Election '08: So, are doctors hosed?

[LADoc00]

Looks like Alcibiades.

LOL just noticed that too.. but it is not. Mostly Alkibiádēs is depicted without facial hair anyway, but that is a solid guess although greatest leader in human history is a total stretch. Good general, yes.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[stickyshift]

Looks like Alcibiades.[/quot

 

[djmd]

Youre asking this because you dont truly understand where our tax dollars go. We could easily eliminate federal income tax today in fact with minimal disruption to our lives (and much increased consumer spending/personal enjoyment). Realize economies are somewhat closed systems, money doesnt get eaten by the dollar goblin if the government doesnt tax it immediately. Crazy I know, there is NO dollar goblin/troll! Tax CONSUMPTION AND USAGE, not income.

I was asking because I didn't see you mention consumption tax....

I understand how they work...

And that is a bust of M.A.A. (M.A. to his friends)

 

[LADoc00]

And that is a bust of M.A.A. (M.A. to his friends)

You win. Your prize is in the mail.

 

[djmd]

Thank you thank you...

I'm just glad I don't have to pay tax on LA DOC gold stars...

 

[schrute]

LOLOLOLOLOL...conversation devolves into discussion of French revolution, which was crazy bloodthirsty slaughter for the most part and utterly devoid of any intellectual underpinnings for the participants...

Only in the pathology forum.

 

[EUA]

All Obama would do is reverse the Tax Cuts of Bush, so it really isn't a Tax Increase. It will just go back to how it was before Bush for the top few percent of the wealthy. Everyone is spazzing out for no reason. Bush ruined the country and its economy so don't be mad about Obama reversing his tax cuts. 95% of america will have more money to spend on their path and lab bills. Isn't that a good thing?

 

[106174]

All Obama would do is reverse the Tax Cuts of Bush, so it really isn't a Tax Increase. It will just go back to how it was before Bush for the top few percent of the wealthy. Everyone is spazzing out for no reason. Bush ruined the country and its economy so don't be mad about Obama reversing his tax cuts. 95% of america will have more money to spend on their path and lab bills. Isn't that a good thing?

95% --- seriously??? are you really buying this talking point???

 

[schrute]

I don't want to go on a rant, here, but America's foreign policy makes about as much sense as Beowulf having sex with Robert Fulton at the first battle of Antietam. I mean when a neo-conservative defenestrates it's like Raskolnikov filibuster deoxymonohydroxinate...

 

[EUA]

95% --- seriously??? are you really buying this talking point???

I was hoping that original post was just poor use of sarcasm, but I'm not certain.

 

[Ziehl-Neelsen]

More like this man, perhaps the greatest non-religious leader in human history.

1 LADOC gold star to whom can tell me the man I refer to...

Receive wealth or prosperity without arrogance; and be ready to let it go.

Marcus Aurelius is a great man to be sure, but those who would order their lives correctly must adhere to the teachings of Epictetus (as Marcus Aurelius did).

I would advise all those who wish to live stoic lives to make the Enchiridion and The Consolation of Philosophy their bosom companion.

 

[MOHS_01]

You path f'ers are crazy.

 

[Path or bust]

You path f'ers are crazy.

Yes, agreed. I say that those involved with such conversations, as above, just have too much time on their hands and should be taxed accordingly for said time.

 

[BAM!]

ok - i think a lot of you are missing the point. The proposed tax increase isn't aimed at doctors and small business owners who make 250K. The bulk of the revenue generated from the increased taxes will come from corporate executives making millions of dollars per year.

You have to set a cut off point somewhere. Of course people on the fringe will be upset, but this would happen not matter where the cut off is placed.

The US dollar sucks so much right now because of the huge trade deficit. Other countries are beginning to value our currency less and less because we owe so much of it to China. McCain would increase that deficit by keeping us in Iraq. This stubbornness can only have negative consequences for our future economy, which will affect our lifestyles more than a 3% tax increase. Wallstreet dropped 40%, which was started by the housing crisis, but was so extreme because of the lack of faith in the US market...

Please vote responsibly, not superficially selfishly. Think big picture and long term.

And remember that McCain's choice of Palin disqualifies him of the presidency.

 

[yaah]

But the US dollar has improved ~20-25% against the pound and euro in the past couple of months. It is now close to real purchasing power equivalency, although not quite. Dollars have rebounded in the past few months because the rest of the world seems to be even riskier than the US to invest in.

