Cortez MUST be an idiot.

[drawer86]

Cortez and fakebook all in one paragraph.
Now I need to DX my optic glands.

 

[jamil]

From: https://taxfoundation.org/summary-federal-income-tax-data-2017/





The number I usually see is $32 trillion over 10 years, just for 'Medicare for all (single payer)'. Assuming uniform distribution of cost (unlikely) for ease of computation, that is an extra $3.2 trillion per year

A cursory search gives me total Medicare and health spending in 2015 of just shy of $986 billion

Allowing for 'perfect world' $3.2 trillion - $986 billion savings from traditional Medicare = $2.214 trillion in needed new revenue

$2.214 trillion ÷ $1.45 trillion = 1.527 since this is all needed additional revenue, average taxes need to rise an additional 152.7%, or if you paid $10000 previously, that would rise to $25270 (your other taxes certainly wouldn't go down and the new revenue requirement is in addition to your previous tax burden)

All so what are arguably free-riders can have what they are unwilling to work for (since there are programs like medicaid in place for the truly poor, I will assume the rest desiring me to pay for their coverage are of some means - they just don't want to spend it on health insurance combined with the ACA making insurance quite a bit more expensive)

No way that could ever be a drag on the economy

I think the traditional model, where you work for what you get, but if you're legitimately incapable of working, there's at least some social safety net, is reasonable and sustainable. But the full on welfare state is not sustainable, and they just want to keep adding more to that. And to do that they have to raise taxes. That crazy ***** keeps saying they can make it revenue neutral. As you've shown, that's just nonsense. There is no way to make that utopian wet dream revenue neutral. They'll have to raise taxes. A crap ton.

But, about the revenue increase needed, likely they'd raise taxes progressively so that they punish/rewarded disproportionately outrageous, including negative tax. So, if you're really making only 10K a year you'd be rewarded with money back to at least get you above poverty level. But, if you make more than that, you'd progressively be punished to lower your income so they can take your money away to give it to others. They'll also have to limit travel for the richest people so they don't try to flee from the obscene tax burden.

 

[miguel]

video

This is fantastic. Sadly a large group of people will never see this and don't have the curiosity to intellectually (or emotionally) digest this.

 

[BugI02]

I think the traditional model, where you work for what you get, but if you're legitimately incapable of working, there's at least some social safety net, is reasonable and sustainable. But the full on welfare state is not sustainable, and they just want to keep adding more to that. And to do that they have to raise taxes. That crazy ***** keeps saying they can make it revenue neutral. As you've shown, that's just nonsense. There is no way to make that utopian wet dream revenue neutral. They'll have to raise taxes. A crap ton.

But, about the revenue increase needed, likely they'd raise taxes progressively so that they punish/rewarded disproportionately outrageous, including negative tax. So, if you're really making only 10K a year you'd be rewarded with money back to at least get you above poverty level. But, if you make more than that, you'd progressively be punished to lower your income so they can take your money away to give it to others. They'll also have to limit travel for the richest people so they don't try to flee from the obscene tax burden.

In the indicated year (2015) the bottom 50% of taxpayers paid 2.8% of all tax revenues. That's you Free **** Army right there

 

[maxwelhse]

Oh. Not even Calculus I. She could get by taking Calculus for the Life and Social Sciences I. So, basically calculus-lite for grievance studies ideologues.

I suck something fierce at math and busted my ass to get a BS MET from Purdue. 2 Calc classes, 2 statics classes, etc, etc...

I sat in Statistics with the econ and nursing majors who were just totally mesmerized by the entire experience. I'd for sure trust a nurse to save my life based on her math skills, but I'm not trusting my economy to an econ major, honors grad or not.

 

[jedi]

From: https://taxfoundation.org/summary-federal-income-tax-data-2017/





The number I usually see is $32 trillion over 10 years, just for 'Medicare for all (single payer)'. Assuming uniform distribution of cost (unlikely) for ease of computation, that is an extra $3.2 trillion per year

A cursory search gives me total Medicare and health spending in 2015 of just shy of $986 billion

Allowing for 'perfect world' $3.2 trillion - $986 billion savings from traditional Medicare = $2.214 trillion in needed new revenue

$2.214 trillion ÷ $1.45 trillion = 1.527 since this is all needed additional revenue, average taxes need to rise an additional 152.7%, or if you paid $10000 previously, that would rise to $25270 (your other taxes certainly wouldn't go down and the new revenue requirement is in addition to your previous tax burden)

