Sir Charles Barkley

The Chuckster
Joined
Aug 17, 2014
Messages
513
Reputation
-230
Daps
1,845
Reppin
TNT & Turner Family
Basically, we can afford a federal jobs guarantee. Most of the cost plans are between 3-4% of GDP.

That tab would quickly shrink. With more people working at better wages, Americans would have more purchasing power to buy goods and services. This would lead to more hiring by the private sector, and eventually, less need for the federal job guarantee.

More people working would also generate more tax revenue, partially offsetting the direct cost of the job guarantee.

Additional savings would come from fewer people needing public assistance.

If one were able to provide these things at no additional cost to the taxpayers, then of course I am for it.

But we both know that’s not going to happen. The amount of money required to make this work would be enormous and either we will have to slash something dramatically... or raise taxes dramatically.

Even if you set the wages for these jobs at 12 an hour and paid every time full time... that’s 25k a year. Imagine 50 million people on this job program.

My calculator won’t even do the math. HOW can we possibly pay for this. It would be in the trillions.
 

AnonymityX1000

Veteran
Joined
Jun 6, 2012
Messages
31,326
Reputation
3,156
Daps
71,413
Reppin
New York
Our military is what makes us the leaders of the world. I don’t mind that we spend more than other countries, it’s what keeps us at the top. When shyt pops off, you’ll be glad we spend as much as we do.

There is nothing the govt can do to improve the economy that the free market cannot. It just does it with less choices and with less freedoms
Dude can we just spend $400 billion a year instead of $700?! Our closest rival in this category is China who spends $200 billion. When shyt pops off :snoop:, fear monger much ?! We are doing all the popping off across the world. We are helping Saudi Arabia commit genocide in Yemen, we are sending billions to Israel to kill innocent Palestinians and we got drones picking off random people in 7-8 foreign nations. Do you cosign all our military actions? Meanwhile, our nation's left is throwing a hissy over internet memes and chat groups as intervention against us. :what:
The free market got half the nation living on $30K a year, and 60% plus not able to afford a $1K emergency. Shyt is just doing great. :why:
 

FAH1223

Go Wizards, Go Terps, Go Packers!
Staff member
Supporter
Joined
May 16, 2012
Messages
74,965
Reputation
8,791
Daps
225,212
Reppin
WASHINGTON, DC
If one were able to provide these things at no additional cost to the taxpayers, then of course I am for it.

But we both know that’s not going to happen. The amount of money required to make this work would be enormous and either we will have to slash something dramatically... or raise taxes dramatically.

Even if you set the wages for these jobs at 12 an hour and paid every time full time... that’s 25k a year. Imagine 50 million people on this job program.

My calculator won’t even do the math. HOW can we possibly pay for this. It would be in the trillions.

It wouldn't be 50 million :snoop:

There's the unemployed, then there's the under employed and that doesn't add up to your fears. Not everyone would go into this program.
 

Sir Charles Barkley

The Chuckster
Joined
Aug 17, 2014
Messages
513
Reputation
-230
Daps
1,845
Reppin
TNT & Turner Family
Dude can we just spend $400 billion a year instead of $700?! Our closest rival in this category is China who spends $200 billion. When shyt pops off :snoop:, fear monger much ?! We are doing all the popping off across the world. We are helping Saudi Arabia commit genocide in Yemen, we are sending billions to Israel to kill innocent Palestinians and we got drones picking off random people in 7-8 foreign nations. Do you cosign all our military actions? Meanwhile, our nation's left is throwing a hissy over internet memes and chat groups as intervention against us. :what:
The free market got half the nation living on $30K a year, and 60% plus not able to afford a $1K emergency. Shyt is just doing great. :why:

The healthcare and health insurance industries are in need of a massive overhaul, that’s an entirely different debate.
The republican model that Ted Cruz (and even Trump) have proposed... where companies can compete on a national level... would drastically reduce the cost of insurance for everyone.

Also all due respect but a single person earning 30k a year isn’t poor. They can’t ball outta control and have the brand new iPhone but they can afford food and shelter and most all other necessities.

The goal for anyone making 30k a year should be to strive towards a job where they can earn more... not hope that one day someone will pay them more for doing the same job. If you wanna make a career out of an entry level job that’s on you alone.

The things you are asking for would cost in the trillions. Even if we taxed every millionaire in the world at 100% and slashed our entire military budget... we still wouldn’t be able to sustain it.
 

AnonymityX1000

Veteran
Joined
Jun 6, 2012
Messages
31,326
Reputation
3,156
Daps
71,413
Reppin
New York
The healthcare and health insurance industries are in need of a massive overhaul, that’s an entirely different debate.
The republican model that Ted Cruz (and even Trump) have proposed... where companies can compete on a national level... would drastically reduce the cost of insurance for everyone.