I agree though, my lifestyle seems to be more negatively impacted by a government run by the increasingly intolerant and profligate spending religious right than by a mild tax increase. I wish McCain didn't morph into something unrecognizable in the past 2 years as compared to what he was in 2000.

 

[earmuff]

I agree though, my lifestyle seems to be more negatively impacted by a government run by the increasingly intolerant and profligate spending religious right than by a mild tax increase. I wish McCain didn't morph into something unrecognizable in the past 2 years as compared to what he was in 2000.

 

[earmuff]

And remember that McCain's choice of Palin disqualifies him of the presidency.

 

[LADoc00]

And remember that McCain's choice of Palin disqualifies him of the presidency.

This is stupid and shows your own partisan ******ation in an otherwise interesting discussion about where politics should be focusing...

anyone can do the same thing, watch:

Barry Obama was a serious coke head at Occidental (and beyond ??). Even more interesting is that this poster lived next to Occidental when Barry attended the school and knew cops who popped the crowd Barry rolled with because they were growing mary jane in the dorms.

If that does QUALIFY you to be president, I have about 20+ guys currently in my hospital's medical guard unit from county lock up who can sit on his cabinet.

Sheesh, if someone had told me a black cokehead attending college in Eagle Rock (shout out to those who know where this is..) would become president, I would have laughed my butt off. Akin to claiming the TV actor Corky would win a Nobel...

Hows them apples?

 

[Elias]

Sorry to hijack this thread, but I'm experiencing a technical problem: I can't seem to post my own thread - my internet crashes each time while loading after clicking the "New thread" button. Do any of you know how to solve this problem? Thanks!

 

[djmd]

I wish McCain didn't morph into something unrecognizable in the past 2 years as compared to what he was in 2000.

This would be a vastly different election if McCain hadn't drunk the religious right kool-aid...

I'm not sure he could have on the primaries without it sadly, but that is the current makeup of the republican base...

I heard it summed up as the Eggheads vs the dittoheads...

 

[2121115]

This would be a vastly different election if McCain hadn't drunk the religious right kool-aid...

I agree, McCain sold out to please the Republican base. I'm not sure why though, its not like they were going to vote for Obama ya know. McCain isn't the most popular guy with the Republican base, but in the general election he would draw all those votes in a "lesser of two evils" situation. As far as the primaries though, he did have to morph a little to beat Huckabee. Still though, he didn't have to pick Palin to please the party base in the general election- not a smart move.

 

[djmd]

I agree, McCain sold out to please the Republican base. I'm not sure why though, its not like they were going to vote for Obama ya know. McCain isn't the most popular guy with the Republican base, but in the general election he would draw all those votes in a "lesser of two evils" situation. As far as the primaries though, he did have to morph a little to beat Huckabee. Still though, he didn't have to pick Palin to please the party base in the general election- not a smart move.

Actually if McCain had done a little worse Romney would have won....
OrRoomney could have won if Huckabee wasn't in so long... McCain often 'won' states with 33-40 of votes... with Romney 1-5% behind him

He is lucky that the republicans have so many winner take all states..

 

[earmuff]

All I'm saying is McCain would have been a good choice without the religious baggage in the luggage compartment of his straight-talk express. It doesn't bode well for progress when you have people in charge who don't believe in it.

 

[djmd]

All I'm saying is McCain would have been a good choice without the religious baggage in the luggage compartment of his straight-talk express. It doesn't bode well for progress when you have people in charge who don't believe in it.

True.
I'm just pointing out that there is a fight brewing for the heart of the Republican party...

With the McCain/Romney camp blaming the Palin/Bush camp for this loss, and vice-versa...

Fiscal conservative vs Social conservative/religious right....

 

[yaah]

True.
I'm just pointing out that there is a fight brewing for the heart of the Republican party...

With the McCain/Romney camp blaming the Palin/Bush camp for this loss, and vice-versa...

Fiscal conservative vs Social conservative/religious right....

I think the social conservative/religious right wing will win out, at least temporarily. I suspect (this is all contingent on Obama winning tomorrow, which I don't think is guaranteed but is more likely than not) the religious right will basically front the candidate for the next election in 2012 (possibly Palin, depending on what she does over the next four years). Then the election will be akin to the Reagan-Mondale whipping in 1984 or Nixon-McGovern in 1972 (winning at most 5 states - AL, OK, AK, MS, TX) and then the real blow up will begin, possibly leading to its breaking up and formation of a third party based on fundamentalist "moral" values.

I also am highly suspicious of Alaskans re-electing Ted Stevens, who will then resign and Palin will appoint herself as Senator with an eye on 2012.

