Trump adviser eyes entitlement cuts to plug budget gaps
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Trump adviser eyes entitlement cuts to plug budget gaps
A top economic adviser to President Donald Trump said Monday he expects U.S. budget deficits of about 4 percent to 5 percent of the country's economic output for the next one to two years, adding that there would likely be an effort in 2019 to cut spending on entitlement programs.
"We have to be tougher on spending," White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow said in remarks to the Economic Club of New York, adding that government spending was the reason for the wider budget deficits, not the Republican-led tax cuts activated this year.
Kudlow did not specify where future cuts would be made.
"We're going to run deficits of about 4 to 5 percent of GDP for the next year or two, OK. I'd rather they were lower but it's not a catastrophe," Kudlow said. "Going down the road, of course we'd like to slim that down as much as possible and we'll work at it."
He stated that the biggest factor for revenue was economic growth rate. A quicker pace of growth will bring in more revenue, Kudlow said, and that President Donald Trump's economic policies were aimed at boosting the U.S. growth rate.
Kudlow also said he did not expect the Congress would be able to make the Trump administration's recent individual tax cuts permanent before the Nov. 6 midterm congressional elections.
"I don't think it will get through the whole Congress" before the election, he said, but added that making the personal tax cuts permanent "is a good message" and disagreed with forecasts that they would further increase budget deficits.
Tags
Who is online
97 visitors
The gop has given huge tax breaks to the very very rich and to big multinational corporations resulting in our budget deficits exploding. The gop wants to cut benefits earmarked for the poor, the aged, children and veterans to pay for their hubris...
I'm neither, but getting to keep more of MY MONEY has been great. I Earned it, as has everyone else the "Left" likes to Chastise.
The "Left" only loves those that don't pay shit !
That was the damn gop's plan all along. To slash income so as to justify cutting the programs that help Americans in need...
The pre-existing $20 trillion debt is pretty good justification, too. Isn't it plausible that there could be some welfare programs that we could or should cut? Politicians never want to cut back on anything. In what other aspect of life do people behave that way?
If so then why did the damn gop blow up deficits again by cutting taxes on the rich and on big corporations?
I'd like the supposed fiscal conservatives to answer this question. They love tax cuts, that don't create jobs or pay for themselves, but them they want to cut essential spending to pay for them. Apparently the poor and the sick can go without so the rich can get richer.
We cut taxes on corporations because we wanted to still have US corporations, and they were leaving in droves.
I was not in favor of the individual tax cuts. I recognized the corporate cuts as necessary.
But I do not accept the traditional bleeding heart liberal premise that "just because somebody is poor that means I should have to buy them stuff".
How were the corporate tax cuts necessary? How did we benefit because they got tax cuts?
Indeed they do, we all do, but the reality is that if we want to INCREASE our spending, (as a nation), tax cuts are a stupid fucking idea. It really is that simple.
If that same money had been spent on infrastructure improvements we could have created thousands of direct and indirect jobs. The improvements would have benefited all of the county, even those who don't work in construction.
We get the same benefit a business does when it lowers prices to stay competitive. We get to keep collecting revenue.
The problem is that a business almost never lowers it's prices. A "sale" just means that the price of something else is increased to cover the, "sale". If you think for second that "big business" is on the side of the consumer you are lying to yourself.
Lets put it another way... Now I don't know you, so I mean no offense here..
Lets say you and your spouse each make 75k a year...150k total after taxes. You own your home and your cars are both paid off...
Your spouse loses their job, cutting your income in half. The next day, your spouse says, "hey, since I lose my job, I am going to go down and buy us matching Ferrari's!".
Stupid idea, yea? Yet that is essentially what our own government is proposing. Increase military spending by 5.6%, but lets cut taxes, mostly for the rich and that is just ONE example..
When people like trump scream, "The democrats want to raise your taxes!!!", we on the left say, "Yea, no shit, so we can actually PAY for the increases for the military and infrastructure!!".
Now do you get it, Jack? Dems want the same things the repubs want, we just want to actually PAY for it.
They don't lower prices to stay competitive. They cut employee costs and outsource the jobs.
Many of the corporations' aren't paying taxes to start with.
We can get rid of all the corporate welfare first. That should put back a few trillion.
This is one of the ideas that Obama had come up with to create jobs but, of course the Republicans didn't want to do it. I wonder why.
Let's don't start off by guessing incorrectly what each other thinks.
You're looking at it from a household finance perspective. Try looking at it from an employer perspective. You own a company and you have some really kick ass salespeople. You've been losing them at an alarming rate for several years because your competitors pay double the commission rate you do. You can either sit there and do nothing, or you can bite the bullet, raise your pay scale, and try to keep the ones you have left. That's what the corporate tax cut tries to do.
I personally don't think we need an increase in defense spending. You'll notice that Kudlow says in the article, "we have to get spending under control".
I get it well enough not to see it from multiple angles. How about you?
Meh. You say that, but there are a whole lot of your fellow party members who are emotional enough not to give a single shit whether stuff gets paid for or not, as long as they get their way.
That's just ridiculous. Of course they do.
They do that because they can't compete with low prices on imported goods otherwise.
Then it doesn't matter if we lowered their tax rate.
Dude. I'm a numbers guy. "A few trillion"? C'mon. You're killin' me. Math is your friend.
Hundreds of thousands. But it hardly matters. There isn't anybody to do the jobs we have now.
Yes. I would love to see us get this ready, and then wait for a downturn in the economy to implement. We don't need it right now, but eventually we will.
Ok, ok, so, it wasn't and, isn't trillion, it's billions, 63 billion in 2014 so, what is it now I wonder?
I don't work or speak for the GOP. I'm not trying to trash one party or the other. Your comment doesn't relate to what I said. Please reread and answer accordingly.
I wouldn't suggest, knee-jerk style, that we get rid of all of anything. I just saying it's reasonable that we could cut back on something. Do you not agree with that?