Also all due respect but a single person earning 30k a year isn’t poor. They can’t ball outta control and have the brand new iPhone but they can afford food and shelter and most all other necessities.

The goal for anyone making 30k a year should be to strive towards a job where they can earn more... not hope that one day someone will pay them more for doing the same job. If you wanna make a career out of an entry level job that’s on you alone.

The things you are asking for would cost in the trillions. Even if we taxed every millionaire in the world at 100% and slashed our entire military budget... we still wouldn’t be able to sustain it.
So I guess you could care less about the US terrorizing black and brown nations/people across the globe since you didn't address it. :mjpls:
Yeah, people making $30K are just happy with that aren't looking for more $. :what: Where are you even getting that?! And you would be happy making $30K it nah?
Where did you get this trillions from or are you just making it up? A federal jobs program would not cots that much. It would between $500 and $300 billion and would go down from there. I got links to provide what about you? :martin:
 

Sir Charles Barkley

The Chuckster
Joined
Aug 17, 2014
Messages
513
Reputation
-230
Daps
1,845
Reppin
TNT & Turner Family
@jayshiggs you and me just have a different philosophy when it comes to government :manny:

AOC says she believes no one should ever be poor, or "too poor to live"... sorry i don't agree. i think people have a responsibility to themselves.

if no one deserves to be poor, then what does everyone deserve? does everyone deserve to be middle class? does everyone deserve their own place to live and their own vehicle? what exactly does she think everyone deserves? and who is she, or the govt, to decide?

i think that's the biggest difference between the right and the left. the left believes people 'deserve' to have a certain standard of living, while the right believes people should 'earn' their standard of living.
 

AnonymityX1000

Veteran
Joined
Jun 6, 2012
Messages
31,326
Reputation
3,156
Daps
71,413
Reppin
New York
@jayshiggs you and me just have a different philosophy when it comes to government :manny:

AOC says she believes no one should ever be poor, or "too poor to live"... sorry i don't agree. i think people have a responsibility to themselves.

if no one deserves to be poor, then what does everyone deserve? does everyone deserve to be middle class? does everyone deserve their own place to live and their own vehicle? what exactly does she think everyone deserves? and who is she, or the govt, to decide what anyone else deserves?

i think that's the biggest difference between the right and the left. the left believes people 'deserve' to have a certain standard of living, while the right believes people should 'earn' their standard of living.
Oh so you are a right winger? Duly noted. lol
Everyone's responsibility is to make sure we have the best society possible. And that's all government is there for really is to administer society. And as much money as we waste on weapons, foreign aid and catering to business the more we could be taking care of regular citizens. We should provide for everyone what we can afford. And right now that is food, a job and healthcare. We can afford that. But a lot of people lack compassion, are selfish or just hate certain people which stops these things from happening.
I'm no idealogue, I believe there are some systems that work best for some industries. Capitalism is great for sports, entertainment, luxury services and items. But we need socialism for the media, necessary food, housing, healthcare and communism for police, firefighters and sanitation.
 

Sir Charles Barkley

The Chuckster
Joined
Aug 17, 2014
Messages
513
Reputation
-230
Daps
1,845
Reppin
TNT & Turner Family
Oh so you are a right winger? Duly noted. lol
Everyone's responsibility is to make sure we have the best society possible. And that's all government is there for really is to administer society. And as much money as we waste on weapons, foreign aid and catering to business the more we could be taking care of regular citizens. We should provide for everyone what we can afford. And right now that is food, a job and healthcare. We can afford that. But a lot of people lack compassion, are selfish or just hate certain people which stops these things from happening.
I'm no idealogue, I believe there are some systems that work best for some industries. Capitalism is great for sports, entertainment, luxury services and items. But we need socialism for the media, necessary food, housing, healthcare and communism for police, firefighters and sanitation.

i have a responsibility to myself and my family, my 'society' comes second. i suspect you feel the same. virtually no one places the value of the community above their own lives or their own family.

we are all motivated by our own self interests, it's what keeps us going. the hunger for more. a community of like minded individuals all working separately towards their own ambitions and goals is the definition of an ideal society.

you advocate that we should all pay higher taxes and more money out of our own pockets so that we can provide for the less fortunate, yet right now there is not a single law preventing you from donating an extra 10-15% of your salary away to charity. instead of demanding how other people spend their own money, why don't all these progressives just start a massive donation pool and put actions behind their words? what's stopping them?
 

