I don't see this point. He is talking about doing very little. Delivering on that is simple. There is nothing pie in the sky about STFO.
Compare How Bernie Handles an Unfriendly Press with Trump, Cruz....
- Thread starter What Would Jesus Do?
- Start date
Two weeks. That would be how long the govt could run if you taxed all billionaires and millionaires 100% of their income.
Where's the rest of the year's income going to come from? That's right, the middle class.
Bernie supporters are not very smart people.
Two things:
A: The biggest jump in income tax rates comes after ~$75k in income... our income tax isn't nearly as progressive as you apparently think. It hoses the middle class.
B: A pretty sizable chunk of the middle class have jobs with good healthcare already... these taxes will often be higher then the premiums they are already paying. Neither my wife nor myself pay any premiums on our health plans.
He would have to GTFO first. He won't deliver that.
Just like his predecessor hasn't.
We disagree, but for arguments sake lets say you are correct. The main reason I don't like war is because I see it as wasteful in both lives and treasure. Bernie is clearly the candidate who will waste the least on that front. If you want to insist that anything short of 100% compliance with my goal is all an equal failure, I will have to reply that my thinking is a bit more evolved.
They most certainly will see a tax increase. Of course, they also won't have a health insurance premium to pay and the rate their taxes increase will not be as much as they save paying artificially inflated insurance premiums. It's really not that difficult of a concept.
Doubtful. But then if you actually do get sick or injured you won't have to pay the thousands of dollars you would on your deductible.
Except this isn't even close to realistic or what anyone is actually proposing. So really, this is a waste of an argument.
But your place of work does. One could expect to see a corresponding increase in your salary if they didn't have to pay for your insurance. Then again, given today's business world, they'll just pocket the savings because "F*** you". But that's an issue to take up with your employer, not the government.
The tax increase will be greater than any savings on insurance premiums. Don't be naive
Well I'm a teacher, so...
BTW, It is amazing that Sanders supporters don't realize that this is just another form of corporate welfare. It is exactly the same as giving food stamps to wal mart employees. He is telling businesses "the government will keep your employees alive, so you don't have to". All paid for by the middle class...
Which is why he also supports increasing the minimum wage.
Evidence for that? Keep in mind, costs for healthcare will go down as they have in every other country that has universal healthcare.
Here's another example. Right now I pay about 1k in property taxes that go to education funding. That by far is the biggest chunk of my property tax bill. That's still thousands of dollars cheaper a year than a private school is.
Same question I asked earlier: Why can't the ultra rich soak up the middle class tax increase (2.2% household and 6%payroll)? That should help with the income gap, right?
This w
The premiums weren't nearly so artificially inflated before the ACA was enacted. There were options they could have used to increase competition and drive down prices, but instead they decided to sell us out to the insurance companies and drive up demand, while limiting supply, and that artificially drove up the price.
Now you people are crying that the prices have been artificially increased, when it's been your line of thinking that has led to it. All I can do is smh at what the situation has turned into.
The premiums weren't nearly so artificially inflated before the ACA was enacted. There were options they could have used to increase competition and drive down prices, but instead they decided to sell us out to the insurance companies and drive up demand, while limiting supply, and that artificially drove up the price.
Now you people are crying that the prices have been artificially increased, when it's been your line of thinking that has led to it. All I can do is smh at what the situation has turned into.
The evidence is that you have to create a whole new bureaucratic agency to handle it. This agency will not be bound by the same rules that would bind a corporation, and therefore waste will be rampant, just as it is in any centralized bureaucracy.
BS. American healthcare costs have been way inflated for decades now. Hilarious on how you are trying to blame the past 40+ years of paying 10 bucks for a couple of tylenol on the ACA. That's just revisionist history.
It's not even close.
It will not be run for profit so it will be cheaper. Like public vs. private education, for example.
LOL. You're so delusional I feel like I should contact the authorities.
Private school teachers make less than public school teachers, so yes, it is cheaper to educate students in the private sector.
Interesting data, and a bit surprising.
