Obama Healthcare

[Clint]

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.

Most times it's because of mismanagement of finances. Sometimes, though, it'd due to outside purposes, such as the economy. Somebody not always having enough money to pay taxes isn't always that person's fault. There are plenty of people in today's society currently going through that very situation.

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.

Maybe you're right on that part, but less government control doesn't solve anything, either. If you give people too much freedom, you don't know what kind of shit they're going to get themselves into.

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.

The thing about it is, they're the only ones who can afford to be overtaxes. If it were in proper proportion, and the middle and lower-classes were being overtaxed to a larger extent, that would essentially get rid of the middle-class entirely, hence further weakening the country's already weak economic system.

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.

The government, by doing that, is actually hurting the economy. Businesses have to raise prices, people are already beginning to struggle for money, so consumption of any product is going to go down, and the business is eventually going to lose so much money that it'll go out of business.

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

Nothing, really. The Cold War had to do with nuclear weapons, and the Korean and Vietnam wars involved communism, which involved the Soviet Union, and it's opposition, the United States. So those wars didn't involve nuclear weapons directly.

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?

To an extent, yes, but you have to take into consideration who it was sending the majority of those satellites into space. Two of the most untrustworthy countries of the 20th century; the Soviet Union and the United States. Who's to say there isn't an old Cold War-era satellite orbiting earth fully equipped with nuclear warheads?

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.

To be honest, the flat tax rate sounds a hundred times better than the current one. It would probably work, but by doing so, the government would lose money. Everybody knows how much the government loves money.

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.

They shouldn't have to be homeless, though. Prisoners, people who've broken the law (most people in prison, at least) have a roof over their head. Everybody on the outside should have one, too. This situation coincides with the healthcare situation. Prisoners get free medical treatment, and so should everybody else.

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?

Obviously doing nothing isn't going to make anybody a living, unless if you're getting money through one of the government's programs, such as collecting unemployment or welfare, or if you're retired and get a pension... or if you're a priest and don't need to pay for anything. It's a vicious circle. Nobody deserves to be dirt poor, but on the other hand, nobody deserves to get their money for nothing.

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

Some do, yes. Not in the sense of doing anything illegal, just in their ways of thinking and moral values. Others do get into illegal activity, but that's a much lower percentage.

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

Their motive is to be responsible, and it's the government's motive to accept that they were irresponsible, and therefore, allow them to bail themselves out. Whether the business closes down or not depends on how successful their attempts to bail themselves out are. But I don't blame the government for bailing them out. It's not the government's fault that the businesses are run by greedy corporate hounds.

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?

Last year, DuPont made 32 million dollars in America alone. Now that's not 50 million like I said, but that's also not including the 70+ other countries that their multiple businesses are located in. The CEO of DuPont in Delaware, a man named Charles O. Holliday, makes an average of ten million dollars a year. Keep in mind, he's not a DuPont. Evidence to back up how much the DuPont's make is hard to find. They're very secluded. Nobody even knows for sure how many there are. But by living in Delaware, I can damn well guarantee you that they make well over 50 million dollars a year. Especially considering that they own more than half of the entire state.

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.

I agree with you there. There are some restrictions and laws in America preventing some really stupid petty shit. Every state could save a lot of money releasing petty criminals from their prisons. Did you know it costs an average of $300,000 a year to hold one prisoner? By mass releases, that's a hell of a lot of money saved. So I agree with you in that respect. I also agree that the education system in America, the economy, and most other things that the government has intervened in have worsened them, but cutting back on government control when the government isn't already working won't solve anything, because underlying everything will still be a beaten, war-torn system of government. The government desperately needs to go through mass reform.

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

I'm not sure if soldiers are trained to follow orders without question or not. In order to find out for myself, I'd have to join the military, but that's not for me. However, in a sense, military training is brainwashing, due to the fact that they get you to change your ways of thinking. It's actually very beneficial, especially on a battle field.

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.

I can understand that. I have two brothers and two cousins who I see as my brother and sister who get on my damn nerves, but I would do anything for them. I'm guessing that's kind of like what relationships in the military are like.