Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 2, 2024 10:01:56 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2019 15:43:56 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 2, 2024 10:01:56 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2019 15:44:27 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 2, 2024 10:01:56 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2019 15:45:17 GMT
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Oct 29, 2019 15:48:47 GMT
Yet the republicans that appear are ranting, raving lunatics, always trying to turn the table on the alleged and unproven allegations against Biden, and usually mentioning Obama and Hillary also. Gaslighting at its best. The Gaetz's', Meadows, McCarthy, Jordans' of the Republican party are hardly the examples of the statesmen that represent the best of America. I try to remember that they are not the true example of all republicans, but the lack of stones on the part of most Republican officials to stand up and challenge 'dimwit donnie's' destruction of the Republican party is frustrating. Their new GOP mouth Sean Duffy is really really driving me nuts! He talks over everyone. He answers NOTHING!
|
|
PLurker
Prolific Pea
Posts: 9,749
Location: Behind the Cheddar Curtain
Jun 28, 2014 3:48:49 GMT
|
Post by PLurker on Oct 29, 2019 15:51:21 GMT
"One reason is because it was disrespectful to The Office Of The President."
Nope. It's respectful to the Office of the President to object to someone who has no business occupying it.
And the current occupant deserves to hear his own words reflected back at him for far more valid reasons than he used them.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 2, 2024 10:01:56 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2019 15:59:17 GMT
The Daily Beast...
”NEW: A top aide to Rep. Devin Nunes has been providing conservative politicians and journalists with information—and misinformation—about the anonymous whistleblower who triggered the biggest crisis of Trump’s presidency”
Its becoming clear that Nunes really doesn’t love this country. I’m beginning to wonder if any of the Republicans do.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 2, 2024 10:01:56 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2019 16:26:35 GMT
This from trump...
”Nervous Nancy Pelosi is doing everything possible to destroy the Republican Party. Our Polls show that it is going to be just the opposite. The Do Nothing Dems will lose many seats in 2020. They have a Death Wish, led by a corrupt politician, Adam Schiff!”
Prompted this reply from impala..
”That's a weird way to spell, "We are devastated by the fires in California and stand ready to help. Our thoughts are with them. If only they'd raked."
#ImpeachmentTaskForce #CaliforniaFires”
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Oct 29, 2019 16:32:16 GMT
The Daily Beast... ”NEW: A top aide to Rep. Devin Nunes has been providing conservative politicians and journalists with information—and misinformation—about the anonymous whistleblower who triggered the biggest crisis of Trump’s presidency” Its becoming clear that Nunes really doesn’t love this country. I’m beginning to wonder if any of the Republicans do. Nothing new about Nunes! Sneaking to the WH in the dark of night.... Wait, an after thought, maybe he was meeting Spicer back then!
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 2, 2024 10:01:56 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2019 16:36:49 GMT
ABC News..
”Pres. Trump attacks, without evidence, White House national security official, just before the official was to tell House impeachment investigators he raised alarms about what Trump told Ukraine's president during a July phone call.”
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 2, 2024 10:01:56 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2019 16:42:57 GMT
Stephen Hayes....
”Are Republicans in Congress okay with the disgusting smears of Col. Vindman and Bill Taylor?”
Michael R Bromwich...
”Of course they’re comfortable with the smears. They have recast patriotism as blind loyalty to a corrupt and authoritarian President. Anyone who stands in his way is a ripe target. The Party of Lincoln has come to this.”
|
|
sueg
Prolific Pea
Posts: 8,085
Location: Munich
Apr 12, 2016 12:51:01 GMT
|
Post by sueg on Oct 29, 2019 16:50:41 GMT
ABC News.. ”Pres. Trump attacks, without evidence, White House national security official, just before the official was to tell House impeachment investigators he raised alarms about what Trump told Ukraine's president during a July phone call.” I want to call him scum, but feel that is offensive to all pond scum out there. Just when you think he couldn't sink any lower (and sadly, we've been saying that for nearly 3 years now) We all know the attacks are an attempt to discredit this witness, but not everyone wants to believe that.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Oct 29, 2019 16:55:40 GMT
Stephen Hayes.... ”Are Republicans in Congress okay with the disgusting smears of Col. Vindman and Bill Taylor?” Michael R Bromwich... ”Of course they’re comfortable with the smears. They have recast patriotism as blind loyalty to a corrupt and authoritarian President. Anyone who stands in his way is a ripe target. The Party of Lincoln has come to this.” except for the fact that the Rs are already trying to smear him... 'just how "American" is he, since he was born in the Ukraine?' Which, IMO, is just reprehensible (or deplorable, if you prefer). I think Trump has also already been calling him a 'never-Trumper' despite the fact that he's never, ever said a THING in public about Trump not being able to handle the office, etc. Because he is an immigrant .. As we ALL ARE!! BTW: someone earlier said is brother has also served honorably !! More than anyone can say about bone spurs or anyone in his family for over 5 generations in any country! (In fact his grandfather was a 'draft' dodger in Germany! Germany did not want him when he went back after living here. Unfortunately Germany sent him back to the US.)
