|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On August 09 2026 06:29 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Republicans only care about deficit when it’s for paying for the education of destitute children and the cancer treatment of people without means.
When it comes from bombing the shit out of Iran for no other reason than the dottard being a clueless cunt or to offer tax cuts to a bunch of billionaires, they absolutely don’t give a shit.
To be fair, Trump general doesn't give a fuck about the deficit, and "the republicans" are the Trump party now. Trump will always spend any amount (of other peoples money) for stuff he likes. Be it more money for billionaires, being an asshole to poor people or foreigners, pointless walls, changing names to feel big, bombing random countries to feel like a big boy or trying to bribe voters to vote for him again.
I am pretty certain that Trump does not think that there are any limits to how much money his government can spend. He does not like people telling him he cannot do a thing for any reason. And "We don't have the money" clearly isn't a reason he accepts when you can just borrow or print more money. That is a problem for future people who are not him, after all.
And all the budget-conscious conservatives once again prove that they are liars by voting for him.
|
On August 09 2026 06:14 LightSpectra wrote:
Mamdani balanced NYC's budget despite inheriting a deficit from Adams. The last time we had a federal budget surplus that was used to pay off the debt was Bill Clinton's second term. The deficit decreased at the end of Obama's and Biden's terms and wildly increased at the end of Bush's terms and Trump's first term (almost certainly to have increased at the end of his second term).
I don't know how anyone with a brain could genuinely care about the national debt and not be a blue-no-matter-who at the voting booth.
They'll likely either say that they still care about the national debt but they value conservative/Republican positions on other topics even more (the national debt isn't their #1 priority / they aren't single-issue voters with respect to the national debt), or they'll wrongly believe that Republicans are better for our economy and for paying down the debt.
|
On August 09 2026 06:35 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2026 06:33 Introvert wrote:On August 09 2026 06:14 LightSpectra wrote:
Mamdani balanced NYC's budget despite inheriting a deficit from Adams. The last time we had a federal budget surplus that was used to pay off the debt was Bill Clinton's second term. The deficit decreased at the end of Obama's and Biden's terms and wildly increased at the end of Bush's terms and Trump's first term (almost certainly to have increased at the end of his second term).
I don't know how anyone with a brain could genuinely care about the national debt and not be a blue-no-matter-who at the voting booth. Yes, Dem presidents and GOP house has been the best (but not good) when it comes to spending money. My understanding of what Mamdani did was basically an accounting move that hasn't actually paid anything or cut spending but will cost more later. So that's not a great example. Either way, Dems don't want more taxes on the middle class but they want a boatload of new programs. As previously discussed, you cannot have the latter without the former. Maybe you can tax the likes of Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos rather than the middle class. Thought about that ? That would maybe ensure they don’t own literally everything in 20 years, which they are on course to do.
The math has already been done. It would not be enough. If you want the European welfare state you have to tax the middle class much more, more than Americans want. Talking about billionaires incessantly though makes for good rhetoric.
|
On August 09 2026 06:36 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2026 06:29 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Republicans only care about deficit when it’s for paying for the education of destitute children and the cancer treatment of people without means.
When it comes from bombing the shit out of Iran for no other reason than the dottard being a clueless cunt or to offer tax cuts to a bunch of billionaires, they absolutely don’t give a shit. To be fair, Trump general doesn't give a fuck about the deficit, and "the republicans" are the Trump party now. Trump will always spend any amount (of other peoples money) for stuff he likes. Be it more money for billionaires, being an asshole to poor people or foreigners, pointless walls, changing names to feel big, bombing random countries to feel like a big boy or trying to bribe voters to vote for him again. I am pretty certain that Trump does not think that there are any limits to how much money his government can spend. He does not like people telling him he cannot do a thing for any reason. And "We don't have the money" clearly isn't a reason he accepts when you can just borrow or print more money. That is a problem for future people who are not him, after all. And all the budget-conscious conservatives once again prove that they are liars by voting for him.
No but i mean, that’s Trump’s novelty, he « says it as it is », which means he is openly a huge asshole instead of hiding behind pretenses of caring about the public good.
The idea is the same though. Whether you hurt the poor because you « care about the deficit » even though you don’t, or because you are openly a crual PoS and brag about it doesn’t really change the outcome.
|
On August 09 2026 06:46 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2026 06:35 Biff The Understudy wrote:On August 09 2026 06:33 Introvert wrote:On August 09 2026 06:14 LightSpectra wrote:
Mamdani balanced NYC's budget despite inheriting a deficit from Adams. The last time we had a federal budget surplus that was used to pay off the debt was Bill Clinton's second term. The deficit decreased at the end of Obama's and Biden's terms and wildly increased at the end of Bush's terms and Trump's first term (almost certainly to have increased at the end of his second term).
I don't know how anyone with a brain could genuinely care about the national debt and not be a blue-no-matter-who at the voting booth. Yes, Dem presidents and GOP house has been the best (but not good) when it comes to spending money. My understanding of what Mamdani did was basically an accounting move that hasn't actually paid anything or cut spending but will cost more later. So that's not a great example. Either way, Dems don't want more taxes on the middle class but they want a boatload of new programs. As previously discussed, you cannot have the latter without the former. Maybe you can tax the likes of Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos rather than the middle class. Thought about that ? That would maybe ensure they don’t own literally everything in 20 years, which they are on course to do. The math has already been done. It would not be enough. If you want the European welfare state you have to tax the middle class much more, more than Americans want. Talking about billionaires incessantly though makes for good rhetoric.
