Obama Healthcare

[Clint]

... 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?

Okay, so what I was talking about and what you're obviously talking about aren't the same things. I was talking about people who need to pay taxes, who don't have enough money to pay taxes. Not people who receive tax money from other tax payers.

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.

Yes, America did borrow aspects from socialism. It doesn't matter how new a political movement is, the fact of the matter is, the Federalist, democratic republic that the government that the country was founded on isn't the same government that we have today. Throughout the history of the country, the style of government used has changed various times, while still maintaining some aspects of the democratic-republic society.

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.

The only reason why government control doesn't work is because America has a week governmental system. If you fix the system, you strengthen stability.

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

It isn't a punishment. More of a responsibility.

People with more money DO NOT PAY PROPORTIONATELY THE SAME AMOUNT. They pay an extreme amount more.

I was literally going by what you said earlier. You said that increasing taxes for the rich was wrong because then the proportion between the amount of money made and the amount of taxes paid would be thrown off balance, with the poor and middle class paying proportionally less based on how much money that they made. If you made a mistake, then you can correct yourself.

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

And if these "fair" taxes continue, hardly anybody will have any money to spend in said businesses, hence causing them to relocate overseas anyway, due to a cutback in the amount of income earned. That's not a permanent solution. That's just doing absolutely nothing and letting things get worse and worse.

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.

Maybe people shouldn't work as hard. If Einstein didn't work as hard, he would have never discovered nuclear fusion. Then, the atomic bomb would have never been created, World War II would have been ended on a more respectable note, the Soviet Union would never have decided to go nuclear, preventing the entire Cold War, and causing wars like Korea and Vietnam to decrease in severity. At worst, the space race would never have happened, but going into space doesn't really benefit mankind, so who the hell gives a damn?

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

One flat tax rate will increase the gap between rich and poor once the boys up top give another industriously large tax cut to the wealthy while seemingly increasing taxes of the working class. It'll end up becoming just another vicious circle.

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.

No, even that person, no matter how disgraceful he may be, deserve to be dirt poor. Just because somebody makes huge mistakes in life doesn't mean that that person should be forced to live with those choices for the rest of his natural life, even though that's what society today offers to people like that. Everybody deserves a shot at redemption.

They are if they make it legally.

There should be a limit. People with too much money have too much power. People with too much power become too corrupted. People who are too corrupted end up making bad decisions which lead to the world being in worse shape than it already was. People need to keep their egos in check.

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.

You're ignorant. You have no idea what goes on in the world. People who are born into poverty aren't presented with many solutions to get them out of poverty. I'm not saying that everybody born with little, little money doesn't become financially successful, but the majority of them die with only about $25,000 to their name.

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.

You know, ignorance can get a man killed. There's a huge difference between being born rich and being born poor. If you're born poor, you aren't presented with many opportunities to get rich. If you're born rich, you're presented with plenty of opportunities to stay rich.

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

You said having more money reflects financial success. I was just giving an example of having financial success by illegal means. However, I wasn't aware that I had to be speaking of a substantial number of wealthy Americans to give a loan example, so pardon me.

... 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?

The government shouldn't have to take responsibility for companies being irresponsible with their bailout. The companies lied to the government, which is the precise reason why they got the bailouts in the first place. Money hungry bloodsucking bastards.

It also makes the world run.

Precisely what's wrong with the world.

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?

The DuPont's take in way over $50,000,000 a year. They own at least half of the major businesses in the state of Delaware. They own the majority of the property in the entire state. Not to mention that they own other businesses in various countries all around the world. The only other business that has come relatively close to competing with them is Astrazeneca, another company that makes well over $50,000,000 a 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.

Trust me, the DuPont's are loaded. Every single one of those inbred bastards is worth a fortune. You may argue your side, but until you live in Delaware, you have no idea the power that this family holds.

We're tried more government control, how about we try less?

I honestly think that if there was less government control, crime rates would skyrocket. I don't think people can be trusted.

... 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.

Alright, I agree with that.

Must be all that brainwashing.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that being brainwashed is a bad thing. It helps rid the soldier of his independence, so instead of thinking in terms of I, he thinks in term of the unit. It makes the person more compatible for war zones, which is why ordinary American citizens wouldn't last a day in Iraq. Not to mention that it makes you stronger.

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.

That's very noble, respectful, and humble.