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 2, 2024 10:01:56 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2019 17:01:27 GMT
The Republicans at their best attacking a man who feels it’s his duty to report what he sees as politicized extortion of a foreign leader by the President of the United States.
The New Yorker..
“Republicans Smear Army Vet Testifying Against Trump as a Ukrainian Spy”
“Last night, the New York Times reported that Alexander S. Vindman, the top Ukraine expert in the National Security Council, will testify to the House that he expressed grave concerns about President Trump’s politicized extortion of Ukraine’s president. Vindman will be the first White House official who took part in the July 25 phone call to testify. The Republican response to Vindman’s testimony is already clear: They are smearing him as a Ukrainian spy.
The Times reports that, in his capacity as NSC Ukraine adviser, Vindman was often contacted by Ukrainian officials who were confused about the extortionate demands being made on them by Rudy Giuliani. Laura Ingraham seized upon this sentence last night:
Here we have a U.S. national-security official who is advising Ukraine while working inside the White House apparently against the president’s interest,” said an incredulous Ingraham on her nightly show. “Isn’t that kind of an interesting angle on this story?” former Bush-administration lawyer John Yoo replied. “Some people might call that espionage.” (Alan Dershowitz, the third member of the colloquy, smiled along.)
This morning on cable news, the smear campaign continued. “It seems very clear that he is incredibly concerned about Ukrainian defense,” said former congressman Sean Duffy on CNN. “I don’t know that he’s concerned about American policy … We all have an affinity to our homeland where we came from … he has an affinity for the Ukraine.” Fox & Friends host Brian Kilmeade added, “We also know he was born in the Soviet Union, emigrated with his family. Young. He tends to feel simpatico with the Ukraine.”
Vindman is a decorated Army lieutenant colonel and an Iraq War veteran with a Purple Heart. That, of course, does not mean his conduct cannot be criticized. But Vindman testifies that he reported all his concerns over Trump up the chain of command, following procedure and working within official channels.
It was the object of his concern, Rudy Giuliani, who was going around official channels. Indeed, Giuliani was pressuring Ukrainian officials not only on behalf of Trump as a private client — a completely inappropriate interference in foreign policy — but also on behalf of the Russian gangsters who were paying him and running a side hustle shaking down Ukraine’s energy department.
The Republican position is that there’s no loyalty problem involved in having American foreign policy conducted by an off-the-books lawyer with no security clearance who was apparently on the payroll of the Russian Mafia. The security problem is the NSC official advising an American ally about how to deal with the goons demanding that the ally subvert the independence of its judicial system and insert itself into the American election, and also that it give the goons a little taste of the gas-import business. The Republicans’ logic is that Giuliani and his sleazy clients represent “the president’s interest,” as Ingraham put it. And the president’s interest, however corrupt or improper, is the national interest. If you are working at cross-purposes with Rudy and his thugs, you must be disloyal to America.“
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on Oct 29, 2019 17:01:45 GMT
ABC News.. ”Pres. Trump attacks, without evidence, White House national security official, just before the official was to tell House impeachment investigators he raised alarms about what Trump told Ukraine's president during a July phone call.” of COURSE he did- par for the course with Trump. Smear someone (with no evidence whatsoever), insult everyone around him, etc. etc. but we're supposed to respect him? yeah, nope.
|
|
|
Post by jeremysgirl on Oct 29, 2019 17:04:30 GMT
That is just sick @fred re: the casting him as a spy. The lengths that people will go to disgust me.
|
|
|
Post by twinks on Oct 29, 2019 17:11:53 GMT
Interesting thing about respect. It can't be demanded. If you want respect you have to respect others. Trump hasn't learned that elementary concept.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 2, 2024 10:01:56 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2019 17:23:51 GMT
Paul Waldman in the Washington Post..
