message_topic.aspx?topic=562232&page=1#12768131

This 15 yr old slut bag will be living off the hardwork of the tax payer through out her life.

3/27/2009 9:41:11 PM

Quote :

"yeah..... and the top 5% make something close to 50% of the income too "

The top 5% earn about 35% of total income. and pay 60% of the income taxes. Fair?

3/27/2009 11:12:16 PM

honestly, it doesn't bother me that much. They are clearly the ones who are most capable of paying the cost of running the country.

Obviously there is a lot that needs changing with how money is spent, and there needs to be huge welfare and entitlement reforms.
But if money is being spent on things that will, or should, benefit society as a whole - healthcare, education, energy (OMG Obama's priorities!), infrastructure, national defense, science R&D, then I have no problem asking the well-off among us to shoulder a heavier burden than those who are trying to pull their own weight, but simply do not have the same kinds of discretionary money.


---

and much of the reason it doesn't necessarily bother me is because they are still paying a rate, be it 36 or 39%, that is not outlandish, especially considering our own history and in comparison to the rest of the industrialized world.
I don't know exactly where my own cut-off tax rate would be, where I would start feeling like the top bracket was getting screwed, but I don't think it's there yet. If it starts climbing into the mid 40's%, i'll probably be uncomfortable, reaching 50% and I'll be drawing some (admittedly arbitrary) lines. But 39%? i can live with that.

[Edited on March 27, 2009 at 11:36 PM. Reason : .]

3/27/2009 11:32:16 PM

Someone has to be pay for 15 year old Victoria to irresponsibly breed babies which will likely be destined to come future welfare recipients themselves.

3/27/2009 11:32:28 PM

Quote :

"I wonder just how many cases like that exist across the country. Sounds like a rather specific instance where someone can sometimes work sometimes can't. The average person I'd expect to be in that situation is someone well up in age that is probably just going to be stuck on medicaid until they are done."

I would imagine quite a few. Like I said, it's the way the system is set up, it encourages not trying to get off the system. People, all people, are naturally lazy. They will take the simplest and easiest path to the same goal unless there is another motivation to take a more difficult path. By making staying on the system an easy and appealing path for people, it encourages them to stay on the system unless they have another motivation for getting off. Some people would prefer to stay home all day or only work a little bit and have free time, even if it means less money. Some people would rather stay on the system for less or equal money rather than stay stuck in the cycle of bureaucratic hell that is dealing with the government (where it takes 3-4 hours + 2 weeks just to get a new social security card when your name changes). To be clear, I don't fault these people. Different people have different priorities and if that's what theirs are, more power to them. My problem ultimately lies in that they are doing this on my dime, and yours. Unfortunately its a tough problem to crack, and its one I don't think the government in general, let alone the federal government is equipped to handle. And its not just a money issue, it's a logistics issue too. And a political one. There are requirements that should be made, like finding some way to prevent people living on the government's dime from reproducing. But there's no way you could get the political backing to force mandatory birth control or sterilization on people on welfare.

[Edited on March 28, 2009 at 12:34 AM. Reason : asdf]

3/28/2009 12:30:33 AM

Quote :

"People, all people, are naturally lazy. They will take the simplest and easiest path to the same goal unless there is another motivation to take a more difficult path."

well that simply isn't true....

Quote :

"To be clear, I don't fault these people. Different people have different priorities and if that's what theirs are, more power to them."

uuhhh......
wat?

[Edited on March 28, 2009 at 9:02 AM. Reason : .]

3/28/2009 8:59:05 AM

agent, is ok with 39%. What tax rate do you pay now? Because a 39% Fed income tax, add payroll at around 15%, we are up to 53%, before you count state taxes. Sounds really fair my friend.

Oh and healthcare and education are not the jobs of the federal govt, btw.


