Does GDP growth mean Federal Tax revenue growth?

[Thinker101]

Wow, takes a liberal to twist that shit. I am against a group/panel of politicians sitting in a room 2000 miles away making health decisions that affect my life or anyone else's....dumbass.

If you don't have something on topic to contribute just do everyone a favor and shut the fuck up already.

LOL...here I was under the impression you raised the issue of the elderly...dumbass.

PAYING FOR ELDERLY, the only one that brought up death panels was you.

Actually the brother of Obama's chief of Staff the first few years was the proponent of "death panels". His brother was also the architect of Obamacare.
bioethicist and oncologist Ezekiel Emanuel

STOP.

Why do you assholes constantly want to derail the actual topic?

How about we take a look?
- Topic was/is GDP and revenue growth.
- Someone brought up cost of the elderly
- Someone else brought up Obamacare's death panels (Obama's solution for dealing with the elderly)
- Then someone got their panties in a bunch.
Sound about right?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

If these tax cuts result in GDP growth to the point they will pay for themselves

Why is the deficit drastically increasing?

There is no correlation between tax cuts and GDP growth.

 

[The Derp]

Are you aware that your state insurance regulations require what are called "reserves" i.e. set aside of profits to pay "future" claims?

What does that have to do with anything?

An insurance company takes as much as 20% in administration, off-the-top, before a single claim is processed.

By contrast, according to CMS, Medicare's administration runs about 1%.

So Medicare does the exact same thing an insurance company does, but it does so with a fraction of the administrative costs. So you're arguing in defense of a system that takes as much as 20 cents of every premium dollar you pay for administration, when Medicare does the exact same administration, but does it for 1 cent of every premium dollar paid.

So what's the better deal?

So the idea of "profits" or reserves depend on charging premiums and determining what to pay so there is a "reserve" for future claims?
This is one of the reasons health payers got out of ACA, i.e. ACA required 85% of premiums go to pay claims above the historical 80% ... Medical Loss Ratio.
So what would you do???

So your big problem is that you're trying to pretend that the service an insurance company provides (administration, nothing more) is somehow worth up to 20 cents of every premium dollar you pay. Tell me something, as a patient why does it matter to you how your claim is processed and paid and who does the processing and paying? You don't pay for health care upfront, the transaction that an insurance company does -as it's sole business function- is to reimburse your doctor for the care they already provided you. So the administration of reimbursement is a part of the process you aren't involved. So why does it matter so much to you that an insurance company does the administration vs. Medicare, who does it already for 65 million people at a fraction of the overhead?

No Conservative ever has been able to answer that question. Most of them don't even acknowledge it.

 

[rightwinger]

If these tax cuts result in GDP growth to the point they will pay for themselves

Why is the deficit drastically increasing?

There is no correlation between tax cuts and GDP growth.

No shit

 

[The Derp]

Actually the brother of Obama's chief of Staff the first few years was the proponent of "death panels". His brother was also the architect of Obamacare.
bioethicist and oncologist Ezekiel Emanuel

The only death panels are the Conservative Red State Legislatures that refused to expand Medicaid.

 

[rightwinger]

Actually the brother of Obama's chief of Staff the first few years was the proponent of "death panels". His brother was also the architect of Obamacare.
bioethicist and oncologist Ezekiel Emanuel

The only death panels are the Conservative Red State Legislatures that refused to expand Medicaid.

Don't forget repealing EPA and worker safety protections

 

[The Derp]

TARP's $626.4B outlay was part of GWB deficit for SURE. NO one disputes that!BUT DUMMY Per the below.. TARP was PAID BACK WITH A $87B PROFIT TO BOOT AND IT WAS CONSIDERED REVENUE FOR OBAMA!

Where are you getting this $87B number? Because it's not in any press I can find. In fact, the amount the government "profited" off TARP after 6 years was just $15.3B, according to the Treasury department. SO YOU'RE JUST MAKING SHIT UP NOW.

And let's examine what kind of "profit" that really was:

TARP ended in December 2014, which means it was a six-year program. Using your (doubtful) number of the overall cost of TARP, we find that the $15.6B "profit" on the $626B loan comes to an interest rate of 2%.

So TARP recipients paid just 2% interest over 6 years, which comes to an annual interest rate of 0.4%.