“The GOP’s last-ditch argument to defend Trump from impeachment”
“In their unenviable task of defending President Trump’s behavior in the Ukraine scandal, Republicans have been flailing around desperately, as one argument they offer after another lands with a thud. But even if they don’t realize it yet, there’s only one destination for them, and it’s one that will sound familiar to those who were around when Bill Clinton was impeached.
Thus far, Republicans have been changing their story almost daily. For a while they said Trump’s phone call — in which he instructed the president of Ukraine to manufacture smears of Joe Biden — was, in the president’s words, perfect. Then Republicans shifted, arguing that the impeachment inquiry was a sham because the full House hadn’t voted on it.
Now that Democrats have announced they’ll hold such a vote, the argument will shift again. Politico reports that Republicans now want to build a “merit-based case to defend Trump,” but what that might be, no one can say.
Democrats, on the other hand, have made a simple argument throughout: Trump should be impeached because he abused his power for his own political gain.
That argument has the benefit of being both true and persuasive. A new survey from Grinnell College asked, without mentioning Trump, whether it’s "okay for political candidates in the U.S. to ask for assistance from a foreign government to help them win an election.” Eighty-one percent said no. Even Republican voters overwhelmingly reject what Trump did.
In the days to come, GOP arguments about both process and substance will sound increasingly absurd. Soon the inquiry will move to public hearings — in which committed, patriotic civil servants lay out the details of this scandal — and they will likely be dramatic and compelling. It will simply not be possible for Republicans to argue that Trump did nothing wrong.
That will leave them with one argument. The one that saved Bill Clinton.
When news organizations reported in January 1998 that Clinton had had an affair with a young White House staffer named Monica Lewinsky, Clinton at first denied it. “I did not have sexual relations with that woman,” he famously said. What ensued over the next year was a true national conversation about Clinton, Lewinsky, sex and power. And while Democrats attacked independent counsel Ken Starr for his tactics and prurient obsession with the details of the president’s sex life, before long few, if any, of them bothered to argue that Clinton was completely innocent.
Where they ended up was this: Yes, Clinton’s behavior was repugnant. He cheated on his wife and did so with a much younger woman and one who was a subordinate, which is unacceptable. However, that conduct was private in nature and ultimately had little if anything to do with his official duties. Therefore, whatever else you might think of him, he didn’t deserve to be impeached and removed over it.
Democrats arrived at that argument because that’s where the public was. Over the course of that national conversation, a consensus emerged that separated Clinton’s private misbehavior from his public duties. Throughout the process, his approval ratings remained high.
So Republicans are going to find themselves making a similar argument about Trump, for the simple reason that no other argument will remotely plausible. Yes, they’ll say, it was not a good thing for Trump to pressure Ukraine to dig up dirt on Joe Biden to help in his reelection campaign. But was it really that big a deal? Let’s just call it a misdemeanor and move on.
We’ve already seen some Republicans circling around this argument. “The picture coming out of it based on the reporting we’ve seen is, yeah, I would say it’s not a good one,” said Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) last week, adding that it was too early to “come to hard and fast conclusions.” That has the benefit of at least acknowledging reality, while offering a justification to acquit Trump in the Senate.
It’s not a foolproof argument by any means. First, Trump’s misdeeds can’t be dismissed as separate from his duties as president. This impeachment is not about private conduct but about Trump’s abuse of power for political gain.
Second, Trump himself will reject this argument and attack the Republicans who make it. He always claims that everything he did was perfect. He’s too petty and insecure to tolerate even mild criticism from his allies, even if its purpose is to save his skin. So Republicans who defend Trump by saying that his misconduct was too minor to warrant removal will find themselves the target of his wrath.
Which might be fine with many of them: They can say they’re being principled and pragmatic, put just a bit of distance between themselves and the disgraced president, and still support him in the end. It’s not much, but it might be their only choice.”
