Obama Healthcare

[Sasquatch]

Damn right. You hear that, Tiny Tim?

Tiny Tim was 1840s England, not 2000s America. Try again.

What would you say about passing a bill where only people under a certain amount of money, which would be the equivalent of everybody under the high-middle class standard and lower, would be the people that pay the taxes?

If the people that were getting it were the ones that were paying for it, I'd still say no. For one thing, it wouldn't have the funding to run. Think about it -- let's have a program to help those who supposedly can't afford to help themselves, and let's make them pay for it. How would that help?

But more importantly, it's not the government's (taxpayers') obligation to provide healthcare. If it was VOLUNTARY, and only the people receiving the benefits would pay into it, I'd support it, but like I said, it wouldn't have enough funding.

However, why don't you try prove that cures for AIDS and cancer don't exist? It's remarkably hard to do.

Alright, deal. You prove that man actually did land on the moon, that Bush actually didn't mastermind the 9/11 attacks, that jets actually don't leave trails of biological mind-control agents or powdered aluminum, that Lee Harvey Oswald actually acted alone, that Cobain actually did commit suicide, and everything else -- you disprove all the other foolish conspiracy theories that are so obviously false, and I'll jump on the stupid idea that cures for AIDS and cancer do exist.

The claim was made that cures exist. It's the responsibility of the person who makes the claim to prove their claim -- especially when that claim goes against common knowledge and common sense.

Congratulations, you just failed on American History 101:

The Declaration of Independence is not a law, nor is it any sort of governing document. It also claims that we were all CREATED equal -- not that we succeed to an equal amount, but that we started off equal. (Also keep in mind that, at the time, rights only applied to white males.)

Of course not; it takes them away. Poverty is humiliating.

There is no Constitutional right to not be in poverty or to not be humiliated.

... But I'd argue that because demand for healthcare is inelastic (because it's a necessity), the higher price means higher profits for a private firm.

There are myriad factors that go into the price of healthcare, not just profit margin. Technology costs money.

There would be no incentive to lower prices.

Except for the fact that more than one healthcare provider exist, which means there's competition -- if one lowers prices, they get more business unless the others lower their prices as well.

Health care is not perfect competition, you don't find hospitals on every street corner; or do you?

Of course not -- but multiple hospitals in large cities, yes. I have at least half a dozen within a thirty-minute drive, and I'm nowhere near a big city.

More intervention would not only reduce prices, it would remove them (for people, not the government), or don't you understand what socialised healthcare is?

It would also reduce quality and quantity. This is why people leave Britain and Canada -- with lower out-of-pocket healthcare costs -- to come to America for their care. The quality and quantity are both better.

Yes, because it is wrong to help someone who needs it.

It's not wrong to help somebody who needs it -- it IS wrong to steal money from somebody else to redistribute as you see fit.

The government does not steal our money (bold, because this concept appears new to many), it takes it and puts it to use for the citizenry.

Steal Definition | Definition of Steal at Dictionary.com
steal
–verb (used with object)
1. to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, esp. secretly or by force

Taxes are taken out of every paycheck before you get it. If you make claims on your taxes to the extent that you owe the government more money come April 15, and you don't pay it, they come take it by force, or by threat of force. That is stealing.

If the government took our money solely to pay for itself, I'd be pissed. But no, it builds roads, train tracks, etc. So why should it not take care of our healthcare too?

Doing something you think is good with our money doesn't mean our money wasn't stolen. If I mug you, take your wallet, and buy food for some homeless people, did I steal from you or not?

EDIT: Now the rest.

Yeah, that's what I'm saying. They have money, and yet, they get more back, whereas, the middle class is getting poorer and poorer.

They get more money back because they pay much more money. Proportionally, they don't get nearly as much back.

I swear, a retard would be able to understand what I'm arguing.

And they'd still be smart enough to disagree. But please, keep bitching about how you think I'm "insulting your intelligence".

If you make more money, you pay more in taxes. If you make less money, you get more back.

That's not taxation, that's income redistribution. America is not a socialist state. We don't take from those who achieve and hand it out to those who don't. (Well, we do, but you don't understand that it happens anyway while you continue to whine and complain and about it not happening to an even greater extent.)

That's how it should be, but it's not, because the rich want to get richer, as do the poor, but the rich won't let the poor get richer, because as I've been saying, they're money hungry.

The rich won't let the poor get richer because you're advocating the poor getting richer FROM SOMEBODY ELSE'S MONEY. The eeeeevil rich don't want anybody else's money, they want to KEEP their own. You're advocating that they be forced to give up their own money and have it given to the poor as a hand-out.

What, and just because I'm not rich means I didn't earn my money?

Not once did I say that. Everybody earns their money, whether they're rich or poor. I'm just saying don't bitch about the rich having the money that they earned. If and when you ever earn a decent amount of money, I'm sure you'll want to keep it, too. That doesn't mean that you'd want to keep somebody else's money, just your own, the money you earned.

In all reality, a lot of people who have money have it because a hundred years ago, their great grandfather struck oil, or gold. They didn't earn their money. In order to earn money, you have to work for it. They were born with a silver spoon in the mouth.

Please explain your definition of "a lot". I'd love to see you argue the bullshit lie that the majority of people with a good amount of money received it in inheritance.

Actually, I'd love to see you post any sort of credible evidence for that, but somehow I know it won't happen.

Hmm, let's see. Insurance companies, for instance.

They provide a service for a fee. People have a choice to pay that fee or to go somewhere else. What about car insurance companies? Life insurance?

Yes, yes, getting a job. It's a lot easier to say than it is to do. There are people hiring. I've put in applications. I just haven't gotten any calls back.

Yes, you've applied to more than three hundred jobs, sure.

Yes it does, and as a matter of fact, it has.

It's THEIR money. I can understand that you have a serious case of wealth envy and you like to bitch that somebody out there has more money than you (even though they earn it, by doing things like, well, WORKING), but the gap between the rich and the poor isn't widened by letting people keep their own money, it's widened by people continuing to do what made them rich or poor.

You said you were middle class a few posts back, and yet, you're so oblivious to things that are going on in society that you fail to realize this.

No, I just like the idea of pulling my own weight and not relying on somebody who has achieved more in their life than I have to carry me. Maybe it's because I respect myself more than to suck off the tit of the American taxpayers -- but hey, to each his own.

Which proves one thing to me; you're completely full of shit.

What were you saying about having a poor argument because you resort to insults?

Or because they inherited a large sum of money when their parents died.

First, you have no credible evidence to suggest that most people with a lot of money got it from their parents. Second, it's my right to leave what I have to my child, whether it be a lot or a little.

Or because the poor get proportionately smaller tax cuts than the rich, making the poor poorer and the rich richer.

As I have explained many, many times already -- at this point, there's no excuse except a serious deficiency in mental capacity for not understanding it -- the poor do not get proportionally smaller tax cuts than the rich. They pay much less than the rich do -- not just in quantity, but in percentage.

You know what, when you grow up and get a job and start paying taxes -- forget that idea, just ask your parents for one -- take a look at the income tax rates in America.

Actually, you know what, HERE. Now you have no excuse for your ignorance.

You see how the tax percentages go up for people who make more money? That's called "the rich paying more than their fair share". If you make $20k/yr (you'll learn about deductions and what is taxable income -- making $20k/yr would put you in the 10% bracket), you will get $3598. You will receive nearly four thousand dollars from your fellow taxpayers. You won't just pay nothing, you will GET money. On the other hand, if you end up successful (well, at least just hear this out) and make, say, $75k/yr, you will pay $17,325.

Did you get that? You make $20,000/yr, and you'll get another $3600. You make $75,000/yr, and you will pay more than $17,000.

Now how in the fuck is that in any way unfair to the poor?

They worked very smart, very hard, and very long, and yet, we're not upper class.

If they worked smart and hard, they would have made more money. It's a pretty simple concept.

We were upper middle class for a while, until Bush destroyed Clinton's surplus and put the country into a debt so large it's practically impossible to dig ourselves out of.

Did Bush come ruin your family's finances? Was he personally responsible for your family not having money?

I mean, you can sling all the shit you want -- that "Bush destroyed Clinton's surplus" (even though Clinton had the country headed for a recession since the dot-com bust, and of course that recession was blamed on Bush by the most ignorant Americans, and that the reason Clinton had any surplus at all is because he cut funding for needed programs and military spending and taxed the shit out of large corporations, forcing them to relocate overseas), that he "put the country into a debt so large it's practically impossible to dig ourselves out of" (even though, while Bush did increase the debt, Bush's worst deficit was a fraction of the deficit we have now that Obama has had some time to work his magic -- "a fraction" referring to Bush's worst deficit of nearly $500 billion as opposed to Obama's deficit next year of nearly $2 TRILLION) ... But who's responsible for your finances? I'll give you a hint: IT'S YOU.

Considering that the economic recession began during his administration, of course I blame him.

Considering that it began during Clinton's reign and that Bush had things happen during his terms that he had nothing to do with, like 9/11, the mortgage "crisis", failing banks, etc., it's extremely ignorant to blame somebody just because they happened to be looking over the unstable house when it finally crumbled.

Let me tell you a little about my life.

No thanks, kid.

Nope. That's not what I said at all. His administration was in charge when the economy went down the tube. It's a simple concept to grasp. He was in charge of the country, the economy went into recession before his second term was up, so naturally, who's to blame? The president who didn't do anything to prevent a recession or the president who didn't do anything to prevent a recession?

And I suppose that when somebody in a hospital dies of a disease they've had for years, it's the hospital's fault, right?

Yeah, they kind of are supposed to take care of my family, considering that my family are all American citizens, and considering that the government is supposed to take care of the citizens, hence the reason why we need a government in the first place.

The government is supposed to protect the citizens. It's not the American government's job to babysit and hold hands of all 300-something-million citizens because some of them are too friggin' incompetent to take care of themselves.

To insult somebody's intelligence doesn't mean to call somebody an idiot. It's to communicate with them with the notion that they are an idiot who doesn't know what they're is talking about.

And when they actually don't know what the hell they're talking about -- like claiming that the poor pay proportionally more taxes than the rich or get proportionally smaller tax cuts -- is it still an insult? Let's call a spade a spade here, kid.

No, I proposed a very intriguing idea.

A very intriguing, and very bullshit, idea.

I didn't buy into a conspiracy theory, I'm just not brainwashed by the government like you military types are, and hence, I'm open minded about certain things, which include government corruption and greed.

You believe that the government is hiding the cures for AIDS and cancer because they somehow make more money, and you try to call me brainwashed and closed-minded? Wow.

I don't have the time.

Of course not. You don't have the time to prove your argument. Why would you? You're a busy man, what with living with your parents and not working and all.

If you're so interested in the subject, then research it on your own time.

I have. Which is why I know that any insinuation that the government is holding the cures for cancer and AIDS is not only ignorant, it's ridiculously stupid.

And dying costs a pretty penny, too.

Not as much as living, which was my point. Depending on the treatments, one week of living could cost more than the costs associated with dying. So it's extremely foolish to think that the government lets people die because they make money from it, when they would make more money by keeping them alive.

I failed to address them because I wasn't taking about treatments that prolong life, I was talking about a proposed cure.

You failed to address them because treatments that prolong life would make more money for the government, according to your wacky conspiracy theory, and thus would throw a wrench into your little hamster-wheel belief.

It might be cheaper, but it wouldn't be morally ethic.

You're trying to say that the government holds secret the cure to diseases which kill nearly 600,000 Americans every year -- and millions upon millions of people around the world -- but they wouldn't simply try to make people comfortable instead of prolonging their lives?

The government isn't killing people, they're just letting them die.

They're still prolonging their lives. If they make more money from people dying than they do from them living, this would be counterproductive.

I already did that. Prove me wrong.

I'm not going to go through this childish game with you, kid. Post some credible evidence for your claims -- any of your claims -- or admit your ignorance and crawl away with your tail between your legs.

If I felt insulted, then I was insulted, otherwise I wouldn't feel insulted in the first place. You didn't hurt my feelings, you just insulted my intelligence.

I don't care if you "felt insulted", that doesn't mean that I actually insulted you. You could feel insulted by somebody looking at you in what you think is a "wrong way", that wouldn't mean that they give a damn about your feelings one way or the other.

And you insulted your own intelligence -- or lack thereof -- by buying into conspiracy theories and failing to understand simple economics.

No, it doesn't make you wrong at all. However, you disagree with me, and that makes me wrong, because you're a ****. There's nothing wrong with that. It's just the way you are.

But only people with no argument resort to insults, right?

I never once have claimed that anybody has been wrong simply for disagreeing with me. Believe it or not, some people are right when they disagree with me. You're just not one of them.

Fired, laid off. You're still out of a job, so who the hell cares?

There's a difference between being fired and laid off. Damn, kid.

few things morally wrong with what you're suggesting.

According to whose morals?

First, to put them in a home is essentially abandoning them. I can't do that, my parents can't do that, and my aunts and uncles can't do that.

Not at all. If it's the best thing for them, then so be it.

Second, the house belongs to my father. He is not a selfish man. It's his house, and he will not, under any circumstance, ask any other relatives to help pay for it.

It he needs help paying for it, it's not his house, it's the bank's. And if he's not a selfish man, maybe he should have passed that value on to his child, who is bitching because other people have more money than he does.

Selling the house and having them move in with us would be a good idea, however, my brother had to recently move back in, so if they moved in, I would have to give up my bedroom, and I would have to sleep in the living room on an air mattress.

*GASP* OH NO! You might actually have to be uncomfortable! You might have to give up your bedroom at Mommy and Daddy's house and have somewhat cramped living quarters, like hundreds of millions of people before you have gone through! Oh, the humanity!

What do I care what happened before Bush was in office?

I don't know, why would somebody care about anything that happened in the past? Hmmmm ...

