smokescreen. It doesn’t take long before it becomes clear that progressives have not come to overturn the accumulated wisdom of many lifetimes of study and application. The financial ramifications associated with expropriating private property are a secondary concern. The confiscation of wealth alone is the whole point of the progressive enterprise.

Though Sen. Warren makes a valiant effort to stay focused on the public-welfare, education, and debt relief programs that might be financed by the trillions of dollars she hopes to withdraw from the private economy, the economists with whom Times reporters spoke seem more energized by the prospect of reducing the wealth gap through coercion and force.

“Some liberal economists go further and say that simply taxing the rich would help growth no matter what the government did with the money,” the Times observed. Roosevelt Institute economist Mark Paul fits that bill. “We can think of a wealth tax as welfare-enhancing, in and of itself, simply by constraining the power of the very wealthy,” he insisted.​

This presupposes that, in the war of all against all that is economic life, punishing the wealthy for their successes would benefit those less well-off if only because the wealthy would have slightly fewer resources to influence public policy. The assumption that wealth accumulation is a zero-sum game goes unchallenged, and for good reason. Where does one begin to challenge an article of faith?

There are a few economists in the Times article who are slightly more candid about the logical leap Warren makes from confiscation to prosperity. Warren advisor and U.C. Berkley economist Gabriel Zucman concedes that a constitutionally dubious wealth tax might have a “small positive effect” on economic growth, “depending on how the revenues are used.” Moody’s Mark Zandi confesses that Warren’s plans are “largely a wash on long-term economic growth.”

The progressive activists advocating confiscation as an end in itself should not be confused with demand-siders, who believe that simulative government and consumer spending are better drivers of economic growth (though there is surely significant overlap). The Keynesian economic model is neither new nor are its effects unknowable. By contrast, those who back confiscation for its own sake appear to acknowledge theirs is an untested philosophy.

“Some of the inequality-focused economists say they are hoping to build new economic models to predict the effects of their policies, though they acknowledge few of those models exist yet,” the Times notes.
​

Sure, a predictive model or two might be nice, but it’s not necessary. Warren is too politically savvy to admit it outright, but her allies are clear: Universally beneficial economic growth is neither a priority nor is it particularly desirable. The objective is to mete out a comeuppance to the Americans who they believe deserve it. In that sense, the cruelty is the point.

 

[Weatherman2020]

All you rich folks making $14 an hour need to bear the burden.

Sanders: Families Making $29,000 Will ‘Pay More In Taxes’ For Medicare For All - The Partnership for America’s Health Care Future

And while these idiots drum their lips, Trump works on something meaningful:

IT’S NOT THE CRIME, IT’S THE COVERUP: Hospitals Sue Trump to Keep Negotiated Prices Secret.

“The nation’s hospital groups sued the Trump administration on Wednesday over a new federal rule that would require them to disclose the discounted prices they give insurers for all sorts of procedures.”​

Trump could always just ban price discrimination, and require them to charge the same price to all comers. I mean, if they’re so against disclosure. Meanwhile, the Trump Administration hits the right note:

“Hospitals should be ashamed that they aren’t willing to provide American patients the cost of a service before they purchase it.”​

Great. More big government regulation. Just what we need.

Slip, slip, slipping: The Confiscation Is the Point: Progressives Admit It’s About Seizing Wealth, Not Helping People. “The confiscation of wealth alone is the whole point of the progressive enterprise.”

They hate you and want you dead. Or at least under the boot. Because they’re garbage people who compensate for their awfulness by exploiting and oppressing others.

The New York Times profiled a new group of progressive economic minds for whom economic principles are entirely irrelevant. “Generations of economists, across much of the ideological spectrum, have long held that higher taxes reduce investment, slowing economic growth,” the Times began. “Ms. Warren and other leading Democrats say the opposite.” Who are you going to trust?

This premise, it turns out, is a smokescreen. It doesn’t take long before it becomes clear that progressives have not come to overturn the accumulated wisdom of many lifetimes of study and application. The financial ramifications associated with expropriating private property are a secondary concern. The confiscation of wealth alone is the whole point of the progressive enterprise.

Though Sen. Warren makes a valiant effort to stay focused on the public-welfare, education, and debt relief programs that might be financed by the trillions of dollars she hopes to withdraw from the private economy, the economists with whom Times reporters spoke seem more energized by the prospect of reducing the wealth gap through coercion and force.

“Some liberal economists go further and say that simply taxing the rich would help growth no matter what the government did with the money,” the Times observed. Roosevelt Institute economist Mark Paul fits that bill. “We can think of a wealth tax as welfare-enhancing, in and of itself, simply by constraining the power of the very wealthy,” he insisted.​

This presupposes that, in the war of all against all that is economic life, punishing the wealthy for their successes would benefit those less well-off if only because the wealthy would have slightly fewer resources to influence public policy. The assumption that wealth accumulation is a zero-sum game goes unchallenged, and for good reason. Where does one begin to challenge an article of faith?

There are a few economists in the Times article who are slightly more candid about the logical leap Warren makes from confiscation to prosperity. Warren advisor and U.C. Berkley economist Gabriel Zucman concedes that a constitutionally dubious wealth tax might have a “small positive effect” on economic growth, “depending on how the revenues are used.” Moody’s Mark Zandi confesses that Warren’s plans are “largely a wash on long-term economic growth.”

The progressive activists advocating confiscation as an end in itself should not be confused with demand-siders, who believe that simulative government and consumer spending are better drivers of economic growth (though there is surely significant overlap). The Keynesian economic model is neither new nor are its effects unknowable. By contrast, those who back confiscation for its own sake appear to acknowledge theirs is an untested philosophy.

“Some of the inequality-focused economists say they are hoping to build new economic models to predict the effects of their policies, though they acknowledge few of those models exist yet,” the Times notes.
​

Sure, a predictive model or two might be nice, but it’s not necessary. Warren is too politically savvy to admit it outright, but her allies are clear: Universally beneficial economic growth is neither a priority nor is it particularly desirable. The objective is to mete out a comeuppance to the Americans who they believe deserve it. In that sense, the cruelty is the point.

Yep. Just like they admit the manmade global warming scam is just for power and money grabbing.

 

[dblack]

All you rich folks making $14 an hour need to bear the burden.

Sanders: Families Making $29,000 Will ‘Pay More In Taxes’ For Medicare For All - The Partnership for America’s Health Care Future

And while these idiots drum their lips, Trump works on something meaningful:

IT’S NOT THE CRIME, IT’S THE COVERUP: Hospitals Sue Trump to Keep Negotiated Prices Secret.

“The nation’s hospital groups sued the Trump administration on Wednesday over a new federal rule that would require them to disclose the discounted prices they give insurers for all sorts of procedures.”​

Trump could always just ban price discrimination, and require them to charge the same price to all comers. I mean, if they’re so against disclosure. Meanwhile, the Trump Administration hits the right note:

“Hospitals should be ashamed that they aren’t willing to provide American patients the cost of a service before they purchase it.”​

Great. More big government regulation. Just what we need.