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on Oct 29, 2019 17:36:17 GMT
Trump’s misdeeds can’t be dismissed as separate from his duties as president. This impeachment is not about private conduct but about Trump’s abuse of power for political gain. ^^^ THAT is the important thing. It is NOT acceptable for the President to use his OFFICE a nd HOLD UP $$ ALREADY ALLOCATED BY CONGRESS / BY LAW for POLITICAL means / his own gain. I certainly HOPE the public-- even die-hard Trumpsters- would agree with this. If, by God, they wanted Clinton out for lying about a BJ, then they sure as he!L better want Trump out because of this.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Oct 29, 2019 17:43:13 GMT
This morning on cable news, the smear campaign continued. “It seems very clear that he is incredibly concerned about Ukrainian defense,” said former congressman Sean Duffy on CNN. “I don’t know that he’s concerned about American policy … We all have an affinity to our homeland where we came from … he has an affinity for the Ukraine.” Fox & Friends host Brian Kilmeade added, “We also know he was born in the Soviet Union, emigrated with his family. Young. He tends to feel simpatico with the Ukraine.” Duffy has had more to say, also on CNN, new paid contributor. He is objecting to immigrants, We are mostly ALL immigrants. We have just arrived at different times! Duffy does not understand that we also care about Ukraine defense, it is to our benefit in the long run! I rarely if ever agree with Liz Cheney. I will extend thanks for supporting Vindman and the others!!
|
|
DEX
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,355
Aug 9, 2014 23:13:22 GMT
|
Post by DEX on Oct 29, 2019 18:12:39 GMT
A federal judge on Tuesday blocked a near-total ban on abortions from taking effect next month in Alabama, ensuring the procedure remains legal and available in the state while the legislation winds its way through the courts.
People gathered at the Alabama State Capitol during the March for Reproductive Freedom against the state’s new abortion law, the Alabama Human Life Protection Act, in Montgomery, Ala. in May. The ruling against the Alabama law — the most far-reaching measure passed by state lawmakers this year — was an early step in a legal confrontation that abortion opponents orchestrated to try to reach the United States Supreme Court.
Several states, including Missouri, Kentucky, Mississippi and Georgia, approved laws that would ban abortions after the heartbeat of what becomes the fetus can be detected, all with the aim of setting the stage for the renewed legal fight over abortion rights. In each of those states, a federal judge has blocked the measures from taking effect.
Judge Myron H. Thompson of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama issued the injunction against the Alabama law, which banned abortion at every stage of pregnancy and criminalized the procedure for doctors, who could be charged with felonies and face up to 99 years in prison. It included an exception for cases when the mother’s life is at serious risk, but not for cases of rape or incest — a subject of fierce debate among lawmakers this year.
The Alabama law had been set to take effect on Nov. 15.
The legal challenge was mounted by the A.C.L.U. and the Planned Parenthood Federation of America on behalf of Dr. Yashica Robinson, an obstetrician and gynecologist in Huntsville who provides abortions.
Opponents of the law hailed the injunction as a positive development as the case pushes ahead. They also said it comes as a relief to the women who believed the procedure had already been outlawed in their state.
“Abortion remains legal in Alabama,” Randall Marshall, the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Alabama, said in a statement following the ruling. “The state’s repeated attempts to push abortion out of reach by enacting unconstitutional laws restricting abortions have already cost taxpayers nearly $2.5 million. This ill-advised law will cost taxpayers more money.”
Steve Marshall, the Alabama attorney general, said on Tuesday that the injunction was “not unexpected,” and that it did not stand in the way of setting off a larger legal fight over landmark cases on abortion, including Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
“As we have stated before, the State’s objective is to advance our case to the U.S. Supreme Court,” Mr. Marshall said in a statement, “where we intend to submit evidence that supports our argument that Roe and Casey were wrongly decided and that the Constitution does not prohibit states from protecting unborn children from abortion.”