I don’t think you realize how much resources are available by just asking the top 1% and the big businesses to pay their fucking share. I mean, just Musk is a trillionaire. A trillionaire. That’s one person.
They won’t, because they own the politicians, but, yeah, you could have your cancer treatment covered by society and your kids could go to college for free.
|
On August 09 2026 07:16 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2026 06:46 Introvert wrote:On August 09 2026 06:35 Biff The Understudy wrote:On August 09 2026 06:33 Introvert wrote:On August 09 2026 06:14 LightSpectra wrote:
Mamdani balanced NYC's budget despite inheriting a deficit from Adams. The last time we had a federal budget surplus that was used to pay off the debt was Bill Clinton's second term. The deficit decreased at the end of Obama's and Biden's terms and wildly increased at the end of Bush's terms and Trump's first term (almost certainly to have increased at the end of his second term).
I don't know how anyone with a brain could genuinely care about the national debt and not be a blue-no-matter-who at the voting booth. Yes, Dem presidents and GOP house has been the best (but not good) when it comes to spending money. My understanding of what Mamdani did was basically an accounting move that hasn't actually paid anything or cut spending but will cost more later. So that's not a great example. Either way, Dems don't want more taxes on the middle class but they want a boatload of new programs. As previously discussed, you cannot have the latter without the former. Maybe you can tax the likes of Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos rather than the middle class. Thought about that ? That would maybe ensure they don’t own literally everything in 20 years, which they are on course to do. The math has already been done. It would not be enough. If you want the European welfare state you have to tax the middle class much more, more than Americans want. Talking about billionaires incessantly though makes for good rhetoric. They won’t, because they own the politicians, but, yeah, you could have your cancer treatment covered by society and your kids could go to college for free.
For that, you don't even have to pay more. You just need a better system. The US healthcare system is uniquely expensive, both in public/mandatory money and in individual payments afterwards if you get sick.
Any other first-world country gets at least the same or better results for 2/3 of the money. The US healthcare system is just really, really bad and inefficient.
It doesn't matter if you look at per capita, per GDP, or any other data. The US just spends way more for the same or worse results. You could have universal healthcare, and it would be cheaper.
|
On August 09 2026 06:46 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2026 06:35 Biff The Understudy wrote:On August 09 2026 06:33 Introvert wrote:On August 09 2026 06:14 LightSpectra wrote:
Mamdani balanced NYC's budget despite inheriting a deficit from Adams. The last time we had a federal budget surplus that was used to pay off the debt was Bill Clinton's second term. The deficit decreased at the end of Obama's and Biden's terms and wildly increased at the end of Bush's terms and Trump's first term (almost certainly to have increased at the end of his second term).
I don't know how anyone with a brain could genuinely care about the national debt and not be a blue-no-matter-who at the voting booth. Yes, Dem presidents and GOP house has been the best (but not good) when it comes to spending money. My understanding of what Mamdani did was basically an accounting move that hasn't actually paid anything or cut spending but will cost more later. So that's not a great example. Either way, Dems don't want more taxes on the middle class but they want a boatload of new programs. As previously discussed, you cannot have the latter without the former. Maybe you can tax the likes of Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos rather than the middle class. Thought about that ? That would maybe ensure they don’t own literally everything in 20 years, which they are on course to do. The math has already been done. It would not be enough. If you want the European welfare state you have to tax the middle class much more, more than Americans want. Talking about billionaires incessantly though makes for good rhetoric.
The math has indeed already been done, and taxing the richest of the rich would absolutely pay for plenty of benefits that everyone could enjoy, even if that billionaire tax doesn't completely cover literally everything. The position shouldn't be "since a billionaire tax can't unilaterally fund every single thing ever, we shouldn't tax them extra at all". It should be "tax the billionaires, see how much extra money we can use to allocate towards helping everyone in various ways, and then figure out what to prioritize first, second, and third".
|
On August 09 2026 08:02 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2026 06:46 Introvert wrote:On August 09 2026 06:35 Biff The Understudy wrote:On August 09 2026 06:33 Introvert wrote:On August 09 2026 06:14 LightSpectra wrote:
Mamdani balanced NYC's budget despite inheriting a deficit from Adams. The last time we had a federal budget surplus that was used to pay off the debt was Bill Clinton's second term. The deficit decreased at the end of Obama's and Biden's terms and wildly increased at the end of Bush's terms and Trump's first term (almost certainly to have increased at the end of his second term).
I don't know how anyone with a brain could genuinely care about the national debt and not be a blue-no-matter-who at the voting booth. Yes, Dem presidents and GOP house has been the best (but not good) when it comes to spending money. My understanding of what Mamdani did was basically an accounting move that hasn't actually paid anything or cut spending but will cost more later. So that's not a great example. Either way, Dems don't want more taxes on the middle class but they want a boatload of new programs. As previously discussed, you cannot have the latter without the former. Maybe you can tax the likes of Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos rather than the middle class. Thought about that ? That would maybe ensure they don’t own literally everything in 20 years, which they are on course to do. The math has already been done. It would not be enough. If you want the European welfare state you have to tax the middle class much more, more than Americans want. Talking about billionaires incessantly though makes for good rhetoric. The math has indeed already been done, and taxing the richest of the rich would absolutely pay for plenty of benefits that everyone could enjoy, even if that billionaire tax doesn't completely cover literally everything. The position shouldn't be "since a billionaire tax can't unilaterally fund every single thing ever, we shouldn't tax them extra at all". It should be "tax the billionaires, see how much extra money we can use to allocate towards helping everyone in various ways, and then figure out what to prioritize first, second, and third".