Slip, slip, slipping: The Confiscation Is the Point: Progressives Admit It’s About Seizing Wealth, Not Helping People. “The confiscation of wealth alone is the whole point of the progressive enterprise.”

They hate you and want you dead. Or at least under the boot. Because they’re garbage people who compensate for their awfulness by exploiting and oppressing others.

The New York Times profiled a new group of progressive economic minds for whom economic principles are entirely irrelevant. “Generations of economists, across much of the ideological spectrum, have long held that higher taxes reduce investment, slowing economic growth,” the Times began. “Ms. Warren and other leading Democrats say the opposite.” Who are you going to trust?

This premise, it turns out, is a smokescreen. It doesn’t take long before it becomes clear that progressives have not come to overturn the accumulated wisdom of many lifetimes of study and application. The financial ramifications associated with expropriating private property are a secondary concern. The confiscation of wealth alone is the whole point of the progressive enterprise.

Though Sen. Warren makes a valiant effort to stay focused on the public-welfare, education, and debt relief programs that might be financed by the trillions of dollars she hopes to withdraw from the private economy, the economists with whom Times reporters spoke seem more energized by the prospect of reducing the wealth gap through coercion and force.

“Some liberal economists go further and say that simply taxing the rich would help growth no matter what the government did with the money,” the Times observed. Roosevelt Institute economist Mark Paul fits that bill. “We can think of a wealth tax as welfare-enhancing, in and of itself, simply by constraining the power of the very wealthy,” he insisted.​

This presupposes that, in the war of all against all that is economic life, punishing the wealthy for their successes would benefit those less well-off if only because the wealthy would have slightly fewer resources to influence public policy. The assumption that wealth accumulation is a zero-sum game goes unchallenged, and for good reason. Where does one begin to challenge an article of faith?

There are a few economists in the Times article who are slightly more candid about the logical leap Warren makes from confiscation to prosperity. Warren advisor and U.C. Berkley economist Gabriel Zucman concedes that a constitutionally dubious wealth tax might have a “small positive effect” on economic growth, “depending on how the revenues are used.” Moody’s Mark Zandi confesses that Warren’s plans are “largely a wash on long-term economic growth.”

The progressive activists advocating confiscation as an end in itself should not be confused with demand-siders, who believe that simulative government and consumer spending are better drivers of economic growth (though there is surely significant overlap). The Keynesian economic model is neither new nor are its effects unknowable. By contrast, those who back confiscation for its own sake appear to acknowledge theirs is an untested philosophy.

“Some of the inequality-focused economists say they are hoping to build new economic models to predict the effects of their policies, though they acknowledge few of those models exist yet,” the Times notes.
​

Sure, a predictive model or two might be nice, but it’s not necessary. Warren is too politically savvy to admit it outright, but her allies are clear: Universally beneficial economic growth is neither a priority nor is it particularly desirable. The objective is to mete out a comeuppance to the Americans who they believe deserve it. In that sense, the cruelty is the point.

I'm not sure what any of that has to do with new regulations dictating how hospitals publish their prices, but I guess any soapbox'll do, eh?

 

[Weatherman2020]

All you rich folks making $14 an hour need to bear the burden.

Sanders: Families Making $29,000 Will ‘Pay More In Taxes’ For Medicare For All - The Partnership for America’s Health Care Future

And while these idiots drum their lips, Trump works on something meaningful:

IT’S NOT THE CRIME, IT’S THE COVERUP: Hospitals Sue Trump to Keep Negotiated Prices Secret.

“The nation’s hospital groups sued the Trump administration on Wednesday over a new federal rule that would require them to disclose the discounted prices they give insurers for all sorts of procedures.”​

Trump could always just ban price discrimination, and require them to charge the same price to all comers. I mean, if they’re so against disclosure. Meanwhile, the Trump Administration hits the right note:

“Hospitals should be ashamed that they aren’t willing to provide American patients the cost of a service before they purchase it.”​

Great. More big government regulation. Just what we need.

Slip, slip, slipping: The Confiscation Is the Point: Progressives Admit It’s About Seizing Wealth, Not Helping People. “The confiscation of wealth alone is the whole point of the progressive enterprise.”

They hate you and want you dead. Or at least under the boot. Because they’re garbage people who compensate for their awfulness by exploiting and oppressing others.

The New York Times profiled a new group of progressive economic minds for whom economic principles are entirely irrelevant. “Generations of economists, across much of the ideological spectrum, have long held that higher taxes reduce investment, slowing economic growth,” the Times began. “Ms. Warren and other leading Democrats say the opposite.” Who are you going to trust?

This premise, it turns out, is a smokescreen. It doesn’t take long before it becomes clear that progressives have not come to overturn the accumulated wisdom of many lifetimes of study and application. The financial ramifications associated with expropriating private property are a secondary concern. The confiscation of wealth alone is the whole point of the progressive enterprise.

Though Sen. Warren makes a valiant effort to stay focused on the public-welfare, education, and debt relief programs that might be financed by the trillions of dollars she hopes to withdraw from the private economy, the economists with whom Times reporters spoke seem more energized by the prospect of reducing the wealth gap through coercion and force.

“Some liberal economists go further and say that simply taxing the rich would help growth no matter what the government did with the money,” the Times observed. Roosevelt Institute economist Mark Paul fits that bill. “We can think of a wealth tax as welfare-enhancing, in and of itself, simply by constraining the power of the very wealthy,” he insisted.​

This presupposes that, in the war of all against all that is economic life, punishing the wealthy for their successes would benefit those less well-off if only because the wealthy would have slightly fewer resources to influence public policy. The assumption that wealth accumulation is a zero-sum game goes unchallenged, and for good reason. Where does one begin to challenge an article of faith?

There are a few economists in the Times article who are slightly more candid about the logical leap Warren makes from confiscation to prosperity. Warren advisor and U.C. Berkley economist Gabriel Zucman concedes that a constitutionally dubious wealth tax might have a “small positive effect” on economic growth, “depending on how the revenues are used.” Moody’s Mark Zandi confesses that Warren’s plans are “largely a wash on long-term economic growth.”

The progressive activists advocating confiscation as an end in itself should not be confused with demand-siders, who believe that simulative government and consumer spending are better drivers of economic growth (though there is surely significant overlap). The Keynesian economic model is neither new nor are its effects unknowable. By contrast, those who back confiscation for its own sake appear to acknowledge theirs is an untested philosophy.

“Some of the inequality-focused economists say they are hoping to build new economic models to predict the effects of their policies, though they acknowledge few of those models exist yet,” the Times notes.
​

Sure, a predictive model or two might be nice, but it’s not necessary. Warren is too politically savvy to admit it outright, but her allies are clear: Universally beneficial economic growth is neither a priority nor is it particularly desirable. The objective is to mete out a comeuppance to the Americans who they believe deserve it. In that sense, the cruelty is the point.

