Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Cuts to healthcare subsidies for the poor to pay for Tax cuts for the Rich?
Government subsidies were the entire purpose of Obamacare. Transferring wealth from people to earned more, to people who earned less.
It's what all of leftist government is about. Health care was just the excuse this time. And such Wealth Transfer is completely unconstitutional, of course.
The Constitution gives the Fed govt the power to charge and collect taxes, of course. But it does NOT give it the power to simply turn around and hand that money to other people in the population, unless it gives to everybody equally. Which Obamacare is expressly designed NOT to do.
The Constitution expressly states there are only three things that tax money can be used for:
1.) To pay the debts of the U.S. government;
2.) To provide for the defense of the U.S.;
3.) To provide for the General Welfare of the United States.
"General Welfare" had a specific meaning back in 1789. It meant programs that would help everybody equally. As opposed to "local welfare", which in 1789 meant smaller groups, what we now call Special Interests. Paying out tax money to only part of the population is strictly forbidden by this part of the Constitution.
And yet that is exactly the purpose of Obamacare: To make some people pay more, while others pay less or nothing, for the same service. By transferring tax money from those who can pay, to those who can't.
Obamacare is (downward) redistribution of wealth. Repealing Obamacare returns us to the previously existing (upward) redistribution of wealth. Funny how conservatives never complained about the 75-year-long upward redistribution of wealth.
Walmart is only one example, you can interchange them with Amazon, Target, or any national grocery chain. Amazon now accepts EBT cards BTW.
The one thing Walmart has over these other companies is that they probably have the greatest percentage of their sales from food stamps. 18% isn't chump change. So while society at large is paying for low income people to receive food stamps 18% of the (in gross dollars sales*) is rolling up to the Walmart heirs and shareholders.
CalPERS (California Public Employees Retirement System) owns about 4 million shares of Walmart, so guess who benefits from that?
They likewise own many millions of shares in other large corporations, including Banks, Big Pharma, Ins Companies, etc., as do many other employee pension plans (both public and private) and Mutual Funds held in IRAs/401Ks. In fact, there is a total of $27 trillion invested in equities, corporate bonds (which is corporate debt), etc., and held in US workers'/retirees' pension plans and IRAs/401Ks. Retirees benefit from that.
So... let's not have these ignorant claims that American workers and retirees don't benefit when corporations prosper.
What's your suggestion to this dilemma? Eliminate pension plans and IRAs/401Ks?
CBO says deficits will go up when the subsidies are eliminated.
So how can we afford a tax cut?
CBO has a bad track record. They said obamacare would save the average American over 2 thousand dollars per year on premiums. I will never trust CBO again. They were dead wrong on Obamacare.
CBO has a bad track record. They said obamacare would save the average American over 2 thousand dollars per year on premiums. I will never trust CBO again. They were dead wrong on Obamacare.
Who do you trust Republicans? What is their track record? Trump what is his track record? My guess is since you can't trust the CBO based on what incident then you trust no one and really have nothing to contribute on this subject.
The timing of the Trump tax cuts and elimination of healthcare cost subsidies to the poor come at the same time. Is the sacrifice of the poor for the benefit of the rich? If so, it will follow the traditional GOP game plan.
No... They were unconstitutionally being paid for by Freddie & Fannie Mae slush funds. The courts have already ruled on this. Congress did not approve the funds and Obama EO'd it, around congress and it was unconstitutional to take shareholders assets.
It sounds to me like you're the one who has "No idea what you're talking about."
How so?
Quote:
Originally Posted by le roi
Sorry I'm not some nutjob who thinks "Taxation is theft"
Over and above your fair share, that's exactly what it is. Maybe one day you'll get to experience it (there's a whole world outside your parents basement).
Last edited by Colorado^; 10-16-2017 at 11:47 PM..
Taxation isnt theft, however if your going to tax one person, how is it fair to not tax someone else? Even worse, how is it fair to tax one person, just so you can give it to someone else who hasnt earned it?
its unamerican on its face.
It's also blatantly unconstitutional.
But Congress hasn't cared about that for a long time. The Constitution doesn't call out any penalties for violating it, why should they worry?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