Details aside, because we have discussed this before, but notice how once again it's not "we need this to bring down the debt" it's "what new things can the government do with all this new cash we've taken." That's why talking about debt like that is sleight of hand even if the people saying it don't realize that is what they are doing. There is no interest in the debt, only in spending whatever comes in. That's certainly the lesson from blue states as well. California, Illinois, New York.
|
Everything is short term thinking because of the 24 news cycle and winning elections being all that matters to politicians.
That being said the Republican presidents have spent more and increased the deficit more than democrat Presidents for at least the 3 on each side. If having a lower deficit mattered to a voter, Dems are the clear choice now.
|
United States24787 Posts
On August 09 2026 08:02 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2026 06:46 Introvert wrote:On August 09 2026 06:35 Biff The Understudy wrote:On August 09 2026 06:33 Introvert wrote:On August 09 2026 06:14 LightSpectra wrote:
Mamdani balanced NYC's budget despite inheriting a deficit from Adams. The last time we had a federal budget surplus that was used to pay off the debt was Bill Clinton's second term. The deficit decreased at the end of Obama's and Biden's terms and wildly increased at the end of Bush's terms and Trump's first term (almost certainly to have increased at the end of his second term).
I don't know how anyone with a brain could genuinely care about the national debt and not be a blue-no-matter-who at the voting booth. Yes, Dem presidents and GOP house has been the best (but not good) when it comes to spending money. My understanding of what Mamdani did was basically an accounting move that hasn't actually paid anything or cut spending but will cost more later. So that's not a great example. Either way, Dems don't want more taxes on the middle class but they want a boatload of new programs. As previously discussed, you cannot have the latter without the former. Maybe you can tax the likes of Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos rather than the middle class. Thought about that ? That would maybe ensure they don’t own literally everything in 20 years, which they are on course to do. The math has already been done. It would not be enough. If you want the European welfare state you have to tax the middle class much more, more than Americans want. Talking about billionaires incessantly though makes for good rhetoric. The math has indeed already been done, and taxing the richest of the rich would absolutely pay for plenty of benefits that everyone could enjoy, even if that billionaire tax doesn't completely cover literally everything. The position shouldn't be "since a billionaire tax can't unilaterally fund every single thing ever, we shouldn't tax them extra at all". It should be "tax the billionaires, see how much extra money we can use to allocate towards helping everyone in various ways, and then figure out what to prioritize first, second, and third".
I would characterize the bold as 'have the billionaires pay their fair share'.
|
On August 09 2026 08:26 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2026 08:02 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 09 2026 06:46 Introvert wrote:On August 09 2026 06:35 Biff The Understudy wrote:On August 09 2026 06:33 Introvert wrote:On August 09 2026 06:14 LightSpectra wrote:
Mamdani balanced NYC's budget despite inheriting a deficit from Adams. The last time we had a federal budget surplus that was used to pay off the debt was Bill Clinton's second term. The deficit decreased at the end of Obama's and Biden's terms and wildly increased at the end of Bush's terms and Trump's first term (almost certainly to have increased at the end of his second term).
I don't know how anyone with a brain could genuinely care about the national debt and not be a blue-no-matter-who at the voting booth. Yes, Dem presidents and GOP house has been the best (but not good) when it comes to spending money. My understanding of what Mamdani did was basically an accounting move that hasn't actually paid anything or cut spending but will cost more later. So that's not a great example. Either way, Dems don't want more taxes on the middle class but they want a boatload of new programs. As previously discussed, you cannot have the latter without the former. Maybe you can tax the likes of Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos rather than the middle class. Thought about that ? That would maybe ensure they don’t own literally everything in 20 years, which they are on course to do. The math has already been done. It would not be enough. If you want the European welfare state you have to tax the middle class much more, more than Americans want. Talking about billionaires incessantly though makes for good rhetoric. The math has indeed already been done, and taxing the richest of the rich would absolutely pay for plenty of benefits that everyone could enjoy, even if that billionaire tax doesn't completely cover literally everything. The position shouldn't be "since a billionaire tax can't unilaterally fund every single thing ever, we shouldn't tax them extra at all". It should be "tax the billionaires, see how much extra money we can use to allocate towards helping everyone in various ways, and then figure out what to prioritize first, second, and third". Details aside, because we have discussed this before, but notice how once again it's not "we need this to bring down the debt" it's "what new things can the government do with all this new cash we've taken." That's why talking about debt like that is sleight of hand even if the people saying it don't realize that is what they are doing. There is no interest in the debt, only in spending whatever comes in. That's certainly the lesson from blue states as well. California, Illinois, New York. If I ever hear a Republican leader say they want to bring down the debt by making billionaires pay their fair share, then that would be an interesting topic. That doesn't seem to be what they campaign on, however, so if Democrats want to use that money for programs and platforms that help Americans instead of paying off the national debt, it still sounds great to me. Democrats have already been more economically successful and financially responsible than Republicans for decades, so Democrats aren't the ones who need to come around to doing what's fiscally appropriate.