I'm not sure what any of that has to do with new regulations dictating how hospitals publish their prices, but I guess any soapbox'll do, eh?

Why do you have a problem with consumers being provided information to help make choices? Are you that much of a fascist?

 

[Zorro!]

All you rich folks making $14 an hour need to bear the burden.

Sanders: Families Making $29,000 Will ‘Pay More In Taxes’ For Medicare For All - The Partnership for America’s Health Care Future

And while these idiots drum their lips, Trump works on something meaningful:

IT’S NOT THE CRIME, IT’S THE COVERUP: Hospitals Sue Trump to Keep Negotiated Prices Secret.

“The nation’s hospital groups sued the Trump administration on Wednesday over a new federal rule that would require them to disclose the discounted prices they give insurers for all sorts of procedures.”​

Trump could always just ban price discrimination, and require them to charge the same price to all comers. I mean, if they’re so against disclosure. Meanwhile, the Trump Administration hits the right note:

“Hospitals should be ashamed that they aren’t willing to provide American patients the cost of a service before they purchase it.”​

Great. More big government regulation. Just what we need.

Slip, slip, slipping: The Confiscation Is the Point: Progressives Admit It’s About Seizing Wealth, Not Helping People. “The confiscation of wealth alone is the whole point of the progressive enterprise.”

They hate you and want you dead. Or at least under the boot. Because they’re garbage people who compensate for their awfulness by exploiting and oppressing others.

The New York Times profiled a new group of progressive economic minds for whom economic principles are entirely irrelevant. “Generations of economists, across much of the ideological spectrum, have long held that higher taxes reduce investment, slowing economic growth,” the Times began. “Ms. Warren and other leading Democrats say the opposite.” Who are you going to trust?

This premise, it turns out, is a smokescreen. It doesn’t take long before it becomes clear that progressives have not come to overturn the accumulated wisdom of many lifetimes of study and application. The financial ramifications associated with expropriating private property are a secondary concern. The confiscation of wealth alone is the whole point of the progressive enterprise.

Though Sen. Warren makes a valiant effort to stay focused on the public-welfare, education, and debt relief programs that might be financed by the trillions of dollars she hopes to withdraw from the private economy, the economists with whom Times reporters spoke seem more energized by the prospect of reducing the wealth gap through coercion and force.

“Some liberal economists go further and say that simply taxing the rich would help growth no matter what the government did with the money,” the Times observed. Roosevelt Institute economist Mark Paul fits that bill. “We can think of a wealth tax as welfare-enhancing, in and of itself, simply by constraining the power of the very wealthy,” he insisted.​

This presupposes that, in the war of all against all that is economic life, punishing the wealthy for their successes would benefit those less well-off if only because the wealthy would have slightly fewer resources to influence public policy. The assumption that wealth accumulation is a zero-sum game goes unchallenged, and for good reason. Where does one begin to challenge an article of faith?

There are a few economists in the Times article who are slightly more candid about the logical leap Warren makes from confiscation to prosperity. Warren advisor and U.C. Berkley economist Gabriel Zucman concedes that a constitutionally dubious wealth tax might have a “small positive effect” on economic growth, “depending on how the revenues are used.” Moody’s Mark Zandi confesses that Warren’s plans are “largely a wash on long-term economic growth.”

The progressive activists advocating confiscation as an end in itself should not be confused with demand-siders, who believe that simulative government and consumer spending are better drivers of economic growth (though there is surely significant overlap). The Keynesian economic model is neither new nor are its effects unknowable. By contrast, those who back confiscation for its own sake appear to acknowledge theirs is an untested philosophy.

“Some of the inequality-focused economists say they are hoping to build new economic models to predict the effects of their policies, though they acknowledge few of those models exist yet,” the Times notes.
​

Sure, a predictive model or two might be nice, but it’s not necessary. Warren is too politically savvy to admit it outright, but her allies are clear: Universally beneficial economic growth is neither a priority nor is it particularly desirable. The objective is to mete out a comeuppance to the Americans who they believe deserve it. In that sense, the cruelty is the point.

I'm not sure what any of that has to do with new regulations dictating how hospitals publish their prices, but I guess any soapbox'll do, eh?

It has to do with Sander's Socialism that will raise taxes on folks making less than $15 hr. The GOAL is CONTROL. The claimed "benefits" are merely the justification for the CONTROL.

The financial ramifications associated with expropriating private property are a secondary concern. The confiscation of wealth alone is the whole point of the progressive enterprise.

Though Sen. Warren makes a valiant effort to stay focused on the public-welfare, education, and debt relief programs that might be financed by the trillions of dollars she hopes to withdraw from the private economy, the economists with whom Times reporters spoke seem more energized by the prospect of reducing the wealth gap through coercion and force.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

All you rich folks making $14 an hour need to bear the burden.

Sanders: Families Making $29,000 Will ‘Pay More In Taxes’ For Medicare For All - The Partnership for America’s Health Care Future

And while these idiots drum their lips, Trump works on something meaningful:

IT’S NOT THE CRIME, IT’S THE COVERUP: Hospitals Sue Trump to Keep Negotiated Prices Secret.

“The nation’s hospital groups sued the Trump administration on Wednesday over a new federal rule that would require them to disclose the discounted prices they give insurers for all sorts of procedures.”​

Trump could always just ban price discrimination, and require them to charge the same price to all comers. I mean, if they’re so against disclosure. Meanwhile, the Trump Administration hits the right note:

“Hospitals should be ashamed that they aren’t willing to provide American patients the cost of a service before they purchase it.”​

Great. More big government regulation. Just what we need.

Slip, slip, slipping: The Confiscation Is the Point: Progressives Admit It’s About Seizing Wealth, Not Helping People. “The confiscation of wealth alone is the whole point of the progressive enterprise.”

They hate you and want you dead. Or at least under the boot. Because they’re garbage people who compensate for their awfulness by exploiting and oppressing others.

The New York Times profiled a new group of progressive economic minds for whom economic principles are entirely irrelevant. “Generations of economists, across much of the ideological spectrum, have long held that higher taxes reduce investment, slowing economic growth,” the Times began. “Ms. Warren and other leading Democrats say the opposite.” Who are you going to trust?

This premise, it turns out, is a smokescreen. It doesn’t take long before it becomes clear that progressives have not come to overturn the accumulated wisdom of many lifetimes of study and application. The financial ramifications associated with expropriating private property are a secondary concern. The confiscation of wealth alone is the whole point of the progressive enterprise.

Though Sen. Warren makes a valiant effort to stay focused on the public-welfare, education, and debt relief programs that might be financed by the trillions of dollars she hopes to withdraw from the private economy, the economists with whom Times reporters spoke seem more energized by the prospect of reducing the wealth gap through coercion and force.