There is no doubt there is a culture indoctrination that has happened in this country for the last couple decades. The culture has moved to attack business and the rich and kids are eating this shit up. Just think how many movies we have seen where the bad guy is some business CEO. You know the scene where the camera moves up some big ass building and at the top is some evil fatcat dumping murdered kitten on indian burial grounds just to increase profits. Remember one of the james bonds.. hell he was creating a war to sell fucking newspapers. LOL And so our culture and politicians attack capitalism and "greed", thier favorite buzz word, as bad and business leaders are rolling over to adapt. Even think ouf the term THEY use like "giving back" as if to imply they are taking from someone in the first place. And so they rush to highlight thier "giving back" programs instead of actually educating people on how much they help people just by doing business... as if that is somehow immoral now.

1337, I agree with you and understand your point. Our govt has made the act of living off of others an acceptable lifestyle. And ill even argue one of excess. So it is no wonder that some choose to stay on the govt dime and increase their benefits by increasign their irresponsible behavior. Just as we went to school to earn more money in teh workforce, why be surprised when they have another kid to now qualify for benefits and can stop working fulltime. In both cases people are out to better thier situation, just on different ends... and with the big difference that one directly pulls down the other and creates no value.(from a production perspective)

[Edited on March 28, 2009 at 9:40 AM. Reason : .]

[Edited on March 28, 2009 at 9:41 AM. Reason : ..]

3/28/2009 9:35:56 AM

Quote :

"agent, is ok with 39%. What tax rate do you pay now? Because a 39% Fed income tax, add payroll at around 15%, we are up to 53%, before you count state taxes. Sounds really fair my friend. "

oh, good - someone else who doesn't know how the progressive tax system works.

3/28/2009 10:26:24 AM

Quote :

"They are clearly the ones who are most capable of paying the cost of running the country. I have no problem asking the well-off among us to shoulder a heavier burden. "

From Each According to His Ability...to Each According to His Need?

Taking a larger percentage of money away from one person simply because they have it is immoral.
This notion comes from the belief that the rich just got lucky. They won life's lottery. It wasn't from preparation, sacrifice and hard work. It wasn't because they were more ambitious and willing to risk. They just got lucky. So since they really don't deserve their wealth, it's OK to take as much of it away as you want. You want money, they have it...so just use force and take it away.

This mob mentality will ruin the country.

[Edited on March 28, 2009 at 11:14 AM. Reason : .]

3/28/2009 11:13:25 AM

Quote :

"From Each According to His Ability...to Each According to His Need?"

yeah yeah, i didn't see that one coming. I thought about putting it in myself, actually.

OMG FUCKING COMMIE MARX LOVER!

please - there is no limit to how rich or wealthy someone is able to get in America. Once you pass the arbitrary $250k level and you're taxed at the arbitrary 36%, nobody is going to stop you from earning more and more and more money, if you're able to, as long as you pay the 36% rate (or 15% cap gains or whatever, depending on how you make your money).

I still find it funny that the people who so vigorously argue against this taxation are likely people who will never see incomes like that in their lives. They are so concerned about those helpless people getting "raped at the top of the pile", but they seem to largely turn a blind eye towards the much larger group of people at the bottom.

Quote :

" Taking a larger percentage of money away from one person simply because they have it is immoral. This notion comes from the belief that the rich just got lucky. They won life's lottery. It wasn't from preparation, sacrifice and hard work. It wasn't because they were more ambitious and willing to risk. They just got lucky. So since they really don't deserve their wealth, it's OK to take as much of it away as you want. You want money, they have it...so just use force and take it away."

see, now you're just making shit up.
"immoral"? where do you get your morals from?
I hope not from the Bible (which most American's would claim is the "only source" for morals), because Jesus would fit into the socialist part of the left-wing

[Edited on March 28, 2009 at 11:21 AM. Reason : .]

3/28/2009 11:19:57 AM

Quote :

"I still find it funny that the people who so vigorously argue against this taxation are likely people who will never see incomes like that in their lives."

I really don't see how that's relevant but whatever.

3/28/2009 11:31:12 AM

i just said i thought it was funny, that's all.
It's like, if you want to take a stand and stand-up for a group of people you feel is being unjustly persecuted, I don't see why you would choose the very people who are most capable and equipped to take that fight on by themselves.

3/28/2009 11:36:22 AM

Yeah, you would think they could take on that fight on their own...