On August 09 2026 09:51 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2026 08:02 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On August 09 2026 06:46 Introvert wrote:On August 09 2026 06:35 Biff The Understudy wrote:On August 09 2026 06:33 Introvert wrote:On August 09 2026 06:14 LightSpectra wrote:
Mamdani balanced NYC's budget despite inheriting a deficit from Adams. The last time we had a federal budget surplus that was used to pay off the debt was Bill Clinton's second term. The deficit decreased at the end of Obama's and Biden's terms and wildly increased at the end of Bush's terms and Trump's first term (almost certainly to have increased at the end of his second term).
I don't know how anyone with a brain could genuinely care about the national debt and not be a blue-no-matter-who at the voting booth. Yes, Dem presidents and GOP house has been the best (but not good) when it comes to spending money. My understanding of what Mamdani did was basically an accounting move that hasn't actually paid anything or cut spending but will cost more later. So that's not a great example. Either way, Dems don't want more taxes on the middle class but they want a boatload of new programs. As previously discussed, you cannot have the latter without the former. Maybe you can tax the likes of Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos rather than the middle class. Thought about that ? That would maybe ensure they don’t own literally everything in 20 years, which they are on course to do. The math has already been done. It would not be enough. If you want the European welfare state you have to tax the middle class much more, more than Americans want. Talking about billionaires incessantly though makes for good rhetoric. The math has indeed already been done, and taxing the richest of the rich would absolutely pay for plenty of benefits that everyone could enjoy, even if that billionaire tax doesn't completely cover literally everything. The position shouldn't be "since a billionaire tax can't unilaterally fund every single thing ever, we shouldn't tax them extra at all". It should be "tax the billionaires, see how much extra money we can use to allocate towards helping everyone in various ways, and then figure out what to prioritize first, second, and third". I would characterize the bold as 'have the billionaires pay their fair share'. You're totally right.
|
United States44220 Posts
On August 09 2026 06:46 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2026 06:35 Biff The Understudy wrote:On August 09 2026 06:33 Introvert wrote:On August 09 2026 06:14 LightSpectra wrote:
Mamdani balanced NYC's budget despite inheriting a deficit from Adams. The last time we had a federal budget surplus that was used to pay off the debt was Bill Clinton's second term. The deficit decreased at the end of Obama's and Biden's terms and wildly increased at the end of Bush's terms and Trump's first term (almost certainly to have increased at the end of his second term).
I don't know how anyone with a brain could genuinely care about the national debt and not be a blue-no-matter-who at the voting booth. Yes, Dem presidents and GOP house has been the best (but not good) when it comes to spending money. My understanding of what Mamdani did was basically an accounting move that hasn't actually paid anything or cut spending but will cost more later. So that's not a great example. Either way, Dems don't want more taxes on the middle class but they want a boatload of new programs. As previously discussed, you cannot have the latter without the former. Maybe you can tax the likes of Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos rather than the middle class. Thought about that ? That would maybe ensure they don’t own literally everything in 20 years, which they are on course to do. The math has already been done. It would not be enough. If you want the European welfare state you have to tax the middle class much more, more than Americans want. Talking about billionaires incessantly though makes for good rhetoric.
Literally untrue, unless you assume they’ll still be paying for all the deductions they pay for retirement and healthcare in addition to having single payer and pensions. And why would they?
|
On August 09 2026 10:44 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2026 06:46 Introvert wrote:On August 09 2026 06:35 Biff The Understudy wrote:On August 09 2026 06:33 Introvert wrote:On August 09 2026 06:14 LightSpectra wrote:
Mamdani balanced NYC's budget despite inheriting a deficit from Adams. The last time we had a federal budget surplus that was used to pay off the debt was Bill Clinton's second term. The deficit decreased at the end of Obama's and Biden's terms and wildly increased at the end of Bush's terms and Trump's first term (almost certainly to have increased at the end of his second term).
I don't know how anyone with a brain could genuinely care about the national debt and not be a blue-no-matter-who at the voting booth. Yes, Dem presidents and GOP house has been the best (but not good) when it comes to spending money. My understanding of what Mamdani did was basically an accounting move that hasn't actually paid anything or cut spending but will cost more later. So that's not a great example. Either way, Dems don't want more taxes on the middle class but they want a boatload of new programs. As previously discussed, you cannot have the latter without the former. Maybe you can tax the likes of Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos rather than the middle class. Thought about that ? That would maybe ensure they don’t own literally everything in 20 years, which they are on course to do. The math has already been done. It would not be enough. If you want the European welfare state you have to tax the middle class much more, more than Americans want. Talking about billionaires incessantly though makes for good rhetoric. Literally untrue, unless you assume they’ll still be paying for all the deductions they pay for retirement and healthcare in addition to having single payer and pensions. And why would they?
Literally true, and we know that matters because progressives don't run on "tax everyone for more social services!" it's "make the billionaires pay their fair share!" Which I will add is a far scarier phrase than just "tax the billionaires" at least with the latter you would be expected to lay out some concrete reason for doing so. "Pay their fair share" is demagogic nonsense that disconnects the payment of taxes from the purpose of government.