All so what are arguably free-riders can have what they are unwilling to work for (since there are programs like medicaid in place for the truly poor, I will assume the rest desiring me to pay for their coverage are of some means - they just don't want to spend it on health insurance combined with the ACA making insurance quite a bit more expensive)

No way that could ever be a drag on the economy

while your math is correct you are basing it on the current playfield which your math shows wont work.

thus the Ds will change the playfield entirely. obamacare was the beginning. we have to show that the health insurances are evil and out yo make money. once the private insurances gobble themselvees up to be only 1 or 2 then the plan is go after the medical field.

the doctors will be evil for asking for so much $$$. how can we pay for free healthcare if the doc wants so much.

baby steps, baby steps..

 

[actaeon277]

This is fantastic. Sadly a large group of people will never see this and don't have the curiosity to intellectually (or emotionally) digest this.

Yup.

 

[jamil]

I suck something fierce at math and busted my ass to get a BS MET from Purdue. 2 Calc classes, 2 statics classes, etc, etc...

I sat in Statistics with the econ and nursing majors who were just totally mesmerized by the entire experience. I'd for sure trust a nurse to save my life based on her math skills, but I'm not trusting my economy to an econ major, honors grad or not.

Just like with an enfineering degree vs an engineering technology degree, where the latter is less rigorous, the degree programs for econ have different tiers. Generall a BS in econ will be much more mathematically intense than a BA in econ. After hearing all the nonsense she’s said about the economy, it’s pretty clear her BA didn’t really teach her anything about economics other than perhaps marxist theory. And who needs math for that?

 

[spec4]

She should have plenty of classmates who can comment on her college years. Let's hope some of them surface.

 

[churchmouse]

She should have plenty of classmates who can comment on her college years. Let's hope some of them surface.

Like "O"s did.........

 

[spec4]

Like "O"s did.........

That's my point. I say Manchurian, wife laughs at me.

 

[maxwelhse]

Just like with an enfineering degree vs an engineering technology degree, where the latter is less rigorous, the degree programs for econ have different tiers. Generall a BS in econ will be much more mathematically intense than a BA in econ. After hearing all the nonsense she’s said about the economy, it’s pretty clear her BA didn’t really teach her anything about economics other than perhaps marxist theory. And who needs math for that?

Realizing I'm going off topic here, but I will pull it back around...

Both ME and MET are in the school of engineering science. MET is not necessarily less rigorous in this case, just different. As an MET I took machining courses (both manual and CNC), drafting courses (again, both on the board and solid modeling), fluid power courses (as in actually building hydraulic circuits), manufacturing courses, etc, etc. MEs, at least at IFPW at the time, took none of those things. I can follow their math and physics, but they can't touch my practical skills. I was one course shy of a mathematics minor with my BS MET (and AS IET since I took linear algebra for that degree, which is a degree requirement for MEs), where as straight MEs got it automatically (by virtue of one additional calculus class, multivarient, and the linear algebra I took for a tangential degree).

To bring it back to the topic at hand, I don't think Cortez, or any economist (BA or BS from what I can see of the program requirements), has the chops to run with anyone with an engineering degree of any kind. My point there is that I'm half stupid when it comes to math, and even I pulled a 3.1 final GPA. My major GPA would have been an honors degree, (3.5 is *** laude, which is where I was in my engineering core classes, but too many Bs in math classes hurt me overall... so in that context, I graduated with the same honors that she did).

So, at least from my end, graduating *** Laude in a cakewalk program (and looking at her degree requirements, it is IMO) when I very nearly pulled the same grades in a hard program, and I'm telling you outright that I'm half stupid, doesn't impress me. Nor should it impress anyone. Any average guy that can frame a house or weld up a trailer could get through engineering school if he worked hard enough at it.

All of that is to say that pointing out her academic career as if it was something to behold, or some indication of her intelligence, is misguided at best. Through empirical study of her graduation requirements, and the experience of my own education as being half an idiot myself, I'm confident I could have done the same thing... And brother, if I can pull it off, God help us all.

By contrast, I can tell you outright that I could never do most of the things Trump has done (I'm even too much of a 'fraidy cat to buy stocks beyond my 401K), but I can wait tables and make drinks. In a nutshell, that's what I'm trying to say here. Having a degree, even with high honors, doesn't mean much, and that's speaking from personal experience.

 

[daddyusmaximus]

She is so stupid, I almost want to record C-Span just to check out what will happen...