When he was elected, I was only twelve years old.

According to the birthday in your profile, you were eleven.

The country may have been in a recession, but that was all fine and dandy considering the surplus that Clinton built when he was in office. The country could afford to lose some money, which is the way it should be.

Take a listen, kid. "Surplus" does not mean "debt free". We still had a huge debt under Clinton. (Him not paying anything off on our national debt is one of the reasons he had a surplus in the first place.)

I don't know how many applications I've submitted. I do at least ten a day. And no, I haven't received one phone call back.

Really? Three thousand applications you've turned in?

My cousin is having the same problem. He got a few offers from places that he used to work at, but he needs a career, not another shit job.

If we need money, we take what we can get. Most people don't work their dream job. I'm still waiting for a job to open up where I can watch sports, fish, shoot, and receive oral sex all while getting paid, but right now, I have to resort to what I can get paid for.

I do actually meet the qualifications, as long as I don't have to lift anything heavy. ... Still working on it, which is why I need a job. I got to pay for school somehow. ... No. I don't. ... No, but I know how to do a lot of jobs, and jobs I can't do, well, I'm a quick learner.

So you don't meet all qualifications, you don't have an education, you don't have skilled labor training, and you don't know how to do every job. Sounds to me like it is your fault you can't find a job. Although with three thousand applications, I am just shocked that you can't find anything.

There's a problem with this statement. I can't work any and every shift I can. I got four classes in school, and a shitload of school work that has to be done outside of class.

You "can't" because you prioritize your school over your work. That's perfectly fine, except when you bitch and moan about how you don't have money.

I need some time to myself in order to do these things.

And to get online and make long posts on internet message boards, of course.

Another problem is the statement about demanding jobs. I recently herniated a disk in my back, therefore I don't have the ability to lift anything weighing over fifty pounds without the risk of redamaging my back.

Many "demanding" jobs don't require lifting that much. Hell, mow lawns on the weekends.

[T.G. Oskar]

If the people that were getting it were the ones that were paying for it, I'd still say no. For one thing, it wouldn't have the funding to run. Think about it -- let's have a program to help those who supposedly can't afford to help themselves, and let's make them pay for it. How would that help?

But more importantly, it's not the government's (taxpayers') obligation to provide healthcare. If it was VOLUNTARY, and only the people receiving the benefits would pay into it, I'd support it, but like I said, it wouldn't have enough funding.

Um, I wasn't speaking anything based on the healthcare program. It's odd you attempted to mix one thing or the other. All I asked was, if there was a bill where only the part of the population under a specific amount of income and that would be classified under, say, middle class or high middle class would be the people that pay taxes, would you support it or not? The bill wouldn't be tied to anything; no healthcare program tie-in, no federal economic aid program, no nothing. Just plain and simple; only the part of the population under a certain amount of income would pay the taxes, and those over such income wouldn't. Those taxes would be used for what they are used currently. No other change, except that I mentioned. Those who don't have to pay don't have to provide anything else to the government other than what they currently offer (sans taxes). That would be the only difference.

[Sasquatch]

Um, I wasn't speaking anything based on the healthcare program. It's odd you attempted to mix one thing or the other.

Sorry, thought you were relating it to the topic. I got it now.

All I asked was, if there was a bill where only the part of the population under a specific amount of income and that would be classified under, say, middle class or high middle class would be the people that pay taxes, would you support it or not? The bill wouldn't be tied to anything; no healthcare program tie-in, no federal economic aid program, no nothing. Just plain and simple; only the part of the population under a certain amount of income would pay the taxes, and those over such income wouldn't. Those taxes would be used for what they are used currently. No other change, except that I mentioned. Those who don't have to pay don't have to provide anything else to the government other than what they currently offer (sans taxes). That would be the only difference.

To put it simply ... hell no. Of course not. Why the hell would I support that? I want everybody to pay their fair shares -- no more, no less. That means nobody gets out of it, be they rich or poor.

Change the name to Not-so-Tiny Jerome from Newark if you'd like, I don't really care. Either way, whether you're talking about 1840s England or 2000s America, it's quite silly to imply that all poor people are poor because "they [weren't] the type to rely on themselves."

When did I say that all poor people are poor because they don't do it for themselves? Many? Of course. The majority? Almost definitely. All? No way. There are some people with disabilities and such who couldn't make it. Americans are some of the most generous people on earth, there are plenty of programs to help people who honestly can't help themselves. I mean c'mon, if you can't make it in America, you're prettymuch screwed in life.

[Sarin]

I dont really like obama... people told me i dont like him cause hes black but thats not the reason i dont like him cause he lied to the country and couldnt do half of what he said he could in the first place.. but you im not going to try and push you into not liking him thats just my reason. so i probably would have something to say about his health care program but im not surprised may as well move to canada and marry a canadian and get there awesome health care. just my opinion

[RagnaToad]

I dont really like obama... people told me i dont like him cause hes black but thats not the reason i dont like him cause he lied to the country and couldnt do half of what he said he could in the first place.. but you im not going to try and push you into not liking him thats just my reason. so i probably would have something to say about his health care program but im not surprised may as well move to canada and marry a canadian and get there awesome health care. just my opinion

Hm. You managed to post something that doesn't say anything about the Obama healthcare program.

What do you mean with 'he lied'?

What do you mean with 'couldnt do half of what he said'? He's not even been in office for one year and you're talking about it as if it's all in the past.

And what the hell do you expect from him, if almost all republicans are against any change he wants to bring, together with some democrats?

And about moving to Canada. Sure. Might as well move to Belgium. Or the Netherlands. Or Denmark.

[T.G. Oskar]

To put it simply ... hell no. Of course not. Why the hell would I support that? I want everybody to pay their fair shares -- no more, no less. That means nobody gets out of it, be they rich or poor.

Good to know that. Depending on how you see it, giving tax cuts to that population may seem counter-intuitive, since if you look at it closely, it almost means they pay less in taxes than the common man.

Of course, if you look at it on the amount they have to pay, it's a pretty hefty amount (compare 7% of someone whose income is, say, $12,000 to someone who must spend 10% of $300,000 yearly income on taxes), but it looks very differently when you take it on percentage.

I presume you're familiar with how things work in the IRS, so I'll save the description; I might be a bit off considering how things work there and how they work here (residents of PR don't file an IRS tax return unless they have assets in the mainland; the tax return is self-managed). As usual, every single individual has to pay a specific amount of their annual income in contributions based on tables and guidelines. As usual, there are credits and exemptions that are applied to that contribution as adjustments (this includes both tax cuts for the rich, and credits and exemptions for poor people; in effect, both sides have some sort of tax cut through credits and exemptions). And as usual, these lead into a bit of a headache and either a tax refund or a tax payment.

However, the extent and weight of those credits are what make things different. Some credits are general (such as the credits for dependants, or however it is called by the IRS), and some are specific (exemptions for the possession of land, for example). Very few exemptions often apply to the people within the low-middle class, usually the dependant or single person credits, as well as any relatively minor or one-time credit present. The wealthier people, capable of doing some investment, receive a larger scale credit for that, and usually are capable of claiming other credits and exemptions that people of a lower income cannot.

So far, I've just laid down the rules of how it works, right? Perhaps yes, perhaps not.

Problem lies when the meaning over that credit gets lost, and effectively you're reducing their tax contribution for virtually nothing. This applies mostly to corporations, but the wealthy individual may find a technicism in the letter of the credit that allows them to exploit it with minimal effort. Say, as an example, that you as an individual are given a credit for a large-scale donation. It would be fair if the donation would strain your full income to the point where you simply wouldn't be capable of living (not withholding your lifestyle), or at a bare minimum if your income would take a dire hit. Now, let's say that donation is more of an investment, since by making that donation, you perhaps gain access to the Board of Directors of that company. For legal purposes, it's a "donation" but it would really become an investment, or a bought share. If the results of that investment, placed as a donation, were to generate more money than what you originally invested. The purpose of such credit would be lost in the meaning. Furthermore, the method used would not constitute fraud, although, IRL, it might probably be fraud; were it to be fraud, there's a chance that the general income of the individual may not take a serious or even considerable hit depending on the case.

Now lets say that, by consecutively applying such credits lost in meaning, the percentage of the contribution by the wealthier individual becomes lower than that of the average income individual. They contribute as usual, but the contribution of the wealthier individual is lower in percentage; the hit to their income is lesser than to the average individual. That is mostly unfair, and leading to the next point.

What would happen if, instead of giving a conditional tax cut, the tax cut was merely devoid of any meaning? No "get me more jobs and I give you a cut" or the like. That's what most of these people would be arguing; while most of the credits so far usually have a specific condition, those tax cuts weren't mentioned to have any other circumstance other than the apparent "they're rich, hence we cut their taxes". Which, I fear, is what you're mostly supporting; they make more money, so why bother asking them to pay for more? Eventually, without monitoring those tax cuts, the 5% of the population with nearly 80% of the country's income will pay 1% less than the 95% of the population with the 20% remaining income, just because they are successful and they deserve it.

How would that tie in? Well, considering that the idea of the credits and exemptions are to determine your exact contribution, I fail to see how they are giving me money from fellow taxpayers instead of returning the excess income they took with a flat percentage tax. Unless you think of it as a bank, where you pretty much get the paper notes from other people.

Reason I mention this is the inherent arrogance in the concept of "because I earn more, I should not contribute more" coupled with the concept of tax cuts without a specific meaning, existing only to "level" the contribution of the wealthier individuals without comparing the effect of existing credits that may end up setting the contribution lower than the average individual's income.

In either case, I do want to elaborate on something, which I'd expect the President to consider given circumstances (if he stays true to the word that he'll listen to any good idea). Mostly, on the concept of "gatekeeping", which is a practice I find a bit archaic and rather dangerous, since unless you can get the choice with a very good doctor you can earn your trust (such as your choice internist, family doctor or general practitioner), the concept fails horribly. This method of health care is one I don't agree much with, given that it's mostly a leap of faith, and given the usual results.

Though...that's a good question. If not Obamacare, then what? It can't be what's already in here, since getting healthcare insurance will be increasingly more difficult to reach, and medical costs will keep rising. Getting one more job and potentially placing a risk on your health for physical overexertion (or driving a wedge on a relationship) to get a decent healthcare insurance plan while paying the bills isn't my idea of "effective" healthcare. But if what's already offered sucks badly, and what's currently sucks badly, then what? I've seen a lot of criticism, yet no options (or at least not a discussion where the options would be visible enough not to be driven by the conversation), and that's mostly like doing nothing.

[Clint]

They get more money back because they pay much more money. Proportionally, they don't get nearly as much back.

Their tax cuts are still larger. I don't care if it's proportionate or not, them getting larger tax cuts is making them richer, and us getting proportionately less tax cuts is making us poorer. Hence widening the gap, as I've been saying. You apparently just don't get it, though.

That's not taxation, that's income redistribution. America is not a socialist state. We don't take from those who achieve and hand it out to those who don't.

You mean achieving more financially, I'm assuming. Otherwise you kind of sound like a jackass. America may not be a socialist state, but it sure as hell does have some pretty damn socialist qualities. I don't see how a few more would hurt.

You're advocating that they be forced to give up their own money and have it given to the poor as a hand-out.

No, I'm really not. What I've been saying has nothing to do with a hand-out to the poor. It has to do with the amount of taxes that the rich and the poor both have to pay. The rich should get increases on taxes merely for the simple fact that they can afford to pay those increases, but I never suggested that they be taxed until they're broke, and I never suggested that their money be distributed to the poor. I merely suggested larger tax breaks for families that can't afford to pay the middle to lower class taxes.

Not once did I say that. Everybody earns their money, whether they're rich or poor. I'm just saying don't bitch about the rich having the money that they earned. If and when you ever earn a decent amount of money, I'm sure you'll want to keep it, too. That doesn't mean that you'd want to keep somebody else's money, just your own, the money you earned.

Yeah, you kind of did say that. And just for the record, I'm not greedy. If I somehow made over a million dollars, I would only keep about twenty five percent. I wouldn't want to become like those money-hungry bloodsucking bastards on Wall Street.

Please explain your definition of "a lot". I'd love to see you argue the bullshit lie that the majority of people with a good amount of money received it in inheritance.

I said a lot, not majority. A lot could be a hundred. A lot could be a thousand, or ten thousand, or a million, or two million, or so on. You can't deny that there's a good number of rich folk who have money simply through inheritance. Like most of my Sicilian family in California. Many of them alive today are simply rich because their grandfathers were leaders of a branch of the Mafia in the 1950s. A lot of them are probably still in the Mafia, though. Doesn't change the fact that they inherited their money.

They provide a service for a fee. People have a choice to pay that fee or to go somewhere else. What about car insurance companies? Life insurance?

What about all the stuff that they charge extra for, or don't cover at all due to some bullshit loophole in the contract? Like life insurance, for instance. If it's a suicide, most companies won't cover it. It's a loophole.

Yes, you've applied to more than three hundred jobs, sure.

Yes, three hundred applications. I live in a decently large city. There's well over three hundred places that are looking to hire... All of them are just not looking to hire me, unfortunately.

even though they earn it, by doing things like, well, WORKING

I don't know how to tell you this, Sassy, but working doesn't always work.

No, I just like the idea of pulling my own weight and not relying on somebody who has achieved more in their life than I have to carry me.

I never said anything about relying on the wealth of another. Once again, you fail to understand my point. My point is taxes. That has been my point this entire argument. It's not about the poor getting the tax money of the wealthy, having it redistributed, it's about what's fair. It's about these multi-billionaires, who pay very, very little taxes in proportion with their own income, due to the fact that the wealthy get significant tax breaks from the federal and state governments, whereas, the middle class always seems to be getting tax increases. That doesn't sound fair to me.

What were you saying about having a poor argument because you resort to insults?

That wasn't an insult. You are completely full of shit.