So we are supposed to jump for joy that the banks paid a 2% interest rate on the biggest bailout they've ever received, after tanking the economy and offering consumers loans at interest rates 2-5x the one they got? FUCK. THAT.

 

[OKTexas]

They are required by law to use medicare, and they pay/paid for it, that's not a freebie..

They're not required to use Medicare and Medicaid, they just have to because no insurer would insure your parents for a reasonable fee.

Now that we've established your parents use both, how do you feel about the fact that Medicare and Medicaid will be cut starting January next year which means your parents (or you) will have to pay more out of pocket for things like care, drugs, and co-pays? Because those cuts are going to happen. Do you think the meager tax cut you got will make up for the increase in costs for you and your parents?

Really, what are they going to cut? Be specific.


.

 

[healthmyths]

TARP's $626.4B outlay was part of GWB deficit for SURE. NO one disputes that!BUT DUMMY Per the below.. TARP was PAID BACK WITH A $87B PROFIT TO BOOT AND IT WAS CONSIDERED REVENUE FOR OBAMA!

Where are you getting this $87B number? Because it's not in any press I can find. In fact, the amount the government "profited" off TARP after 6 years was just $15.3B, according to the Treasury department. SO YOU'RE JUST MAKING SHIT UP NOW.

And let's examine what kind of "profit" that really was:

TARP ended in December 2014, which means it was a six-year program. Using your (doubtful) number of the overall cost of TARP, we find that the $15.6B "profit" on the $626B loan comes to an interest rate of 2%.

So TARP recipients paid just 2% interest over 6 years, which comes to an annual interest rate of 0.4%.

So we are supposed to jump for joy that the banks paid a 2% interest rate on the biggest bailout they've ever received, after tanking the economy and offering consumers loans at interest rates 2-5x the one they got? FUCK. THAT.

Bailout Scorecard | Eye on the Bailout | ProPublica

 

[OKTexas]

Get back to me when you have some clue about what you're talking about, the only things that don't require a cloture vote in the senate is budget reconciliation and confirming judicial nominations..

Not true, actually. What was the reason the Trump Tax Cut required 60 votes and couldn't be done through budget reconciliation? Oh right, because it adds to the deficit. What can pass with just 50 votes? Things that don't add to the deficit.

So when you say that you need 60 votes, what you're really saying is that whatever you're proposing is going to increase the debt. This, after peacocking about the deficit and debt throughout Obama. What a hypocrite.

Hey dumb ass, the tax cut was passed under reconciliation. Maybe you can get an adult to explain it to ya.


.

 

[healthmyths]

TARP's $626.4B outlay was part of GWB deficit for SURE. NO one disputes that!BUT DUMMY Per the below.. TARP was PAID BACK WITH A $87B PROFIT TO BOOT AND IT WAS CONSIDERED REVENUE FOR OBAMA!

Where are you getting this $87B number? Because it's not in any press I can find. In fact, the amount the government "profited" off TARP after 6 years was just $15.3B, according to the Treasury department. SO YOU'RE JUST MAKING SHIT UP NOW.

And let's examine what kind of "profit" that really was:

TARP ended in December 2014, which means it was a six-year program. Using your (doubtful) number of the overall cost of TARP, we find that the $15.6B "profit" on the $626B loan comes to an interest rate of 2%.

So TARP recipients paid just 2% interest over 6 years, which comes to an annual interest rate of 0.4%.

So we are supposed to jump for joy that the banks paid a 2% interest rate on the biggest bailout they've ever received, after tanking the economy and offering consumers loans at interest rates 2-5x the one they got? FUCK. THAT.

BUT it was ALL paid off during Obama! almost $700 billion back into the US Treasury and Obama STILL ran up a $9 Trillion addition to the debt!

 

[AntonToo]

TARP's $626.4B outlay was part of GWB deficit for SURE. NO one disputes that!BUT DUMMY Per the below.. TARP was PAID BACK WITH A $87B PROFIT TO BOOT AND IT WAS CONSIDERED REVENUE FOR OBAMA!

Where are you getting this $87B number? Because it's not in any press I can find. In fact, the amount the government "profited" off TARP after 6 years was just $15.3B, according to the Treasury department. SO YOU'RE JUST MAKING SHIT UP NOW.

And let's examine what kind of "profit" that really was:

TARP ended in December 2014, which means it was a six-year program. Using your (doubtful) number of the overall cost of TARP, we find that the $15.6B "profit" on the $626B loan comes to an interest rate of 2%.