But the mob spoke up about AIG bonuses and Congress reacted accordingly, to the point where those rich jerks had their family's lives threatened and their bonuses completely erased. The hatred for rich people is to the point where even legally binding contracts and agreements don't stand in the way. Yeah, some of them cheated their way to the top and deserve what they get, but the whole us against them mentality that so many people are taking is going to start to affect the rich people who got their money legitimately. You were talking about the tax rates not being a point where it makes you uncomfortable... well, we just taxed these bonuses almost at 100% - whose to say that type of thinking doesn't carry over into normal tax rates for certain levels of income, not 100% of course, but it could get very outlandish.

3/28/2009 11:43:24 AM

Quote :

"big ass building and at the top is some evil fatcat dumping murdered kitten on indian burial grounds just to increase profits. "

well plenty of this does happen.......

Quote :

"The culture has moved to attack business and the rich and kids are eating this shit up. "

?

Quote :

"Oh and health care and education are not the jobs of the federal govt, btw. "

I think you are dead wrong about education. No the Federal gov't shouldn't micromanaging the education system with crap like NCLB.
They should though have a high interest though in assisting students obtaining 4 year college and post-baccalaureate degrees as
well as ensuring the primary/secondary system has at least some standard for an education plan (i.e Brunswick country trying to
ban teaching evolution).
You bitch about Medicaid welfare queens rolling to your eye glass clinic. Assisting the US population to be educated will decrease
this trend. Right now America is a joke; countries like India/China/etc pay and currently occupy more slots in PhD tracks within
some fields than US citizens do.

Quote :

"I still find it funny that the people who so vigorously argue against this taxation are likely people who will never see incomes like that in their lives"

That is not the point though Agentlion....

Beyond paying extra to maintain the status quo (defense, infrastructure, inter-state trade) why is it fair that an ambitious young professional
has to food the bill so Carla trailer park mom can sit on her couch and pump out babies with no consequences or inconvenience since
uncle sam will foot the bill. The real losers are those that make responsible decisions and are forced to subsidize the lethargic/sloth/ignorant
lifestyles of others.

Quote :

"the mob spoke up about AIG bonuses and Congress reacted accordingly"

This is nothing new. I'd say 75% of the american people have no grasp at the complexity or indepthness of economic, political, or business issues
beyond what they hear from the biasness of their media syndicate (rather right-wing Faux news or liberal MSNBC)

3/28/2009 12:42:55 PM

Quote :

"I still find it funny that the people who so vigorously argue against this taxation are likely people who will never see incomes like that in their lives.""

Its almost as if those people feel a sense of right and wrong even if it doesnt affect them personally. Weird huh.

Ive never been carjacked either, but that doesnt stop me from thinking carjacking is wrong.

3/28/2009 12:43:13 PM

Quote :

"why is it fair that an ambitious young professional has to food the bill so Carla trailer park mom can sit on her couch and pump out babies with no consequences or inconvenience since uncle sam will foot the bill. The real losers are those that make responsible decisions and are forced to subsidize the lethargic/sloth/ignorant lifestyles of others."

I agree with this, and that's why I never blindly defend welfare spending as part of a progressive agenda. I think it's immoral, as EDogg would say, to leave people homeless and helpless, but that doesn't mean I think the current system we have is good. I am all for full accountability and making people live up to their responsibilities. I think people who have been knocked down sometimes need assistance to get back up, but it must somehow be clear that the assistance is temporary.
And I do know, personally, that it is possible to make it with minimal income - i grew up in a single-mother house with 2 boys, with an income below the poverty line my whole life until my mother died with I was 16. She qualified for, but never accepted welfare or any gov't assistance, except for Medicare when her cancer got real bad and Hospice at the end of her life. Therefore, I know that it is possible to survive on a low income, as long as you give up luxuries like game systems, 2nd cars, news clothes every year and name-brand shoes, like we did.

However, seeing as what a small portion of the overall federal spending is actually spent on programs like welfare and food stamps, I think there is too much focus from the Right on this topic, and they use it to gin-up populist support, honestly, from middle-class white voters who resent the idea of supporting inner-city hood-rats on their own $40k salaries. It's just like McCain's incessant focus on earmarks last year - the amount of time and energy spent talking about earmarks and welfare vastly outweighs the actual amount of money spent on these programs and detracts from the real problems in government spending.