First, you have no credible evidence to suggest that most people with a lot of money got it from their parents.

Considering how many people are wealthy, and how many of those wealthy have children, and how many of those children have wealthy parents, I just figured it was safe to assume.

the poor do not get proportionally smaller tax cuts than the rich. They pay much less than the rich do -- not just in quantity, but in percentage.

And yet many still can't afford to pay taxes. Weird, huh?

Did you get that? You make $20,000/yr, and you'll get another $3600. You make $75,000/yr, and you will pay more than $17,000.

I wasn't talking about lower-upper-class being taxed higher amounts. I was talking more along the lines of people who make around $50,000,000 a year. I'm pretty sure if you make that much, increased taxes isn't really going to effect you much.

If they worked smart and hard, they would have made more money. It's a pretty simple concept.

Uh, no. Neither money nor labor works like that. Sure, working hard and smart can get you rich, but it doesn't always.

But who's responsible for your finances? I'll give you a hint: IT'S YOU.

Oh no I'm not. I didn't throw the country into recession, causing the business I worked at to lose money, therefore them not being able to afford to keep me around after I got hurt. I didn't take fifteen percent away from my father's hard-earned pension. And guess what, I didn't raise the unemployment rate. In times of recession, if somebody can't find work, and can't find money, it's not the fault of the individual. Do you see old pictures of the Great Depression, of all the homeless people lining the streets just to get a bole of soup thinking, "Those assholes should have worked harder and smarter. They shouldn't have trusted their money in banks. They wouldn't be homeless losers if they had done that. What a bunch of ****ing idiots." I don't know if you realize this, but something very similar to the Great Depression is occurring literally right now.

No thanks, kid.

That was actually a really good example. You should have read it. You're a ****ing idiot for not reading it, but I kind of already knew that about you.

And I suppose that when somebody in a hospital dies of a disease they've had for years, it's the hospital's fault, right?

No. It's all your fault, of course. Duh.

The government is supposed to protect the citizens. It's not the American government's job to babysit and hold hands of all 300-something-million citizens because some of them are too friggin' incompetent to take care of themselves.

It's kind of hard for people to take care of themselves when they're running low on money. I'm just saying.

And when they actually don't know what the hell they're talking about -- like claiming that the poor pay proportionally more taxes than the rich or get proportionally smaller tax cuts -- is it still an insult? Let's call a spade a spade here, kid.

No, I'd rather call a Spade a David. I never said that the middle-class doesn't get tax cuts. All I said was that the tax cuts given to the rich are much, much too large, and the tax cuts given to the middle-class are much, much too small. The point being, the rich can afford to pay more, whereas, the poor have trouble coming up with the money.

A very intriguing, and very bullshit, idea.

Yes, a very bullshit idea. I concur. I also slept with your wife, but that's a story for another time.

You believe that the government is hiding the cures for AIDS and cancer because they somehow make more money, and you try to call me brainwashed and closed-minded? Wow.

You were in the military, if I remember correctly. What do you think they do to military personnel during training? They break you down and reprogram you with all their government patriotic propaganda. So yes, you are brainwashed. I'm not. I never said that my opinion was fact. I was proposing an idea which I heard from a reliable source. That source being a very reliable reporter for the New York Times, whom I interviewed personally for a report in one of my classes. I'm not saying it's true, but it is an actual idea which is circulating through various other reliable sources, including the scientific and medical communities.

Of course not. You don't have the time to prove your argument. Why would you? You're a busy man, what with living with your parents and not working and all.

I never said I don't have any jobs to do. I just said I was unemployed. I'm actually painting the garage right now. I'm pretty sure that's considered work, considering that my grandfather made his living through painting. That, included with work I have to do for school, included with my routine exercises pretty much fills up a lot of my supposed "free time."

I have. Which is why I know that any insinuation that the government is holding the cures for cancer and AIDS is not only ignorant, it's ridiculously stupid.

You researched it? What did you use, Wikipedia again? Of course it won't be there. And if you try to Google it, conspiracy theory websites will pop up. You'll need a face to face interview with somebody reliable. That's how I got my information. You can't always find everything online or in a library.

You failed to address them because treatments that prolong life would make more money for the government, according to your wacky conspiracy theory, and thus would throw a wrench into your little hamster-wheel belief.

Nope. I didn't mention it because I wasn't talking about it. I am now, but that's only because you, for some strange reason which only Ron Killings, former two time NWA World Heavyweight Champion would be able to understand, brought it up.

They're still prolonging their lives. If they make more money from people dying than they do from them living, this would be counterproductive.

They actually make more money from treatment. Dying just adds to the money made, however, the longer the sick person stays alive, the more money they'll make. They must love Magic Johnson.

I'm not going to go through this childish game with you, kid. Post some credible evidence for your claims -- any of your claims -- or admit your ignorance and crawl away with your tail between your legs.

Oh, are those my only two options? Well, I'll tell you what, I'm not playing the argumentative side of arguing. I much rather prefer the persuasion side of arguing, and therefore, I don't need evidence, which is the exact reason why in all of our arguments, I have never posted evidence. Plus, there's also the simple fact that you're not a strong critical thinker. Even when presented with disproving evidence, you'll ignore it. And you can't be persuaded to think any differently, because you've already made up your mind about the topic at hand. The only way to beat you in an argument is to outlast you. I've done it many times before, and I'll sure as hell do it again with this one.

I don't care if you "felt insulted", that doesn't mean that I actually insulted you.

Actually, that does mean that you did indeed insult me. I don't know what your definition of "insulted" is, but it's not the right definition.

And you insulted your own intelligence -- or lack thereof -- by buying into conspiracy theories and failing to understand simple economics.

How about "no."

But only people with no argument resort to insults, right?

Sometimes, yeah. It's different here. I usually end up insulting you at some point because it's really hard to take you seriously, and therefore, it's pretty hard to take the argument seriously. It's nothing to do with you personally.

Believe it or not, some people are right when they disagree with me. You're just not one of them.

What a coincidence. You're not right when you disagree with me. That doesn't mean the universe is going to collapse in on itself, does it?

There's a difference between being fired and laid off. Damn, kid.

I don't care. If I'm laid off or if I'm fired, it still leads to the same result; unemployment.

According to whose morals?

Just some family morals. The way I was raised. You know, that old chestnut.

Not at all. If it's the best thing for them, then so be it.

In this case, it isn't the best thing for them. They've been living in that house for nearly twenty-five years, and they both still get around pretty good, too, for a 75 year old and an 81 year old. It would be wrong to sell their home.

It he needs help paying for it, it's not his house, it's the bank's. And if he's not a selfish man, maybe he should have passed that value on to his child, who is bitching because other people have more money than he does.

He doesn't need help paying for it. It's his house. And I'm not "bitching" because people have more money than I do. I'm merely arguing a simple debate of economics.

*GASP* OH NO! You might actually have to be uncomfortable! You might have to give up your bedroom at Mommy and Daddy's house and have somewhat cramped living quarters, like hundreds of millions of people before you have gone through! Oh, the humanity!

I'm disappointed in you. The house I live in is two bedroom. My parents have one, and I have the other. My brother took the finished half of the basement. There is no point in living in a cramped uncomfortable house when it would just be easier to wait out the storm. It's not selfishness. It's just the mere fact that living in a cramped house would significantly lower the living conditions of my parents, of my brother, of myself, but most importantly, of my elderly grandparents.

According to the birthday in your profile, you were eleven.

So I was... I guess I said I was twelve because I turned twelve that year. That was a mistake on my part. Thanks for the correction.

Really? Three thousand applications you've turned in?

Really? You actually did the math? Your original estimate of three hundred was way off then.

If we need money, we take what we can get. Most people don't work their dream job. I'm still waiting for a job to open up where I can watch sports, fish, shoot, and receive oral sex all while getting paid, but right now, I have to resort to what I can get paid for.

On my cousin's behalf, he recently got laid off from a career that he was only a year and a half into, which really screwed him, because a year and a half isn't much experience in his field. So he kind of desperately needs to get back into that field.

So you don't meet all qualifications, you don't have an education, you don't have skilled labor training, and you don't know how to do every job. Sounds to me like it is your fault you can't find a job. Although with three thousand applications, I am just shocked that you can't find anything.

I don't meet all the qualifications because it's virtually impossible to meet all the qualifications, I don't have an education because I'm working on getting a degree, I don't have skilled labor training because I have a bad back, and I don't know how to do every job because there are far too many jobs on earth to know how to do literally all of them. It sounds to me like it isn't my fault.

You "can't" because you prioritize your school over your work. That's perfectly fine, except when you bitch and moan about how you don't have money.

The only reason I complaining about not having money is because I pay out of my own pocket for my education. I do believe that that's a noble cause to work towards. Don't you?

And to get online and make long posts on internet message boards, of course.

It doesn't take nearly as long as you think to respond to you.

Many "demanding" jobs don't require lifting that much. Hell, mow lawns on the weekends.

I do mow lawns. I can only do so much though, before I pass out and die of heat exhaustion. And it only pays so much.

[Alpha]

Steal Definition | Definition of Steal at Dictionary.com
steal
–verb (used with object)
1. to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, esp. secretly or by force

Taxes are taken out of every paycheck before you get it. If you make claims on your taxes to the extent that you owe the government more money come April 15, and you don't pay it, they come take it by force, or by threat of force. That is stealing.

It's very easy to argue the exact opposite using the same definition. The government has a right to 'take' our money because it alone provides us with necessary services. Do you use the footpath outside your house? The road? The streetlights? I don't know about you, but that seems to me a good deal; and not something a mugger would be nice enough to do.

And it has permission insofar as you can vote for someone who states a level of taxation you could be happy with. If you don't want it taxed that bad, then go live in Somalia, or put your money in a Swiss bank account.

They must use force on occasion because taxes are necessary. A robber doesn't use force because the loot is neccessary. Plus, states have a legal monopoly on power, and for good reason, otherwise you'd have the mafia knocking for protection.

Yeah, you kind of did say that. And just for the record, I'm not greedy. If I somehow made over a million dollars, I would only keep about twenty five percent. I wouldn't want to become like those money-hungry bloodsucking bastards on Wall Street.

I feel the exact same way. I do think there is something terribly greedy (or even evil) about squandering one's money away when there are hundreds of millions of starving people, or even 47 million uninsured Americans calling out for a basic right. One can argue all one likes about how they 'deserve' to have that money 'because they worked for it' (it's more a matter of circumstance, anyway), but no one deserves to live in poverty, no matter how much they did or didn't 'try'.

[Sasquatch]

Their tax cuts are still larger. I don't care if it's proportionate or not, them getting larger tax cuts is making them richer, and us getting proportionately less tax cuts is making us poorer.

First, you're not getting proportionately less tax cuts. You're getting proportionately MORE. Tell you what, go up to your mommy and ask her to describe to you what "proportionate" means. After she explains it to you a dozen times or so, you might understand it enough to come back to this conversation.

And it's not a situation of "making them richer" and "making them poorer", it's a situation of NOT forcing them to be poorer while redistributing their money to make you richer.

You mean achieving more financially, I'm assuming.

No shit, really? Damn kid, you're good.

America may not be a socialist state, but it sure as hell does have some pretty damn socialist qualities. I don't see how a few more would hurt.

That's because you're not very smart. (See, now I'm insulting your intelligence. Don't feel bad, though -- I'm insulting my own intelligence just by carrying on this argument with you.) If you were, you'd realize that government control/intervention causes many more problems than it creates. Mortgage downturn? Inflation? Forest fires? All problems that affect America today, all caused by federal regulations.

No, I'm really not. What I've been saying has nothing to do with a hand-out to the poor.

You're advocating that the rich be taxed proportionately more and that the poor be taxed proportionately less. Even to a higher extreme than we have now, where a large group of "the poor" actually MAKE money from their fellow taxpayers. That's a handout, kid. That's income redistribution.

The rich should get increases on taxes merely for the simple fact that they can afford to pay those increases ...

And people that have more muscle should be required to do more physical work for the same pay, shouldn't they? I mean hell, if we're hauling buckets of rocks, it shouldn't matter if me and the six-foot-five, two-hundred-fifty-pound guy next to me do the same amount of work ... no no, we shouldn't be paid the same. He CAN do more work, so let's suck all the work we can out of him while I sit back with a cold beer after a few hours.

Yeah, you kind of did say that.

Again, not once did I say that those who aren't rich didn't earn their money. Is there anything else you'd like to pull out of your ass while you're at it, or are you secure enough to argue against what I actually said yet?

What I did say was that rich people earned their money and there's no right to steal it from them on the premise that they didn't. Poor people earn their money, too, as long as they don't get it illegally. They just earn a lesser amount. Are you getting this yet kid, or do I need to draw it in crayon?

And just for the record, I'm not greedy.

You want the people who have been more successful in life to pay your taxes, but no, not greedy at all.

If I somehow made over a million dollars, I would only keep about twenty five percent.

I hope you wouldn't want to keep much, because you might end up with half of it after taxes anyway.

I wouldn't want to become like those money-hungry bloodsucking bastards on Wall Street.

Because everybody that wants to keep the money they earn is a "money-hungry bloodsucking bastard"? No, no wealth envy there at all ...

I said a lot, not majority. A lot could be a hundred. A lot could be a thousand, or ten thousand, or a million, or two million, or so on. You can't deny that there's a good number of rich folk who have money simply through inheritance.

What's your point, kid? People that earn a lot of money have the right to leave that money to their children. This doesn't mean at all that any substantial number of people who you deem as "rich" have been given their money instead of worked for it.

What about all the stuff that they charge extra for, or don't cover at all due to some bullshit loophole in the contract?

Like what?

Like life insurance, for instance. If it's a suicide, most companies won't cover it. It's a loophole.