The more overall point is not really contested by experts in the field so far as I'm aware? If you want the European state you have to tax like the Europeans (acknowledging differences even within Europe). We already know that the average middle class European pays more in taxes once you add them all up. The retort that they get more for it would be a separate debate and one that most Democratic politicians are trying to avoid. People have tried to make the argument you are making, that it would more or less cancel out, but no politician proposing these plans even talks like that. Now I don't think that's true anyways for different reasons but literally no one (almost no one?) is running on raising taxes on middle class earners. Start there.
edit: and of course many people would still want to have retirement accounts or private healthcare plans.
edit2: crucial separate edit because I assumed something you may not have. We are also talking about the whole panoply of "benefits" including things like family leave. Not just replacing insurance costs with single payer healthcare. Though that requires making a bunch of not-obvious other assumptions that again advocates tend to gloss over.
edit3 lol: and of course none of this even touches the debt, this is just replacement of current spending
|
United States44220 Posts
On August 09 2026 11:32 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2026 10:44 KwarK wrote:On August 09 2026 06:46 Introvert wrote:On August 09 2026 06:35 Biff The Understudy wrote:On August 09 2026 06:33 Introvert wrote:On August 09 2026 06:14 LightSpectra wrote:
Mamdani balanced NYC's budget despite inheriting a deficit from Adams. The last time we had a federal budget surplus that was used to pay off the debt was Bill Clinton's second term. The deficit decreased at the end of Obama's and Biden's terms and wildly increased at the end of Bush's terms and Trump's first term (almost certainly to have increased at the end of his second term).
I don't know how anyone with a brain could genuinely care about the national debt and not be a blue-no-matter-who at the voting booth. Yes, Dem presidents and GOP house has been the best (but not good) when it comes to spending money. My understanding of what Mamdani did was basically an accounting move that hasn't actually paid anything or cut spending but will cost more later. So that's not a great example. Either way, Dems don't want more taxes on the middle class but they want a boatload of new programs. As previously discussed, you cannot have the latter without the former. Maybe you can tax the likes of Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos rather than the middle class. Thought about that ? That would maybe ensure they don’t own literally everything in 20 years, which they are on course to do. The math has already been done. It would not be enough. If you want the European welfare state you have to tax the middle class much more, more than Americans want. Talking about billionaires incessantly though makes for good rhetoric. Literally untrue, unless you assume they’ll still be paying for all the deductions they pay for retirement and healthcare in addition to having single payer and pensions. And why would they? Literally true, and we know that matters because progressives don't run on "tax everyone for more social services!" it's "make the billionaires pay their fair share!" Which I will add is a far scarier phrase than just "tax the billionaires" at least with the latter you would be expected to lay out some concrete reason for doing so. "Pay their fair share" is demagogic nonsense that disconnects the payment of taxes from the purpose of government. The more overall point is not really contested by experts in the field so far as I'm aware? If you want the European state you have to tax like the Europeans (acknowledging differences even within Europe). We already know that the average middle class European pays more in taxes once you add them all up. The retort that they get more for it would be a separate debate and one that most Democratic politicians are trying to avoid. People have tried to make the argument you are making, that it would more or less cancel out, but no politician proposing these plans even talks like that. Now I don't think that's true anyways for different reasons but literally no one (almost no one?) is running on raising taxes on middle class earners. Start there. edit: and of course many people would still want to have retirement accounts or private healthcare plans. edit2: crucial separate edit because I assumed something you may not have. We are also talking about the whole panoply of "benefits" including things like family leave. Not just replacing insurance costs with single payer healthcare. Though that requires making a bunch of not-obvious other assumptions that again advocates tend to gloss over. edit3 lol: and of course none of this even touches the debt, this is just replacement of current spending
Okay but counterpoint, it’s literally untrue. Americans are absurdly overtaxed if you take into account how little of their earned compensation they get to keep. But as long as it’s “employer paid healthcare deduction” and not a tax they’re good with it.
If you’ve ever been in a management role and put together a budget for a new hire you already know this. For a $60k full time position you assume $90k in cost to the company. Then the guy takes home $40k and doesn’t realize he’s paying 55% tax.
|
On August 09 2026 12:00 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2026 11:32 Introvert wrote:On August 09 2026 10:44 KwarK wrote:On August 09 2026 06:46 Introvert wrote:On August 09 2026 06:35 Biff The Understudy wrote:On August 09 2026 06:33 Introvert wrote:On August 09 2026 06:14 LightSpectra wrote:
Mamdani balanced NYC's budget despite inheriting a deficit from Adams. The last time we had a federal budget surplus that was used to pay off the debt was Bill Clinton's second term. The deficit decreased at the end of Obama's and Biden's terms and wildly increased at the end of Bush's terms and Trump's first term (almost certainly to have increased at the end of his second term).