Sure, we can cut back on the tax cuts that were started back when Bush II was in office and, cut the 63 billion in corporate welfare.
Undoubtedly more. But it's not always as simple as that.
Mr. Brunori is complaining about economic development programs, which he characterizes as corporate welfare. No doubt some of them are. But some of them cause good things to happen that wouldn't otherwise happen. These tax breaks encourage stuff like building more low income housing, or opening bank branches in poor neighborhoods, or various other stuff that nobody would do otherwise because it's a bad investment.
So yeah...there is definitely "corporate welfare". But sometimes what looks like corporate welfare is an intentional attempt to sweeten a deal so we can get services to people who otherwise wouldn't have a chance.
That's fine! Let's cut some corporate welfare. Can we get the other kind, too?
Sure, why not, we can take away school lunch's, let them kids go hungry at lunch time, they don't need to eat, if they get too hungry they can chew on the pencils they have to pay for. Let's cut back on Medicaid as well, hell, those kids don't need to see a doctor or, get flu shots, if they get sick they can miss school, that will save them from getting hungry at school from not having any lunch. Right? Right?
What I am talking about is the idea that some millionaire CEO gets a golden bonus because of a corporate welfare break and, that way he can get his kid the two most expensive gifts he can, including someone to chew their food for them so they don't have to chew, the poor babies, I mean who wouldn't like to have their own food chewer.
But that's not what corporations are doing. They're taking their tax cuts and re-investing them back into the company but not employee bonuses/raises.
Then you would be wrong, again. If you are uninformed on a topic best to investigate before commenting.
https://www.apnews.com/ca6ee069de98486082348ee08d771502/Analysis:-Tax-cuts,-spending-to-raise-deficit-to-$1T-by-2019
Me. I kinda find pre-masticated food unappealing.
But do you have a more serious example of the "corporate welfare" you're describing?
Corporations we're leaving. In large numbers. They're not anymore.
Capital investment is actually up, despite what you may have been told.
You certainly aren't getting your information from Forbes, then. Is it now a "liberal" media outlet?
Bloomberg.
Thanks for actually providing a link that destroys what you claimed two comments above. How does "spending good but not great" become something to crow about--especially when Scumbag predicted his tax cuts would produce an economic miracle? So far, it's really just been the continuation of the Obama Miracle only back to being without any health care for millions of people.
Or....in the real world....supports exactly what I said. Capital spending is up.
Please cite me crowing.
Or do you just intend to do that thing you normally hope nobody notices where you pretend people have said something they haven't because you can't figure out an angry leftist argument for their actual statements?
The president's habit of embellishment is well documented. Certainly you've learned that by now.
It's a combination of gridlock and easy money. Businesses have become increasingly confident over the last 8 years that deleterious government action is less and less likely, combined with an extended period of extremely low interest rates. So they are putting a little money back into their businesses.
I have never heard that premise. Ever.
You have, just not described that way.
How about "food stamps don't provide enough to feed a family"?
How about "healthcare is a basic human right"?
Include on that list the idea that it is somehow immoral to let rich people keep more of their own money.
How about the reality that the amount of food stamps a family receives has not kept pace with the cost of food since welfare reform?
It is a basic human right. That doesn't mean that you're buying them stuff.
No. It isn't. Healthcare, by definition, requires the services of another person. No person has the right to compel others to serve them.
Of course it does. You're not attempting to suggest that the poor are paying for their own healthcare, are you?
Who do you think pays for Medicaid? Who do you think would pay for Bernicare? It's those of us still paying income tax.
Another wad of libertarian bs. Libertarianism is a fantasy, a utopia that will NEVER happen in the U.S.
Jack, do you believe in social darwinism, in other words survival of the fittest, in other words dog eat dog?
Do you have a good job or a good business you run? Then be happy and thankful that you live in a society that has made those accomplishments possible for you. The reason that you have a "welfare state" is so that you dont have a revolution. "Paying" a little bit to the poor should make you happy. The poor are a constant by product of capitalism. Unless you believe in "dog eat dog" you will accept that the poor must be provided for, certainly including medical attention. If you do believe in dog eat dog as a philosophy than you have no right to bitch if someone robs or even kills you.
We have a society of 325 million people. There isnt going to be any "libertarianism".
Libertarianism is a political version of they can't see the forest for the tree syndrome and the rejection of macroeconomics. Libertarians want the benefits of living in a 21st-century sociaty but they don't want to pay for any of the costs. Any time that a state has embraced libertarian economic ideas the quality of life has suffered and the budget is overrun with debt because of their selfish and shorted-sighted ideas.
I used to think that civil libertarianism was possible but there are far too many people who cannot accept the fact that they live in an interconnected society and respect the equal rights of others. Put it more bluntly; some people are just self-centered jerks who refuse to peacefully work and play with others. Unsurprisingly, many of them in the US claim to be Christians.
Do you think that people who enforce our secular constitutional rights work pro-bono? Cops, DAs and judges are paid well for their work. Nobody every said that Drs and others would be forced to work for free, except libertarian dipsticks such as that idiot Rand Paul.
Who said it would be otherwise?
Jack, get a grip. Health care providers get paid. Nor are they compelled to work in that job. They are free to do something else.
Wow, are you sure about that? I'm pretty sure we have laws regarding discrimination. If a person goes into health care, they generally go into that field expecting to have to serve others, they will still be paid for their work.
That depends on which poor you're talking about doesn't it? Many poor aren't on Medicaid...you know that right?
Bernie care? I am not a bernie supporter. I know who pays for medicaid...it's all of us. I'm paying for others too Jack, even though I was on medicaid for a short period of time. I know people like to pretend that a welfare recipient is always a taker but that is blatantly false.
What then are the defining characteristics for a human right and who is authorized to do the defining?
You're just determined to keep guessing at what I think, no matter how many times you get it horribly wrong....aren't you?
Actually, I don;'t care what you are. I'm just responding to your comments.