Because people try committing suicide to get their life insurance money for their family. This is clearly stated in the paperwork to GET life insurance, so it's not like nobody knows about it. They provide a service to their customer -- if the customer doesn't like the service, they don't have to pay for it.

Yes, three hundred applications. I live in a decently large city. There's well over three hundred places that are looking to hire... All of them are just not looking to hire me, unfortunately.

Maybe you didn't notice that I was calling you out on the bullshit claim that you applied to at least three hundred jobs and have not gotten one response.

I don't know how to tell you this, Sassy, but working doesn't always work.

Working makes you money, kid. And if you can go a year without finding a job -- any job, anything you can do that will pay you money -- in America, you might as well just off yourself, because you are fucked at life.

I never said anything about relying on the wealth of another. Once again, you fail to understand my point. My point is taxes. That has been my point this entire argument.

Of course, your point is about taxes -- that the rich should pay much more than their fair share and that the poor should pay much less than their fair share. I know your wealth envy gets in the way of any rational argument you may attempt to make, but even I can understand the bullshit you spout.

It's not about the poor getting the tax money of the wealthy, having it redistributed, it's about what's fair.

Please tell me how one person paying half of their salary in taxes and another getting money from taxes illustrate "fairness".

It's about income redistribution, kid. You know it, and I know it -- or at least you should know it, but then again, you're not very bright. You are advocating one financial class of people being taxed out their ass while another isn't taxed at all, or is barely taxed.

It's about these multi-billionaires, who pay very, very little taxes in proportion with their own income, due to the fact that the wealthy get significant tax breaks from the federal and state governments ...

Hahahahahahah. Please tell me kid, what sort of "tax breaks" do they get?

I'd like to see this. Somehow I know that you'll dodge this part of my post because you have absolutely nothing to respond to it with (except for some immature remark or insult), but I want to toss this out there anyway.

What sort of "tax breaks" do "the rich" get just for being rich?

... whereas, the middle class always seems to be getting tax increases. That doesn't sound fair to me.

It wouldn't be, if it actually happened. Unfortunately for your pathetic little argument, it doesn't.

That wasn't an insult. You are completely full of shit.

Except that you haven't proven it -- you haven't proven anything, as a matter of fact. So keep saying I'm full of shit, while I'm the only one using facts (or logic).

See kid, this is an internet argument. And while most internet arguments are petty and stupid and filled with trolls -- this one falling into that category as well, but of course you will ignorantly accuse me of being a troll -- some actually help people decide on things. Now, when I'm involved in one of these little debates -- whether it's online or in real life -- I know that, chances are, I'm not going to change the mind of the person I'm talking to. They're stuck in their ways enough that no matter how many times I show them how friggin' ignorant they are, they won't change their mind. Other people, however, may do just that -- others involved, others looking in on it, may be sitting on the fence, may be wavering in their ideas, or may admit that they don't know enough about a topic to form an opinion (that last one is what you should be doing, but instead you don't know enough about it but keep spouting bullshit to support one side anyway). So while I won't change the mind of the person I'm talking to, there are people looking in on the conversation that will, if nothing else, learn. And what's the best way to support my argument as opposed to yours? To show how damn stupid your argument is. When your argument doesn't hold up to facts or logic, people looking in might think, "well this guy's a little rude, but the other guy's just full of shit, claiming that the government holds the cure to AIDS and cancer and that the rich should be taxed a shitload more just because 'they can afford it'. What a dumbass! I'm gonna side with the first guy." It's happened quite a few times, including here on TFF.

Now, I could just flat-out attack your petty little argument, but I think you're doing a good enough job of discrediting yourself.

Considering how many people are wealthy, and how many of those wealthy have children, and how many of those children have wealthy parents, I just figured it was safe to assume.

So rich people have kids. And? Are you admitting yet that you're trying to pull the "rich people got it from their parents" argument out of your ass, or are you still clinging to it like a hobo to a ham sandwich?

And yet many still can't afford to pay taxes. Weird, huh?

Ain't my problem. You take a family that can't afford to pay its taxes, and I'll trim some fat from their budget so they can. I've lived off of frozen pizza and ramen noodles and spaghetti and beans for months at a time, with no cable TV or internet or video games, I know it can be done.

I wasn't talking about lower-upper-class being taxed higher amounts. I was talking more along the lines of people who make around $50,000,000 a year.

Fifty million dollars a year ... what is that, maybe half a dozen people in America?

I'm pretty sure if you make that much, increased taxes isn't really going to effect you much.

And if a girl is a slut or a prostitute, she wouldn't be hurt by being raped as much as a virgin would. Does that mean it's alright to rape whores, because it really wouldn't affect them as much?

Uh, no. Neither money nor labor works like that. Sure, working hard and smart can get you rich, but it doesn't always.

It does if they work hard and smart enough. Either way, it still makes them more money.

Oh no I'm not.

Alright kid, keep claiming that you're not responsible for your own money problems. I already have enough money sucked out of my paycheck for lazy bastards who can't take responsibility for themselves, might as well add you to the list of bums who prefer to suck off the successful instead of doing things for themselves.

I don't know if you realize this, but something very similar to the Great Depression is occurring literally right now.

Sure, very similar -- if you mean not at all as extreme. This is a recession, not a depression. How long do you have to wait in line to get a "bole of soup"?

That was actually a really good example. You should have read it.

Because I care so much about your petty little life, right?

You're a ****ing idiot for not reading it, but I kind of already knew that about you.

But resorting to insults means you don't have an argument, right kid? So wait, sorry, that's only when somebody other than you does it.

It's kind of hard for people to take care of themselves when they're running low on money. I'm just saying.

They they should do what they need to to have enough money to take care of themselves. It is not, and has never been, the United States federal government's job to finacially support every one of its citizens.

I never said that the middle-class doesn't get tax cuts. All I said was that the tax cuts given to the rich are much, much too large, and the tax cuts given to the middle-class are much, much too small.

And you are pathetically wrong in that statement -- as I have told you, shown you, and proven to you with numbers from the IRS. Why you still believe that bullshit, there's only one reason -- stupidity.

The point being, the rich can afford to pay more, whereas, the poor have trouble coming up with the money.

Yes, they can afford it -- because they worked for their money. If we start saying, "well, if you can afford to pay more, you will, so that everybody's equal," who will ever want to work to become rich? Why put in the extra work or school when you'll just have your extra money sucked away from you anyway?

I also slept with your wife, but that's a story for another time.

I don't have a wife. I have a dog. I don't know how you got to him, but hey, as long as he's found something to hump that won't have puppies, I'm alright with it.

What do you think they do to military personnel during training? They break you down and reprogram you with all their government patriotic propaganda. So yes, you are brainwashed.

Do you have any clue what military training entails? No, of course you don't. Because you would never have the courage or the strength to go through it.

I never said that my opinion was fact.

Neither did I. My support for something does not alone make it fact -- on the contrary, I research things to ensure that they are facts before I support them.

I was proposing an idea which I heard from a reliable source. That source being a very reliable reporter for the New York Times, whom I interviewed personally for a report in one of my classes.

You claim that you personally interviewed a New York Times reporter, and that this reporter for the New York Times was somehow "reliable", and that this New York Times reporter told you that the government is hiding the cures for AIDS and cancer?

I never said I don't have any jobs to do.

If you don't get paid, they're not jobs.

That, included with work I have to do for school, included with my routine exercises pretty much fills up a lot of my supposed "free time."

Gee, I wonder how people work themselves through college, taking eighteen credits and working forty hours a week while still maintaining a high GPA and working out ... Well, for one, they probably didn't get online and prove their stupidity for voicing support for conspiracy theories and disproportionate taxation.

You researched it? What did you use, Wikipedia again?

When did I use Wikipedia before? I like it because it's an easy source, but one must go through the sources at the bottom for any aspect of reliability.

Of course it won't be there. And if you try to Google it, conspiracy theory websites will pop up.

You mean that if I researched a conspiracy theory, conspiracy theory websites will pop up? No way!

You'll need a face to face interview with somebody reliable. That's how I got my information.

Don't research it and look for facts, find some other dumbass who believes in the same bullshit that you do, THAT's where you'll get the REAL scoop!

Nope. I didn't mention it because I wasn't talking about it.

And you weren't talking about it because, after saying the exact opposite, you knew that your arguments didn't stand up to logic, so you dropped them.

They actually make more money from treatment. Dying just adds to the money made ...

Odd how you claimed earlier that, "the government loves when people are sick, and the most certainly love when people die, because as everybody who's lost somebody knows, it costs more to die than it does to live [sic]." Of course, it's not unexpected at all that you change your argument when you realize how shitty it is.

Oh, are those my only two options?

Prettymuch. Back up your arguments, or don't, and prove that they're only opinions from some little child who has no facts to back him up.

Well, I'll tell you what, I'm not playing the argumentative side of arguing. I much rather prefer the persuasion side of arguing, and therefore, I don't need evidence, which is the exact reason why in all of our arguments, I have never posted evidence.

Really? I just thought it was because all of your arguments are complete bullshit and it's impossible to find credible evidence to support ideas that are so pathetically stupid, such as "the government is keeping the cures for cancer and AIDS a secret". Of course, if it's your goal to argue without the obligation of backing up your arguments with factual information, I suppose it becomes much easier to make your bullshit claims.

Even when presented with disproving evidence, you'll ignore it.

Can't tell until you try it, kid.

The only way to beat you in an argument is to outlast you. I've done it many times before, and I'll sure as hell do it again with this one.

So you continue spouting your bullshit -- the bullshit that has absolutely no factual backing, no logical or rational support, no way to stand up to any sensible debate -- until I get tired of it enough to say, "this kid isn't smart enough to learn," and drop it, and you consider that a victory?

I've met plenty of people that are that petty and childish before ... just none that are arrogant enough to admit it.

Actually, that does mean that you did indeed insult me.

If I didn't insult you, I didn't insult you, no matter what you "feel". I don't know how many times I have to explain this to you. Just because your little feelings got hurt doesn't mean I insulted you -- if I hurt your little feelings intentionally, then yes, that would be me insulting you.

Of course, now that you have proven to have absolutely nothing (including maturity or common sense) holding you back from insulting me, I have no problem telling you how incredibly stupid you are. There, now I insulted your intelligence.

I don't know what your definition of "insulted" is, but it's not the right definition.

It's not the same way of thinking that you use, so it's not the right one ... but no, you don't claim that you opinion is fact or anything, right kid?

What a coincidence. You're not right when you disagree with me.

Actually, from what I've seen of your pathetic arguments and foolish ideas, anybody who disagrees with you is right.

I was simply saying that I have never believed that disagreeing with me makes a person wrong. There have been many occasions -- including here on TFF, including in this thread -- where I have been wrong, and it has been pointed out and proven to me, and I have changed my opinion to fit the facts.

You would have to have some facts behind you before that could ever happen.

I don't care. If I'm laid off or if I'm fired, it still leads to the same result; unemployment.

There's a difference between being laid off and getting fired, kid. Once you get out of mommy and daddy's house and get a job, you might understand this.

In this case, it isn't the best thing for them. They've been living in that house for nearly twenty-five years, and they both still get around pretty good, too, for a 75 year old and an 81 year old. It would be wrong to sell their home.

And if your father prioritizes his parents' own home above his other financial necessities, that's up to him -- he has no right to complain that he doesn't have enough money when he's paying for things that aren't necessities.

I'm not "bitching" because people have more money than I do. I'm merely arguing a simple debate of economics.

Your stand in the "debate" is that people with more money should pay more so you get to pay less, even though the people with more money are already paying much more than their fair share.

I'm disappointed in you.

Awwww, shucks. Some child on the internet is disappointed in me? How will I sleep tonight?

The house I live in is two bedroom. My parents have one, and I have the other. My brother took the finished half of the basement. There is no point in living in a cramped uncomfortable house when it would just be easier to wait out the storm.

Of course, there's also that idea that with the money from your grandparents' house, your father would be able to afford a larger house with more bedrooms, or a bigger basement to convert. Or they could convert more of their basement to livable space and move you down there. Hell, that'd give you something to do, too. My father is now in the house he plans to stay in until he retires, and he's already walled in part of the garage/carport to make a utility/laundry room, they're redoing the entire house from floor to ceiling, then furnishing the basement to make it into a little efficiency apartment. They are by no means rich, but there have been times when nine people have been in that small house -- we weren't comfortable, no, but it worked.

So I was... I guess I said I was twelve because I turned twelve that year. That was a mistake on my part. Thanks for the correction.

You're welcome. And you're welcome for this next correction, too -- your profile says you were born in July of '89, correct? That means that you would have turned 12 in 2001. Bush was elected in November of 2000. So you were 11 when he was elected, and didn't turn 12 until after the change in year, eight months after Bush was elected. Your mistake here would have only been slightly amusing if your first sentence to me in this thread had not included, "you need to learn a little bit about politics."

Really? You actually did the math? Your original estimate of three hundred was way off then.

Your original claim was that you have filled out at least one a day for the past ten months -- ten months, times thirty-or-so days in each, times one application per day, that would be around three hundred, plus a couple more. Your next claim was that you have filled out and submitted at least ten applications per day. Ten months, times thirty-or-so days in each, times ten applications per day, that makes three thousand. So you are claiming that you have filled out at least three thousand applications in the last ten months and have never even gotten a phone call back. Your first claim was bullshit enough, now you're just adding to it. Or, more accurately, multiplying it by ten.

On my cousin's behalf, he recently got laid off from a career that he was only a year and a half into, which really screwed him, because a year and a half isn't much experience in his field. So he kind of desperately needs to get back into that field.

It'd be nice for him to get back into his field, but he can make money doing a lot more than only jobs related to his career field. If somebody needs money, they take what they can get, it's not a situation of "oh, I won't like doing that" or "well that won't advance my career", it's a situation of "I can make money? I'm in."