Next up: The Supreme Court. Should be interesting, especially with the current justices. Live Strong Justice Ginsburg !!
|
|
PLurker
Prolific Pea
Posts: 9,749
Location: Behind the Cheddar Curtain
Jun 28, 2014 3:48:49 GMT
|
Post by PLurker on Oct 29, 2019 19:05:32 GMT
That is just sick @fred re: the casting him as a spy. The lengths that people will go to disgust me. and those turning a blind eye to the obvious. Anyone who dares to disagree or slight trump receives that same treatment. Many are "good people" until they're deemed not. Hero to zero in a tweet of von Clownstick. Ridiculous that they can't, or won't, see that.
|
|
|
Post by ntsf on Oct 29, 2019 19:10:35 GMT
mccarthyism at its best.. smear good people with lies.. and watch their lives fall apart...
|
|
maryannscraps
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,736
Aug 28, 2017 12:51:28 GMT
|
Post by maryannscraps on Oct 29, 2019 19:23:00 GMT
Those who are questioning Vindman's alliances are in for a very rude awakening. He's an American citizen who has devoted his adult life to protecting America and the Constitution.
Duffy sounded like an idiot when John Bernan asked him if Rep Meadows would be considered to be more loyal to France than America because he was born in France. Duffy kept trying to say that Vindman was the one organizing the aid to Ukraine. I kept shouting at the TV that Congress ordered the aid, and Trump was not being a patriot, he was being a criminal, by keeping it from them. ETA corrected jake tapper to John betman
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Oct 29, 2019 20:27:59 GMT
Nunes staff...... ** A top aide to Rep. Devin Nunes has been providing conservative politicians and journalists with information—and misinformation—about the anonymous whistleblower who triggered the biggest crisis of Donald Trump’s presidency, two knowledgeable sources tell The Daily Beast. Derek Harvey, who works for Nunes, the ranking Republican on the House intelligence committee, has provided notes for House Republicans identifying the whistleblower’s name ahead of the high-profile depositions of Trump administration appointees and civil servants in the impeachment inquiry. The purpose of the notes, one source said, is to get the whistleblower’s name into the record of the proceedings, which committee chairman Adam Schiff has pledged to eventually release. In other words: it’s an attempt to out the anonymous official who helped trigger the impeachment inquiry. ** The whistleblower is not Harvey’s only target. Another is a staffer for the House intelligence committee Democrats whom The Daily Beast has agreed not to name due to concerns about reprisals against the staffer. Harvey, both sources said, has spread a false story alleging that the whistleblower contacted the staffer ahead of raising internal alarm about President Trump’s July 25 phone call attempting to get a “favor” from Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelensky to damage Trump’s rival Joe Biden. In right-wing circles, contact with Schiff is meant to discredit the whistleblower as partisan. The eagerness of Republicans to go after the intelligence committee staffer so alarmed Democrats that they raised the issue with GOP leadership, according to a senior official on the intelligence committee. ** Harvey has a history of passing on information to damage colleagues. As The Daily Beast reported in March, an April 2017 email that senior State Department official Brian Hook sent to himself, titled “Derek notes,” contained descriptions of State Department officials suspected of disloyalty or troublesomeness. Examples of such disloyalty included “butter[ing] up to Clinton people,” Hook wrote. The email is currently being examined by a State Department inspector general investigation into department politicization. Harvey is not the only Nunes ally involved in the Ukraine story. A former Nunes staffer who now works on the NSC, Kash Patel, gave Trump damaging information about Ukraine, Politico recently reported. Patel was a driving force behind Nunes’ efforts in 2017 and 2018 to discredit the origins of the FBI investigation into the Trump campaign’s connections with Russian election interference. ** www.thedailybeast.com/devin-nunes-aide-is-leaking-the-ukraine-whistleblowers-name-sources-say
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 2, 2024 10:01:56 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2019 21:13:53 GMT
Natasha Bertrand...
”NEW: Vindman’s testimony appears to contradict Rick Perry's ardent denials that he ever heard the Bidens discussed as part of pressure on Ukraine...Perry was in the meeting when Vindman raised concerns about targeting the Bidens, we’re told. W/@bjlefebvre:”
Does anyone connected with trump tell the truth?
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 2, 2024 10:01:56 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2019 21:29:21 GMT
That is just sick @fred re: the casting him as a spy. The lengths that people will go to disgust me.
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Oct 29, 2019 21:34:34 GMT
MSNBC, Nicole Wallace had a good one today, Vindman passed the highest security clearance that Ivanka and Jared could not pass!