So TARP recipients paid just 2% interest over 6 years, which comes to an annual interest rate of 0.4%.

So we are supposed to jump for joy that the banks paid a 2% interest rate on the biggest bailout they've ever received, after tanking the economy and offering consumers loans at interest rates 2-5x the one they got? FUCK. THAT.

BUT it was ALL paid off during Obama! almost $700 billion back into the US Treasury and Obama STILL ran up a $9 Trillion addition to the debt!

Lets do this AGAIN

Hey dummy! What did Obama spend 9 Trillion on?

I keep asking this simple question and there is NEVER any answer.

Why do you think that is?

Spoiler

Because you are full of shit

 

[OKTexas]

I see you don't know the difference between programs you pay into and freebies, they don't use medicade. They both pay more than $1,500 a month for medicare and supplemental insurance, plus out of pocket expenses..

Yes, they absolutely DO use Medicaid. You might not realize it, but they do. Nearly every single person over the age of 65 uses Medicaid to some degree. Furthermore, that $1,500 a month they pay is going to go up significantly starting January next year. Why? Because the tax plan you supported explodes the deficit to over $1T which triggers automatic cuts to Medicare and Medicaid. Which means that $1,500 a month they pay is going to go even higher.

All so you could give Trump a personal tax break.

Sure hope it was worth it for your parents and you.

You're full of shit, they don't use medicade, they make too much money.


.

 

[healthmyths]

TARP's $626.4B outlay was part of GWB deficit for SURE. NO one disputes that!BUT DUMMY Per the below.. TARP was PAID BACK WITH A $87B PROFIT TO BOOT AND IT WAS CONSIDERED REVENUE FOR OBAMA!

Where are you getting this $87B number? Because it's not in any press I can find. In fact, the amount the government "profited" off TARP after 6 years was just $15.3B, according to the Treasury department. SO YOU'RE JUST MAKING SHIT UP NOW.

And let's examine what kind of "profit" that really was:

TARP ended in December 2014, which means it was a six-year program. Using your (doubtful) number of the overall cost of TARP, we find that the $15.6B "profit" on the $626B loan comes to an interest rate of 2%.

So TARP recipients paid just 2% interest over 6 years, which comes to an annual interest rate of 0.4%.

So we are supposed to jump for joy that the banks paid a 2% interest rate on the biggest bailout they've ever received, after tanking the economy and offering consumers loans at interest rates 2-5x the one they got? FUCK. THAT.

BUT it was ALL paid off during Obama! almost $700 billion back into the US Treasury and Obama STILL ran up a $9 Trillion addition to the debt!

Lets do this AGAIN

Hey dummy! What did Obama spend 9 Trillion on?

I keep asking this simple question and there is NEVER any answer.

Why do you think that is?

Spoiler

Because you are full of shit

A) TARP and Freddie PAID BACK in six years! So it was actually more than $9 Trillion!
B) How did Bush era TAX CUTS affect Obama's revenue? There was never any loss in tax receipts so THAT chart is lying!
Obama Tax receipts grew over $1,230,513,000,000 in 6 years! So that chart is full of crap!
How can you possibly BLAME deficit spending when during those years over $1.2 trillion MORE revenue came in?
C) Remember idiot Obama shut down the war spending in Iraq! Made big deal about "ENDING the wars"!
D) Finally Economic downturn??? What kind of crap does that have to do with SPENDING $9 Trillion ?

 

[The Derp]

Really, what are they going to cut? Be specific..

The fact that you don't know about these cuts in the first place is troubling...it means you're not really informed on this topic enough to propagandize about it.

What are they going to cut? The funding for Medicare. If Trump hadn't waived the PayGo cuts for 2018, Medicare would have been cut by $25B. That would have resulted in higher co-pays, premiums, and drug costs because the $25B cut is spread across Medicare's budget, not one specific part of Medicare.

Here's the AARP explaining the problem:

Under the 2010 “pay-as-you-go” law known as PAYGO, that increase to the deficit would have triggered automatic spending cuts to programs, including a $25 billion cut to Medicare in 2018 alone.
​

The only reason why Medicare wasn't cut in 2018 was because Trump and the Conservatives waived their own PayGo rule to make it seem like the tax cut was all good. You got conned, pal.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

B) How did Bush era TAX CUTS affect Obama's revenue? There was never any loss in tax receipts so THAT chart is lying!
Obama Tax receipts grew over $1,230,513,000,000 in 6 years! So that chart is full of crap!
How can you possibly BLAME deficit spending when during those years over $1.2 trillion MORE revenue came in?