I don't meet all the qualifications because it's virtually impossible to meet all the qualifications, I don't have an education because I'm working on getting a degree, I don't have skilled labor training because I have a bad back, and I don't know how to do every job because there are far too many jobs on earth to know how to do literally all of them. It sounds to me like it isn't my fault.

Of course it sounds to you like it isn't your fault. You don't meet the qualifications, you have no education, you have no training, and you have no experience -- but you're just a victim of circumstance, right? I mean, nobody with only a high-school education ever gets hired to do anything for money.

The only reason I complaining about not having money is because I pay out of my own pocket for my education. I do believe that that's a noble cause to work towards. Don't you?

A lot of people do, and a lot of people are broke while they do it. It's an investment.

It doesn't take nearly as long as you think to respond to you.

Well, at least you don't have to spend any time thinking up a logical or factual post.

I do mow lawns. I can only do so much though, before I pass out and die of heat exhaustion.

Drink water.

And it only pays so much.

Do more of it.

It's very easy to argue the exact opposite using the same definition. The government has a right to 'take' our money because it alone provides us with necessary services.

It alone provides us with them because it restricts the right of private businesses to provide them.

Do you use the footpath outside your house? The road? The streetlights? I don't know about you, but that seems to me a good deal; and not something a mugger would be nice enough to do.

Just because it seems implausible doesn't mean it's not an applicable comparison. I mean really, I'd like an answer -- if somebody forces you to give them money, then does good things with it -- things you may actually want them to do -- did they steal your money, or did they not?

And it has permission insofar as you can vote for someone who states a level of taxation you could be happy with.

Since when does mob rule apply? When does the will of the majority get to trample individual rights?

They must use force on occasion because taxes are necessary. A robber doesn't use force because the loot is neccessary.

How do you know? Maybe he's completely broke and he's using the money to buy food for his family. Maybe he's a drug addict, and without a score, he'll go into shock from withdrawals and die.

Plus, states have a legal monopoly on power, and for good reason, otherwise you'd have the mafia knocking for protection.

States have a legal monopoly on power -- and we know that nothing bad has ever happened as a result of the government having unrestricted power, right?

I feel the exact same way. I do think there is something terribly greedy (or even evil) about squandering one's money away when there are hundreds of millions of starving people ...

It's evil to NOT give your money away? I can see selfish, maybe, but evil? It's evil for somebody to spend their own money as they see fit?

... or even 47 million uninsured Americans calling out for a basic right.

Health insurance is not a right. It's certainly not a Constitutional right. Even if you consider healthcare to be a right, this "right" is not restricted by not having health insurance.

One can argue all one likes about how they 'deserve' to have that money 'because they worked for it' (it's more a matter of circumstance, anyway), but no one deserves to live in poverty, no matter how much they did or didn't 'try'.

Most people deserve to live exactly how they live, be they rich or poor. I don't deserve to live in a mansion because I didn't earn it, and I don't expect to. On the other hand, I don't deserve to live in a box, because I earned much more than that. If I made bad decisions, squandered my money, screwed myself over to get fired from my job, etc., etc., then I would deserve a much lower quality of life than I enjoy now.

T.G. Oskar, you have an interesting post, but I've got to go watch football. I'll get to it.

[Clint]

Tell you what, go up to your mommy and ask her to describe to you what "proportionate" means. After she explains it to you a dozen times or so, you might understand it enough to come back to this conversation.

I wouldn't go and ask my mom, because I'm actually at your house, banging your wife. How about I just ask her, eh?

And it's not a situation of "making them richer" and "making them poorer", it's a situation of NOT forcing them to be poorer while redistributing their money to make you richer.

What's forcing them to be poorer? Bringing their total net worth from one hundred million dollars to ninety-eight million dollars? Yeah, that's a huge difference, especially for somebody with that ridiculously large amount of money.

No shit, really? Damn kid, you're good.

I know.

That's because you're not very smart. (See, now I'm insulting your intelligence....

No you're not. If you were insulting my intelligence, then I would feel that my intelligence was being insulted. Since I don't, then you didn't.

Even to a higher extreme than we have now, where a large group of "the poor" actually MAKE money from their fellow taxpayers. That's a handout, kid. That's income redistribution.

Income should be redistributed. It's not fair that so many people have morbidly obese amounts of income whereas so many more people live in poverty, lower, or middle-class.

And people that have more muscle should be required to do more physical work for the same pay, shouldn't they?

No. Did I ever tell you your examples completely suck?

Again, not once did I say that those who aren't rich didn't earn their money.

Yes, you kind of did. You said that the wealthy earned their money, while simultaneously making no mention of anybody besides the wealthy.

What I did say was that rich people earned their money and there's no right to steal it from them on the premise that they didn't.

Not all rich people earned their money, just like how not all poor people earned their money.

You want the people who have been more successful in life to pay your taxes, but no, not greedy at all.

Who says they're more successful? They should be forced to pay a higher percentage of taxes proportionately to that of lower and middle-class, merely for the fact that they have more money and will be able to pay those taxes easier (while at the same time bitching because they're loosing one million dollars net worth out of a total two hundred million.)

I hope you wouldn't want to keep much, because you might end up with half of it after taxes anyway.

That actually depends on how I get the money.

Because everybody that wants to keep the money they earn is a "money-hungry bloodsucking bastard"? No, no wealth envy there at all ...

Think about Wall Street, the banks, the automobile industry. The boys on top got us into this mess because they're all bloodsucking money hungry bastards. That's not wealth envy, that's politics.

People that earn a lot of money have the right to leave that money to their children. This doesn't mean at all that any substantial number of people who you deem as "rich" have been given their money instead of worked for it.

So what you're saying is that those kids that the parents leave money to earned that money? How, by being born and outliving their parents? You said that the wealthy "earned their money," and now you're suddenly denying that rich people have children? Where do you get the nerve?

Like what?

Like things that cost extra, or things that aren't covered at all, that shouldn't cost extra or should be covered. Things like that. If you need a specific example, just look at your own health insurance.

Because people try committing suicide to get their life insurance money for their family.

Now you're trying to say that everybody who commits suicide does it for the insurance benefits. Where do you get the nerve?

Maybe you didn't notice that I was calling you out on the bullshit claim that you applied to at least three hundred jobs and have not gotten one response.

Fine, call it a "bullshit claim." I really don't have to explain my life to you. Everybody's got an opinion, and yours just so happen to always be wrong.

Working makes you money, kid. And if you can go a year without finding a job -- any job, anything you can do that will pay you money -- in America, you might as well just off yourself, because you are fucked at life.

I never said I wasn't making money. I merely said I've been unemployed. You assume too much.

Please tell me how one person paying half of their salary in taxes and another getting money from taxes illustrate "fairness".

I thought for sure that I was talking about the wealthy and the lower and middle-classes, not the wealthy and the state. I never said the commonwealth should receive the money that the wealthy pays in taxes.

you're not very bright.

Well I slept with your wife.

I'd like to see this. Somehow I know that you'll dodge this part of my post because you have absolutely nothing to respond to it with (except for some immature remark or insult), but I want to toss this out there anyway.

What sort of "tax breaks" do "the rich" get just for being rich?

They don't get tax breaks "just for being rich." They merely get incredibly larger tax breaks then everybody else.

So keep saying I'm full of shit, while I'm the only one using facts (or logic).

Facts and logic, huh? So that's what "running your mouth" is termed now is it?

Now, I could just flat-out attack your petty little argument, but I think you're doing a good enough job of discrediting yourself.

I still slept with your wife.

So rich people have kids. And?

So, you don't think that rich people have children?

Ain't my problem. You take a family that can't afford to pay its taxes, and I'll trim some fat from their budget so they can.

I didn't say it was your problem. Nothing is your problem, because you don't give a damn about anything. You don't understand, some people can't trim their budget. For example, people with multiple young children.

Fifty million dollars a year ... what is that, maybe half a dozen people in America?

Way more than half a dozen. There's about two dozen people in little old Delaware who make way over fifty million dollars. The DuPont family. Now I wonder how many people on that level of wealth reside in New York, or Los Angeles, or Chicago, or Las Vegas. I'm pretty sure it's way over half a dozen people.

And if a girl is a slut or a prostitute, she wouldn't be hurt by being raped as much as a virgin would. Does that mean it's alright to rape whores, because it really wouldn't affect them as much?

You calling all prostitutes whores now? You should respect prostitutes. They're carrying on the second oldest profession known to man.

It does if they work hard and smart enough. Either way, it still makes them more money.

No, it can go either way, but working harder and smarter doesn't always make you money. Nobody could possibly work harder and smarter than my dad and his dad. I could describe to you their work habits, how good they were at their jobs, and so on, but like I said before, I don't have to explain my life to you.

might as well add you to the list of bums who prefer to suck off the successful instead of doing things for themselves.

Your wife's sucking something out of me.

Sure, very similar -- if you mean not at all as extreme. This is a recession, not a depression. How long do you have to wait in line to get a "bole of soup"?

What part of "something very similar is happening literally right now," didn't you understand? I didn't say, "literally the exact same thing is happening."

Because I care so much about your petty little life, right?

You should, since I'm banging your wife.

But resorting to insults means you don't have an argument, right kid? So wait, sorry, that's only when somebody other than you does it.

If you noticed, in my first few posts, I didn't insult you at all, but after a while, it's just wrong not to insult you. I'm doing you a favor by insulting you, because you need to learn the truth, and the truth is that you're a ****ing idiot.

It is not, and has never been, the United States federal government's job to finacially support every one of its citizens.

It's their job to regulate the economy, though. They've been doing a bang up job, huh?

I don't have a wife. I have a dog.

Did I ask to know about your sad pathetic life? I missed the part where you, being a loser with now wife, only a dog, is my problem. And to say that by me saying that I slept with your wife, that I slept with your dog, what do you think that says about you? I'm pretty sure that's animal abuse.

Do you have any clue what military training entails? No, of course you don't. Because you would never have the courage or the strength to go through it.

Really? I don't have the courage? Well, I'll tell you what, if World War III breaks out, not another proxy war where nobody has any idea whatsoever what they're fighting for except for what the government implants in their heads, then I'll see you out there. Until then, you keep on being a brainwashed military puppet.

You claim that you personally interviewed a New York Times reporter, and that this reporter for the New York Times was somehow "reliable", and that this New York Times reporter told you that the government is hiding the cures for AIDS and cancer?

What did I say, smart guy? It's an actual theory going around, not a face value fact.

If you don't get paid, they're not jobs.

Actually, yes they are. I can give you plenty of examples of jobs where nobody gets paid. One is called volunteering.

Gee, I wonder how people work themselves through college, taking eighteen credits and working forty hours a week while still maintaining a high GPA and working out ...

I never said I work out. I said I exercise. Working out implies weight training. I hate weight training. And I'm not taking eighteen credits, I'm taking thirteen. And at the moment, I'm not working. Stop assuming that you know me.

Don't research it and look for facts, find some other dumbass who believes in the same bullshit that you do, THAT's where you'll get the REAL scoop!

I never said I believed it. It's merely a possibility.

And you weren't talking about it because, after saying the exact opposite, you knew that your arguments didn't stand up to logic, so you dropped them.

No, I wasn't talking about it because it never came to mind, until you kind of threw it down my throat.

Of course, it's not unexpected at all that you change your argument when you realize how shitty it is.

I didn't change my argument. I mentioned that cancer and AIDS treatments are a business, which should have implied that the government got money from them. And since those people are going to most likely die anyway, dying adds to the amount of income received. Kind of a final bonus to the government.

Can't tell until you try it, kid.

I've given you credible research in a previous argument. You, however, either couldn't find it, because you're lame, or you didn't except it, because you're a bum.

So you continue spouting your bullshit -- the bullshit that has absolutely no factual backing, no logical or rational support, no way to stand up to any sensible debate -- until I get tired of it enough to say, "this kid isn't smart enough to learn," and drop it, and you consider that a victory?

It's not my fault you give up so easily.

I've met plenty of people that are that petty and childish before ... just none that are arrogant enough to admit it.

You're just pissed off because I don't play your little games. Go boo-hoo to your mommy, kid.

If I didn't insult you, I didn't insult you, no matter what you "feel". I don't know how many times I have to explain this to you. Just because your little feelings got hurt doesn't mean I insulted you -- if I hurt your little feelings intentionally, then yes, that would be me insulting you.

Have you ever heard of unintentionally insulted? That's when somebody doesn't mean to insult you, but you're insulted anyway. Doesn't that sound familiar, eh?

I have no problem telling you how incredibly stupid you are. There, now I insulted your intelligence.

I'm not insulted, so no you didn't.

Actually, from what I've seen of your pathetic arguments and foolish ideas, anybody who disagrees with you is right.

And would that be because you're always right? Don't answer that, because you are always right. In fact, you told yourself that when you woke up this morning.

There's a difference between being laid off and getting fired, kid. Once you get out of mommy and daddy's house and get a job, you might understand this.

Like I said, I don't care. No idea why you keep bringing that up.

he has no right to complain that he doesn't have enough money when he's paying for things that aren't necessities.

Things that aren't necessities? My grandparents having a roof over their heads isn't necessary?

Awwww, shucks. Some child on the internet is disappointed in me? How will I sleep tonight?

Well after you **** your dog, you should be very tired.

You're welcome. And you're welcome for this next correction, too -- your profile says you were born in July of '89, correct? That means that you would have turned 12 in 2001. Bush was elected in November of 2000. So you were 11 when he was elected, and didn't turn 12 until after the change in year, eight months after Bush was elected.

I'm pretty sure I was 11 in 2001, too. I don't get where any of this matters, anyway.

you have no education,

So now you're discriminating against people who only have a high school diploma or a GED, huh?

A lot of people do, and a lot of people are broke while they do it. It's an investment.

It's not an investment if you're going to community college. It's cheaper, and I still can't afford it yet.