“Some liberal economists go further and say that simply taxing the rich would help growth no matter what the government did with the money,” the Times observed. Roosevelt Institute economist Mark Paul fits that bill. “We can think of a wealth tax as welfare-enhancing, in and of itself, simply by constraining the power of the very wealthy,” he insisted.​

This presupposes that, in the war of all against all that is economic life, punishing the wealthy for their successes would benefit those less well-off if only because the wealthy would have slightly fewer resources to influence public policy. The assumption that wealth accumulation is a zero-sum game goes unchallenged, and for good reason. Where does one begin to challenge an article of faith?

There are a few economists in the Times article who are slightly more candid about the logical leap Warren makes from confiscation to prosperity. Warren advisor and U.C. Berkley economist Gabriel Zucman concedes that a constitutionally dubious wealth tax might have a “small positive effect” on economic growth, “depending on how the revenues are used.” Moody’s Mark Zandi confesses that Warren’s plans are “largely a wash on long-term economic growth.”

The progressive activists advocating confiscation as an end in itself should not be confused with demand-siders, who believe that simulative government and consumer spending are better drivers of economic growth (though there is surely significant overlap). The Keynesian economic model is neither new nor are its effects unknowable. By contrast, those who back confiscation for its own sake appear to acknowledge theirs is an untested philosophy.

“Some of the inequality-focused economists say they are hoping to build new economic models to predict the effects of their policies, though they acknowledge few of those models exist yet,” the Times notes.
​

Sure, a predictive model or two might be nice, but it’s not necessary. Warren is too politically savvy to admit it outright, but her allies are clear: Universally beneficial economic growth is neither a priority nor is it particularly desirable. The objective is to mete out a comeuppance to the Americans who they believe deserve it. In that sense, the cruelty is the point.

I'm not sure what any of that has to do with new regulations dictating how hospitals publish their prices, but I guess any soapbox'll do, eh?

It has to do with Sander's Socialism that will raise taxes on folks making less than $15 hr. The GOAL is CONTROL. The claimed "benefits" are merely the justification for the CONTROL.

The financial ramifications associated with expropriating private property are a secondary concern. The confiscation of wealth alone is the whole point of the progressive enterprise.

Though Sen. Warren makes a valiant effort to stay focused on the public-welfare, education, and debt relief programs that might be financed by the trillions of dollars she hopes to withdraw from the private economy, the economists with whom Times reporters spoke seem more energized by the prospect of reducing the wealth gap through coercion and force.

In liberal utopia, those who work would surrender their paychecks to the government, and they would pay our mortgage, rent, food, utility bills, medical care, car payment and insurance. It would alleviate us of so many decisions we have to make in life. The corporate owners would be living next door to people that don't want to work in middle-class America, and first class or private flight could only be used by the liberal politicians.

 

[Zorro!]

And while these idiots drum their lips, Trump works on something meaningful:

IT’S NOT THE CRIME, IT’S THE COVERUP: Hospitals Sue Trump to Keep Negotiated Prices Secret.

“The nation’s hospital groups sued the Trump administration on Wednesday over a new federal rule that would require them to disclose the discounted prices they give insurers for all sorts of procedures.”​

Trump could always just ban price discrimination, and require them to charge the same price to all comers. I mean, if they’re so against disclosure. Meanwhile, the Trump Administration hits the right note:

“Hospitals should be ashamed that they aren’t willing to provide American patients the cost of a service before they purchase it.”​

Great. More big government regulation. Just what we need.

Slip, slip, slipping: The Confiscation Is the Point: Progressives Admit It’s About Seizing Wealth, Not Helping People. “The confiscation of wealth alone is the whole point of the progressive enterprise.”

They hate you and want you dead. Or at least under the boot. Because they’re garbage people who compensate for their awfulness by exploiting and oppressing others.

The New York Times profiled a new group of progressive economic minds for whom economic principles are entirely irrelevant. “Generations of economists, across much of the ideological spectrum, have long held that higher taxes reduce investment, slowing economic growth,” the Times began. “Ms. Warren and other leading Democrats say the opposite.” Who are you going to trust?

This premise, it turns out, is a smokescreen. It doesn’t take long before it becomes clear that progressives have not come to overturn the accumulated wisdom of many lifetimes of study and application. The financial ramifications associated with expropriating private property are a secondary concern. The confiscation of wealth alone is the whole point of the progressive enterprise.

Though Sen. Warren makes a valiant effort to stay focused on the public-welfare, education, and debt relief programs that might be financed by the trillions of dollars she hopes to withdraw from the private economy, the economists with whom Times reporters spoke seem more energized by the prospect of reducing the wealth gap through coercion and force.

“Some liberal economists go further and say that simply taxing the rich would help growth no matter what the government did with the money,” the Times observed. Roosevelt Institute economist Mark Paul fits that bill. “We can think of a wealth tax as welfare-enhancing, in and of itself, simply by constraining the power of the very wealthy,” he insisted.​

This presupposes that, in the war of all against all that is economic life, punishing the wealthy for their successes would benefit those less well-off if only because the wealthy would have slightly fewer resources to influence public policy. The assumption that wealth accumulation is a zero-sum game goes unchallenged, and for good reason. Where does one begin to challenge an article of faith?

There are a few economists in the Times article who are slightly more candid about the logical leap Warren makes from confiscation to prosperity. Warren advisor and U.C. Berkley economist Gabriel Zucman concedes that a constitutionally dubious wealth tax might have a “small positive effect” on economic growth, “depending on how the revenues are used.” Moody’s Mark Zandi confesses that Warren’s plans are “largely a wash on long-term economic growth.”

The progressive activists advocating confiscation as an end in itself should not be confused with demand-siders, who believe that simulative government and consumer spending are better drivers of economic growth (though there is surely significant overlap). The Keynesian economic model is neither new nor are its effects unknowable. By contrast, those who back confiscation for its own sake appear to acknowledge theirs is an untested philosophy.

“Some of the inequality-focused economists say they are hoping to build new economic models to predict the effects of their policies, though they acknowledge few of those models exist yet,” the Times notes.
​

Sure, a predictive model or two might be nice, but it’s not necessary. Warren is too politically savvy to admit it outright, but her allies are clear: Universally beneficial economic growth is neither a priority nor is it particularly desirable. The objective is to mete out a comeuppance to the Americans who they believe deserve it. In that sense, the cruelty is the point.

I'm not sure what any of that has to do with new regulations dictating how hospitals publish their prices, but I guess any soapbox'll do, eh?

It has to do with Sander's Socialism that will raise taxes on folks making less than $15 hr. The GOAL is CONTROL. The claimed "benefits" are merely the justification for the CONTROL.

The financial ramifications associated with expropriating private property are a secondary concern. The confiscation of wealth alone is the whole point of the progressive enterprise.

