• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

The D's proposed revenue raisers are an even bigger joke.

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
The Dems want to raise revenue, but they aren't even talking about taxing all income equally. Whereas the Republican's proposal to reduce spending by 100B (a joke) by tiny spending decreases, the Democrats want to reduce the deficit by only 25B (even bigger joke) through even tinier revenue increases while keeping the tax system every bit as unfair as it currently is. If the Democrats weren't dumbfucks, they'd propose abolishing the corporate tax and making the top rate for taxable income 24%. That would be a not-as-unfair estate tax plan, and the wealthiest among us (hedge fund managers, CEOs) would pay the same as the wealthiest workers. Revenues would likely break the 20% of GDP barrier (not that that would be a good thing, but we're talking about the Democrats here). They should also increase medicare fees to the current base fees by charging 10cents per every 8 dollars after the first $500/mo that retiree gets in SS payments. So the wealthier SS recipients would have to give back some of what they're taking from their grandkids' paycheck.

As for the Republicans: If they weren't dumbfucks and/or if they actually cared about our future, they'd support Dr. Paul's proposal to pre-approve imported drugs, and they'd approve my proposal to pay only 50% for imported drugs and then the cost of medicare part D would go way down. They'd also take people who receive $2.8k/mo or more in SS checks off Medicare. Then, they'd cap SS payments at a maximum of 3k/mo (which could be reduced further for deflation, if it were to ever happen), then phase it out (including taxes), which their popular "privatization" plan isn't capable of doing by its very nature.

Of course, none of my (although they're not just mine) proposals will ever happen because they're too conservative (even though they're actually very moderate, because I'd abolish these ponzi schemes immediately but never mind that) and because they would prevent the collapse of American society.

Is it that the majority of people want their weight to crush them or is it something else? I believe it is nothing but the tyranny of the majority who refuses to replace the Eric Cantors, Lindsey Grahams, John McCains, and John Boehners with Ron Paul Republicans.
 
You calling someone a dumbfuck is pretty hilarious. Why didn't you continue your expert analysis of the British and French health care systems instead of making a whole new stupid thread?
 
Corporations are people now and should be taxed appropriately, ask the SCOTUS.

Importing drugs isn't your idea or TeaTard Paul's it's been around forever but was squashed by BigPharma and their whores in Congress.

But you know that already, right?
 
Neither party has a plan. And i dont think either really cares about deficit reduction at the end of the day. We could right now take in our historic tax revenue as a % of GDP(19-20%) and still fall short by a long shot.

The govt is in a pickle. Raise taxes and hurt economic rebound. Stay the course and hurt long term economic rebound. Make the hard decisions of raising taxes while cutting the budget by a sizeable % and risk losing their jobs to dependent classes.
 
Neither party has a plan. And i dont think either really cares about deficit reduction at the end of the day. We could right now take in our historic tax revenue as a % of GDP(19-20%) and still fall short by a long shot.

The govt is in a pickle. Raise taxes and hurt economic rebound. Stay the course and hurt long term economic rebound. Make the hard decisions of raising taxes while cutting the budget by a sizeable % and risk losing their jobs to dependent classes.

Lameness. Raising taxes at the top won't hurt the recovery, because the people at the top aren't using their money in ways that actually promote recovery, like increasing payrolls in this country. Increased govt revenue will help the recovery, because govt will have more to spend in ways that promote recovery, ie, employment.

Economic recovery is driven by demand, which is totally dependent on employment.

So, uhh, let's do the Republican thing- Cut, cut, cut spending, put more people out of work to... create growth, yeh, that's it... something that only the brain dead & damaged can actually support.
 
Lameness. Raising taxes at the top won't hurt the recovery, because the people at the top aren't using their money in ways that actually promote recovery, like increasing payrolls in this country. Increased govt revenue will help the recovery, because govt will have more to spend in ways that promote recovery, ie, employment.

Economic recovery is driven by demand, which is totally dependent on employment.

So, uhh, let's do the Republican thing- Cut, cut, cut spending, put more people out of work to... create growth, yeh, that's it... something that only the brain dead & damaged can actually support.

The government doesn't need to increase taxes in order to spend more money.
 
The government doesn't need to increase taxes in order to spend more money.

They do if they want to be fiscally responsible, which is, of course, radically different than what Repubs have been doing for 30 years...
 
As for the Republicans: If they weren't dumbfucks and/or if they actually cared about our future, they'd support Dr. Paul's proposal to pre-approve imported drugs, and they'd approve my proposal to pay only 50% for imported drugs and then the cost of medicare part D would go way down.

Your wrong about this. One of the main issue with the high cost of pharma in the US is due to the US consumer subsidizing foreign countries. Many of countries force various pharma companies to sell high cost (due to unrecouped R&D) drugs at a loss in order to allow the high profit (but lower priced) drugs on their markets. Because this doesn't happen in the US, US consumers have to pay even higher prices for the newer stuff, in essence subsidzing the foreign market. If we were to reimport these drugs from other countries, how long would it be until the pharma companies just stop R&D altogether and just sell existing drugs due to not being able to recoup the $1b cost it takes to bring a drug to market?

Or think of it this way, how many new vaccines have been created in the past ten years in relation to the past 50? The percentage is few due to not being able to recoup the cost of the R&D.
 
