Obama Healthcare

[Sasquatch]

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.

If you make enough money to need to pay taxes, and you can't afford to pay those taxes, it's because you mismanaged your money. No excuse.

Yes, America did borrow aspects from socialism.

It has borrowed during its existence, not that it did borrow upon its founding. I thought you were referring to its founding, my mistake.

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.

Do you really want to bet on that? Government intervention has been a habitual sure-fire sign of failure -- not just in America, but in plenty of other situations as well. You really think that government involvement only creates problems because the government isn't strong enough? That's like saying that if spanking your kid only causes him to be more rebellious, you need to spank him harder.

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.

I didn't say that -- you need to correct yourself, kid. You know what, I'll do it for you -- I never said that increasing taxes for the rich is wrong because it would throw off the proportions. The proportions are already thrown off -- way off. While it would be wrong to increase the overtaxation on the rich, it's not because then they'd be paying more than their fair share, it's because they're already paying more than their fair share.

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.

You're forgetting that employers would be able to offer wages that are about half again what they can offer now, if they didn't have the shit taxed out of them at every level of production.

The government loves raising taxes on businesses because then the businesses have to raise their prices, leading the people to despise the businesses and the "eeeeevil rich" instead of the government.

... preventing the entire Cold War, and causing wars like Korea and Vietnam to decrease in severity.

How did Korea and Vietnam have anything to do with nuclear weapons?

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?

The space race brought about satellites, the first being the USSR's Sputnik. Now there are hundreds of satellites orbiting the globe, for weather, communications, tracking, etc. I think going into space benefited mankind, wouldn't you say?

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.

Your "vicious circle" no only never existed in the first place (since, despite all the "industriously large tax cuts" that the wealthy have supposedly been given), because the wealthy still pay much, much more than their fair share. And one would assume that, if a flat tax was passed, there would be no tax rate changes at all -- no tax brackets, no different rates, nothing.

With our current tax system, if you make ten dollars and I make a hundred, you pay ten cents, or nothing, or even get a few dollars, while I pay about fifty bucks. Under a flat tax, if you make ten dollars and I make a hundred, you would pay one dollar and I would pay ten -- this, of course, would leave me with another forty dollars to, say, pay my employees more, so you could make eleven or twelve dollars.

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.

Everybody does have a shot at redemption. I've seen many people take that shot. People work themselves out of the gutters all the time. Those that refuse to, however, shouldn't be given the same things that everybody else works for.

If you go with the idea of "nobody deserves to be poor", where's the motivation to work? If I know that I can sit on my ass all day playing video games and drinking but still have a decent place to live, food, etc., why would I care to go get a job and actually pay for the things that everybody else is forced to pay for anyway? I could work and pay for myself, or do nothing and get my stuff paid for by people that do work, so why should I work?

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.

... Are you trying to say that everybody with a lot of money becomes corrupt? Really?

You're ignorant. You have no idea what goes on in the world.

Of course not -- because I haven't lived in over a dozen places in four states, I haven't been to seven countries in three continents -- you know exactly what I've seen and you've seen more, huh kid?

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.

What's their motivation to make money when they know that the government will bail them out when they fail anyway?

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.

I asked about the people, not the company. Do you have any credible evidence that two dozen people in Delaware make over $50,000,000 a year, or do you not?

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

Crime rates, possibly. Government intervention is easily responsible for many problems with America today -- poor education, economy, housing market slump, hell, even the wildfires out West. Crime could be argued both ways. On one hand, of course, the police and the court system (somewhat) deter crime -- they'd work a lot better if our prisons weren't friggin' vacations for some of 'em, but still. On the other, the government making more and more things illegal is what makes more people criminals. And more importantly, a decrease in the restriction of firearms rights has been proven to cause a more immediate, more profound, and more long-lasting decrease in violent crime than has an increase in law enforcement.

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.

So is that training or "brainwashing"? Contrary to popular liberal belief, Soldiers aren't trained to follow orders without question.

That's very noble, respectful, and humble.

Thank you. Most civilians don't understand that the military is like a brotherhood. Do you have a brother? Those of us that do (or any sibling, most likely) can relate. I have a brother and a sister, but my sister was the one that started most of the fights. We'd argue, yell, even fight -- but I'd also beat the hell out of somebody just to protect her name. The Army and the Marine Corps. have the biggest rivalry out of the four branches of military. We all have nicknames for each other, different ways to make fun of each other, but when it comes down to it, we're brothers.

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.

The thing is, when the wealthier people get to keep more of they money they earn, they are able to pay their employees more. The wealthiest 5% of Americans employ 80% of the rest of the country.

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 ...

Well, of course it would be gradual and not sudden. That's too big of a change to say, "BAM, we're doin' it this way now!"

... mostly since the people that pay currently 35% may probably have a serious buffer in case things go wrong ...

A buffer ... you mean like the banks and automobile industry had?

... some people almost completely depend on their income, to the point that they must sacrifice at times food in order to pay their bills.

Some people, yes. I think it's safe to say that the majority of the people that fall into that group have misprioritized their finances. My sister and her former husband were those kinds of people, who had to do whatever they could for grocery money -- but you bet your ass they watched cable TV on a flatscreen every evening. Hell, my neighbor has asked me for a couple bucks to make his rent, said he was about twenty bucks short. Every time I see that guy, he's got a beer in his hand.

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.

You've got to remember, part of this whole "mortgage crisis" thing that America's going through was caused by people trying to live beyond their means, buying houses that they couldn't afford. (Of course, that wouldn't have happened if the federal government hadn't forced banks to give out loans they knew they wouldn't get back, but that's another story.)

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.

... Dude, you totally lost me.

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?

The Federal IRS uses the W-2 form as well -- but you're talking two different issues. If you get all the money back that you paid, you're not getting anything. Sure, you're not "paying your fair share", but you're not sucking from other taxpayers, either. I don't think many states have too much for tax credits, only deductions, so the least you'd pay to state taxes would be zero, instead of getting money. I don't know, but I would imagine that PR operates like most states.

The federal IRS, however, has the "Earned Income Tax Credit" (which is anything but earned, but I digress). Remember the example I posted of somebody making $20k/yr and getting another $3600? Not just paying nothing, but receiving $3600? That's because of the EITC. If you make under a certain amount of money, you can opt (all you have to do is put a checkmark in the box and write a few numbers) to receive the EITC, which is exactly fellow taxpayers giving you money.

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.

Ah, gotcha -- kind of like what most HMOs do. Thanks for the explanation ... and yes, that would deeply suck.

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.

Of course it's a change -- I'm saying that sometimes, there's no need to change the entire car, just put some new parts on it. With the American healthcare system -- or more accurately, the American health insurance system -- it needs to be changed, of course, but trading it for a different car would be a big mistake.

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.

Exactly.