Drink water.

I would, but if I drank as much as I need, my cells would drown, and I would die.

Do more of it.

I'd have to do it constantly, all day, every day, for about thirty years.

[Sasquatch]

I'll only respond to the sections of this post that are worthy of a response, instead of the "I banged your wife" bullshit. Some of us (while apparently not all) are better than that.

What's forcing them to be poorer? Bringing their total net worth from one hundred million dollars to ninety-eight million dollars?

Why do you think that only people who are worth a hundred million dollars get taxed extra? I showed you proof that even somebody who makes $75,000 will pay more than $17k in taxes, while somebody who makes $20k will get money from the other taxpayers.

Income should be redistributed.

Not in a Capitalist economy. If you'd like to live in a Socialist economy, go ahead -- I'll tell you what, even. You give me your Social Security card so I can make sure that you never have a voice in American government, and I will personally come pack all your stuff into boxes and help pay for your move. I will lovingly wrap your knick-knacks in bubble-paper. Deal?

It's not fair that so many people have morbidly obese amounts of income whereas so many more people live in poverty, lower, or middle-class.

It is when the vast majority of those people have earned what they have, whether it be a little or a lot.

No. Did I ever tell you your examples completely suck?

What's wrong, didn't understand it? Somebody has the ability to give more, so they should be forced to give more -- that's exactly what you're advocating with over-taxation of the more successful. Why not apply that across the board? Why not have more muscular people be required to work harder for the same amount of pay, because they can? Why not have smarter people be required to take more difficult tests in school, because they can?

Yes, you kind of did. You said that the wealthy earned their money, while simultaneously making no mention of anybody besides the wealthy.

I said that the wealthy earned their money, without mentioning anybody besides the wealthy, and you automatically assume that I said something else entirely that does include other people. No, I didn't. I didn't say anything about anybody besides the wealthy. But if you'd like -- people earn the money they have. If they're wealthy, chances are high that they deserve to be wealthy. If they're poor, chances are high that they deserve to be poor.

Now please stop attempting to fabricate opposing arguments, and argue against what I said instead of what you supposedly "understood".

Who says they're more successful?

Their checkbook. You know, having more money usually reflects financial success.

Think about Wall Street, the banks, the automobile industry.

The companies that were bailed out by taxpayer dollars? You blame the companies for mismanaging their money, but not the government for giving them taxpayer money to spend as they see fit?

Like things that cost extra, or things that aren't covered at all, that shouldn't cost extra or should be covered. Things like that. If you need a specific example, just look at your own health insurance.

I asked for examples -- do you have the ability to provide any examples to back up your claim, or do you not?

I didn't say it was your problem. Nothing is your problem, because you don't give a damn about anything.

Finally, you're correct. I give a damn about my own problems and nobody else's -- if I do choose to give a damn about somebody else's problems, it's just that -- a choice. And I have the right to be concerned about myself. Unfortunately, the federal government had decided to infringe upon individual freedom and force people to give up individual rights for "the common good".

Way more than half a dozen. There's about two dozen people in little old Delaware who make way over fifty million dollars.

They personally make over fifty million dollars per year? I'd like to see some evidence of that. Not that their company makes that much, but that they make that much.

It's their job to regulate the economy, though. They've been doing a bang up job, huh?

I've never seen you advocate for less government control, but I have seen you complain about the economy, even though the abundance of government control is what put the economy into the toilet.

Actually, yes they are. I can give you plenty of examples of jobs where nobody gets paid. One is called volunteering.

Volunteering isn't a job. That's why it's called [i]volunteering[i]. A job -- even according to a dictionary -- is a task one does in return for compensation. If you don't get compensation, it's not a job.

I never said I work out. I said I exercise. Working out implies weight training. I hate weight training. And I'm not taking eighteen credits, I'm taking thirteen. And at the moment, I'm not working. Stop assuming that you know me.

I wasn't talking about you, I was talking about the millions upon millions of people who have taken as many credits as they could, worked as much as they could, kept up with physical fitness, and still had time. That's called "putting yourself through college", and it sucks, but it works. You're not the only one who's ever done it, kid.

Things that aren't necessities? My grandparents having a roof over their heads isn't necessary?

Your grandparents having their own place of residence isn't a necessity.

It's not an investment if you're going to community college. It's cheaper, and I still can't afford it yet.

It's still an investment. Your paying money and time in, hoping to get a good return in the future.

I would, but if I drank as much as I need, my cells would drown, and I would die.

You would die if you drank as much water as you need to work all day in, what, ninety, hundred degree heat? That's odd -- I worked for more than two years in a climate in which temperatures climbed to over a hundred and fifty degrees, and I'm not dead. And I drank at least three or four gallons of water every day, without even noticing how much I was drinking. Hell, even Basic Training in Missouri entailed drinking a quart of water every hour we were awake, and I survived that just fine.

I'd have to do it constantly, all day, every day, for about thirty years.

You know how I mentioned working "smarter, harder, or longer"? Doing it all day, every day would be "working longer". You could also work harder -- bust your ass -- or, even better, work smarter -- save up and buy a bigger lawnmower, start your own business, hire other people, etc. There are plenty of businesses that do nothing but lawn care and landscaping, and they started with somebody mowing lawns.

Found something interesting, as well: According to economist Walter E. Williams, 4% (1/25) Americans (11 million) are millionaires. According to the U.S. Trust survey, the wealthiest Americans worked an average of 56 hours/wk for their first 29 working years. Less than 11% of them inherited their wealth.

Not true. Private businesses would not produce streetlights and other services because of the 'free rider' principle.

First, are streetlights "necessary"? Second, if people wanted them, they could easily form a small conglomerate to purchase the services and goods that they deemed necessary, without involving the citizens that don't use them. Say, if a city wanted streetlights down their main drag, they could put a toll on either end of the main drag, to only charge the people that use that road, instead of forcing the people who lived on the outskirts to pay for something that they don't use.

One can't distinguish who needs to pay for the use of such services, so they are provided from our tax money - something the government alone (not private businesses or individuals) has a mandate to do.

The government does not have a mandate to do anything but protect its citizens.

Roads may be made toll roads, but this is an exception.

Toll roads don't charge people that don't use the toll roads. Why must other government services charge people that don't use them?

It's a comparison, but it is not an accurate or appropriate one. A thief takes their money for their own purposes.

Says who? Are you telling me that everybody who has ever stolen anything has always done it strictly for personal gain? What about the situations I posted -- somebody stealing to feed their family? Or even to purchase an addictive drug, because the withdrawal would kill them?

Do you have evidence to suggest that thieves give back to the people from whom they steal?

Other than the government, not really, but you don't have evidence otherwise, either. Not that fits every situation.

Yes, both thieves and the government may take our money, but from a functionalist perspective it is not taken under the same principle.

According to the definition of stealing, the end doesn't matter -- stealing is a means with an irrelevant end. So you're saying that the government stealing is alright, but a citizen stealing is not?

Mob rule? It's called a democracy. If the majority decides to do one thing, but one person says no, then the majority gets precedence.

First, the United States isn't a democracy, it's a republic. We don't vote on our laws, we appoint people to represent us that vote on our laws. Second, the United States has always lived under the idea that mob rule doesn't apply -- that the will of the majority cannot trample the rights of the minority. Think back into history -- if the majority of the population supported racial segregation, does that mean it didn't violate any individual rights?

Oh, so healthcare is neccessary and you acknowledge it requires money?

I really don't know where you got that from what you quoted. Health insurance is not a necessity, as one can receive healthcare without insurance, and without money. Obama's plan is labeled as "healthcare", but it isn't -- it's health insurance. Anybody in America -- even people who aren't Americans, for cryin' out loud -- can go to the hospital and receive care.

The government takes money in a different manner from robbers ...

How? They take it out of your paycheck without your consent, and if you manage to have them take less then they think they should, they come to your house with guns and arrest you. First they steal through covertness, then they steal through force or threat of force.

The US government does not tax people who earn less that $21,000 p.a., correct?

They don't just not tax them, they redistribute other taxpayers' money to them.

And taxes more (proportionately, and thus literally) on wealthy people, as they can afford to pay more. Are robbers this discriminating, or do they just take the least secured money they can find? They do not steal from those who are 'more able' to be stolen from.

Says who? Think like a mugger for a minute. You see two people walking down the street, and you want to rob one of them. One of them is wearing sweatpants and a t-shirt. The other is wearing a three-piece suit. Which is your score? How do muggers not rob people with the "ability" to pay more?

Of course bad things can happen, but much worse things would happen if everyone had a legal mandate to use force.

That's opinion. Facts counter that argument -- areas with more firearms rights have less violent crime, etc.

As a side note, who or what funds the police?

Like I said, the only thing that the government is mandated to do is protect its citizens. Police forces are protection.

If one does not have health insurance in the USA, they must eventually front up with money, correct? Yes, you provided details about how they can apparently pay very little, and how you will not be refused treatment, but there's still a cost involved somewhere, correct? In addition, it's apparent that it can impact your credit rating. Ouch. That surely means that access to healthcare in the United States is at least somewhat limited to the poor.

Just because they are asked for money for it does not at all mean that it's limited. They can limit themselves, sure, but whether somebody makes twenty million a year or twenty thousand, they have the same access to healthcare.

Now, acknowledging, but disregarding the fact that it is not 'enshrined' in your precious Constitution, can you please justify, on moral grounds, the omission of healthcare as a 'right' of every citizen of your fair land?

Justify? Why? I don't need to justify why something isn't a government obligation -- not in America. Here, we are supposed to have to justify why something is.

But if, say, I was in a different country with a different set of rules. Why should my money be covertly or forcibly taken without consent (stolen) from me to pay for services for somebody who cannot or does not pay for their own? I have a right to keep the money I earn, not have it redistributed to those less successful.

People can earn the privilege of living in a mansion, but living in a box (or lacking food, shelter, sanitation, healthcare) is so inhumane, that it can never be justified. Are poor people animals to you? Maybe they were lazy. Maybe they didn't work hard. Maybe they were just victims of circumstance. But if that means they are suddenly forced to live in a box on the side of the road, I ask what kind of society do you seek? Certainly not a compassionate one.

You are considering the idea that government-forced income redistribution is the only way for poor people to get money, and completely discounting charity, especially from the United States, which has the most charitable people in the world.

Of course, if you look at it on the amount they have to pay, it's a pretty hefty amount (compare 7% of someone whose income is, say, $12,000 to someone who must spend 10% of $300,000 yearly income on taxes), but it looks very differently when you take it on percentage.

Not really -- somebody who makes $300,000 would be taxed closer to 35%, not 10%.

I presume you're familiar with how things work in the IRS, so I'll save the description; I might be a bit off considering how things work there and how they work here (residents of PR don't file an IRS tax return unless they have assets in the mainland; the tax return is self-managed).

PR ... You live in Puerto Rico? Cool.

As usual, every single individual has to pay a specific amount of their annual income in contributions based on tables and guidelines. As usual, there are credits and exemptions that are applied to that contribution as adjustments (this includes both tax cuts for the rich, and credits and exemptions for poor people; in effect, both sides have some sort of tax cut through credits and exemptions). And as usual, these lead into a bit of a headache and either a tax refund or a tax payment.

You're also referring to PR taxes, not federal taxes -- I'd imagine that PR taxes are much like state taxes, with much lower rates (and thus, many more deductibles and much higher differences in rates) than federal taxes.

However, the extent and weight of those credits are what make things different. Some credits are general (such as the credits for dependants, or however it is called by the IRS), and some are specific (exemptions for the possession of land, for example). Very few exemptions often apply to the people within the low-middle class, usually the dependant or single person credits, as well as any relatively minor or one-time credit present. The wealthier people, capable of doing some investment, receive a larger scale credit for that, and usually are capable of claiming other credits and exemptions that people of a lower income cannot.

It's different with federal taxes -- there aren't many tax credits, an only deductions for certain things. (Credit = you get money; Deduction = you don't have to pay taxes on this money)

Problem lies when the meaning over that credit gets lost, and effectively you're reducing their tax contribution for virtually nothing.

Except that they pay such a disproportionate amount in taxes -- so much more than their fair share -- that even if they earned enough deductions to be taxed at a reasonable rate (which would be quite a bit), they would still be pulling their own weight.

Say, as an example, that you as an individual are given a credit for a large-scale donation.

It'd be a deduction, as opposed to a credit, but yeah ...

Now, let's say that donation is more of an investment, since by making that donation, you perhaps gain access to the Board of Directors of that company.

If you get something for it, it's an investment (and thereby taxable), not a donation.

For legal purposes, it's a "donation" but it would really become an investment, or a bought share.

Legally, that would be considered an investment. You mention fraud a little later (I'll just address it here instead of quoting everything and making this an even longer post), and that would be exactly that -- fraud. Even if somebody got away with receiving some type of compensation for a "donation", whether it be a position, goods, services, etc., and it wasn't taxed, they would be completely screwed when they were audited. Not only would they be taxed on their "donation" like they should have been anyway, they would be forced to give up their position within the company, since they got it through illegal means (tax evasion), and have to pay fines for their crime.

Now lets say that, by consecutively applying such credits lost in meaning, the percentage of the contribution by the wealthier individual becomes lower than that of the average income individual.

The deductions are so few and the rate so disproportionately high that this would be nearly impossible, unless a wealthy person gave up almost all of their money. Like I said, they wouldn't get credits, they'd get deductions -- if I made a million dollars a year and gave a hundred thousand to charity, I'd be taxed on $900,000. The only way to fall into a lower tax bracket would be to give away nearly all of my money.