3/28/2009 1:09:14 PM

I never thought i would say it agent, but I agree with your last post.

But entitlements are the biggest fiscal drain and looming problem to this country.

3/28/2009 1:42:27 PM

I agree. The narrowly-defined welfare spending as described in the posts above is not a significant portion of our overall spending. Once you start to include Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, however, the spending is unsustainable. This is my biggest issue with Obama and many congressional democrats, they are relentless in their quest to expand government subsidies to people who simply do not need it. In doing so, they forget about those who actually need the help and put our whole system at risk for insolvency.

Universal healthcare, an implicit goal of many in congress, is a perfect example. While it may be necessary to assist with health care expenditures for the chronically poor, there is absolutely no reason to subsidize health care for all Americans. The oft-cited 47mm uninsured is not at all a useful number to gauge the number of uninsured (see http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/business/04view.html), but even if we were to take that number as given (despite the census bureau's acknowledgment that it is not an accurate portrayal) the number of uninsured make up only 15% of the population. Does it really makes sense to force 85% of Americans into a system they may vehemently oppose for the sake of helping 15%? If the CBO has already deemed Medicare and Medicaid as unsustainable, what sense does it make to expand them (or programs that mimic them)?



[Edited on March 28, 2009 at 1:59 PM. Reason : ,]

3/28/2009 1:53:37 PM

Quote :

"But entitlements are the biggest fiscal drain and looming problem to this country."

Absolutely. I think the real problem, however, is that the bulk of entitlement spending - the "big ticket" items - are by and large neither going to the indigent nor politically apathetic. They go to older, middle-to-upper class folks, typically white, who tend to vote out every other demographic.

So why have we had a complete failure to address this looming issue? Because old white folks will never allow it to happen, and middle-aged white folks recognize that they too will become old white folks very soon.

In that sense, I think agentlion kind of has a point; there's a real misplaced focus upon say, welfare, which despite the obvious abuses and moral hazard, is dwarfed by the real coming crisis.

3/28/2009 2:13:19 PM

Quote :

"Does it really makes sense to force 85% of Americans into a system they may vehemently oppose for the sake of helping 15%?"

Obama's plan doesn't call for that. Hillary's might have, but Obama's doesn't.
He has said that he wants to support the existing private or employer-sponsored system when and where it is already working.

However, we still have not seen his long term plans for social security and medicare/medicaid. I think it will be interesting to see if he can revise medicare/caid into an overall more comprehensive healthcare system and hopefully lower the long term cost of all of it.

3/28/2009 2:15:40 PM

Quote :

"Obama's plan doesn't call for that. Hillary's might have, but Obama's doesn't. He has said that he wants to support the existing private or employer-sponsored system when and where it is already working. "

I simply cannot fathom how the government is going to maintain competition when it enters the market offering plans that are subsidized and thus unfairly priced below market. Sure, we will have the same number of choices when it is first implemented, but over time private companies won't be able to compete with the government's subsidized plans, which will eventually crowd out most private firms. This will ultimately leave us with the government as the primary provider for most Americans and a few private plans for the wealthy - just like our school system.

If anyone can provide a single example of a sizable, government-run service that is so exceptional that it warrants duplication, I am all ears.

[Edited on March 28, 2009 at 2:23 PM. Reason : .]

3/28/2009 2:21:55 PM

Quote :

"I still find it funny that the people who so vigorously argue against this taxation are likely people who will never see incomes like that in their lives."

I will probably never be murdered, but I sure as fuck want the government to try to make sure that murder doesn't happen.

Quote :

"Obama's plan doesn't call for that. Hillary's might have, but Obama's doesn't. "

It is, frankly, the ultimate goal of Obama, so does it really matter either way?

Quote :

"However, we still have not seen his long term plans for social security and medicare/medicaid."

I can tell you his plan: increase the entitlements.

Quote :

"Sure, we will have the same number of choices when it is first implemented, but over time private companies won't be able to compete with the government's subsidized plans, which will eventually crowd out most private firms."