Yes.
Yes.
They cannot be required to go into health care. They cannot be required to come out of retirement, or even in from the golf course.
Certainly. The reliance on that program is the greatest failure of the Affordable Care Act. Nevertheless, 60+ million people are on the program in any given year.
I did not say or imply you were.
It is not.
Medicaid is funded through federal income tax, and then secondarily through state funds. Nearly half of Americans pay no federal income tax. So while you may be paying, the math says many people are not.
I don't pretend. The math says what it says.
But you're not. That's the point. You're responding to what you think my comments must imply, like how I "support Trump" or I am a "libertarian". Neither of those is true, BTW.
Now, did you want to ask for clarification, or do you just want to keep guessing?
Correct. And they cannot be compelled. Therefore healthcare is not a "right".
When you're in a hole, stop digging.
You are stuck on the claim that anything that is a right is somehow free, despite the facts. Nobody has ever said or suggested that people would be forced to work for free because that is illegal. You have created this strawman because of your own inability to learn.
What then are the defining characteristics for a human right and who is authorized to do the defining?
No. Please pay attention.
Oh, the irony.
Are you in fact capable of expressing your opinions without personal attacks? Why do you find alternative views so threatening?
Please cite me making such a claim.
There are several defining characteristics, and that is an excellent and extensive conversation. For the sake of brevity and not straying too far off topic, let me concentrate on the key difference as I see it.
We have rights to expression, and to things like life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We have rights to property and to the religion of our choice. All of those are things we do for ourselves.
Healthcare is something somebody else must do for you, and that person has the right to refuse. We do not have the inherent right to override the inherent right of another person.
It's just like the idea that I have the right to shelter, but I do not have the right to make you build it for me.
I am not so sure that (doing for ourselves) is a defining characteristic of a right - at least not one that is practical. Seems to me we are all interdependent. We do very little in isolation of other people:
I would say that nobody (in general) should be denied life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness. But they should also not be denied food, shelter, clothing, education, healthcare or the means to contribute to society (e.g. a job).
I agree with this in principle. Able people in society should not simply receive from society. That is, no able person has the right to be a parasite - to not contribute. But now look at this in terms of modern civil society. Would you truly be against a system of education which properly prepares the next generation to grab the reigns of this nation? I presume you agree that all should have at least a quality K-12 education for all. Why would a quality education, for example, not be a right of civil society? Similarly why would access to quality healthcare, as another example, not be a right of civil society?
The method and limits of education, healthcare, etc. is a complex and valid factor. Civil society necessarily must impose limits on what is available to all. So take that as a given. But should civil society in principle deny any of its able members rights such as a quality education or quality healthcare?
Also for Jack.
Interesting exchange.
May I suggest a couple of additional points?
The interaction of "rights" is important to understanding them. Each is limited by others.
"Property" is an interesting right. It is not among out constitutional rights... except to say that property may not be seized without due process. It is very much a "right" that exists only in diminishing others' rights. If you own something, then I may not own that thing. Land is the best example.
The French Revolution, when it was "taken over" by the bourgeoisie, changed the classic "Liberté, égalité, fraternité" to Liberté, égalité, propriété." Property is a right, primarily in the minds of those who hold some...
Interesting interpretation. It sort of pre-supposes that the property in question is irreplacable. For example, if I own Manhattan Island, that would indeed diminish another person's right to own it, because there is only one. However my owniing something common like a Banana Republic t-shirt does not impede your owning one also.
Property was definitely a right in the minds of the authors of the Constitution.
I don't believe there are different rights for different people. People have rights. Ability has no bearing.
You are conflating (it would appear intentionally) two separate ideas. There is a difference between a "right" and what we as a society decide to provide.
Simply because a society decides to provide certain services, they do not somehow magically become "rights".
This is where it gets interesting. I agree that owning "a Banana Republic t-shirt does not impede your owning one also"... but owning the "Banana Republic t-shirt company " definitely does.
Its the difference between public and private property. Don't ask for a dollar demarcation...
They were all property-holders, so they probably saw property as a right... but the fact remains that they carefully did NOT write it into the Constitution.
I wouldn't bet that Tom Paine agreed saw property in exactly the same light...
What is that difference?
I do not see what I wrote as a different right but rather an upfront qualification to distinguish a right from parasitic behavior. In discussions such as these it is important to make it clear that nobody has the right to be a societal parasite. That said, I am suggesting that everyone has a right to life (since I was speaking to your example). Thus a handicapped person who cannot realistically survive on her own has the right to continue to live and society would be providing that right.
Ability does indeed have a bearing, being practical about this.
Well okay, this is why I asked you upfront to give the defining characteristics of a right and who decides those characteristics. We need to define terms. You somewhat punted on that and now you come back with the above. So you see a difference (and this okay). Now you should explain the difference as you see it:
Correct. That is not what I argued - at all - not even close.
I agree... but...
What we all agree are "rights" began as services rendered by the society. Then there's a zone where some people say "rights" and others say "services". And finally there are items that everyone agrees are services.
This labeling isn't fixed. It changes over time, and it seems to me that gradually some services do indeed become rights...
But, as Jack noted, ...
The word 'simply' is operative.
I agree, but this is why it is critical that people have agreement on the meaning of 'right'. I need to know the defining characteristics of a right, who does the defining and even who provides the right to be able to discuss rights with someone else. At least to do so in a meaningful fashion.
Yes.
It's important to observe that a "bill of rights" isn't the same thing in different centuries.
Rights are not be different for able bodied people than they are for others. Just as they cannot be different for tall people, thin people, or white or black people.
No, society would be providing services. There is a difference.
I don't feel the need to follow down this nearly infinite rabbit hole. Rights are not provided. Rights are inalienable. Services are provided.
You haven't argued that yet, but I suspect you are heading in that direction.
Nothing stops you from starting your own t-shirt company. Nothing stops you from developing your own intellectual/branding property.
You have already cited where they did.