What would happen if, instead of giving a conditional tax cut, the tax cut was merely devoid of any meaning? No "get me more jobs and I give you a cut" or the like. That's what most of these people would be arguing; while most of the credits so far usually have a specific condition, those tax cuts weren't mentioned to have any other circumstance other than the apparent "they're rich, hence we cut their taxes". Which, I fear, is what you're mostly supporting; they make more money, so why bother asking them to pay for more? Eventually, without monitoring those tax cuts, the 5% of the population with nearly 80% of the country's income will pay 1% less than the 95% of the population with the 20% remaining income, just because they are successful and they deserve it.

The top 1% of wage earners in America earn about 17% of the wages -- but they pay 37% of the taxes. If they paid even half of their tax burden, they'd still be paying more than their fair share.

I advocate "tax cuts for the rich" because the rich pay too much in taxes now. As I said before, I want everybody to pay their fair share -- whether they're lower class or upper class. If federal taxes were disproportionately overtaxing the lower class, I'd have the same problem.

How would that tie in? Well, considering that the idea of the credits and exemptions are to determine your exact contribution, I fail to see how they are giving me money from fellow taxpayers instead of returning the excess income they took with a flat percentage tax.

I'm not sure I understand you here. I support a flat tax. Now, if somebody wants to give to charity so they fall into a lower tax bracket, that's no problem -- like I said, it's not like they'll have the money but not pay taxes on it. If they want to do something illegal and get compensated for their "donation", I would have a problem with that, as it would be a fraudulent transaction and tax evasion.

The way it is now, though, I have a big problem with -- those who make more money are having their income redistributed to those who make less. As I pointed out, somebody who makes $20k/yr will get about $3600 from their fellow taxpayers -- not contributing less because they make less, but actually creating an even bigger drain on the country.

Reason I mention this is the inherent arrogance in the concept of "because I earn more, I should not contribute more" coupled with the concept of tax cuts without a specific meaning, existing only to "level" the contribution of the wealthier individuals without comparing the effect of existing credits that may end up setting the contribution lower than the average individual's income.

I'm all for fairness -- those who earn more should of course contribute more, as long as it's proportionate. Somebody that earns twice as much as I do should contribute twice as much as I do, not three or four times as much. And while there are deductions that lower a person's taxable income, their taxable income is also their usable income, and if they take every deduction they can get, sure they won't be paying much, but they will have very little to live on.

In either case, I do want to elaborate on something, which I'd expect the President to consider given circumstances (if he stays true to the word that he'll listen to any good idea).

Hahahah, good luck!

Mostly, on the concept of "gatekeeping", which is a practice I find a bit archaic and rather dangerous, since unless you can get the choice with a very good doctor you can earn your trust (such as your choice internist, family doctor or general practitioner), the concept fails horribly. This method of health care is one I don't agree much with, given that it's mostly a leap of faith, and given the usual results.

I'm not familiar with "gatekeeping", care to elaborate?

Though...that's a good question. If not Obamacare, then what? ... But if what's already offered sucks badly, and what's currently sucks badly, then what? I've seen a lot of criticism, yet no options (or at least not a discussion where the options would be visible enough not to be driven by the conversation), and that's mostly like doing nothing.

My main issue is this: Change is not always good. All too many people are chomping at the bit for "change", without realizing that a lot of it is change for the worse.

Say, you have a car. Your car is a piece of crap. You need a new car. Are you going to go out and get another piece of crap, paying much more for it, just because it's different? Hell no, you're going to be smarter than that. You're going to realize that, even though it's not the best, your car still gets you from point A to point B. You're going to either replace a few things on your car or shop around until you find the best alternative -- without overpaying, and without jumping at the chance to get a new car just because it's different. When you have a crappy car, a lot of other cars look better -- that doesn't mean that they are better, they just look better. The person that immediately trades his car for a different one will soon realize that he didn't get a better car, just a different car, and now he's paying more for a crappy car again.

[Clint]

Why do you think that only people who are worth a hundred million dollars get taxed extra? I showed you proof that even somebody who makes $75,000 will pay more than $17k in taxes, while somebody who makes $20k will get money from the other taxpayers.

Yes, but still, many people who make $20k and below who receive money from other tax payers still don't have enough money to pay their own taxes. Obviously in that retrospect, the current system isn't working.

Not in a Capitalist economy. If you'd like to live in a Socialist economy, go ahead

America borrowed many aspects of it's government, although a democracy, from socialism. It's already a pretty socialist system.

What's wrong, didn't understand it? Somebody has the ability to give more, so they should be forced to give more -- that's exactly what you're advocating with over-taxation of the more successful.

My point this entire time has been that the people who have been more financially successful have wealth enough to pay higher taxes. Although they pay proportionately the same amount of taxes associating with their amount of income, a temporary solution to fix some of the problems with the economy would be to tax them more, due to the fact that they can afford it. But overall, the system needs to be changed.

If they're wealthy, chances are high that they deserve to be wealthy. If they're poor, chances are high that they deserve to be poor.

That's a complete lie. Nobody deserves to be dirt poor. Nobody deserves to have an overabundance of money while so many others are in poverty. Chances are, if you're born into a poor or middle-class family, you will stay in that financial class for the rest of your life. If you're born upper-class, chances are, you'll stay in that financial class for the rest of your life.

Their checkbook. You know, having more money usually reflects financial success.

Or it reflects organized crime. A lot of those Mafia guys have some pretty nice checkbooks.

The companies that were bailed out by taxpayer dollars? You blame the companies for mismanaging their money, but not the government for giving them taxpayer money to spend as they see fit?

I never said I didn't blame the government for giving them that money, but I can't really put much blame in their hands. They're not the irresponsible pricks who threw away bail money on overly large bonuses.

Finally, you're correct. I give a damn about my own problems and nobody else's -- if I do choose to give a damn about somebody else's problems, it's just that -- a choice. And I have the right to be concerned about myself.

You should choose to care about other people more often. The decision not to care is what makes the world a cold place to live in.

They personally make over fifty million dollars per year? I'd like to see some evidence of that. Not that their company makes that much, but that they make that much.

I used to work for the DuPont's. I was on the assembly line in one of their factories. I can tell you from experience, just from being on the assembly line, that they make a hell of a lot of money.

I've never seen you advocate for less government control, but I have seen you complain about the economy, even though the abundance of government control is what put the economy into the toilet.

Then the government needs to change the way it does business. But the fact remains that society can't function without an organized government. That's why I don't advocate for less government control.

Volunteering isn't a job. That's why it's called [i]volunteering[i]. A job -- even according to a dictionary -- is a task one does in return for compensation. If you don't get compensation, it's not a job.

I don't know where you volunteer, but even if you're not getting paid, you're still compensated in some way. For example, in small towns, if you volunteer for a position that doesn't offer pay, you're discounted at local shops.

Your grandparents having their own place of residence isn't a necessity.

That's your opinion, but that's their house. We're not making them move. They're too old for that.

It's still an investment. Your paying money and time in, hoping to get a good return in the future.

Community college is designed to be cheaper, and therefore, I should still have money left over after I finish paying. I don't, however.

That's odd -- I worked for more than two years in a climate in which temperatures climbed to over a hundred and fifty degrees, and I'm not dead.

That surprises me. Working outside for two years in one hundred and fifty degree weather is essentially asking for heat stroke.

And I drank at least three or four gallons of water every day, without even noticing how much I was drinking. Hell, even Basic Training in Missouri entailed drinking a quart of water every hour we were awake, and I survived that just fine.

That seems like cruel and unusual punishment to me, making you drink that much water. Looks like they treat prisoners better than they treat soldiers, which is weird, considering soldiers are supposed to get respect for what they're doing.

There are plenty of businesses that do nothing but lawn care and landscaping, and they started with somebody mowing lawns.

A landscaping business isn't for me. I only mow lawns for two reasons, the money, and the exercise.

Found something interesting, as well: According to economist Walter E. Williams, 4% (1/25) Americans (11 million) are millionaires. According to the U.S. Trust survey, the wealthiest Americans worked an average of 56 hours/wk for their first 29 working years. Less than 11% of them inherited their wealth.

Even less than 11% out of 11 million people is still a lot. I never said it was the majority.

I'd also like to point out, both my father and my grandfather worked over 56 hours a week for 30 years, and in the last few years of his career, my father worked an average of 82 hours a week. That makes me proud. They were harder working that most millionaires.

[Sasquatch]

Yes, but still, many people who make $20k and below who receive money from other tax payers still don't have enough money to pay their own taxes.

... Please explain to me how they can get money by filing tax returns -- not pay, but be paid -- and still not "have enough money to pay their own taxes". They don't have enough money to pay a negative amount in taxes? They don't have enough money to receive tax money?

America borrowed many aspects of it's government, although a democracy, from socialism.

Socialism is commonly thought to have originated with the French Revolution of 1789. The United States was created in 1776, and the Constitution in 1787. Democracy has existed for centuries, while socialism is a relatively new idea. America didn't "borrow" anything from socialism.

It's already a pretty socialist system.

And it's already got plenty of problems because of that. When government control causes problems, the solution to those problems isn't more government control.

My point this entire time has been that the people who have been more financially successful have wealth enough to pay higher taxes.

And my point is that they shouldn't be punished for being successful.

Although they pay proportionately the same amount of taxes associating with their amount of income ...

... Now, I've told you, I've explained to you, I've showed you, I've even given you a link to the IRS tax rates. People with more money DO NOT PAY PROPORTIONATELY THE SAME AMOUNT. They pay an extreme amount more.

If you made twice as much money as I did, proportionally, you should pay twice as much, correct? That would be proportion. Instead, under the system we have now, you could pay three or four times as much, easily. That's not "proportionally the same amount of taxes". Not at all.

... a temporary solution to fix some of the problems with the economy would be to tax them more, due to the fact that they can afford it.

A permanent solution would be to tax them fairly, so instead of relocating their business overseas, they stay in America, employing Americans.

Ever heard of "brain drain"? It's what happens when a country moves closer to socialism. The best and brightest in each field -- electronics, medicine, etc. -- move away. If they're not going to make any more money than Joe Blow off the street who's just mediocre, why should they stay? Why should anybody work harder, longer, or smarter when they won't be paid more for it? The opposite -- "brain gain" -- is what happens when countries become more fair, letting people keep the money they earn.

But overall, the system needs to be changed.

Yes, it does. It needs to be fair. One flat tax rate -- nobody paying more or less than their fair share.

That's a complete lie. Nobody deserves to be dirt poor.

If somebody drops out of high school, gets into drugs and alcohol, knocks some girl up, doesn't care to get a job or make themselves better ... yes, they deserve to be dirt poor. They sure as hell don't deserve to have the same amount of money as somebody who competed high school, stayed clean, stayed responsible, and went on to further education.

Nobody deserves to have an overabundance of money while so many others are in poverty.

They are if they make it legally.

Chances are, if you're born into a poor or middle-class family, you will stay in that financial class for the rest of your life.

Like my father and his brother and sister, who were born lower-middle-class but are now upper-middle or upper class? Or my grandfather, who was born during the Great Depression, the lowest of lower-class possible, who, with an eighth-grade education, provided for a wife and three children? Or a family friend, who worked two full-time jobs for forty years so that his wife could stay home and raise their three kids?

Or me? My father was financially devastated immediately after his divorce, when I was four years old. I remember dancing around the table with my brother and sister singing, "we're having Buggs Bunny for dinner!" when my father had shot a rabbit and was going to clean and cook it for our meal. My father later told me that if he hadn't shot that rabbit, we wouldn't have eaten that night. I lived in ten different towns -- in four different states -- before I turned sixteen, because we couldn't afford to stay in one place, kept moving for better jobs, better pay, benefits, etc. Because of what my father taught me -- directly and indirectly -- I now have a vehicle, a place of residence, and a bank account I could live comfortably off of for a few years.

I've seen people pull themselves up, and I've seen people sink themselves down. It wasn't "circumstance", it wasn't "fortune", they weren't "victims" of any sort -- it was their own doing, good or bad.

If you're born upper-class, chances are, you'll stay in that financial class for the rest of your life.

And there's a reason for that. Like I've said many times before, the rich keep getting richer because they keep doing what made them rich -- while the poor keep getting poorer because they keep doing what made them poor.

Or it reflects organized crime. A lot of those Mafia guys have some pretty nice checkbooks.

And there's absolutely nothing saying that any substantial number of wealthy Americans have any involvement in organized crime. Nice try.

I never said I didn't blame the government for giving them that money, but I can't really put much blame in their hands. They're not the irresponsible pricks who threw away bail money on overly large bonuses.

... They gave hundreds of billions of dollars to companies which everybody knew were fiscally irresponsible, and you "can't put much blame in their hands"? If I found a child and gave it a loaded gun, could you put much blame in my hands?

You should choose to care about other people more often. The decision not to care is what makes the world a cold place to live in.

It also makes the world run. I'm perfectly happy giving to charity, and I do it quite often. I just don't like being forced to support those who don't support themselves.

I used to work for the DuPont's. I was on the assembly line in one of their factories. I can tell you from experience, just from being on the assembly line, that they make a hell of a lot of money.

They do a lot of business, yes -- which means that they pay a hell of a lot of money for labor, supplies, equipment, etc. and that they make a hell of a lot in return. Do you have anything at all (credible) that says that two dozen people in Delaware make $50,000,000+ per year?

Keep in mind -- not the company. The person. The money that the company makes has to be paid out to its employees and suppliers, and the rest is usually used for R&D or expansion.

Then the government needs to change the way it does business. But the fact remains that society can't function without an organized government.

That's debatable. Still, government control is often the cause of problems, and some people instead consider it the solution. We're tried more government control, how about we try less?

I don't know where you volunteer, but even if you're not getting paid, you're still compensated in some way. For example, in small towns, if you volunteer for a position that doesn't offer pay, you're discounted at local shops.

... yes, that's compensation. If you work with the understanding that you will receive some sort of compensation -- in the form of money, services, goods, discounts, etc. -- it's not volunteering, it's a job. You are doing something for them, and they are giving you something in return. If you volunteer with no intention of receiving any compensation, and it is given to you anyway, it is a gift -- it wasn't a deal you made, there was no agreement, you gave them your work for free and they decided to give you something.