Though Sen. Warren makes a valiant effort to stay focused on the public-welfare, education, and debt relief programs that might be financed by the trillions of dollars she hopes to withdraw from the private economy, the economists with whom Times reporters spoke seem more energized by the prospect of reducing the wealth gap through coercion and force.

In liberal utopia, those who work would surrender their paychecks to the government, and they would pay our mortgage, rent, food, utility bills, medical care, car payment and insurance. It would alleviate us of so many decisions we have to make in life. The corporate owners would be living next door to people that don't want to work in middle-class America, and first class or private flight could only be used by the liberal politicians.

They hate us and want us either dead or under their jackboot.

They pretend their enemy is Trump, but who they truly hate, is us.

CLOSE THE DANGEROUS TAX-CUT GAP! Trump’s Tax Cuts Push U.S. Burden Lower in World. “Report says U.S. total tax rate lowest among grouping of major economies except Ireland, Chile and Mexico.”

FREEDOM!

Driven by the federal tax cut that Congress and Mr. Trump enacted at the end of 2017, U.S. taxes at all levels of government fell to 24.3% of gross domestic product in 2018, down from 26.8% a year earlier and 25.9% in 2016.​

That 2.5 percentage-point drop was only the fourth time since 1995 that any country’s tax burden has declined by at least that much in one year outside of the financial crisis, according to OECD, an intergovernmental economic organization with 36 member countries including the U.S.​

The steepness of the decline stemmed partly from an increase in 2017, when a one-time tax from the 2017 law was counted as revenue that year.​

Measured as a share of the U.S. economy, taxes are now 10 percentage points below the 2018 OECD average of 34.3%. Among 34 countries with preliminary 2018 data, the U.S. tax burden is lower than everywhere except Chile, Ireland and Mexico. The tax cut drove U.S. taxes below Turkey’s, and taxes in France and Denmark are now nearly twice what they are in the U.S.​

But there’s still a long way to go, when we’re getting beaten by the likes of Mexico, Chile, and Ireland. We can do this, America!

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Great. More big government regulation. Just what we need.

Slip, slip, slipping: The Confiscation Is the Point: Progressives Admit It’s About Seizing Wealth, Not Helping People. “The confiscation of wealth alone is the whole point of the progressive enterprise.”

They hate you and want you dead. Or at least under the boot. Because they’re garbage people who compensate for their awfulness by exploiting and oppressing others.

The New York Times profiled a new group of progressive economic minds for whom economic principles are entirely irrelevant. “Generations of economists, across much of the ideological spectrum, have long held that higher taxes reduce investment, slowing economic growth,” the Times began. “Ms. Warren and other leading Democrats say the opposite.” Who are you going to trust?

This premise, it turns out, is a smokescreen. It doesn’t take long before it becomes clear that progressives have not come to overturn the accumulated wisdom of many lifetimes of study and application. The financial ramifications associated with expropriating private property are a secondary concern. The confiscation of wealth alone is the whole point of the progressive enterprise.

Though Sen. Warren makes a valiant effort to stay focused on the public-welfare, education, and debt relief programs that might be financed by the trillions of dollars she hopes to withdraw from the private economy, the economists with whom Times reporters spoke seem more energized by the prospect of reducing the wealth gap through coercion and force.

“Some liberal economists go further and say that simply taxing the rich would help growth no matter what the government did with the money,” the Times observed. Roosevelt Institute economist Mark Paul fits that bill. “We can think of a wealth tax as welfare-enhancing, in and of itself, simply by constraining the power of the very wealthy,” he insisted.​

This presupposes that, in the war of all against all that is economic life, punishing the wealthy for their successes would benefit those less well-off if only because the wealthy would have slightly fewer resources to influence public policy. The assumption that wealth accumulation is a zero-sum game goes unchallenged, and for good reason. Where does one begin to challenge an article of faith?

There are a few economists in the Times article who are slightly more candid about the logical leap Warren makes from confiscation to prosperity. Warren advisor and U.C. Berkley economist Gabriel Zucman concedes that a constitutionally dubious wealth tax might have a “small positive effect” on economic growth, “depending on how the revenues are used.” Moody’s Mark Zandi confesses that Warren’s plans are “largely a wash on long-term economic growth.”

The progressive activists advocating confiscation as an end in itself should not be confused with demand-siders, who believe that simulative government and consumer spending are better drivers of economic growth (though there is surely significant overlap). The Keynesian economic model is neither new nor are its effects unknowable. By contrast, those who back confiscation for its own sake appear to acknowledge theirs is an untested philosophy.

“Some of the inequality-focused economists say they are hoping to build new economic models to predict the effects of their policies, though they acknowledge few of those models exist yet,” the Times notes.
​

Sure, a predictive model or two might be nice, but it’s not necessary. Warren is too politically savvy to admit it outright, but her allies are clear: Universally beneficial economic growth is neither a priority nor is it particularly desirable. The objective is to mete out a comeuppance to the Americans who they believe deserve it. In that sense, the cruelty is the point.

I'm not sure what any of that has to do with new regulations dictating how hospitals publish their prices, but I guess any soapbox'll do, eh?

It has to do with Sander's Socialism that will raise taxes on folks making less than $15 hr. The GOAL is CONTROL. The claimed "benefits" are merely the justification for the CONTROL.

The financial ramifications associated with expropriating private property are a secondary concern. The confiscation of wealth alone is the whole point of the progressive enterprise.

Though Sen. Warren makes a valiant effort to stay focused on the public-welfare, education, and debt relief programs that might be financed by the trillions of dollars she hopes to withdraw from the private economy, the economists with whom Times reporters spoke seem more energized by the prospect of reducing the wealth gap through coercion and force.

In liberal utopia, those who work would surrender their paychecks to the government, and they would pay our mortgage, rent, food, utility bills, medical care, car payment and insurance. It would alleviate us of so many decisions we have to make in life. The corporate owners would be living next door to people that don't want to work in middle-class America, and first class or private flight could only be used by the liberal politicians.

They hate us and want us either dead or under their jackboot.

They pretend their enemy is Trump, but who they truly hate, is us.

CLOSE THE DANGEROUS TAX-CUT GAP! Trump’s Tax Cuts Push U.S. Burden Lower in World. “Report says U.S. total tax rate lowest among grouping of major economies except Ireland, Chile and Mexico.”

FREEDOM!

Driven by the federal tax cut that Congress and Mr. Trump enacted at the end of 2017, U.S. taxes at all levels of government fell to 24.3% of gross domestic product in 2018, down from 26.8% a year earlier and 25.9% in 2016.​

That 2.5 percentage-point drop was only the fourth time since 1995 that any country’s tax burden has declined by at least that much in one year outside of the financial crisis, according to OECD, an intergovernmental economic organization with 36 member countries including the U.S.​

The steepness of the decline stemmed partly from an increase in 2017, when a one-time tax from the 2017 law was counted as revenue that year.​

Measured as a share of the U.S. economy, taxes are now 10 percentage points below the 2018 OECD average of 34.3%. Among 34 countries with preliminary 2018 data, the U.S. tax burden is lower than everywhere except Chile, Ireland and Mexico. The tax cut drove U.S. taxes below Turkey’s, and taxes in France and Denmark are now nearly twice what they are in the U.S.​

But there’s still a long way to go, when we’re getting beaten by the likes of Mexico, Chile, and Ireland. We can do this, America!