Come on Jack this is twice now that you have focused on an upfront qualification as if it were my point (while largely ignoring my actual points) and misread it at that. Read what I wrote:
I am not defining rights but rather making an upfront qualification that nobody has the right to be a societal parasite . Everyone has the right to life and what that means depends upon the condition of the person. The right to life remains the same, the practical societal approach will differ.
Vaguely declaring 'services' and moving on accomplishes nothing of value. Make an argument, provide a definition, answer a direct question.
A tacit admission that you really do not think you have a good point to make. At this point I would concur.
Nothing stops anyone from being born a Walton!
No.
Your life is not a service rendered by society. Neither is your liberty.
Because the upfront qualification is material and erroneous.
I have done so. It just wasn't the one you wanted.
Your idiotic assertions aside, nothing stops you from competing with them, except your own intellect, courage and ambition.
Oh? Why do we have cops?
If you truly believe that John Q. Doe has the same rights and opportunities as a Walton heir... then we have nothing to say to each other.
Anyone can do what Sam Walton did.
It will take guts, hard work, sacrifice, luck, dedication, intelligence, and maybe even a little help.
All things money can't buy.
That sounds like true equal opportunity to me.
To incarcerate those who seek to take away the rights we already have.
They provide a service. They do not bestow rights.
What right does Alice Walton have that you don't?
And are we going to change the subject to opportunities?
So... Why are there so few Sam Waltons?
I have problems with Sam, but my previous remarks were about his heirs, who have accomplished nothing whatsoever... and are still among the wealthiest Americans.
Without cops, what would "right to life and liberty" mean?
Billions of dollars. Unearned.
Now you just sound jealous that the Waltons are richer than you are.
Why aren't there more people like Sam Walton?
Because few people are willing to take the risks? Or put in the effort? Because few people make better decisions than he did? Lack of imagination? Lack of talent?
It doesn't matter why, really.
The OPPURTUNITY is there if people CHOOSE to take advantage of it.
Money isn't a right, nor does it give anyone rights in America.
And because her father was highly successful, he CHOSE to bequeath his children money. What is wrong with that?
My dad, while certainly not rich, left me and my sister whatever he had.
She has the right to her family's inheritance, just like you have the right to yours. She has the right to her property, just like you have the right to yours.
You think?
Well said.
Yeah, but she GOT MORE!
W-a-h. It just isn't FAIR that someone has more!!!!
It. Really. Isn't. Any. Of. Your. Business. What. Others. Have.
They. Didn't. Take. It. From. You.
So much to address, but let's start here. What math?
Who said that this is necessary or even reasonable? This comment has nothing to do with healthcare being a human right.
What about the right to legal representation? That's a right that not everyone is capable of providing for themselves.
The math that says almost half of Americans are not paying into Medicaid.
Healthcare is not a human right because it requires another person to do it for you. What if nobody wants to? What if nobody is available? What if you need me to provide healthcare for you but I have a tee time? Or I'm exhausted? Or I'm on vacation? Or I charge more than you can pay? Or my office is closed?
Rights are inalienable. They do not only exist from 8am-5pm with Wednesday afternoons off. They don't exist only when you can pay for them.
And that's where this nonsense is headed. It's pretty transparent. If "healthcare is a right", then I'm still entitled to it even if I can't pay for it, which means somebody else is going to need to pay for it because it's my right and you can't deny me my rights.
You don't have a right to legal representation. You have the right not to be incarcerated without it. The legal representation is a service provided so that the state doesn't have to let you get away with whatever crime you've committed.
Who defines the criteria for a right?
Seems you are arguing that constitutional rights are not necessarily 'rights'.
Where can one go to get the list of rights as you define the term?
Not at all. Read it again.
Fireryone was right; I was just curious to see how you would respond to her. Lately your ' arguments ' have largely been equivocation and deflection. Hard to take serious (so I do not). In support of fireryone's observation :
So, do we have a constitutional right to an attorney in criminal prosecutions? Here is the 6th amendment for reference:
My guess is that you will now move to another ' this is not a right ' declaration since it was provided by society (vs. intrinsic to creation). The reason I have a problem with your approach is your refusal to articulate the defining characteristics of a right. By refusing to be specific about your use of language, you can freely declare what is a right at your choosing. This is not an impressive tactic and I trust I am not the only one who sees through it.
No, she wasn't, and I have explained that already.
Or....just refusing to go off on a wild tangent on a seed about something else.
You never respond well to arguments you don't want to hear.
You have the right not to be incarcerated without a fair trial. There is a difference. Try walking into a public defender's office and demanding legal representation simply because "it's your right".
No, you have the right to your liberty, and the state cannot remove that right without a fair trial.
Jack declares the above, the CotUS says what is below:
Sorry Jack, merely repeating your declaration does not change the CotUS.
I'm jealous of people who have things that they have done nothing to deserve.
One doesn't but can.
When one arrives for arraignment the court assigns a local attorney in a pool of attornies to represent the accused at the governments expense because it the accused persons right if they cannot afford an attorney.
Money is power and power gives rights. Citizens United, for example.
So now inheritance is a right?
Actually, it is.
Actually, they took it from everyone... including me.
I suggest that people stop letting those mean old greedy rich folk steal from them!
Funny, no one came and stole from me!
Your understanding of the ruling in CU seems lacking.
Money wasn't the issue.
Please don't keep perpetuating THAT myth!
Pray tell, if what you think is true IS true, why did it take a SCOTUS decision for the "rich" to have the same rights?
They already had the money, so according to you, they ALREADY had the "right".
Something fishy about that explanation!
I will assume that if you have kids, or a wife, then you will leave them absolutely nothing worth anything then.
To do otherwise would be monumentally hypocritical.
Sorry, but I will leave what I have earned to my loved ones.
Your 'explanation' was simply a (nuh-uh) denial followed by deflection. If the CotUS declares a 'right' how, in your way of thinking, is that not a 'right'?