Sorry LADoc, but the choice of Palin does disqualify McCain from the presidency in my mind as well. She is out of her league, at least at this stage of her career, and her politics is based entirely on jingoism, splitting, anti-intellectualism, and appeals to religious extremism as a basis for government. McCain could have won back my vote by dumping her and replacing her with Romney or Lieberman (who I dislike). I even could have stomached Huckabee because he at least demonstrates that he has critical thinking skills, even if many of his conclusions are from bizarro-world.

 

[djmd]

I think the social conservative/religious right wing will win out, at least temporarily. I suspect (this is all contingent on Obama winning tomorrow, which I don't think is guaranteed but is more likely than not) the religious right will basically front the candidate for the next election in 2012 (possibly Palin, depending on what she does over the next four years). Then the election will be akin to the Reagan-Mondale whipping in 1984 or Nixon-McGovern in 1972 (winning at most 5 states - AL, OK, AK, MS, TX) and then the real blow up will begin, possibly leading to its breaking up and formation of a third party based on fundamentalist "moral" values.

I also am highly suspicious of Alaskans re-electing Ted Stevens, who will then resign and Palin will appoint herself as Senator with an eye on 2012.

Sorry LADoc, but the choice of Palin does disqualify McCain from the presidency in my mind as well. She is out of her league, at least at this stage of her career, and her politics is based entirely on jingoism, splitting, anti-intellectualism, and appeals to religious extremism as a basis for government. McCain could have won back my vote by dumping her and replacing her with Romney or Lieberman (who I dislike). I even could have stomached Huckabee because he at least demonstrates that he has critical thinking skills, even if many of his conclusions are from bizarro-world.

I love the part about Huckabee...

The Senator Palin scenario is likely except that it requires Stevens to be re-ellected, which I do not expect to happen... If he was that is exactly what would happen, but he won't be.. so the Dems will take his seat..


The 2012 Obama incumbant blow out could very well happen... If the economy turns arround enough that he is popular, which will in turn weaken the fiscal conservative Repubs thus opening the door for the far right of the party to push Huckabee (I doubt Palin could make it on her own)...
Who likely would likely loose the way you describe...

 

[schrute]

True.
I'm just pointing out that there is a fight brewing for the heart of the Republican party...
With the McCain/Romney camp blaming the Palin/Bush camp for this loss, and vice-versa...

Fiscal conservative vs Social conservative/religious right....

I agree with you, but I think it's more of a social conservative / religious right vs traditional conservatives / classic liberals--the fiscal conservatives are usually just libertarians.

Most trad cons / classic liberals really don't like Bush's social "conservatism" and his appeal to the least common denominator of the republican base, but like you said, they pick the lesser of two evils. His philosophy is "If we're going to have big government, it may as well be a Republican big government."

I'm not entirely happy with the Republican party, but I'm not going to go so far as to vote for Obama to "show my disgust" (eg. the excuse Chris Buckley used when he defected from National Review to the Obama camp).


BTW...Bizzaro Mike Huckabee a la Seinfeld = Rev. Wright.

 

[djmd]

Most trad cons / classic liberals really don't like Bush's social "conservatism" and his appeal to the least common denominator of the republican base, but like you said, they pick the lesser of two evils. His philosophy is "If we're going to have big government, it may as well be a Republican big government."

I'm not entirely happy with the Republican party, but I'm not going to go so far as to vote for Obama to "show my disgust" (eg. the excuse Chris Buckley used when he defected from National Review to the Obama camp).

Of course, most traditional conservatives don't like the religious right...

And some of them will go with the big republican government idea... but they go dragging their feet. They aren't donating a lot, they aren't ringing door bells, etc... and some will start to defect, obviously they would have to be fairly centrist to begin with but end result is the loss to supporters...

The pendulum of the republican party has swung too far to religious right, it is time for it to swing back, and it has to before the republicans will be making significant gains...

Buckley is making a statement to that effect...
The problem is that the people voting for Huckabee well after it became clear that he was not going to make it were sending the opposite message...

 

[Nilf]

Sorry LADoc, but the choice of Palin does disqualify McCain from the presidency in my mind as well. She is out of her league, at least at this stage of her career, and her politics is based entirely on jingoism, splitting, anti-intellectualism, and appeals to religious extremism as a basis for government. McCain could have won back my vote by dumping her and replacing her with Romney or Lieberman (who I dislike). I even could have stomached Huckabee because he at least demonstrates that he has critical thinking skills, even if many of his conclusions are from bizarro-world.