You mean kind of like how Fannie and Freddie got so big? hmmm... how did that turn out?

Quote :

"If anyone can provide a single example of a sizable, government-run service that is so exceptional that it warrants duplication, I am all ears."

The post office... oh...
Amtrak! oh, wait...
The VA!!! shit...

3/28/2009 2:52:52 PM

agent, you are being naive if you dont think Obamas plan will drive out private ins.

let me try to make a clear example.

Lets say you current pay 300 a month for a civic, financed through a private lender.

Now, the govt comes out and says we will subsidize your car, so now for 200, you can drive a lexus. Your private lender, unable to directly TAX you, cannot compete and will go under. He knows this, hell the AMA knows this. Its in much literature these days. It would just be too costly for the privates to keep up.

You basically have the USPS for healthcare. Able to operate at sustainable losses.

3/28/2009 2:59:34 PM

Quote :

"You basically have the USPS for healthcare. Able to operate at sustainable losses."

and now wanting to cut services...

3/28/2009 3:03:31 PM

Quote :

"I can tell you his plan: increase the entitlements."

touting the party line eh?

That what Rush told you?

3/28/2009 3:40:32 PM

Quote :

"well that simply isn't true...."

Denying human nature does not make it any less so. Nor is our laziness inherently bad. It's that laziness which has brought us things like cars, toasters, sliced bread, computers, roads and capitalism. But like most things in life, its a trade off and a double edged sword. It's also brought us welfare queens, octo-mom, junkies, deadbeats and criminals. But there is not a single person in this world that would choose a more difficult path to an end goal if there were no other compelling reasons to choose the difficult path.

Quote :

"Obama's plan doesn't call for that. Hillary's might have, but Obama's doesn't. He has said that he wants to support the existing private or employer-sponsored system when and where it is already working. "

Does he think it's working anywhere? I guess he thinks it works for veterans, since he was keen to get them off the government plan but aside from that, is there any place where he's saying "We should get more people on private insurances". And no, making it a law that insurance companies have to cover everyone regardless of ability to pay or not would not qualify for the purposes of my question.

Quote :

"touting the party line eh?"

Obama is hardly the champion of limited government and reducing government welfare programs, the last two months are more than enough proof of that.

3/28/2009 5:26:23 PM

Quote :

"Denying human nature does not make it any less so. Nor is our laziness inherently bad."

it honestly sounds like you're harkening back to the biblical notion of human behavior - people are inherently evil and need to be "saved" to be good : people are lazy, and need external motivation to be otherwise.

yes, i simply don't buy that argument. There certainly do seem to be some people are inherently lazy, but I don't buy that it's a normal or even common trait, and I don't think science or evolutionary biology thinks so either.


and that's ridiculous to attribute technological advances to "laziness". I know it's a joke or cliche that "engineers are lazy because they're always trying to make things easier". It makes for an amusing image, but it falls apart after more than 5 seconds of reflection.

3/28/2009 5:36:47 PM

Not at all. I think people are by and large, inherently good, but self interested. Given a choice with equal outcomes, they will always choose the path of least resistance. That isn't a bad thing at all. We may have attached a negative view to being lazy, but the actual act of being lazy, of seeking the path of least resistance, is not inherently negative. Luckily for us, our laziness combines with our abilities to think ahead and reason which allows us to channel that laziness into improving our lives.

3/28/2009 5:51:02 PM

Quote :

"nobody is going to stop you from earning more and more and more money"

Obama wants to set salary caps on executives, and not just for bail-out companies. And as with many gov't policies, the preference to set pay caps will trickle down to the average workers. Central planning is their game, and we are the playing field.

Quote :

" I think it's immoral, as EDogg would say, to leave people homeless and helpless,"

We want everyone to be happy, but we live in a world of limited resources. In order to give a homeless person a home, you have to take resources away from someone else--either money from taxpayers, or builders in the form of labor. Forcing money from someone just because they can afford it is just plain wrong. You're pointing a gun to his head and demanding he give that poor person some of his money. Is that the kind of society you want?