In addition to the 6th amendment, consider the miranda:
You have yet to offer the defining characteristics for what you call a 'right', who defines 'rights' or who provides 'rights'. You have, however, contradicted the CotUS.
What part of "took" do you not understand?
No. I didn't say that. Have you no other method than misquoting?
My son already has what I could give him: education and a will of his own. He is doing very well.
That's a silly thing to say. Hypocrisy is beside the point.
Of course. That's the law.
The point is that it happens at arraignment. It is part of the process of the state attempting to remove a person's liberty...which is the actual inalienable right in question.
At least you've admitted that. It's the first step toward fixing the problem.
I think you'll find it's not. The Walton's net worth is known because they choose to share it. If they did not, you would have no idea.
Biggest steaming pile of bullshit ever.
Not just at arraignment.
Once an individual is Mirandized they have a right to equal access to the law through a licensed attorney.
That includes interrogation to verdict. One can decline hat right if they wish and keep all the liberty they want.
Regardless of your liberty opinion, the right to legal counsel is a right.
If someone stole something from you, you should go to the police and report the crime.
Now, I have PURCHASED stuff at WalMart, but never had anyone steal from me there.
Maybe your experiences at Wal Mart are different?
YOUR words--I didn't make them up.
What problem? The jealousy is justified.
Duplicate comment removed.
No there is no logical reason for your jealousy. Doesn’t matter if they won the lottery. I’m not jealous of others good fortune.
[deleted]
I'm sure you think so.
OK. I'll bite. Explain your justification. While you're at it, explain how she "took" anything from you.
Sure. Once they are Mirandized.
So the state is attempting to take away their inalienable right of liberty, and it must go through certain processes to ensure that right is not removed unjustly.
There is no general standing right to counsel "just because". You can't walk into the public defenders office and demand they represent you while you sue your neighbor for backing over your fence.
The 6th amendment.
No. The 6th amendment does not depend upon the reading of Miranda rights. It is in place without such a condition.
In the USA, the 6th amendment does indeed give the right to counsel for criminal cases.
The 6th amendment:
Hi, Dean!
I already did.
That's not what I said.
Once again... either you are misquoting on purpose (intellectual dishonesty) or you have serious problems with the English language.
Perhaps you are using some sort of "new" English but quoting you:
It does appear you feel they "took" something from you Bob.
Maybe you've been living in France too long to practice "proper" English comprehension.
It most certainly is. 2.1.101
Followed up by:
So what did they take, how did they take it, and why haven't you reported it to authorities?
Isn't it rather odd that we are accused of taking things out of context when we quote the ENTIRE post?
A sentence in the English language often has more than one word. Most of the time, in fact. Each word participates in meaning of the sentence. Taking one word out of context is, as I said, either intellectual dishonesty or misunderstanding of the English language.
Since you also need the same explanation, I assume that the same two possibilities apply to you...
C'mon Jack. Now you're acting silly.
Public Defenders the key word is defender. They "defend" an indigent person that's been charged with a crime or anyone that's been arrested and being questioned.
Why would they defend a civil case that is taken on a contingency basis? They only handle criminal cases.
Since they didn't earn anything, the obvious response is "everything they have".
How? By birth.
Do you really not know how Sam Walton's heirs got their money?
If people constantly are "misquoting" you and "taking your words out of context", perhaps it would behoove you to write what you actually mean.
Say what you mean and mean what you say.
When you write that people have taken stuff from everyone, and that it includes you, WTF did you MEAN if not precisely THAT?
What part of "misquoting" do you not understand?
Yes Jack. Here on earth we call that a trial.
It's the public entity accusing you of breaking the rules which jeapodizes your right to liberty among society.
I understand it just FINE.
What I don't understand is how you can claim that when they COPIED AND PASTED YOUR ENTIRE FREAKING POST!
Must be some sort of evil conservative trick--quoting your EXACT words back to you!
I've seen this phenomenon before.
Some people are not interested in what is actually said. They know what is meant - regardless of what is actually said.
I do say what I mean.
Are you sure that you are not asking me to say what you mean?
Yeah, I am SURE.
If you didn't that they took it from everyone, including yourself, what DID you mean?
And why the hell didn't you just say THAT instead?
Are we supposed to decipher your posts or just go on what you write?
No, actually. They did not.
Upper case does not magically transform falsehoods into truths.
Is that a sentence?
WTF Jack?
WOW.
I was right, and you are dead wrong on this one.
Don't like the tax code change it. Those who don't pay federal income tax aren't required to because their income is too low. That person will eventually pay federal income tax as their wages increase.
In most advanced countries, health care is a major part of wealth redistribution. The wealthy who feel robbed of their God-given inheritances can at least feel reassured that "their" money is actually helping people...
It is clearly written for all to see in post #2.1.101
Feel free to deny all you want but it is very clear to anyone who can read.
Smeo peeopl nca reda all dinks fo tsuff.
YES, I left a word out.
Here you go:
If you didn't mean they took it from everyone, including yourself, what DID you mean?
That is what you wrote, so I apologize for ASSUMING that is what you meant.
Why don't you tell us what you really meant?
If by "odd", you mean "completely and totally expected as a desperate last gasp attempt to divert attention".... then yes. Very odd.
So we're in agreement that we're not "all" paying. Excellent.
Yes. Exactly. Thank you.
Which is REALLY all you care about. It's like kindergarten all over again. Other people have money and you don't so the teacher should make them share.
This is all only about getting somebody else to pay your bills. All the rest is just rationalization.
Odd, but not unexpected.
What else they got?
'they'? Who is 'they'?
Follow the thread and I bet you can figure it out.
Retreat on the first question. That must be a record.
Okay Bob, if you say so ....... but only in France
No. Your thinking so seems to indicate a comprehension problem.
I said they took it from everyone, including myself.
I meant they took it from everyone, including myself.
Is thar clearer?
I am so-o-o-o glad you care about what I care about...