Here are the Fed Tax Revenue for the years prior to Bush II and after his tax cuts...the 7 years prior to the tax cuts revenue growth averaged 8% per year. The 7 years of the cut and after revenue averaged 3% growth per year.

 

[The Derp]

TARP's $626.4B outlay was part of GWB deficit for SURE. NO one disputes that!BUT DUMMY Per the below.. TARP was PAID BACK WITH A $87B PROFIT TO BOOT AND IT WAS CONSIDERED REVENUE FOR OBAMA!

Where are you getting this $87B number? Because it's not in any press I can find. In fact, the amount the government "profited" off TARP after 6 years was just $15.3B, according to the Treasury department. SO YOU'RE JUST MAKING SHIT UP NOW.

And let's examine what kind of "profit" that really was:

TARP ended in December 2014, which means it was a six-year program. Using your (doubtful) number of the overall cost of TARP, we find that the $15.6B "profit" on the $626B loan comes to an interest rate of 2%.

So TARP recipients paid just 2% interest over 6 years, which comes to an annual interest rate of 0.4%.

So we are supposed to jump for joy that the banks paid a 2% interest rate on the biggest bailout they've ever received, after tanking the economy and offering consumers loans at interest rates 2-5x the one they got? FUCK. THAT.

Bailout Scorecard | Eye on the Bailout | ProPublica

View attachment 176419

So that's all unsourced and quite sketchy. Plus, you had Treasury in 2014 saying that they only profited $15.3B. You offer nothing to back up your claims other than an unsourced "scorecard".

But whatever, let's work from the shoddy assumption you are correct and the government "profited" to the tune of $86B...that's an interest rate of 14% over a six-year period. Which means the annual interest rate paid by the banks that had to be bailed out was a whopping 2.3%. By contrast, the average fixed rate for a credit card is 12.5%.

So banks got a sweetheart loan with a rock-bottom interest rate, and we're supposed to be thankful that we got $86B from the banks for fucking up the economy? FUCK. THAT.

 

[OKTexas]

Really, what are they going to cut? Be specific..

The fact that you don't know about these cuts in the first place is troubling...it means you're not really informed on this topic enough to propagandize about it.

What are they going to cut? The funding for Medicare. If Trump hadn't waived the PayGo cuts for 2018, Medicare would have been cut by $25B. That would have resulted in higher co-pays, premiums, and drug costs because the $25B cut is spread across Medicare's budget, not one specific part of Medicare.

Here's the AARP explaining the problem:

Under the 2010 “pay-as-you-go” law known as PAYGO, that increase to the deficit would have triggered automatic spending cuts to programs, including a $25 billion cut to Medicare in 2018 alone.
​

The only reason why Medicare wasn't cut in 2018 was because Trump and the Conservatives waived their own PayGo rule to make it seem like the tax cut was all good. You got conned, pal.

So you're saying it could have happened, but didn't, talk about much ado about nothing. LMAO


.

 

[The Derp]

Hey dumb ass, the tax cut was passed under reconciliation. Maybe you can get an adult to explain it to ya..

Yeah, it's supposedly "deficit neutral" because your tax cut expires in 2025, and then your rate goes up by 2027. Your brackets are also chained to CPI, which means you could be one of the 80-90 million who will find yourself in a higher bracket because wages grow faster than inflation.

AND that's using the fucked up "dynamic scoring" y'all used in Kansas that ended up projecting revenues above actuals.

How come Conservatives made the tax cut for the 1% and business permanent, yet made your tax cut temporary?

 

[The Derp]

BUT it was ALL paid off during Obama! almost $700 billion back into the US Treasury and Obama STILL ran up a $9 Trillion addition to the debt!

It doesn't matter that it was paid off or not, what matters is that they had to be bailed out IN THE FIRST PLACE, then got a sweetheart deal on interest on the loans they got. Who in the world can get a 2% interest rate on any loan? No one except bailed out banks. So the banks were rewarded with a low interest rate on the loans we gave them that bailed them out of the mess they created.

The fact that you don't see what's wrong with that just proves the kind of partisan hack you are.