We could, but we would also have to cut spending at the same rate or more. I'm for that myself. There is no reason anybody outside of those with disabilities can't be working. Everyplace I go in industrial areas are littered with HELP WANTED signs, some are even permanent.

I live in the middle-class suburbs, and are tortured being next door to HUD people. Why is a country 21 trillion in debt and growing providing housing in the suburbs or better? There is no excuse for this. Social engineering is expensive, and cuts to many programs like HUD who spend our money without regard needs to be reeled in. This is not to mention the effect of lowering housing values. Working people don't want to live next door to lazy, loud, and violent people.

 

[Zorro!]

Slip, slip, slipping: The Confiscation Is the Point: Progressives Admit It’s About Seizing Wealth, Not Helping People. “The confiscation of wealth alone is the whole point of the progressive enterprise.”

They hate you and want you dead. Or at least under the boot. Because they’re garbage people who compensate for their awfulness by exploiting and oppressing others.

The New York Times profiled a new group of progressive economic minds for whom economic principles are entirely irrelevant. “Generations of economists, across much of the ideological spectrum, have long held that higher taxes reduce investment, slowing economic growth,” the Times began. “Ms. Warren and other leading Democrats say the opposite.” Who are you going to trust?

This premise, it turns out, is a smokescreen. It doesn’t take long before it becomes clear that progressives have not come to overturn the accumulated wisdom of many lifetimes of study and application. The financial ramifications associated with expropriating private property are a secondary concern. The confiscation of wealth alone is the whole point of the progressive enterprise.

Though Sen. Warren makes a valiant effort to stay focused on the public-welfare, education, and debt relief programs that might be financed by the trillions of dollars she hopes to withdraw from the private economy, the economists with whom Times reporters spoke seem more energized by the prospect of reducing the wealth gap through coercion and force.

“Some liberal economists go further and say that simply taxing the rich would help growth no matter what the government did with the money,” the Times observed. Roosevelt Institute economist Mark Paul fits that bill. “We can think of a wealth tax as welfare-enhancing, in and of itself, simply by constraining the power of the very wealthy,” he insisted.​

This presupposes that, in the war of all against all that is economic life, punishing the wealthy for their successes would benefit those less well-off if only because the wealthy would have slightly fewer resources to influence public policy. The assumption that wealth accumulation is a zero-sum game goes unchallenged, and for good reason. Where does one begin to challenge an article of faith?

There are a few economists in the Times article who are slightly more candid about the logical leap Warren makes from confiscation to prosperity. Warren advisor and U.C. Berkley economist Gabriel Zucman concedes that a constitutionally dubious wealth tax might have a “small positive effect” on economic growth, “depending on how the revenues are used.” Moody’s Mark Zandi confesses that Warren’s plans are “largely a wash on long-term economic growth.”

The progressive activists advocating confiscation as an end in itself should not be confused with demand-siders, who believe that simulative government and consumer spending are better drivers of economic growth (though there is surely significant overlap). The Keynesian economic model is neither new nor are its effects unknowable. By contrast, those who back confiscation for its own sake appear to acknowledge theirs is an untested philosophy.

“Some of the inequality-focused economists say they are hoping to build new economic models to predict the effects of their policies, though they acknowledge few of those models exist yet,” the Times notes.
​

Sure, a predictive model or two might be nice, but it’s not necessary. Warren is too politically savvy to admit it outright, but her allies are clear: Universally beneficial economic growth is neither a priority nor is it particularly desirable. The objective is to mete out a comeuppance to the Americans who they believe deserve it. In that sense, the cruelty is the point.

I'm not sure what any of that has to do with new regulations dictating how hospitals publish their prices, but I guess any soapbox'll do, eh?

It has to do with Sander's Socialism that will raise taxes on folks making less than $15 hr. The GOAL is CONTROL. The claimed "benefits" are merely the justification for the CONTROL.

The financial ramifications associated with expropriating private property are a secondary concern. The confiscation of wealth alone is the whole point of the progressive enterprise.

Though Sen. Warren makes a valiant effort to stay focused on the public-welfare, education, and debt relief programs that might be financed by the trillions of dollars she hopes to withdraw from the private economy, the economists with whom Times reporters spoke seem more energized by the prospect of reducing the wealth gap through coercion and force.

In liberal utopia, those who work would surrender their paychecks to the government, and they would pay our mortgage, rent, food, utility bills, medical care, car payment and insurance. It would alleviate us of so many decisions we have to make in life. The corporate owners would be living next door to people that don't want to work in middle-class America, and first class or private flight could only be used by the liberal politicians.

They hate us and want us either dead or under their jackboot.

They pretend their enemy is Trump, but who they truly hate, is us.

CLOSE THE DANGEROUS TAX-CUT GAP! Trump’s Tax Cuts Push U.S. Burden Lower in World. “Report says U.S. total tax rate lowest among grouping of major economies except Ireland, Chile and Mexico.”

FREEDOM!

Driven by the federal tax cut that Congress and Mr. Trump enacted at the end of 2017, U.S. taxes at all levels of government fell to 24.3% of gross domestic product in 2018, down from 26.8% a year earlier and 25.9% in 2016.​

That 2.5 percentage-point drop was only the fourth time since 1995 that any country’s tax burden has declined by at least that much in one year outside of the financial crisis, according to OECD, an intergovernmental economic organization with 36 member countries including the U.S.​

The steepness of the decline stemmed partly from an increase in 2017, when a one-time tax from the 2017 law was counted as revenue that year.​

Measured as a share of the U.S. economy, taxes are now 10 percentage points below the 2018 OECD average of 34.3%. Among 34 countries with preliminary 2018 data, the U.S. tax burden is lower than everywhere except Chile, Ireland and Mexico. The tax cut drove U.S. taxes below Turkey’s, and taxes in France and Denmark are now nearly twice what they are in the U.S.​

But there’s still a long way to go, when we’re getting beaten by the likes of Mexico, Chile, and Ireland. We can do this, America!

We could, but we would also have to cut spending at the same rate or more. I'm for that myself. There is no reason anybody outside of those with disabilities can't be working. Everyplace I go in industrial areas are littered with HELP WANTED signs, some are even permanent.

I live in the middle-class suburbs, and are tortured being next door to HUD people. Why is a country 21 trillion in debt and growing providing housing in the suburbs or better? There is no excuse for this. Social engineering is expensive, and cuts to many programs like HUD who spend our money without regard needs to be reeled in. This is not to mention the effect of lowering housing values. Working people don't want to live next door to lazy, loud, and violent people next door to them.