AnonymityX1000

Veteran
Joined
Jun 6, 2012
Messages
31,326
Reputation
3,156
Daps
71,413
Reppin
New York
i have a responsibility to myself and my family, my 'society' comes second. i suspect you feel the same. virtually no one places the value of the community above their own lives or their own family.

we are all motivated by our own self interests, it's what keeps us going. the hunger for more. a community of like minded individuals all working separately towards their own ambitions and goals is the definition of an ideal society.

you advocate that we should all pay higher taxes and more money out of our own pockets so that we can provide for the less fortunate, yet right now there is not a single law preventing you from donating an extra 10-15% of your salary away to charity. instead of demanding how other people spend their own money, why don't all these progressives just start a massive donation pool and put actions behind their words? what's stopping them?
You have to take care of yourself before you can effectively take care of others. We agree there but uh stop acting like you know I'm not doing my part. I am. "Walk it, like I talk it . . ."
And yeah, there are these organizations called charities and non-profit organizations with missions to help specific demographics and causes. That's progressivism in action. lol
 

Sir Charles Barkley

The Chuckster
Joined
Aug 17, 2014
Messages
513
Reputation
-230
Daps
1,845
Reppin
TNT & Turner Family
You have to take care of yourself before you can effectively take care of others. We agree there but uh stop acting like you know I'm not doing my part. I am. "Walk it, like I talk it . . ."
And yeah, there are these organizations called charities and non-profit organizations with missions to help specific demographics and causes. That's progressivism in action. lol

i wasn't accusing 'you', i was referring to progs in general.

charity isn't progressivism, charity is charity. all kinds of people help the less fortunate. christian and catholic churches raise money and help the less fortunate.

when you lead by example, you tend to attract followers. when all you do is complain, nobody gives a shyt. i don't see anyone on the left offering to pay a higher percentage of their salary come tax time to the IRS. i don't see any organized gofundme campaigns on behalf of any of the causes these liberal progs claim to care about.

why is that?
 

AnonymityX1000

Veteran
Joined
Jun 6, 2012
Messages
31,326
Reputation
3,156
Daps
71,413
Reppin
New York
i wasn't accusing 'you', i was referring to progs in general.

charity isn't progressivism, charity is charity. all kinds of people help the less fortunate. christian and catholic churches raise money and help the less fortunate.

when you lead by example, you tend to attract followers. when all you do is complain, nobody gives a shyt. i don't see anyone on the left offering to pay a higher percentage of their salary come tax time to the IRS. i don't see any organized gofundme campaigns on behalf of any of the causes these liberal progs claim to care about.

why is that?
Charity is charity. Wow, you really set me straight. :beli:
And Progressives are calling for things on a scale larger than charities can offer, it would take the government. Universal healthcare, free college, etc. these are billions of dollars ideas.
First you were on its too expensive, now you are on why don't people just do it privately. I thought it was too expensive for the government, now you want individuals to pay for it? Your arguments don't make sense. Why not just say you are selfish and don't give a shyt about other people? That would add up to the ideas you're forwarding lol.
 
Last edited:

Professor Emeritus

Veteran
Poster of the Year
Supporter
Joined
Jan 5, 2015
Messages
51,330
Reputation
19,811
Daps
203,978
Reppin
the ether
The healthcare and health insurance industries are in need of a massive overhaul, that’s an entirely different debate.
The republican model that Ted Cruz (and even Trump) have proposed... where companies can compete on a national level... would drastically reduce the cost of insurance for everyone.

That's bullshyt, and it's obvious bullshyt because they'd already be doing it if it made any sense at all.


Selling health insurance across state lines is a favorite GOP 'reform.' Here's why it makes no sense

By MICHAEL HILTZIK
NOV 14, 2016 | 1:40 PM
56ZUSLGDTVAXXEAHTMO7KUC65U.jpg


Of all the healthcare reform nostrums in all the world, the most popular among Republicans in the U.S. is allowing the sale of insurance policies across state lines.

The idea has been part of every GOP proposal to "repeal and replace" Obamacare. It was written into GOP presidential candidate John McCain's platform in 2008 and Mitt Romney's in 2012, and shows up right there in paragraph two of President-elect Trump's healthcare policy statement.

To healthcare economists and other experts in the field, however, the idea is nonsense. Here's Austin Frakt of Boston University and the Department of Veterans Affairs: "I never understood the appeal of this idea. It only makes sense if you don't know what you're talking about."

In fact, not even insurance companies like it.

Selling insurance across state lines is a vacuous idea, encrusted with myths. The most important myths are that it's illegal today, and that it's an alternative to the Affordable Care Act. The truth is that it actually is legal today and specifically enabled by the Affordable Care Act. The fact that Republicans don't seem to know this should tell you something about their understanding of healthcare policy. The fact that it hasn't happened despite its enablement under the ACA should tell you more about about why it's no solution to anything.

There are two main reasons why selling individual insurance across state lines, as promoted by the Republican candidates, won't serve as a cornerstone to healthcare reform. One is obvious, well-understood and often reported. The other is less well-known, but perhaps more important.

We'll take them in order, but first, a definition. The idea is to remove state-level barriers to companies wishing to serve customers in multiple states. The nirvana this ostensibly will bring about is one that promotes such goals as "enhancing consumer choice, increasing competition and making insurance more affordable," as a team from Georgetown University described it in 2012.