I have no idea what you are talking about, and care even less. Next time, please copy / paste the text to which you are Replying.
So NOW you finally admit to saying exactly what people quoted you as saying.
Nice, but
What took so long?
No.
Yeah Bob, you don’t care but apparently you do care, just enough to keep responding with your BS obfuscations and denials.
How sophomoric.
I care about the English language... and about intellectual honesty. When I encounter someone who apparently masters neither, I offer them assistance....
Sorry, your words are on the page. Take them back or own them.
When people catch you in fabrication, don't get mad at them for doing so
Then why in post 2.1.124 did you write that it WASN'T what you CLEARLY wrote and now admit?
I admitted nothing.
Either:
A. You didn't write the post to start with, or
B. You wrote it and didn't mean it, or
C. You wrote it and meant it.
Take your pick.
Your words are written for all to see--and your denials, too.
And for some reason it came back on the republican agenda when Scumbag made it a $1T campaign promise. Of course, even republicans know that there's no money left for that kind of undertaking so they're slow-crawling this issue, which is to say, talking about it and doing nothing so at least that hasn't changed.
The lower income people don't pay, but they will when their income rises. Eventually everyone pays in Jack.
What a bunch of crap.
I have never denied what I wrote.
Intellectual honesty? And yet you insist on playing your sophomoric word games and fielding inappropriate insults whenever possible? The last thing you are is “intellectually honest” Bob.
Now go ahead, get your last chomskyesk insult in. I’m done with your nonsense.
You're frothing...
Lol, hardly. Unless you call sipping a nice 25 yo scotch with a fine cigar frothing. In which case you would be correct.
Have nice evening Bob. I am ..... packing to go on Honor Flight tomorrow as guardian for a great friend. I’ll try to check in from DC tomorrow
... and I'll watch more of the Women's World Basketball Championship, here on Tenerife, in the Canary Islands...
For many people, it never does.
That's just factually incorrect.
*eyeroll*
You're not that naive, but if it makes you feel better to think every angry juvenile leftist is really only thinking about their fellow man, you go right ahead.
Did you read what fireryone wrote? There is nothing naive about it.
A national health care system that provides basic care for all is not about getting somebody else to pay your bills. It is a sensible practice to exploit economies of scale, standardization and shared risk. The economies of scale part should be obvious. Shared risk should be obvious too; it is a simple actuarial principle. With the sometimes staggering costs of healthcare a diagnosis of cancer might be a death sentence as well as bankruptcy for the surviving family. Since we are all vulnerable to bad things happening to our health, one would expect a civil society to at least have a system which provides decent healthcare. This is a complex discussion that naturally, especially for the USA, leads to national standards with state implementations, multiple levels of service such as casts, vaccinations vs surgery, tiered programs (paying for higher levels of coverage), etc. But this is one comment so I need to cut that off.
Bottom line, a national health care system is about working together to provide decent healthcare for a nation. Dismissing it to be nothing more than getting somebody else to pay your bills qualifies IMO as a naive , cynical and dismissive view.
Check your Chat, please, TiG.
Were do you get the presumption to make the assertion that is what I think based on my reply to your comment: "This is all only about getting somebody else to pay your bills."
That comment is a load of crap.
So? For most people it does. But for those who aren't able to rise out of poverty, would you rather feed them or risk the increase in crime rates caused by increased poverty. Note, most of those who don't and receive government aid are disabled, a child or the elderly.
Where is your evidence that it's incorrect?
I wholeheartedly agree.
Ok, we'll all play along and pretend you didn't write what you wrote in post 2.1.101 AND in post 2.1.124.
SMMFH and
Really?? Because ol' Bob here says it's a key part of "wealth redistribution".
Your source?
We can start with your own statement....
So even you acknowledge that not everyone "eventually pays".
Well then maybe you and ol' Bob should have a discussion. As much as I like and respect Bob, I do not simply accept his characterizations. I tend to reason things out and draw my own conclusions. Now if you have a problem with my reasoning let's chat about it. I am not qualified to speak for Bob but I can refer you to someone who is.
That's what we were doing.
I am a proponent of more uniform health regulation. I am a proponent of more comprehensive access to care, better access to medication, more universal insurance coverage and more streamlined administration. There are many sensible things we can do to improve healthcare in America.
I am opposed to single payer or socialized medicine. The math doesn't work on either of those ideas. They are the favored go to "solutions" of people who don't understand the topic well enough to see why they obviously don't work.
'Single payer' is not a specific system; it is a category of systems. For example, a 'single payer' system could be devised in a federated fashion which ensures all inhabitants of the USA have access to common healthcare. Beyond emergency support this would include setting broken limbs, dealing with severe colds/flu/infections, stitches, etc. It could also include a certain level of preventative care. And, all of this could be implemented with a co-pay requirement to mitigate overuse of a perceived 'free' resource. (Everyone pays something.) The basic level would also provide support for catastrophic illnesses such as cancer (to end bankrupting families due to illness) and provide for care of people who cannot care for themselves (e.g. severe handicaps, brain damage, etc.) This last point is noting again the spreading the risk aspect of my prior comment.
The funding, given we are talking single payer, would of course largely come from taxes. But there are all sorts of ways to implement taxes so plenty of options exist.
Now, that is just the basic healthcare. Level 0, if you will. This provides the basics one would expect from a civil society. It also enables standardized practices and the means to use less critical resources to provide medical services (one dimension of cost cutting without cutting quality of care). For example, one need not have an MD to set a cast or stitch a cut. Higher levels of healthcare should be provided on a patient pay method (and that includes conventional health insurance as an option). Those of us with the means can opt into healthcare levels that provide advanced treatments for rarer diseases, more access to specialists, etc. This, IMO, is a critical aspect to encourage continual advancement in medical technology.
Beyond this, the system could be standardized at the federal level (e.g. medical records, medical accounts, etc.) and implemented at the state level (and below). I am sure you can imagine that this paradigm takes many potential forms.