We Need Dr. Ben Carson to build the next HUD building right in the middle of a Left-wing Gated Community.

Make Them Live Under Their Own Rules​

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I'm not sure what any of that has to do with new regulations dictating how hospitals publish their prices, but I guess any soapbox'll do, eh?

It has to do with Sander's Socialism that will raise taxes on folks making less than $15 hr. The GOAL is CONTROL. The claimed "benefits" are merely the justification for the CONTROL.

The financial ramifications associated with expropriating private property are a secondary concern. The confiscation of wealth alone is the whole point of the progressive enterprise.

Though Sen. Warren makes a valiant effort to stay focused on the public-welfare, education, and debt relief programs that might be financed by the trillions of dollars she hopes to withdraw from the private economy, the economists with whom Times reporters spoke seem more energized by the prospect of reducing the wealth gap through coercion and force.

In liberal utopia, those who work would surrender their paychecks to the government, and they would pay our mortgage, rent, food, utility bills, medical care, car payment and insurance. It would alleviate us of so many decisions we have to make in life. The corporate owners would be living next door to people that don't want to work in middle-class America, and first class or private flight could only be used by the liberal politicians.

They hate us and want us either dead or under their jackboot.

They pretend their enemy is Trump, but who they truly hate, is us.

CLOSE THE DANGEROUS TAX-CUT GAP! Trump’s Tax Cuts Push U.S. Burden Lower in World. “Report says U.S. total tax rate lowest among grouping of major economies except Ireland, Chile and Mexico.”

FREEDOM!

Driven by the federal tax cut that Congress and Mr. Trump enacted at the end of 2017, U.S. taxes at all levels of government fell to 24.3% of gross domestic product in 2018, down from 26.8% a year earlier and 25.9% in 2016.​

That 2.5 percentage-point drop was only the fourth time since 1995 that any country’s tax burden has declined by at least that much in one year outside of the financial crisis, according to OECD, an intergovernmental economic organization with 36 member countries including the U.S.​

The steepness of the decline stemmed partly from an increase in 2017, when a one-time tax from the 2017 law was counted as revenue that year.​

Measured as a share of the U.S. economy, taxes are now 10 percentage points below the 2018 OECD average of 34.3%. Among 34 countries with preliminary 2018 data, the U.S. tax burden is lower than everywhere except Chile, Ireland and Mexico. The tax cut drove U.S. taxes below Turkey’s, and taxes in France and Denmark are now nearly twice what they are in the U.S.​

But there’s still a long way to go, when we’re getting beaten by the likes of Mexico, Chile, and Ireland. We can do this, America!

We could, but we would also have to cut spending at the same rate or more. I'm for that myself. There is no reason anybody outside of those with disabilities can't be working. Everyplace I go in industrial areas are littered with HELP WANTED signs, some are even permanent.

I live in the middle-class suburbs, and are tortured being next door to HUD people. Why is a country 21 trillion in debt and growing providing housing in the suburbs or better? There is no excuse for this. Social engineering is expensive, and cuts to many programs like HUD who spend our money without regard needs to be reeled in. This is not to mention the effect of lowering housing values. Working people don't want to live next door to lazy, loud, and violent people next door to them.

We Need Dr. Ben Carson to build the next HUD building right in the middle of a Left-wing Gated Community.

Make Them Live Under Their Own Rules​

Never happen. Remember how the libs freaked out when Trump suggested we send the immigrants to those sanctuary cities? You know, those people they claimed were the backbone of America?

 

[dblack]

All you rich folks making $14 an hour need to bear the burden.

Sanders: Families Making $29,000 Will ‘Pay More In Taxes’ For Medicare For All - The Partnership for America’s Health Care Future

And while these idiots drum their lips, Trump works on something meaningful:

IT’S NOT THE CRIME, IT’S THE COVERUP: Hospitals Sue Trump to Keep Negotiated Prices Secret.

“The nation’s hospital groups sued the Trump administration on Wednesday over a new federal rule that would require them to disclose the discounted prices they give insurers for all sorts of procedures.”​

Trump could always just ban price discrimination, and require them to charge the same price to all comers. I mean, if they’re so against disclosure. Meanwhile, the Trump Administration hits the right note:

“Hospitals should be ashamed that they aren’t willing to provide American patients the cost of a service before they purchase it.”​

Great. More big government regulation. Just what we need.

Slip, slip, slipping: The Confiscation Is the Point: Progressives Admit It’s About Seizing Wealth, Not Helping People. “The confiscation of wealth alone is the whole point of the progressive enterprise.”

They hate you and want you dead. Or at least under the boot. Because they’re garbage people who compensate for their awfulness by exploiting and oppressing others.

The New York Times profiled a new group of progressive economic minds for whom economic principles are entirely irrelevant. “Generations of economists, across much of the ideological spectrum, have long held that higher taxes reduce investment, slowing economic growth,” the Times began. “Ms. Warren and other leading Democrats say the opposite.” Who are you going to trust?

This premise, it turns out, is a smokescreen. It doesn’t take long before it becomes clear that progressives have not come to overturn the accumulated wisdom of many lifetimes of study and application. The financial ramifications associated with expropriating private property are a secondary concern. The confiscation of wealth alone is the whole point of the progressive enterprise.

Though Sen. Warren makes a valiant effort to stay focused on the public-welfare, education, and debt relief programs that might be financed by the trillions of dollars she hopes to withdraw from the private economy, the economists with whom Times reporters spoke seem more energized by the prospect of reducing the wealth gap through coercion and force.

“Some liberal economists go further and say that simply taxing the rich would help growth no matter what the government did with the money,” the Times observed. Roosevelt Institute economist Mark Paul fits that bill. “We can think of a wealth tax as welfare-enhancing, in and of itself, simply by constraining the power of the very wealthy,” he insisted.​

This presupposes that, in the war of all against all that is economic life, punishing the wealthy for their successes would benefit those less well-off if only because the wealthy would have slightly fewer resources to influence public policy. The assumption that wealth accumulation is a zero-sum game goes unchallenged, and for good reason. Where does one begin to challenge an article of faith?

There are a few economists in the Times article who are slightly more candid about the logical leap Warren makes from confiscation to prosperity. Warren advisor and U.C. Berkley economist Gabriel Zucman concedes that a constitutionally dubious wealth tax might have a “small positive effect” on economic growth, “depending on how the revenues are used.” Moody’s Mark Zandi confesses that Warren’s plans are “largely a wash on long-term economic growth.”

The progressive activists advocating confiscation as an end in itself should not be confused with demand-siders, who believe that simulative government and consumer spending are better drivers of economic growth (though there is surely significant overlap). The Keynesian economic model is neither new nor are its effects unknowable. By contrast, those who back confiscation for its own sake appear to acknowledge theirs is an untested philosophy.