I don't know how anyone with a brain could genuinely care about the national debt and not be a blue-no-matter-who at the voting booth. Yes, Dem presidents and GOP house has been the best (but not good) when it comes to spending money. My understanding of what Mamdani did was basically an accounting move that hasn't actually paid anything or cut spending but will cost more later. So that's not a great example. Either way, Dems don't want more taxes on the middle class but they want a boatload of new programs. As previously discussed, you cannot have the latter without the former. Maybe you can tax the likes of Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos rather than the middle class. Thought about that ? That would maybe ensure they don’t own literally everything in 20 years, which they are on course to do. The math has already been done. It would not be enough. If you want the European welfare state you have to tax the middle class much more, more than Americans want. Talking about billionaires incessantly though makes for good rhetoric. Literally untrue, unless you assume they’ll still be paying for all the deductions they pay for retirement and healthcare in addition to having single payer and pensions. And why would they? Literally true, and we know that matters because progressives don't run on "tax everyone for more social services!" it's "make the billionaires pay their fair share!" Which I will add is a far scarier phrase than just "tax the billionaires" at least with the latter you would be expected to lay out some concrete reason for doing so. "Pay their fair share" is demagogic nonsense that disconnects the payment of taxes from the purpose of government. The more overall point is not really contested by experts in the field so far as I'm aware? If you want the European state you have to tax like the Europeans (acknowledging differences even within Europe). We already know that the average middle class European pays more in taxes once you add them all up. The retort that they get more for it would be a separate debate and one that most Democratic politicians are trying to avoid. People have tried to make the argument you are making, that it would more or less cancel out, but no politician proposing these plans even talks like that. Now I don't think that's true anyways for different reasons but literally no one (almost no one?) is running on raising taxes on middle class earners. Start there. edit: and of course many people would still want to have retirement accounts or private healthcare plans. edit2: crucial separate edit because I assumed something you may not have. We are also talking about the whole panoply of "benefits" including things like family leave. Not just replacing insurance costs with single payer healthcare. Though that requires making a bunch of not-obvious other assumptions that again advocates tend to gloss over. edit3 lol: and of course none of this even touches the debt, this is just replacement of current spending Okay but counterpoint, it’s literally untrue. Americans are absurdly overtaxed if you take into account how little of their earned compensation they get to keep. But as long as it’s “employer paid healthcare deduction” and not a tax they’re good with it. If you’ve ever been in a management role and put together a budget for a new hire you already know this. For a $60k full time position you assume $90k in cost to the company. Then the guy takes home $40k and doesn’t realize he’s paying 55% tax.
Well plenty of people oppose more government control of healthcare for other reasons but yes, calling something a tax is so deadly here in the USA that it's hard to find a politician even willing to make the argument.
I've never done it but I have looked up the numbers before. Google says that gap is higher still in Europe but that goes to your "overtaxed" word choice. Again though, even narrowing down to healthcare and pensions, no one on that side is really making that argument. Forget about it for the other stuff they want to spend on.
edit: note again how easily we moved back into "pay x% to get Y benefit."
|
United States44220 Posts
On August 09 2026 12:03 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2026 12:00 KwarK wrote:On August 09 2026 11:32 Introvert wrote:On August 09 2026 10:44 KwarK wrote:On August 09 2026 06:46 Introvert wrote:On August 09 2026 06:35 Biff The Understudy wrote:On August 09 2026 06:33 Introvert wrote:On August 09 2026 06:14 LightSpectra wrote:
Mamdani balanced NYC's budget despite inheriting a deficit from Adams. The last time we had a federal budget surplus that was used to pay off the debt was Bill Clinton's second term. The deficit decreased at the end of Obama's and Biden's terms and wildly increased at the end of Bush's terms and Trump's first term (almost certainly to have increased at the end of his second term).
I don't know how anyone with a brain could genuinely care about the national debt and not be a blue-no-matter-who at the voting booth. Yes, Dem presidents and GOP house has been the best (but not good) when it comes to spending money. My understanding of what Mamdani did was basically an accounting move that hasn't actually paid anything or cut spending but will cost more later. So that's not a great example. Either way, Dems don't want more taxes on the middle class but they want a boatload of new programs. As previously discussed, you cannot have the latter without the former. Maybe you can tax the likes of Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos rather than the middle class. Thought about that ? That would maybe ensure they don’t own literally everything in 20 years, which they are on course to do. The math has already been done. It would not be enough. If you want the European welfare state you have to tax the middle class much more, more than Americans want. Talking about billionaires incessantly though makes for good rhetoric. Literally untrue, unless you assume they’ll still be paying for all the deductions they pay for retirement and healthcare in addition to having single payer and pensions. And why would they? Literally true, and we know that matters because progressives don't run on "tax everyone for more social services!" it's "make the billionaires pay their fair share!" Which I will add is a far scarier phrase than just "tax the billionaires" at least with the latter you would be expected to lay out some concrete reason for doing so. "Pay their fair share" is demagogic nonsense that disconnects the payment of taxes from the purpose of government. The more overall point is not really contested by experts in the field so far as I'm aware? If you want the European state you have to tax like the Europeans (acknowledging differences even within Europe). We already know that the average middle class European pays more in taxes once you add them all up. The retort that they get more for it would be a separate debate and one that most Democratic politicians are trying to avoid. People have tried to make the argument you are making, that it would more or less cancel out, but no politician proposing these plans even talks like that. Now I don't think that's true anyways for different reasons but literally no one (almost no one?) is running on raising taxes on middle class earners. Start there. edit: and of course many people would still want to have retirement accounts or private healthcare plans. edit2: crucial separate edit because I assumed something you may not have. We are also talking about the whole panoply of "benefits" including things like family leave. Not just replacing insurance costs with single payer healthcare. Though that requires making a bunch of not-obvious other assumptions that again advocates tend to gloss over. edit3 lol: and of course none of this even touches the debt, this is just replacement of current spending Okay but counterpoint, it’s literally untrue. Americans are absurdly overtaxed if you take into account how little of their earned compensation they get to keep. But as long as it’s “employer paid healthcare deduction” and not a tax they’re good with it. If you’ve ever been in a management role and put together a budget for a new hire you already know this. For a $60k full time position you assume $90k in cost to the company. Then the guy takes home $40k and doesn’t realize he’s paying 55% tax. Well plenty of people oppose more government control of healthcare for other reasons but yes, calling something a tax is so deadly here in the USA that it's hard to find a politician even willing to make the argument. I've never done it but I have looked up the numbers before. Google says that gap is higher still in Europe but that goes to your "overtaxed" word choice. Again though, even narrowing down to healthcare and pensions, no one on that side is really making that argument. Forget about it for the other stuff they want to spend on. edit: note again how easily we moved back into "pay x% to get Y benefit."