My point, is that there are all sorts of potential systems that technically would fall under the category of 'single payer'. And, finally, why would a decent system of healthcare for all necessarily be 'single payer'? Seems to me we have quite a few options. A good method does not seem to be the problem. Politics is the problem.
We agree on this.
It wouldn't be.
As I said, it's the standard go-to "solution" for people who haven't a clue on the topic. (specifically the Bernie Sanders "Medicare for all" idea)
Yes. Most of the best ones involve reasonable and relatively small alterations to current systems.
I disagree. We are not able to tweak our system into one that is effective. If you have a tweak you think will work then let's hear it.
It's not a tweak. It would be a coordinated series of reasonable, responsible actions that actually address real issues instead of theoretical ones but do not throw the entire healthcare system into widespread chaos. For example:
That's a start. There are several other reasonably simple steps we can implement, none of which involve massive new government programs, new spending, or huge tax increases. They also don't require the 75% of us who currently have health insurance to give it up.
What you started to outline seems quite a bit more than 'relatively small alterations' (aka tweaks) to me. So it is good that you were clear in your response.
And I do not dismiss the approach you have proposed. It would be an evolutionary approach to a better system and that certainly is a practical way to proceed. Standardization, for example, is a key factor to improve the effectiveness of any system.
I am not so confident about the effect on taxes, but that is an unknown since one would have to lay out a full plan to figure out the cost structure.
One key factor, though, is the insane costs for cancer (and other complex health problems). If families are being financially ruined trying to care for a dying member's healthcare costs we do not have a good system.
There is an oft-repeated statistic that 60% of bankruptcies in the US are due to medical debt. It's actually complete hogwash.
The figure comes from a "study" by two Harvard MD's, Steffie Woolhandler and David Himmelstein, where they collected data on bankruptcy filings. They concluded that 60% were "medical bankruptcies".
What they don't advertise, and you have to actually read the full study to find, is that they define a "medical bankruptcy" as one with ANY level of medical debt included among the outstanding obligations. So a person could owe $300k in credit card debt, $400k on a business loan, and $50 on an unpaid office co-pay, and that would be considered a "medical bankruptcy".
The "study" also does not disclose that the doctors are senior officers in "Physicians for a National Health Plan", a liberal political group whose aim is obvious by its name.
Now, they didn't get on staff at Harvard because they didn't know how to do research properly, so the study is just dishonest enough that used car salesmen everywhere are standing in awe. But that hasn't stopped it from being a favorite resource for people who want "BernieCare" in spite of the fact it can't possibly work.
IMO, the remarkable statistic is that 40% of US bankruptcies apparently discharge no medical debt whatsoever.
In any case, we're currently right about a 90% insured rate. A significant number of those people could be insured if we simply made them sign up for the free programs we're trying to give them. So yes, cancer treatments are very expensive and can ruin an uninsured family. But we have definitely made some strides, and with intelligent management can work our way to full coverage.
That still isn't going to produce outcomes competitive with European nations, whose lifestyles contribute massively to better health.
I consider them small relative to the upheaval proposed by many people.
I also consider them small because few of them are huge deviations from practices that are already in place, or were in place within the last 5 years or so.
That might be the case. I have not offered any statistics. My focus has been on the fact that healthcare costs can quickly grow staggering and that suggests we implement methods to achieve a more cost effective system that retains quality and better pools risk. The lower the medical debt the better since that makes it easier to pool the risk.
I wrote what I wrote. I maintain it.
Some members think themselves clever in excerpting, paraphrasing, adulterating... what they read.
What they actually prove is their own intellectual dishonesty.
Oh? I wasn't aware of any ongoing conversation...
Some members read and understand English quite well, quote other member's WHOLE posts, and get accused of misquoting , taking stuff out of context, and of not understanding.
Some of us also recognize bullshit when we see it.
Phhhtttttt.
That's his little game ....denial, misdirection, obfuscation, insult, denigrate ..... pretty much in that order if you disagree with him
I know.
SOSDD
I worked for DHS for 8 year during welfare reform. I also can provide you several reports that show the average length of time on welfare is roughly 2 years. So I will challenge you to prove that wrong before we continue.
Oh...suddenly we're talking about averages? What happened?
You said "everybody pays".
Do you deny that some Americans spend their entires lives in poverty? Because if they do, then obviously not everybody pays.
Go review the thread. You're being very disingenuous. I said most people get of welfare within a short period of time, you asked me for the source and I challenged you to prove me wrong.
It is a fact that when people's incomes increase they do pay taxes. It is also a fact that most welfare recipients end use within 2-3 years.
No.
YES.
No
Sure thing. Oh look! You said this:
Which is factually incorrect. I pointed that out. Politely.
By taking you at your word?
No, you said their income rises to the point where they start to pay income taxes and thus contribute to the funding of Medicaid.
Which you still have yet to provide.
It is a fact that 48% of Americans pay no income tax. It is also a fact that 21% of Americans get some form of welfare.
Getting off welfare does NOT mean they are "paying in" to Medicaid.
yes.
no
Not surprising at all..What do you expect from the party of fiscal restraint.../s
Cutting social spending was the gop's aim all along. The "Starve the Beast Strategy" is a known gop plan to cut entitlements...
What happens when the rich have finally managed to kill off all the poor people? Who's going to pick their lettuce and pluck their chickens then?
Ya gotta love the gall of the Republicans!
First they pass a tax cut that shovels money to the already-rich... and then to make up for the monster deficit they have just created, they require cutbacks to all the programs that help the poor.
Robin Hood in reverse: taking from the poor and giving to the rich.
... and ya gotta love the people who think they're clever...
Laughing at the poor isn't ever funny.
[removed]
It's not meant to be funny. Blowing up the deficit is party of the republican plan to create a pretext for gutting Social Security and Medicare--eventually to the total destruction of those programs. They've been at it for over 80 years and there's no sign of them letting up.