That surprises me. Working outside for two years in one hundred and fifty degree weather is essentially asking for heat stroke.

Oh, it sucks. As much as the sun whups your ass, being in a vehicle (especially an Olive-Drab Green vehicle) with no air conditioning is unreal. Sure, you have shade, but no breeze. Most of the water in Iraq and Kuwait comes in liter-and-a-half bottles, and it's pretty common to drink a case of twelve in a day without even noticing.

Of course, there's a higher risk for hot-weather injuries, but Soldiers are usually pretty disciplined in how to take care of themselves. Must be all that brainwashing.

That seems like cruel and unusual punishment to me, making you drink that much water. Looks like they treat prisoners better than they treat soldiers, which is weird, considering soldiers are supposed to get respect for what they're doing.

Army Basic Training, like Marine Corps. Boot Camp, accomplishes two things: First, it trains every Soldier in the basics -- shoot, move, communicate, maintain. Discipline is key to that. You think you could take a bunch of recent high-school graduates and get them to do the things Soldiers do, and it'd be easy? First, it takes a special breed of person, and second, it takes training and experience. To receive that training, one must be healthy -- drinking too much water can be bad for you, sure, but if you're sweating most of it out, more water is good (up to a point). The second thing Basic Training does ... you could call it hazing. Initiation. I know when I look at another Soldier, no matter what job he has or what rank he is, that he went through the toughest few months of his life to become what he is, and I automatically have respect for him. If it was easy to become a Soldier, Soldiers wouldn't deserve as much respect.

i live in canada, (great country) and our healthcare system is great, but i think we should share it with the americans ...

I hate to break this to you, but Canadian healthcare sucks. Thousands upon thousands of Canadians every year cross the border to get into American hospitals. About one quarter of Canadians on waiting lists for operations die before they get them.

This is a reasonable comparison to Obama's plan, since Canada's Medicare and Britain's NHS are the closest things to Obama's. Claude Castonguay, who prettymuch devised the Quebec system, which later was adopted by the rest of the nation, admits that it's a disaster, and that it's time to give more power back to private healthcare: "We thought we could resolve the system's problems by rationing services or injecting massive amounts of new money into it... We are proposing to give a greater role to the private sector so that people can exercise freedom of choice."

[T.G. Oskar]

I advocate "tax cuts for the rich" because the rich pay too much in taxes now. As I said before, I want everybody to pay their fair share -- whether they're lower class or upper class. If federal taxes were disproportionately overtaxing the lower class, I'd have the same problem.

Fair share of taxes can be even more of a headache than a solution. While everybody would pay the same, the current amount of taxes paid by the bulk of the population would rise to such an amount that a much more sizeable amount of their income would be slashed to compensate for the rates. It would be fair if the share was limited to the least of the current taxing (10%, which is the lowest rate), but if suddenly you were forced to pay 15% more and the rich only get a moderate 10% reduction to make it an equal share, there would be several problems and a possible hit to the economy; mostly since the people that pay currently 35% may probably have a serious buffer in case things go wrong, but the bulk of the population with the lower rates would suddenly see a decrease in their income, which is pretty compromised. No amount of "you should have saved" or such counsel may reduce the impact of a reduced income for the bulk of the population; some people almost completely depend on their income, to the point that they must sacrifice at times food in order to pay their bills.

I'd consider fair share if it considered the impact on loans and mortgages, and how would that be considered. Albeit not paying to the government, it wouldn't be exactly fair to issue such a severe switch to income that will cause, say, the lower middle class to request and acquire a loan to reduce the impact on the reduced income, but eventually acquiring a larger debt because of interests. It's not a small, minimal possibility; it is a serious possibility that might shift the income condition even further.

This would apply, of course, to loans and/or mortgages used for explicit purposes of paying extraordinary bills. I won't deal with credit cards, since that's consumerism and one of the reasons several people are unnecessarily indebted; more so, by their own fault. Mortgages to pay for a new house or for a necessary article are also considerable points to handle.

The way it is now, though, I have a big problem with -- those who make more money are having their income redistributed to those who make less. As I pointed out, somebody who makes $20k/yr will get about $3600 from their fellow taxpayers -- not contributing less because they make less, but actually creating an even bigger drain on the country.

Again, in the case of tax returns, I fail to see how such deductions and credits such as in the case of dependants, or mortgages, which are considered to be necessary and largely irreducible consumption of income becomes a shift in income, if the intention is to return a specific amount of contribution that is not retained, that is deducted from your retained amount of gross income through taxes.

Perhaps the way it works in the federal scale is different, perhaps not, but the idea is this: if I get the papers that identify the amount of money I earned during the year, plus the amount deducted by my paycheck for taxes (here is the W-2, I dunno if state-wise or federal-wise it's the same), and after filling the tax forms and realizing that, through deductions, I am entitled to a tax return for exactly the amount of money that was retained for taxes, I fail to see how that turns into "fellow taxpayers give me money". Perhaps it's the system?

Hahahah, good luck!

Hey, it's not me; it's his words. What if it manages to happen? I could make him accountable for that, but sadly I don't vote for the President (it is not a right we have here, although if I were to move to the US I could). Not that I see it as truly important at the moment; I feel there's other things that must be solved first locally before considering said factor (the size of the local Senate and House of Representatives and their earnings, for example)

I'm not familiar with "gatekeeping", care to elaborate?

It's the usual "alternative" (although I can't deem to refer to it as an alternative) to free selection healthcare plans (aka, where you choose the doctor/s that wish to attend you). Through "gatekeeping", the healthcare plan assigns you to a specific doctor (either by forcefully assigning you to it, or by limited choice), normally a generalist, intern or family doctor. That doctor usually handles most cases, and handles referrals to medical procedures outside of its specialty (for example, lab tests or visits to a cardiologist/ophtalmologist); effectively, said doctor has to authorize the procedure in order for the healthcare insurer to pay for it.

Gatekeeping turns into a serious problem at any moment. Usually, troubles with such practice lie upon: potential malpractice by either restraining an important study or operation, or by sending a referral to a doctor that may incur on malpractice or negligence itself; delayed procedures, and so on. Basically, it only works if you have a truly outstanding doctor, and even then it may not be as effective.

My main issue is this: Change is not always good. All too many people are chomping at the bit for "change", without realizing that a lot of it is change for the worse.

Say, you have a car. Your car is a piece of crap. You need a new car. Are you going to go out and get another piece of crap, paying much more for it, just because it's different? Hell no, you're going to be smarter than that. You're going to realize that, even though it's not the best, your car still gets you from point A to point B. You're going to either replace a few things on your car or shop around until you find the best alternative -- without overpaying, and without jumping at the chance to get a new car just because it's different. When you have a crappy car, a lot of other cars look better -- that doesn't mean that they are better, they just look better. The person that immediately trades his car for a different one will soon realize that he didn't get a better car, just a different car, and now he's paying more for a crappy car again.

And even then, replacing a few things on the chipped, crappy car is still a method of change; you aren't remaining with the same parts, or using the same gas or oil, or even use it as you'd usually do. That's a change, no matter what you call it.

And sometimes, a change IS needed, period. Perhaps you know that "crappy" car won't last for long: at times, replacing one part causes another to screw up. Perhaps the pieces for said car won't appear anymore. Or perhaps the car you have won't work for the new kind of life you'll have. In those occasions, a change is more than needed.

What you're trying to expose is not to take the path of radical changes, and perhaps to be careful on which kind of change. That's good, when the situation isn't as dire as it seems; when the situation doesn't ask for a radical change. Perhaps that's what you feel; there is no need for a radical change because the situation isn't life-threatening, thus, we can make the right choice after a long and winded amount of time in introspection. However, for many people, that's not the situation.

Perhaps to settle on layman terms? "Don't replace your car for a Daihatsu!" Except, the car you already have is probably a Yugo; even a Daihatsu is better, and besides, you're already attempting to go for a Toyota instead. Or a Ford.

[Alpha]

Firstly, 95% of what has been said in the last two posts is ridiculously irrelevant. Seriously, quit the pseudo-trolling. It's not fun. It only requires one mature individual to ignore an irrelevant remark to nip it in the bud.

It alone provides us with them because it restricts the right of private businesses to provide them.

Not true. Private businesses would not produce streetlights and other services because of the 'free rider' principle. One can't distinguish who needs to pay for the use of such services, so they are provided from our tax money - something the government alone (not private businesses or individuals) has a mandate to do. Roads may be made toll roads, but this is an exception.

Just because it seems implausible doesn't mean it's not an applicable comparison. I mean really, I'd like an answer -- if somebody forces you to give them money, then does good things with it -- things you may actually want them to do -- did they steal your money, or did they not?

It's a comparison, but it is not an accurate or appropriate one. A thief takes their money for their own purposes. Do you have evidence to suggest that thieves give back to the people from whom they steal? Yes, both thieves and the government may take our money, but from a functionalist perspective it is not taken under the same principle. Look at the result, not the intermediary. Government provides an unbelievably large range of neccessary services, whereas thieves do not. Thus, how can you say it is the same thing? It's like saying sport is a religion (I just wrote an essay on this); they look the same, with rituals, icons, rules, etc., but they have profoundly different purposes. One spiritual, the other earthly. Just as much energy is invested into each, but sport will never become an actual religion. Just as taxation will never constitute stealing, no matter how much you frame it as such.

Since when does mob rule apply? When does the will of the majority get to trample individual rights?

Mob rule? It's called a democracy. If the majority decides to do one thing, but one person says no, then the majority gets precedence. If the majority calls for lower taxes across the board, then a candidate with that agenda will come into power. If the majority call for higher marginal tax rates on the rich, and tax relief for the poor, then, again, this will be reflected in democratic institutions.

How do you know? Maybe he's completely broke and he's using the money to buy food for his family. Maybe he's a drug addict, and without a score, he'll go into shock from withdrawals and die.

Oh, so healthcare is neccessary and you acknowledge it requires money? Looks like us "liberals" are getting somewhere. The government takes money in a different manner from robbers, and it is certainly neccessary (provision of services amidst the free rider principle). The US government does not tax people who earn less that $21,000 p.a., correct? And taxes more (proportionately, and thus literally) on wealthy people, as they can afford to pay more. Are robbers this discriminating, or do they just take the least secured money they can find? They do not steal from those who are 'more able' to be stolen from.

States have a legal monopoly on power -- and we know that nothing bad has ever happened as a result of the government having unrestricted power, right?

Of course bad things can happen, but much worse things would happen if everyone had a legal mandate to use force. It's called the police. They use force when neccessary (in theory). If we policed ourselves, violence would be much more out of control. As a side note, who or what funds the police?

It's evil to NOT give your money away? I can see selfish, maybe, but evil? It's evil for somebody to spend their own money as they see fit?

Personally, I equate selfishness to evilness. Among other things. It's evil to buy a Mercedes-Benz and drive it past a starving person, yes, absolutely, at least as far as I'm concerned. Your views differ, but c'est la vie.

Health insurance is not a right. It's certainly not a Constitutional right. Even if you consider healthcare to be a right, this "right" is not restricted by not having health insurance.

I understand it is not a Constitutional right. Heck, it's not a constitutional right in New Zealand (our sorry excuse for a "constitution" consists of one document in two languages with a very poor translation between them, and a mix of random laws and precedents spread over a wide variety of issues - the right to healthcare, to my knowledge, is not one of them). Thing is, we still have public healthcare provision, along with (almost?) all of the non-US, industrialised world.

If one does not have health insurance in the USA, they must eventually front up with money, correct? Yes, you provided details about how they can apparently pay very little, and how you will not be refused treatment, but there's still a cost involved somewhere, correct? In addition, it's apparent that it can impact your credit rating. Ouch. That surely means that access to healthcare in the United States is at least somewhat limited to the poor.

Now, acknowledging, but disregarding the fact that it is not 'enshrined' in your precious Constitution, can you please justify, on moral grounds, the omission of healthcare as a 'right' of every citizen of your fair land?

I will attempt here my own explanation for why it should be considered a right, even if it is not expressly included in official documents, such as the NZ or US "Constitutions".

Goods such as flash cars, mansions, and PS3s are luxury items. Expensive, unnecessary, and limited to those lucky wealthy enough to have (monetary) access to them. They are not for everyone, and thus there is no "PS3 Stamps" programme of which I am aware. However, goods and services such as basic shelter, food, clothing,and basic education are neccessary, or at least deemed neccessary enough, in our society. If these things, then why not healthcare for people without insurance? I say again: It is a right, as it is neccessary. I agree that people have to work to earn privileges: the Mercedes-Benz to drive past poor people, the PS3, etc. But why should people be forced to work (and this doesn't just mean a job, I use it in the same way you would use "responsibility" or "choices") in order to receive heath care, when it is just as neccessary as shelter, food, clothing, and education? In fact, it is probably more important than education. Restricting access to it (through price; i.e. private businesses/profit seeking) impacts on people's right to a quality of life befitting their place in First World society.

Most people deserve to live exactly how they live, be they rich or poor. I don't deserve to live in a mansion because I didn't earn it, and I don't expect to. On the other hand, I don't deserve to live in a box, because I earned much more than that. If I made bad decisions, squandered my money, screwed myself over to get fired from my job, etc., etc., then I would deserve a much lower quality of life than I enjoy now.

People can earn the privilege of living in a mansion, but living in a box (or lacking food, shelter, sanitation, healthcare) is so inhumane, that it can never be justified. Are poor people animals to you? Maybe they were lazy. Maybe they didn't work hard. Maybe they were just victims of circumstance. But if that means they are suddenly forced to live in a box on the side of the road, I ask what kind of society do you seek? Certainly not a compassionate one.