An important point: We're talking about individual policies. The rules are different for employer-sponsored insurance plans, which cover an estimated 60% of Americans with health insurance. Typically, those plans are self-insured, with the employer shouldering the risk and the insurance company providing mostly administrative services. Those plans are subject to federal law and exempt from state regulation

Now to the drawbacks. Most obviously, any such proposal means eliminating or at least sharply limiting individual states' abilities to regulate their own individual health insurance markets. This would directly contradict another goal appearing in Trump's policy statement (paragraph one), which advocates returning "the historic role in regulating health insurance to the States."

On the face of it, lowering state-level barriers to health insurance sales would launch a race to the bottom akin to what happened with credit-card regulations after 1978. That's when the Supreme Court ruled that credit card regulations could be exported by banks located in one state to customers located anywhere else. (This was no reactionary ruling, by the way; it was a unanimous opinion, written by arch-liberal William Brennan.) The result was that credit card-issuing banks set up shop in places like South Dakota and Delaware, which had virtually no usury laws, effectively nullifying other states' limits on credit card fees and interest rates.

One can envision a similar reaction in health insurance. The Affordable Care Act sets nationwide standards for minimum benefits and consumer protection that must be met by every plan in the individual market, but many states have standards even stricter than these. California, say, would still have the right to impose tough regulations on insurers domiciled in the state.

But the prospect is that Blue Shield of California would no longer be issuing policies to Californians; the state's residents would have the choice of Blue Shield of Texas or Louisiana, or nothing. As industry expert Richard Mayhew of Balloon-juice.com observed early this year, if a law was passed granting a national license to any insurer in any state, "the state with the weakest and most easily bought regulatory structure would have 98% of the viable insurance companies headquartered there within nine months."

That could create chaos, and higher premiums, in the target state's insurance market — the low-regulation policies would cherry-pick healthier customers, leaving sicker patients at the mercy of in-state insurers who would charge them sky-high prices. As for in-state regulators, they wouldn't have jurisdiction over out-of-state insurers; if you're a Californian signed up with Joe's Insurance of Idaho, who do you call to get redress for a grievance?

But that's only the self-evident reason why lowering state-line barriers isn't a workable reform. There's a more important reason, but to understand it, one has to know something about the healthcare business.

The key is that healthcare is almost always delivered locally. Even if a Southern Californian's insurer is located in, say, Idaho, his or doctors and hospitals are almost certain to be nearby. To provide coverage, Joe's Insurance would have to make network deals with local providers in its new markets, creating its own local networks and agreeing on fees.

The typical tradeoff in such deals is that Big Insurer A promises Hospital B access to its thousands of local enrollees, if Hospital B agrees to treat them at a preferential rate. Mayhew, who does this stuff for a living, tells us: "Insurers have leverage against providers when the insurer can credibly promise to direct a large number of covered lives to or from a particular provider. Providers have leverage when they don't think that the insurer is bringing a lot of members."

Insurers entering a new state from far away will have no leverage because they'll be building their customer base from scratch. They'll be able to offer only minimal business to hospitals or doctors in their new state. They'll have to pay premium rates to attract these providers, at least at first; yet to attract customers they'll have to offer competitive premiums.

Multi-state networks do exist in some places, chiefly metropolitan areas that span several states; an insurer in the Washington, D.C., market needs to offer a network of doctors and hospitals in the District, Maryland and northern Virginia, for example.

Everywhere else, offering high reimbursements to sign up doctors and hospitals and low premiums to sign up customers is a formula for big losses. One could argue that such a loss-leader strategy might work in the long run, but big U.S. insurers such as Aetna and United Health have shunned the loss-leader game under Obamacare — they've pulled out of the market because they're unwilling to sustain losses until it stabilizes. What makes anyone think they'd jump back in?

We know the answer: They won't. We know because the ACA already allows states to reach compacts with other states to allow cross-border insurance sales (compacts are essentially interstate treaties). Georgia, Maine and Wyoming have passed laws enabling such compacts. No other states have joined them, and not a single insurer has expressed any interest in taking advantage of them. According to the Urban Institute, Georgia's law permits insurers to sell policies that have been approved in other states, and Maine's law allows the sale of policies approved in Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, or Rhode Island.

As the Georgetown University study team observed, laws allowing cross-state health insurance sales have no organized champions. Consumers aren't clamoring for them; insurers aren't interested in them; doctors and hospitals don't care; and state regulators aren't inclined to cede their oversight to interlopers from somewhere else. Their only backers are preening political candidates who don't understand health insurance and hope you don't, either.

"Selling insurance across state lines" is a slogan, not a policy, and it deserves to be consigned to the dustbin of empty promises.
 
Top