Before politicians usurped it, the bulk of charity was done by religious and social institutions..and it worked fine for the most part. But through the years, our gov't has created generations of welfare families. Robbed of their incentive to work for a living, we have created a class of helpless serfs bound to the state for their sustenance. That is truly immoral, to weaken mankind through the flawed good intentions of welfare and socialism.

3/28/2009 10:42:44 PM

Quote :

"Obama wants to set salary caps on executives, and not just for bail-out companies. And as with many gov't policies, the preference to set pay caps will trickle down to the average workers. Central planning is their game, and we are the playing field. "

Give me a fucking break....... do you honestly believe this crock of horseshit; is this something Ann Coulter said on her latest show.
George Dub and Reagan do not believe in abortion but that doesn't mean they actively pushed to ban the practice while in office...

There will never be CEO "caps" and that begs to differ what is a CEO? I can create my own used comic book store and title myself "CEO". I have a feeling chief executives will soon develop a new title for their position as the term CEO is riding the euphemism train straight down to hell. That is a side note though.

I find it humorous at all the paranoid schizo-acting conservatives in this thread that act like Obama is the 2nd coming of fucking Jospeph Stalin. WATCH OUT OBAMA WANTS TO TUK YER MONIES AND FREEDOMS!!. Amusing is it that all of a sudden republicans and conservatives are balking at the fact taht Obama is pissing on the constitution with his economic policies yet for 8 years you overlooked the atrocities to the constitution committed by Bush.

While misguided at least the liberal agenda stems from more altruistic origins (unlike the conservative agenda which seems to stem from greed that they sale to the public under the banner of preserving capitalism). I disagree with much of the economic policy being unraveled but I can understand its faulty rationale. Do you all seriously think Obama sits around trying to figure out ways to ruin america and steal every hard working americans savings account in order to provide money to LaTika so she can buy chrome rims for her Cavalier? I get shit for my over the top allusions regarding my disagreement with liberal policies but this should not be misconstrued that I think the president is part of some secret agenda working with Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi to turn our country into the United Socialist Republic of America.

3/28/2009 11:12:46 PM

hear, hear

3/28/2009 11:22:06 PM

Quote :

"Give me a fucking break....... do you honestly believe this crock of horseshit"

well, given that that is pretty much what the bill says, then, well, yeah, Obama does want it

Quote :

"While misguided at least the liberal agenda stems from more altruistic origins "

Bullshit. The liberal agenda stems from the desire for power. And nothing gives you more power than promising millions of people gifts paid for by only thousands

3/28/2009 11:24:43 PM

Quote :

"George Dub and Reagan do not believe in abortion but that doesn't mean they actively pushed to ban the practice while in office..."

They didn't? If there's one thing that defines the politics sweeping changes like the above, it's incrementalism.

Now, do I believe Obama's trying to turn America into some Marxist paradise? Of course not. Well at least, I don't - I can't speak for everyone else.

Meanwhile, people act like widespread wage and salary caps - and even price controls - are but a distant memory in American history. While certainly a fatally flawed policy, they didn't occur that long ago: Nixon implemented them. (Ironically enough, wasn't that guy a Republican?)

In that sense, it's not incredibly far-fetched to believe that there are some in Washington - it remains to be seen whether Obama is one of them - who would welcome the return of flawed economic policies like salary caps, price controls, etc.

3/28/2009 11:28:30 PM

Quote :

"Bullshit. The liberal Republican agenda stems from the desire for power. And nothing gives you more power than promising millions of people gifts paid for by only thousands congressional legislation titled with sweet PR sounding adjectives like Patriot, freedom, etc such as the 2001 Patriot Acts that with one swoop of the pen gave the executive branch more power than its ever seen before"

3/28/2009 11:35:55 PM

How about all politicians' agendas stem from a desire for power? This is why the architects of our country had the good sense to enact a constitution with checks and balances. Unfortunately for us, many of these checks have been bastardized by the supreme court (e.g. during the New Deal, indirectly a result of FDR's threat to pack the SC). The commerce clause, originally intended to protect interstate trade, has been completely reinterpreted to mean the US can meddle in just about any act of commerce.

While I do not think Obama/congress will put through an overarching wage cap*, the fact that there is little stopping them from doing so is enough to keep me worried.