I wouldn't be so harsh on McCain. He had to take many things into consideration when choosing running mate. By choosing Palin, he took a big, albeit calculated risk. His goal was to appeal for the republican base and to raise enthusiasm among the ranks. It worked for a bit, but now it seems that he made a mistake. We'll find out tomorrow.

 

[djmd]

I wouldn't be so harsh on McCain. He had to take many things into consideration when choosing running mate. By choosing Palin, he took a big, albeit calculated risk. His goal was to appeal for the republican base and to raise enthusiasm among the ranks. It worked for a bit, but now it seems that he made a mistake. We'll find out tomorrow.

His goal was to get Hillary voters, have a historic ticket and to have an attack dog who couldn't be attacked....

You describe what he ended up with...

And i think there is a strong likelihood that she was not the first choice....(and definitely not his first choice)

 

[abcabc1]

It is just going back to the way it was during the roaring 90s under Bill Clinton. Weren't those good times?

If you can't handle the extra tax, quit doctoring and go into a profession where you work just as hard and earn 55K. That way you will get a piece of the pie from those of us earning 250K and feel good and happy about wealth redistribution via the tax code instead of pissed and scared.

Anyone who thinks this way is an absolute idiot. The conditions during the Clinton Presidency were different than during the current Bush Presidency. Since Clinton left, we have gone through the bust of the Tech boom, the bust of the Telecom boom (which was, perhaps, more damaging than the Tech boom), 9-11-01, the Iraq war, the housing boom and bust, credit crisis, formation of the Homeland Security dept and increased spending overall. It infuriates me when people like Hillary Clinton and Lanny Davis use this analogy, b/c it insults our intelligence. Davis and Clinton are not dumb enough to believe this themselves, but they know there are enough idiots out there who will.

It's like saying if person X studies 10 hours for a test and scored 95%, then person Y will score 95% if they also spend 10 hours studying for the same test.

 

[Nilf]

His goal was to get Hillary voters, have a historic ticket and to have an attack dog who couldn't be attacked....

You describe what he ended up with...

And i think there is a strong likelihood that she was not the first choice....(and definitely not his first choice)

Yes, what you say is true as well... My point is, don't be too harsh on McCain just because he chose her. His ideal running made would be a black ex-Marine mother of four, who graduated from Harvard Law, created a mutli-million business, can recite Proust, speaks four languages, and has extensive centrist voting record. Sadly, he had to settle for Palin. You have to do politics with what you've got.

 

[schrute]

nevermind.
good luck to everyone tomorrow.

 

[stickyshift]

Yes, what you say is true as well... My point is, don't be too harsh on McCain just because he chose her. His ideal running made would be a black ex-Marine mother of four, who graduated from Harvard Law, created a mutli-million business, can recite Proust, speaks four languages, and has extensive centrist voting record.

. . . All great accomplishments, all discounted because she would be a Republican.

 

[djmd]

. . . All great accomplishments, all discounted because she would be a Republican.

Maybe if the republicans went with someone who had accomplished something like say Olympia Snowe or Christine Todd Whitman, then you wouldn't feel they were discounted...

Oh wait they are both moderates who are pro-choice... I see why the GOP won't use them....

 

[stickyshift]

Maybe if the republicans went with someone who had accomplished something like say Olympia Snowe or Christine Todd Whitman, then you wouldn't feel they were discounted...

Oh wait they are both moderates who are pro-choice... I see why the GOP won't use them....

Trust me . . . with some people it's all about political affiliation: if Sarah Palin was Obama's running mate, liberals would be indignant with any criticism of her record. "Excuse me, she's just the most popular governor in the United States, who got there by running an incredible grassroots campaign against an entrenched Republican party, all while raising a Down's kid, blah, blah, blah."
Condoleeza Rice is an incredibly accomplished woman, but is not considered an appropriate role model for women or African-Americans because she's Republican.
Colin Powell, another outstanding person of service and accomplishment, was hardly venerated by the media or liberals until he came out for Obama.
Liberals also thought that McCain was one of the most respected members of the Senate (just ask Biden) until he became the Republican nominee. All of a sudden his record of courage, integrity,and bipartisanship counted for nothing.
So your snipe about the Republicans failing to field accomplished women worthy of admiration and respect is disingenuous. The most important thing is politics.