 

[Libertarian01]

I am probably alone here but I don't yet believe she is an idiot. She may be, but I'm not there yet.

Rather, she is a naive, optimistic progressive who cannot see the trees for the forest. In this regard neither can most other people, progressive or conservative.

We have $21.8 trillion in debt.

We have about $150 trillion (give or take about $50 trillion) in unfunded liabilities.

We are spending about $800 billion more than we take in, and it is getting worse.

Doctors and nurses do not control costs. Almost all of them belong to large medical conglomerates that control costs. Try finding a independent doctor in a metropolitan area. I tried in Ft. Wayne and found maybe(?) two (2). All the rest had been gobbled up by Lutheran or Parkview.

The problem is no one who is fiscally conservative has sat down with her and IN A NICE WAY had a debate using cold, hard numbers. It's like trying to talk to people who are against mass shootings, and so come to the conclusion that more gun control is needed. Few sit down not being on the defensive and discuss with gun owners the sad fact that mass killings CANNOT be stopped. This is a sad truth gun owners understand, but still dislike as much as the gun control folks.

Her and people like her believe in trying to achieve Utopia. Economists look at the big picture, but fail to see the work of each individual tree that really makes up the forest.

I don't believe her to be an idiot. However, when she (or anyone) is attacked they will get defensive and entrench themselves, and then there is no going back. On both sides...

Regards,

Doug

 

[jedi]

if ya just go to my gofundme page to fund my death star i promise to resolve all these problems for you. trust me.

 

[jbombelli]

if ya just go to my gofundme page to fund my death star i promise to resolve all these problems for you. trust me.

Why not just build a tractor beam and point it at the moon? That would be cheaper. Or just put really big rocket engines on its front side and slow it down a bit? Instead of slowly moving away it will COME RIGHT FOR US!!

 

[jedi]

 

[1DOWN4UP]

Maybe she saw the Bernie crowd,and seen how his age it working him.Why not be ready to be handed the baton.

 

[Dr.Midnight]

I am probably alone here but I don't yet believe she is an idiot. She may be, but I'm not there yet.

Rather, she is a naive, optimistic progressive who cannot see the trees for the forest. In this regard neither can most other people, progressive or conservative.

We have $21.8 trillion in debt.

We have about $150 trillion (give or take about $50 trillion) in unfunded liabilities.

We are spending about $800 billion more than we take in, and it is getting worse.

Doctors and nurses do not control costs. Almost all of them belong to large medical conglomerates that control costs. Try finding a independent doctor in a metropolitan area. I tried in Ft. Wayne and found maybe(?) two (2). All the rest had been gobbled up by Lutheran or Parkview.

The problem is no one who is fiscally conservative has sat down with her and IN A NICE WAY had a debate using cold, hard numbers. It's like trying to talk to people who are against mass shootings, and so come to the conclusion that more gun control is needed. Few sit down not being on the defensive and discuss with gun owners the sad fact that mass killings CANNOT be stopped. This is a sad truth gun owners understand, but still dislike as much as the gun control folks.

Her and people like her believe in trying to achieve Utopia. Economists look at the big picture, but fail to see the work of each individual tree that really makes up the forest.

I don't believe her to be an idiot. However, when she (or anyone) is attacked they will get defensive and entrench themselves, and then there is no going back. On both sides...

Regards,

Doug

I would enjoy seeing her in a discussion or debate with any high-profile conservative, but she simply won't do it. Ben Shapiro offered Cortez ten grand towards a charity of her choice for debating him, but she accused him of "catcalling" because he's a man. When conservative women like Candace Owens stepped up and wanted to debate, Cortez wouldn't even give them a response. She knows she will get destroyed by any of them because she's ignorant about the topics she preaches on. That's what happens when you're motivated by feelings rather than facts.

 

[churchmouse]

I would enjoy seeing her in a discussion or debate with any high-profile conservative, but she simply won't do it. Ben Shapiro offered Cortez ten grand towards a charity of her choice for debating him, but she accused him of "catcalling" because he's a man. When conservative women like Candace Owens stepped up and wanted to debate, Cortez wouldn't even give them a response. She knows she will get destroyed by any of them because she's ignorant about the topics she preaches on. That's what happens when you're motivated by feelings rather than facts.

Yet regardless of her lack of knowledge and the idiocy she chooses to let come out of her mouth she has found an audience. One big enough to get her up to the top of the hill. And the MSM is pushing her face on us 24/7. THis is the truly scary part.