Exactly
but we need more F-35s at $85 million per unit
to replace our aging F15s ($30mil) and F-16s ($19mil)
or new Nimitz class carriers at $13 Billion apiece...
and a Space Force...price tag unknown...
And the rich need their corporate welfare.
Citation?
Please describe this corporate welfare, as you understand it.
... all of which will be obsolete in a decade, as AI takes over the battlefield...
So "allowing corporations and/or people to keep the money they've earned" is now "welfare"?? Really?
They'll just upgrade the electronics to match.
Here is one I was just reminded of a few seconds ago, that permanent tax deduction for corporate jets. You know, after they took our mortgage and other deductions away last year, and our 'cut' EXPIRES. If you really don't know how you are being played you should do some independent investigating.
Keep in mind none of this includes damages picked up by taxpayers. Profits get privatized and the damages get socialized, like oil spills and other pollution examples. People should stop protecting the protected class.
If you lost your mortgage deduction, you are in a financial position where you can no longer refer to high income people as "they".
If you don't know your own mortgage deduction, you should do some of your own.
There's a pilot in the F-35.
Currently.
But that can be replaced with fairly basic electronics.
The aircraft is in large measure designed around the pilot. The pilot's physical limits determine the aircraft's limits. The aircraft is armored to protect the pilots. And so on.
A drone is designed differently, from the ground up.
I'm sorry, when did you go over my tax returns again? When did you examine the tax codes in my state? What is the limit again to be considered 'high income'? Does having wealth mean you can't speak the truth to shitty policies? I gave fricken examples of how the tax cuts were focused on going to the top, why don't you speak to that? Speak to the corporate welfare, as opposed to deflecting to me.
I don't need to have seen your returns. I've seen the tax code. The only way you lost your "mortgage deduction" was if you have a mortgage north on $1 million, or $750k if you bought the house since Dec 14 of last year.
With a $750k mortgage, your payments are almost surely more than the median family income in America.
Say whatever you want. But complaining about tax cuts for the rich while complaining about losing the mortgage deduction on your million dollar home with $70k/yr payments is Trump level bullshit.
Many of your examples had nothing to do with the "Trump" tax cuts. They include state and local tax cuts used to attract businesses and workers to a state or municipality. Texas does this all the time, because it's damned good business. We offer a company $10 million in tax breaks and get 800 families working, paying taxes, and growing our economy.
I'll give you a name and a whole industry to prove that.
Name: Archer Daniels Midland
Largest ethanol maker and diverse consumer of corporate welfare for a few decades now.
Then...we have the American Sugar industry...supported by our government to the point that American consumers pay the highest price for sugar in the world.
Why? You don't. You disappear when you're asked for them.
But here's a factual clue for you.
When you make a big deal of a tax break and then have to cut programs to make up the losses ...programs like Head Start, Meals on Wheels, medical clinincs.....
Those sort of cuts hurt....there it is! The poor.
A "sweeping generalization" which, nevertheless, happens to be true.
Well, that's pretty much BS. The mortgage interest deduction is lost when it's on a loan of $750k or more. Someone who can afford that mortgage is likely pretty well off but that's a far cry from someone who can afford to buy a private jet. And, yes, this tax giveaway applies to individuals:
So it's not BS at all then. Glad we agree. Math is a good thing.
About 75% BS. The other 25% is just standard poor information. Is that good for you?
Ever actually bought a house?
If you have a $1 million note on your home your PITI is about $6200/mo, assuming a 3.5% interest rate and standard tax and insurance rates. To qualify for that, you need income in the neighborhood of $172k.
If you make $172k, you are in the top 4% of incomes in the US.
I have bought a number of houses and no way would I have been able, with a family of four two of which in university back to back with one overlapping year along with all other household and general living expenses to afford that mortgage. Ever heard of the "28-36 rule:"
In your example, the borrower is already at 43% with the mortgage payment alone. Do you realize it was lenders making just the kind of loan you described above that led to the housing collapse when borrowers couldn't make their payments. A loan of that size on that income would be negligent in the extreme. And any borrower who got away with getting that loan approved deserved what will happen to him.
Exactly.
So nobody who is making a payment like that is anywhere close to "middle income". That was my point.
Yes. Again...that was the point.
Meh. It was more the "zero down" and "bad credit" loans, but certainly maximum DTI is not a good practice.
But.....agreeing with you again...this is a scenario demonstrating lowest income needed to lose the mortgage deduction, and reinforcing the point that the only people impacted by that need to stop talking about the rich in the third person.
Right. Exactly. So realistically, a person with such a loan probably has a much higher income and is even more affluent. That was the point. Glad we're on the same page.
It's sort of amazing how often this has to be explained. Tax cuts reduce revenue so that's the excuse republicans will use to start snipping away at the social safety net that the poor and even middle class earners in the country depend on so heavily: SocSec, Medicare being the big ones. This has been the goal of the extreme rightwing ever since those programs came into existence.
So, furthermore, are not likely to be hurt financially by the loss of the deduction. But there would be those who fit the example you gave and I don't think anyone gives a shit about those people. IOW, the loss of this deduction which was supposed to hit blue state residents (as if the republicans in those states would somehow not count) is simply attempting to use the tax code for political punishment.
Yes.
So to review.... If Trump actually "took away our mortgage deduction", that means the person in question is affluent enough to have that size mortgage in the first place. For that person to turn around and then also complain about the tax cut favoring the rich would make them look a bit stupid.
There is one of those people on this thread. Pay attention.
Also, "I don't think anyone gives a shit about xxx people" is something high school kids say.
They are people. They count. Having money does not make them less important, less human, less worthy or of lower character.
My son already has what I could give him: education and a will of his own. He is doing very well.
That's a silly thing to say. Hypocrisy is beside the point.
Of course. That's the law.
It's never a good idea to think we've seen the silliest, most ridiculous statements from these people in their desperation arguments, is it. The next one will always top the last.