 

[djmd]

Trust me . . . with some people it's all about political affiliation: if Sarah Palin was Obama's running mate, liberals would be indignant with any criticism of her record. "Excuse me, she's just the most popular governor in the United States, who got there by running an incredible grassroots campaign against an entrenched Republican party, all while raising a Down's kid, blah, blah, blah."
Condoleeza Rice is an incredibly accomplished woman, but is not considered an appropriate role model for women or African-Americans because she's Republican.
Colin Powell, another outstanding person of service and accomplishment, was hardly venerated by the media or liberals until he came out for Obama.
Liberals also thought that McCain was one of the most respected members of the Senate (just ask Biden) until he became the Republican nominee. All of a sudden his record of courage, integrity,and bipartisanship counted for nothing.
So your snipe about the Republicans failing to field accomplished women worthy of admiration and respect is disingenuous. The most important thing is politics.

Of course the talking head politicos would be flipped in their attacks Sarah Palin if she on the democratic ticket.

Just like the people who defended her cried that attack on her were sexist, but two months earlier they attack Hillary Clinton in the exact same way.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=184086&title=Sarah-Palin-Gender-Card


Liberals liked McCain before he drank the kool-aid... and I don't where you get the impression that Colin Powel hasn't been considered respected. (except for his UN speech about the Iraq war)...


The point isn't what attacks are made, the point is what people's impression is.. and there are some people who will only see party affiliation, others actually decided on a person by person basis.

But just because people are attacking Palin as being an ill informed, self serving canidate with limitated experience doesn't make it not true. Oh and she isn't the governor with the highest approval rating anymore, her approval has dropped over 10% to 68%...

How exactly is my statement about failing to put someone like Snowe or Whitman instead of Palin who have more experiance but are pro-choice, disingenuous?

 

[abcabc1]

I think people are being overly dramatic. The increase in taxes he is proposing (which is just a proposal and therefore unlikely to ever see daylight in its current form without compromise, which means it's probably a bigger increase than will actually happen) is an extra 3% on income >$250k, thus, $3000 for every $100k (instead of $36k you pay $39k). There are other vaguaries involved, of course, and no doubt billions of loopholes, but it wouldn't be the end of the world. I hate taxes too but unfortunately the last 8 years of so-called "conservatives" in control have ballooned the government way too much and now we have to suffer for the excesses.

The increase in the top marginal tax rate is 4.6% (39.6-35). In addition, these people will pay payroll/FICA/social security tax of 2-4% (again, Obama will not pick a firm stance) on income grater than $250k. They will also suffer increased cap gains and dividends taxes (from 15% to 20%, at least). Another way to think of these taxes is (4.6/35), which is a 13% increase in the top marginal rax rate and a 33% (or higher) increase in dividends and cap gains. Remember, companies have already paid taxes on the money given out as dividends and retail investors use after tax savings to buy stock.

Why should someone who has worked hard, made good decisions, been responsible and stayed out of trouble be penalized to provide money for those less successful (many of whom have made poor decisions, been irresponsible, been lazy and gotten into trouble)? It's pathetic.

 

[yaah]

Why should someone who has worked hard, made good decisions, been responsible and stayed out of trouble be penalized to provide money for those less successful (many of whom have made poor decisions, been irresponsible, been lazy and gotten into trouble)? It's pathetic.

Because the country is being bankrupted by the opposite. I think it sucks too, but unfortunately that is the situation we are in. Denying reality doesn't really solve any problems. And the more things go, the more problems are created for society at large. Unless you live without electricity in the wilds somewhere and are self sufficient, tax dollars are needed to provide you with things you need to survive and enjoy life.

 

[schrute]

Unless you live without electricity in the wilds somewhere and are self sufficient, tax dollars are needed to provide you with things you need to survive and enjoy life.

That's only true due to the reality that MOST of us live in areas that provide default government services, not because we're all entitled to it. No disrespect, yaah, but to suggest the 17 delegated powers include the use of tax dollars to provide people with the means to "enjoy life" [other than what we provide for the general welfare of everyone (fire dept, post office, military)] is about as unconstitutional as you can get.

It is not the responsibility of the govt to provide food, water, shelter, health care, flat screen TVs, houses, dental exams, organic food, Ray Bans, recycling services, whatever...because Congress cannot deny equal protection of the laws.

That's not to suggest politicians haven't ignored this...most have, including nearly every President. But past discrepancies don't justify the blanket acceptance of State sponsored LIFE.

What the hell else is there to live for if every "need" and aspect of life for you to "enjoy" is simply provided to you courtesy of tax dollars, in essence, from "each according to his ability"?