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on Oct 29, 2019 21:41:15 GMT
Natasha Bertrand... ”NEW: Vindman’s testimony appears to contradict Rick Perry's ardent denials that he ever heard the Bidens discussed as part of pressure on Ukraine...Perry was in the meeting when Vindman raised concerns about targeting the Bidens, we’re told. W/@bjlefebvre:” Does anyone connected with trump tell the truth? Seems not!! I always thought Perry seemed a bit swarmy.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 2, 2024 10:01:56 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2019 21:52:09 GMT
Senator Richard Burr Republican...
”If college athletes are going to make money off their likenesses while in school, their scholarships should be treated like income. I’ll be introducing legislation that subjects scholarships given to athletes who choose to “cash in” to income taxes.”
Most if not all those on scholarships are awarded to poor or middle class kids from families that don’t have the money to send them to college.
So this is an attack by a Republican Senator against the poor and middle class while supporting large tax cuts for the wealthy.
Its things like this is why I quit voting for Republicans.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jun 2, 2024 10:01:56 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2019 22:13:13 GMT
linkMaybe below is why Sanders and Warren don’t want to talk about how to pay for Medicare for all. Remember, both Sanders and Warren are also promising free college, forgiving student loans, and we also need funds to fight climate change. NPR... ”Bernie Sanders said he doesn't plan on releasing a detailed plan of how to finance his single-payer Medicare for All plan. "I don't think I have to do that right now," he said.” From Committee for Responsible Federal Budget... “Choices for Financing Medicare for All: A Preliminary Analysis”From the article.. Proposals to adopt single-payer health care in the United States have grown in popularity in recent years, as numerous lawmakers and presidential candidates have embraced Medicare for All. However, few have grappled with how to finance the new costs imposed on the federal government. By most estimates, Medicare for All would cost the federal government about $30 trillion over the next decade. How this cost is financed would have considerable distributional, economic, and policy implications. In the coming months, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget will publish a detailed analysis describing numerous ways to finance Medicare for All and the consequences and trade-offs associated with each choice. This paper provides our preliminary estimates of the magnitude of each potential change and a brief discussion of the types of trade-offs policymakers will need to consider. We find that Medicare for All could be financed with: * A 32 percent payroll tax * A 25 percent income surtax * A 42 percent value-added tax (VAT) * A mandatory public premium averaging $7,500 per capita – the equivalent of $12,000 per individual not otherwise on public insurance * More than doubling all individual and corporate income tax rates * An 80 percent reduction in non-health federal spending * A 108 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) increase in the national debt * Impossibly high taxes on high earners, corporations, and the financial sector * A combination of approaches Each of these choices would have consequences for the distribution of income, growth in the economy, and ability to raise new revenue. Some of these consequences could be balanced against each other by adopting a combination approach that includes smaller versions of several of the options as well as additional policies.Consequences could also be mitigated through aggressive efforts to lower per-person health care costs and/or by substantially scaling back the generosity or comprehensiveness of Medicare for All.& “ Conclusion”Regardless of its impact on national health expenditures, Medicare for All would shift substantial costs from the private sector to the federal government. By most estimates, a comprehensive Medicare for All plan that expands coverage to every U.S. resident for nearly all medical services and eliminates premiums and cost sharing would cost the federal government roughly $30 trillion over a decade. Policymakers have a number of options available to finance the $30 trillion cost of Medicare for All, but each option would come with its own set of trade-offs.In this preliminary analysis, we estimate the cost could be covered with a 32 percent payroll tax, a 25 percent income surtax, a 42 percent value-added tax, or a public premium averaging $7,500 per capita or more than $12,000 per individual who wouldn’t otherwise be enrolled in Medicare, Medicaid, or CHIP. Medicare for All could also be paid for by more than doubling individual and corporate income tax rates, reducing federal spending by 80 percent, or increasing the national debt by 108 percent of GDP. Tax increases on high earners, corporations, and the financial sector by themselves could not cover much more than one-third of the cost of Medicare for All. Rather than adopting any one of the proposals above, policymakers could also consider a combination of approaches to finance Medicare for All. Reducing the cost, scope, or generosity of Medicare for All would also reduce the magnitude of needed financing. In deciding how to finance Medicare for All, policymakers must consider the distributional, economic, and policy consequences of replacing premiums and cost sharing with various alternatives. Most of the options we put forward are more progressive on average than current law but would shrink economic output and bring the top tax rate up to its revenue-maximizing level – leaving little capacity for further taxes.This paper will be followed by a more detailed analysis of the various consequences of different financing options.
|
|