You’re ignoring the very simple point. The argument that it would require tax hikes to pay for a welfare state relies on the absolutely absurd assumption that after paying for government healthcare etc. they also keep paying for private healthcare etc. that they will no longer use. I mean hell, if we’re doing that do it properly. How will we build all the new hospitals now we’re committing to keeping all the current hospitals open, fully staffed, and entirely empty? This socialism thing doesn’t make any sense at all.
|
On August 09 2026 12:25 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2026 12:03 Introvert wrote:On August 09 2026 12:00 KwarK wrote:On August 09 2026 11:32 Introvert wrote:On August 09 2026 10:44 KwarK wrote:On August 09 2026 06:46 Introvert wrote:On August 09 2026 06:35 Biff The Understudy wrote:On August 09 2026 06:33 Introvert wrote:On August 09 2026 06:14 LightSpectra wrote:
Mamdani balanced NYC's budget despite inheriting a deficit from Adams. The last time we had a federal budget surplus that was used to pay off the debt was Bill Clinton's second term. The deficit decreased at the end of Obama's and Biden's terms and wildly increased at the end of Bush's terms and Trump's first term (almost certainly to have increased at the end of his second term).
I don't know how anyone with a brain could genuinely care about the national debt and not be a blue-no-matter-who at the voting booth. Yes, Dem presidents and GOP house has been the best (but not good) when it comes to spending money. My understanding of what Mamdani did was basically an accounting move that hasn't actually paid anything or cut spending but will cost more later. So that's not a great example. Either way, Dems don't want more taxes on the middle class but they want a boatload of new programs. As previously discussed, you cannot have the latter without the former. Maybe you can tax the likes of Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos rather than the middle class. Thought about that ? That would maybe ensure they don’t own literally everything in 20 years, which they are on course to do. The math has already been done. It would not be enough. If you want the European welfare state you have to tax the middle class much more, more than Americans want. Talking about billionaires incessantly though makes for good rhetoric. Literally untrue, unless you assume they’ll still be paying for all the deductions they pay for retirement and healthcare in addition to having single payer and pensions. And why would they? Literally true, and we know that matters because progressives don't run on "tax everyone for more social services!" it's "make the billionaires pay their fair share!" Which I will add is a far scarier phrase than just "tax the billionaires" at least with the latter you would be expected to lay out some concrete reason for doing so. "Pay their fair share" is demagogic nonsense that disconnects the payment of taxes from the purpose of government. The more overall point is not really contested by experts in the field so far as I'm aware? If you want the European state you have to tax like the Europeans (acknowledging differences even within Europe). We already know that the average middle class European pays more in taxes once you add them all up. The retort that they get more for it would be a separate debate and one that most Democratic politicians are trying to avoid. People have tried to make the argument you are making, that it would more or less cancel out, but no politician proposing these plans even talks like that. Now I don't think that's true anyways for different reasons but literally no one (almost no one?) is running on raising taxes on middle class earners. Start there. edit: and of course many people would still want to have retirement accounts or private healthcare plans. edit2: crucial separate edit because I assumed something you may not have. We are also talking about the whole panoply of "benefits" including things like family leave. Not just replacing insurance costs with single payer healthcare. Though that requires making a bunch of not-obvious other assumptions that again advocates tend to gloss over. edit3 lol: and of course none of this even touches the debt, this is just replacement of current spending Okay but counterpoint, it’s literally untrue. Americans are absurdly overtaxed if you take into account how little of their earned compensation they get to keep. But as long as it’s “employer paid healthcare deduction” and not a tax they’re good with it. If you’ve ever been in a management role and put together a budget for a new hire you already know this. For a $60k full time position you assume $90k in cost to the company. Then the guy takes home $40k and doesn’t realize he’s paying 55% tax. Well plenty of people oppose more government control of healthcare for other reasons but yes, calling something a tax is so deadly here in the USA that it's hard to find a politician even willing to make the argument. I've never done it but I have looked up the numbers before. Google says that gap is higher still in Europe but that goes to your "overtaxed" word choice. Again though, even narrowing down to healthcare and pensions, no one on that side is really making that argument. Forget about it for the other stuff they want to spend on. edit: note again how easily we moved back into "pay x% to get Y benefit." You’re ignoring the very simple point. The argument that it would require tax hikes to pay for a welfare state relies on the absolutely absurd assumption that after paying for government healthcare etc. they also keep paying for private healthcare etc. that they will no longer use. I mean hell, if we’re doing that do it properly. How will we build all the new hospitals now we’re committing to keeping all the current hospitals open, fully staffed, and entirely empty? This socialism thing doesn’t make any sense at all.
Not really. Again, you are only focusing on things people already pay for and ignoring the rest of the stuff that the US just doesn't do (like paid leave). And saying nothing about making things like SS solvent, which you simply cannot do on the backs of the rich.