A couple things, though. First, this doesn't necessarily mean that private school is cheaper. It just means that private schools pay their teachers less as a base salary. Being a private business means that there is a profit motive. Someone, or some group of people, are trying to make money. So while private school teachers are paid less, the student is paying significantly more.
Second, the student-teacher ratio alone defeats, or comes real close to defeating, this argument that private is cheaper than public. For every 100 students there are a couple more teachers in private schools. Ratios are 16/1 versus 12/1. So for every 100 students, that's two more salaries. Using $50K for public and $40K for private (to keep math easy), that comes to a cost of $300K for public to educate 100 kids versus $320K for private.
Just pulling out one little slice of the story doesn't make your argument like you like to think it does.
I'm not saying you're premise is wrong, but basing your argument on teacher salaries isn't going to cut it.
Last edited:
On a scale from 1 to 10 how unfair is it to say public school unions are a money laundering system for democrat politicians?
You didn't read all the way to the conclusion:
Obviously, teachers care about what they’re paid. But they also care about what they’re paid to do. Some will even take a lower salary if it means a chance to do their jobs right.
The biggest lesson public education can draw from the salary gap isn’t to cut wages, or quash unions, or hold open auditions for unlicensed teachers. The lesson, in fact, has little to do with salaries at all. The moral is that not all teaching jobs are alike. Different school environments make for radically different work, and many teachers find private schools offer a more rewarding experience. Attracting and retaining teachers, then, means more than just raising salaries. It means taking disciplinary obstacles and bureaucratic nonsense out of teachers’ paths.
The lesson, in short, is that you’ll attract more teachers by letting them teach.
Exactly. Read again:
Different school environments make for radically different work, and many teachers find private schools offer a more rewarding experience. Attracting and retaining teachers, then, means more than just raising salaries. It means taking disciplinary obstacles and bureaucratic nonsense out of teachers’ paths.
The lesson, in short, is that you’ll attract more teachers by letting them teach.
The lesson, in short, is that you’ll attract more teachers by letting them teach.
There is less bureaucratic BS in the private school atmosphere than the public school atmosphere. This results in a better work environment for teachers, and they're willing to work for less. Ergo, it costs less to educate students in the private sector than it does in the public sector, because teachers are free of bureaucratic government BS and are allowed to do their jobs without everyone from voters to politicians second-guessing how they should approach the task of teaching their students.
I don't disagree with this. I agree in general that the public school system (as I've experienced it) has become inefficient in many aspects.
However, I don't think the answer is to go away from public education -- rather it is to work to make it better. Unfortunately a lot of the problems in public education start in deeply-rooted socio-economic issues.
I just think the public-versus-private debate gets seriously over-simplified.
Privatize the public schools, give parents vouchers, and education will dramatically improve.
I dont think Rand Paul has an itchy trigger finger. He seems the most sensible about wars and the Middle East from the GOP.
True, but he doesn't have a path to the nomination so no reason to spend time imagining him.
If there is ONE thing you should've learned from HROT, it's that we need to cull the herd.
Here's the bumper sticker: Stop Global Warming Kill a Jihadist
I'm not talking about cost of educating children in general. I'm talking to you, the customer or tax payer. How much does it cost you.
Just because private school teachers are generally underpaid doesn't mean it's cheaper to send your kid there. In fact, unless you own a 7 figure home or 10,000 acres of pristine farm land there is no way you pay the amount in property taxes, for education, that you would to a private school. Note, I'm not talking about your entire property tax bill, just the part that goes to the school system, which in effect, is your tuition (assuming you pay property taxes).
http://www.privateschoolreview.com/tuition-stats/private-school-cost-by-state
Only study after study has refuted this nonsense, and still I hear simpletons parroting this demonstrably stupid policy because it "sounds" good in their Milton Friedman Utopia fantasy world.
If that is what it takes to keep social unrest in-check then i think it would be a cheap payoff for the mega wealthy. Free universal HC and free college should be looked at as social uprising insurance for the mega wealthy.
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
HawkCast Ep 126 Iowa Women COMPETE w/ OSU, Will MBB Make the B1G Tourney?- Latest: Eliot Clough
-