“Some of the inequality-focused economists say they are hoping to build new economic models to predict the effects of their policies, though they acknowledge few of those models exist yet,” the Times notes.
​

Sure, a predictive model or two might be nice, but it’s not necessary. Warren is too politically savvy to admit it outright, but her allies are clear: Universally beneficial economic growth is neither a priority nor is it particularly desirable. The objective is to mete out a comeuppance to the Americans who they believe deserve it. In that sense, the cruelty is the point.

I'm not sure what any of that has to do with new regulations dictating how hospitals publish their prices, but I guess any soapbox'll do, eh?

It has to do with Sander's Socialism that will raise taxes on folks making less than $15 hr. The GOAL is CONTROL. The claimed "benefits" are merely the justification for the CONTROL. ...

Yeah. And? Again, so what? What does that have to do with the government regulating hospital pricing?

Are you just into making random irrelevant speeches?

 

[skye]

How can anybody...take Bernie Sanders seriously....

is beyond me..

I mean....how stupid are those idiots?


Very stupid.

 

[RealDave]

In 2008 Democrats said they fixed healthcare.

How’d that work out here 11 years later?

Good enough that you assfuck Republicans can't come up with anything better.

BTW lying piece of shit, Democrats said it needed improvements. Like any major piece of legislation.

 

[RealDave]

Put your healthcare in the hands of government bueracrats that don't give a shit about you, whose bosses are corrupt politicians elected by special interest groups. It will also cause your taxes to sky rocket. What could possible go wrong?

Another ignorant fucking Trumpette.

The government is the payer,. YOU choose where to get your care from PRIVATE doctors in PRIVATE institutions.

Still making the doctors employees of the state. In other words slaves. You want to enslave an entire profession so you can get something for free.

DOCTORS WOULD NOT BE EMPLOYEES OF THE STATE.

Jesus Christ, learn what it is before making an ass out of yourself complaining.

 

[Zorro!]

And while these idiots drum their lips, Trump works on something meaningful:

IT’S NOT THE CRIME, IT’S THE COVERUP: Hospitals Sue Trump to Keep Negotiated Prices Secret.

“The nation’s hospital groups sued the Trump administration on Wednesday over a new federal rule that would require them to disclose the discounted prices they give insurers for all sorts of procedures.”​

Trump could always just ban price discrimination, and require them to charge the same price to all comers. I mean, if they’re so against disclosure. Meanwhile, the Trump Administration hits the right note:

“Hospitals should be ashamed that they aren’t willing to provide American patients the cost of a service before they purchase it.”​

Great. More big government regulation. Just what we need.

Slip, slip, slipping: The Confiscation Is the Point: Progressives Admit It’s About Seizing Wealth, Not Helping People. “The confiscation of wealth alone is the whole point of the progressive enterprise.”

They hate you and want you dead. Or at least under the boot. Because they’re garbage people who compensate for their awfulness by exploiting and oppressing others.

The New York Times profiled a new group of progressive economic minds for whom economic principles are entirely irrelevant. “Generations of economists, across much of the ideological spectrum, have long held that higher taxes reduce investment, slowing economic growth,” the Times began. “Ms. Warren and other leading Democrats say the opposite.” Who are you going to trust?

This premise, it turns out, is a smokescreen. It doesn’t take long before it becomes clear that progressives have not come to overturn the accumulated wisdom of many lifetimes of study and application. The financial ramifications associated with expropriating private property are a secondary concern. The confiscation of wealth alone is the whole point of the progressive enterprise.

Though Sen. Warren makes a valiant effort to stay focused on the public-welfare, education, and debt relief programs that might be financed by the trillions of dollars she hopes to withdraw from the private economy, the economists with whom Times reporters spoke seem more energized by the prospect of reducing the wealth gap through coercion and force.

“Some liberal economists go further and say that simply taxing the rich would help growth no matter what the government did with the money,” the Times observed. Roosevelt Institute economist Mark Paul fits that bill. “We can think of a wealth tax as welfare-enhancing, in and of itself, simply by constraining the power of the very wealthy,” he insisted.​

This presupposes that, in the war of all against all that is economic life, punishing the wealthy for their successes would benefit those less well-off if only because the wealthy would have slightly fewer resources to influence public policy. The assumption that wealth accumulation is a zero-sum game goes unchallenged, and for good reason. Where does one begin to challenge an article of faith?

There are a few economists in the Times article who are slightly more candid about the logical leap Warren makes from confiscation to prosperity. Warren advisor and U.C. Berkley economist Gabriel Zucman concedes that a constitutionally dubious wealth tax might have a “small positive effect” on economic growth, “depending on how the revenues are used.” Moody’s Mark Zandi confesses that Warren’s plans are “largely a wash on long-term economic growth.”

The progressive activists advocating confiscation as an end in itself should not be confused with demand-siders, who believe that simulative government and consumer spending are better drivers of economic growth (though there is surely significant overlap). The Keynesian economic model is neither new nor are its effects unknowable. By contrast, those who back confiscation for its own sake appear to acknowledge theirs is an untested philosophy.

“Some of the inequality-focused economists say they are hoping to build new economic models to predict the effects of their policies, though they acknowledge few of those models exist yet,” the Times notes.
​

Sure, a predictive model or two might be nice, but it’s not necessary. Warren is too politically savvy to admit it outright, but her allies are clear: Universally beneficial economic growth is neither a priority nor is it particularly desirable. The objective is to mete out a comeuppance to the Americans who they believe deserve it. In that sense, the cruelty is the point.

I'm not sure what any of that has to do with new regulations dictating how hospitals publish their prices, but I guess any soapbox'll do, eh?

It has to do with Sander's Socialism that will raise taxes on folks making less than $15 hr. The GOAL is CONTROL. The claimed "benefits" are merely the justification for the CONTROL. ...

Yeah. And? Again, so what? What does that have to do with the government regulating hospital pricing?

Are you just into making random irrelevant speeches?

To refresh your memory, The Lead Post:

All you rich folks making $14 an hour need to bear the burden.​

Sanders: Families Making $29,000 Will ‘Pay More In Taxes’ For Medicare For All - The Partnership for America’s Health Care Future

If you don't want to discuss this topic, go start your own topic about what you wish to discuss.

 

[Yarddog]

In 2008 Democrats said they fixed healthcare.

How’d that work out here 11 years later?

Good enough that you assfuck Republicans can't come up with anything better.

BTW lying piece of shit, Democrats said it needed improvements. Like any major piece of legislation.

Hey maybe we can be like FRANCE and have universal health care but if you notice, they are rioting... fed up with the soul crushing taxes. You know people like Sanders dont worry about taxes because they are set for life. Nothing they impose on others will affect them personally. By improvements, democrats mean... that once they figure out that the taxes wont even touch the costs of their health care plan they will raise taxes even more. They want to fix the American people the same way that you would fix a dog.