(*although, when you elect someone without knowing much of their history, it's difficult to predict what exactly his/her agenda really is. This is why both Obama and Palin, in my ideal world, would have been immediately dismissed given their lack of experience forces us to rely on their short voting records and rhetoric to assess their ideologies)

[Edited on March 29, 2009 at 7:55 AM. Reason : .]

3/29/2009 7:52:11 AM

we need to start a permanent list somewhere of fears that people have about Obama, then test them in 4 or 8 years to see if all this batshit crazy insane ranting against him was legitimate:

1) He is the anti-christ. that one should be pretty easy to test
2) He will "took 'urr guns"
3) He will implement salary caps

3/29/2009 10:23:01 AM

expand entitlements, raise taxes, and drastically increase the national debt.

3/29/2009 11:03:35 AM

those things may come to pass, but I wouldn't file them under the "batshit crazy" category....

3/29/2009 12:13:01 PM

While they might not be, I think ive been pretty consistant with my "fears" of him doing just those things, and Im including universal health in the expansion of entitlements.

3/29/2009 6:18:56 PM

The thought of having guaranteed health care scares the fuck outta me.

3/29/2009 6:39:00 PM

yeah, that's a really big one. Once that one gets let out of the bag, we'll be stuck with it forever.

[Edited on March 29, 2009 at 7:35 PM. Reason : although i think you're being sarcastic]

3/29/2009 7:34:30 PM

Quote :

"yeah, that's a really big one. Once that one gets let out of the bag, we'll be stuck with it fucked forever."

3/29/2009 9:52:11 PM

lol nothing is forever

3/29/2009 10:09:27 PM

Till I am dead and gone then. That may not be forever but its pretty close from my perspective.

3/29/2009 10:13:02 PM

singing and dancing all the way to the end

3/29/2009 10:14:35 PM

Quote :

"http://www.heritage.org/Press/ALAChart/images/031/ALC_031_2col_c.jpg"

so of these countries, which one has the most educated workforce? the highest industrial output? the highest standard of living?

(i know you want to say HK, but they aren't anywhere near being the same sort of diversified large nation that Canada is)

Quote :

"The thought of having guaranteed health care scares the fuck outta me."

even if you believe in free markets, it's pretty clear by this point that you can have uhc and a successful free, diversified market. even if you look at that economic freedom index, the countries all ahead of the US or surrounding us have larger welfare states. not saying it would work here in this case, though i believe its moreso an argument of political will rather than economic possibility, esp if we're looking at a 2-tier system, which never gets discussed in these debates. Its always either a)us/laizzes faire on one side or b)British NHS or single payer ala Canada on the other.

It would be more constructive to look at examples like the Netherlands, with a 2-tier system which guarantees coverage but allows you to go private as you please.

[Edited on March 29, 2009 at 11:10 PM. Reason : .]

3/29/2009 11:06:47 PM

Quote :

"so of these countries, which one has the most educated workforce? the highest industrial output? the highest standard of living?"

USA USA USA!

3/29/2009 11:16:10 PM

Quote :

"a)us/laizzes faire on one side"

And the sad thing is the US unfairly gets lumped into a side characterized by laissez-faire. When the government pays for almost 50% of all health-care expenditures, clamps down on the supply of practitioners, mandates excessive coverage that leads to excess demand, subsidizes insurance via an employer deduction that favors an inefficient employer-sponsored system, reduces competition amongst insurers via restrictions on buying insurance from other states and requires community-care centers to include non-critical services like dental care, we start to look a lot more like the UHC side.

3/30/2009 6:51:45 AM

Quote :

"When the government pays for almost 50% of all health-care expenditures, clamps down on the supply of practitioners, mandates excessive coverage that leads to excess demand, subsidizes insurance via an employer deduction that favors an inefficient employer-sponsored system, reduces competition amongst insurers via restrictions on buying insurance from other states and requires community-care centers to include non-critical services like dental care, we start to look a lot more like the UHC side. "

good summary

3/30/2009 10:38:22 AM

uj

[Edited on March 30, 2009 at 10:50 AM. Reason : r]

3/30/2009 10:47:47 AM