Your wrong about this. One of the main issue with the high cost of pharma in the US is due to the US consumer subsidizing foreign countries. Many of countries force various pharma companies to sell high cost (due to unrecouped R&D) drugs at a loss in order to allow the high profit (but lower priced) drugs on their markets. Because this doesn't happen in the US, US consumers have to pay even higher prices for the newer stuff, in essence subsidzing the foreign market. If we were to reimport these drugs from other countries, how long would it be until the pharma companies just stop R&D altogether and just sell existing drugs due to not being able to recoup the $1b cost it takes to bring a drug to market?

Or think of it this way, how many new vaccines have been created in the past ten years in relation to the past 50? The percentage is few due to not being able to recoup the cost of the R&D.

If R&D costs so much why does advertising trump it

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080105140107.htm

http://www.actupny.org/reports/drugcosts.html

http://www.citizen.org/publications/publicationredirect.cfm?ID=7065

I am not talking about vaccines because i'm pretty sure it is much harder to get a vaccine to market than a drug.
 
Lameness. Raising taxes at the top won't hurt the recovery, because the people at the top aren't using their money in ways that actually promote recovery, like increasing payrolls in this country. Increased govt revenue will help the recovery, because govt will have more to spend in ways that promote recovery, ie, employment.

Economic recovery is driven by demand, which is totally dependent on employment.

So, uhh, let's do the Republican thing- Cut, cut, cut spending, put more people out of work to... create growth, yeh, that's it... something that only the brain dead & damaged can actually support.

Your post is a perfect example of why nothing will get done.
 
Your wrong about this. One of the main issue with the high cost of pharma in the US is due to the US consumer subsidizing foreign countries. Many of countries force various pharma companies to sell high cost (due to unrecouped R&D) drugs at a loss in order to allow the high profit (but lower priced) drugs on their markets. Because this doesn't happen in the US, US consumers have to pay even higher prices for the newer stuff, in essence subsidzing the foreign market.

I never understood why we allow this. I've known this for years, yet since no one in govt makes a big deal about it, we the U.S. citizens continue to subsidize Pharma's losses on overseas sales due to price controls.

Big pharma really needs to tell these countries to pay their drug prices or they won't get any. Play a little hardball. But they need an incentive to do this because obviously, a wider distribution net is better for their reputation and for potential future sales of the drug. I'm not sure how we incentivize them properly however, as a threat is not going to work. I'm thinking if our insurance companies here start telling the drug companies they won't pay for their high cost drugs either will they start to get the message. Again, not entirely sure this is going to work either.

But I am tired of paying $5 a pill for the latest and greatest drug while my extended in-law family in Spain gets *most* of the same sh*t for $0.50.
 
And that's even more vapid than your post I responded to, above.

You didnt respond to my post in any meaningful way. But instead decided to go on a rant about republicans and tax breaks for the rich derp derp.

Which is why it is a great example of why nothing will get done on this problem. Because why tackle the problem when you can paint your opposition as "brain dead and damaged"?
 
Your wrong about this. One of the main issue with the high cost of pharma in the US is due to the US consumer subsidizing foreign countries. Many of countries force various pharma companies to sell high cost (due to unrecouped R&D) drugs at a loss in order to allow the high profit (but lower priced) drugs on their markets. Because this doesn't happen in the US, US consumers have to pay even higher prices for the newer stuff, in essence subsidzing the foreign market. If we were to reimport these drugs from other countries, how long would it be until the pharma companies just stop R&D altogether and just sell existing drugs due to not being able to recoup the $1b cost it takes to bring a drug to market?

Or think of it this way, how many new vaccines have been created in the past ten years in relation to the past 50? The percentage is few due to not being able to recoup the cost of the R&D.
It's due to patents. Also, as the poster below noted, advertising expenses are more than R&D. Not to mention abolition of IP would prevent the Execs from being paid more than they would be in the free market.

If R&D costs so much why does advertising trump it

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080105140107.htm

http://www.actupny.org/reports/drugcosts.html

http://www.citizen.org/publications/publicationredirect.cfm?ID=7065

I am not talking about vaccines because i'm pretty sure it is much harder to get a vaccine to market than a drug.
:thumbsup:

I never understood why we allow this. I've known this for years, yet since no one in govt makes a big deal about it, we the U.S. citizens continue to subsidize Pharma's losses on overseas sales due to price controls.

Big pharma really needs to tell these countries to pay their drug prices or they won't get any. Play a little hardball. But they need an incentive to do this because obviously, a wider distribution net is better for their reputation and for potential future sales of the drug. I'm not sure how we incentivize them properly however, as a threat is not going to work. I'm thinking if our insurance companies here start telling the drug companies they won't pay for their high cost drugs either will they start to get the message. Again, not entirely sure this is going to work either.

But I am tired of paying $5 a pill for the latest and greatest drug while my extended in-law family in Spain gets *most* of the same sh*t for $0.50.
It's due to patents and regulation of international trade. If we abolished the patents and allowed free trade in drugs, then BigPharma wouldn't price things above the market price. Their execs would get paid market salaries and they'd have less of an advertising budget, but then we'd be closer to the free market. My dad personally knows like 20 drug reps, and most of them make more than he does. Imagine what the CEOs make. All of that's due to protectionism and patents, the latter courtesy of the WTO and both courtesy of the US Constitution. Both should be abolished.
 
Protectionism in the pharma industry is an issue. However what you propose is not a good solution. One of the drivers of our economy is innovation. IP law protects the innovator from having somebody else copy their hard earned innovation and depriving the innovator of profits and thus motive to innovate. Allowing something like that will result in an economy like China. That requires somebody else figure it out and we copy. In other words always be relegated to 2nd class status. With that comes 2nd class standards of living.
 
Back
Top