Second, the assumption that you could do a 1 for 1 replacement (or even better) is in itself an assumption about what would happen and what would be politically feasible. For example, physician salaries. How would the politics of that work out? Would there be a massive pay cut for American doctors and nurses to put them in line with doctors in single payer systems? Or would we keep them high? How would that be determined? What would the unions think? And so forth. And I think you can see this because I doubt you are proposing to just abolish private health insurance and have the government take over without any other changes. States that have looked into single payer on the state level (including California) have concluded that it doesn't work without changing a lot of other stuff. I think both CA and Vermont have bailed on these plans multiple times.
|
United States44220 Posts
On August 09 2026 12:34 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2026 12:25 KwarK wrote:On August 09 2026 12:03 Introvert wrote:On August 09 2026 12:00 KwarK wrote:On August 09 2026 11:32 Introvert wrote:On August 09 2026 10:44 KwarK wrote:On August 09 2026 06:46 Introvert wrote:On August 09 2026 06:35 Biff The Understudy wrote:On August 09 2026 06:33 Introvert wrote:On August 09 2026 06:14 LightSpectra wrote:
Mamdani balanced NYC's budget despite inheriting a deficit from Adams. The last time we had a federal budget surplus that was used to pay off the debt was Bill Clinton's second term. The deficit decreased at the end of Obama's and Biden's terms and wildly increased at the end of Bush's terms and Trump's first term (almost certainly to have increased at the end of his second term).
I don't know how anyone with a brain could genuinely care about the national debt and not be a blue-no-matter-who at the voting booth. Yes, Dem presidents and GOP house has been the best (but not good) when it comes to spending money. My understanding of what Mamdani did was basically an accounting move that hasn't actually paid anything or cut spending but will cost more later. So that's not a great example. Either way, Dems don't want more taxes on the middle class but they want a boatload of new programs. As previously discussed, you cannot have the latter without the former. Maybe you can tax the likes of Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos rather than the middle class. Thought about that ? That would maybe ensure they don’t own literally everything in 20 years, which they are on course to do. The math has already been done. It would not be enough. If you want the European welfare state you have to tax the middle class much more, more than Americans want. Talking about billionaires incessantly though makes for good rhetoric. Literally untrue, unless you assume they’ll still be paying for all the deductions they pay for retirement and healthcare in addition to having single payer and pensions. And why would they? Literally true, and we know that matters because progressives don't run on "tax everyone for more social services!" it's "make the billionaires pay their fair share!" Which I will add is a far scarier phrase than just "tax the billionaires" at least with the latter you would be expected to lay out some concrete reason for doing so. "Pay their fair share" is demagogic nonsense that disconnects the payment of taxes from the purpose of government. The more overall point is not really contested by experts in the field so far as I'm aware? If you want the European state you have to tax like the Europeans (acknowledging differences even within Europe). We already know that the average middle class European pays more in taxes once you add them all up. The retort that they get more for it would be a separate debate and one that most Democratic politicians are trying to avoid. People have tried to make the argument you are making, that it would more or less cancel out, but no politician proposing these plans even talks like that. Now I don't think that's true anyways for different reasons but literally no one (almost no one?) is running on raising taxes on middle class earners. Start there. edit: and of course many people would still want to have retirement accounts or private healthcare plans. edit2: crucial separate edit because I assumed something you may not have. We are also talking about the whole panoply of "benefits" including things like family leave. Not just replacing insurance costs with single payer healthcare. Though that requires making a bunch of not-obvious other assumptions that again advocates tend to gloss over. edit3 lol: and of course none of this even touches the debt, this is just replacement of current spending Okay but counterpoint, it’s literally untrue. Americans are absurdly overtaxed if you take into account how little of their earned compensation they get to keep. But as long as it’s “employer paid healthcare deduction” and not a tax they’re good with it. If you’ve ever been in a management role and put together a budget for a new hire you already know this. For a $60k full time position you assume $90k in cost to the company. Then the guy takes home $40k and doesn’t realize he’s paying 55% tax. Well plenty of people oppose more government control of healthcare for other reasons but yes, calling something a tax is so deadly here in the USA that it's hard to find a politician even willing to make the argument. I've never done it but I have looked up the numbers before. Google says that gap is higher still in Europe but that goes to your "overtaxed" word choice. Again though, even narrowing down to healthcare and pensions, no one on that side is really making that argument. Forget about it for the other stuff they want to spend on. edit: note again how easily we moved back into "pay x% to get Y benefit." You’re ignoring the very simple point. The argument that it would require tax hikes to pay for a welfare state relies on the absolutely absurd assumption that after paying for government healthcare etc. they also keep paying for private healthcare etc. that they will no longer use. I mean hell, if we’re doing that do it properly. How will we build all the new hospitals now we’re committing to keeping all the current hospitals open, fully staffed, and entirely empty? This socialism thing doesn’t make any sense at all. Not really. Again, you are only focusing on things people already pay for and ignoring the rest of the stuff that the US just doesn't do (like paid leave). And saying nothing about making things like SS solvent, which you simply cannot do on the backs of the rich. Second, the assumption that you could do a 1 for 1 replacement (or even better) is in itself an assumption about what would happen and what would be politically feasible. For example, physician salaries. How would the politics of that work out? Would there be a massive pay cut for American doctors and nurses to put them in line with doctors in single payer systems? Or would we keep them high? How would that be determined? What would the unions think? And so forth. And I think you can see this because I doubt you are proposing to just abolish private health insurance and have the government take over without any other changes. States that have looked into single payer on the state level (including California) have concluded that it doesn't work without changing a lot of other stuff. I think both CA and Vermont have bailed on these plans multiple times.
Can you really not come up with a way to fund high physician salaries using only the money that currently funds high physician salaries? I can.
This is the two hospitals problem again. You’re assuming that all the money Americans are already paying for the highly paid physician keeps being spent on that guy and then the government has to somehow find a second guy and money to pay him while the first guy hangs out in an empty room.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