 

[Gut Shot]

That's only true due to the reality that MOST of us live in areas that provide default government services, not because we're all entitled to it. No disrespect, yaah, but to suggest the 17 delegated powers include the use of tax dollars to provide people with the means to "enjoy life" [other than what we provide for the general welfare of everyone (fire dept, post office, military)] is about as unconstitutional as you can get.

It is not the responsibility of the govt to provide food, water, shelter, health care, flat screen TVs, houses, dental exams, organic food, Ray Bans, recycling services, whatever...because Congress cannot deny equal protection of the laws.

That's not to suggest politicians haven't ignored this...most have, including nearly every President. But past discrepancies don't justify the blanket acceptance of State sponsored LIFE.

What the hell else is there to live for if every "need" and aspect of life for you to "enjoy" is simply provided to you courtesy of tax dollars, in essence, from "each according to his ability"?

What the **** are you talking about?

 

[TypicalTuesday]

Trust me . . . with some people it's all about political affiliation: if Sarah Palin was Obama's running mate, liberals would be indignant with any criticism of her record. "Excuse me, she's just the most popular governor in the United States, who got there by running an incredible grassroots campaign against an entrenched Republican party, all while raising a Down's kid, blah, blah, blah."
Condoleeza Rice is an incredibly accomplished woman, but is not considered an appropriate role model for women or African-Americans because she's Republican.
Colin Powell, another outstanding person of service and accomplishment, was hardly venerated by the media or liberals until he came out for Obama.
Liberals also thought that McCain was one of the most respected members of the Senate (just ask Biden) until he became the Republican nominee. All of a sudden his record of courage, integrity,and bipartisanship counted for nothing.
So your snipe about the Republicans failing to field accomplished women worthy of admiration and respect is disingenuous. The most important thing is politics.

Do I detect some bitterness because of possible manipulation of politics by media who may or may not be feeding out of the liberal hand? NO, that could not be, the media is objective, remember?

 

[yaah]

That's only true due to the reality that MOST of us live in areas that provide default government services, not because we're all entitled to it. No disrespect, yaah, but to suggest the 17 delegated powers include the use of tax dollars to provide people with the means to "enjoy life" [other than what we provide for the general welfare of everyone (fire dept, post office, military)] is about as unconstitutional as you can get.

It is not the responsibility of the govt to provide food, water, shelter, health care, flat screen TVs, houses, dental exams, organic food, Ray Bans, recycling services, whatever...because Congress cannot deny equal protection of the laws.

That's not to suggest politicians haven't ignored this...most have, including nearly every President. But past discrepancies don't justify the blanket acceptance of State sponsored LIFE.

What the hell else is there to live for if every "need" and aspect of life for you to "enjoy" is simply provided to you courtesy of tax dollars, in essence, from "each according to his ability"?

What? This makes no sense. I was talking about how basic necessities help one to enjoy life, because they improve conditions. Sewage. Electricity. Public schools. Roads. Traffic lights. Police. If you live anywhere where other people live these things are vital. I am happy to give back some percentage of my income so that raw sewage does not run in the streets and marauding gangs of highwaymen do not invade my property with only me to defend it. We are entitled to these things because we pay taxes. Part of the compromise is that those who do not participate in the tax system also get to have them. The question is how much we give in taxes. It is already too much, but unfortunately because there is so much waste and inefficiency we have overloaded the system and now need to give more of it back. Sucks but true.

Last time I checked no one was proposing to give everyone Ray Bans and Plasma TVs. These are luxuries for which personal money is used, money which many of us earn and many of us do not. Money cannot be earned without an open society which requires others to purchase or otherwise compensate you for services you provide. These luxuries would do you little good in a country without government. People who use government funding to purchase luxuries should stop getting government funding. This is part of waste, which needs to be eliminated so that the excessive amount of money we pay in taxes is not wasted. Waste takes many forms, from freeloaders to corruption to inefficiency. If Obama doesn't address these things he will likely be a one term president.

Personally I do not agree that the government should be providing health care to everyone, houses, etc, anything beyond basic necessities of survival, plus some things that make life easier for everyone like public transportation, good roads, etc. But the republican party cares more about social issues now than financial issues so they aren't going to help matters either. They are just going to make things worse until they figure out what they really stand for and that railing on about social issues doesn't really help anyone except their reelection bids.

 

[schrute]

What? This makes no sense. I was talking about how basic necessities help one to enjoy life, because they improve conditions. Sewage. Electricity. Public schools. Roads. Traffic lights. Police. If you live anywhere where other people live these things are vital. I am happy to give back some percentage of my income so that raw sewage does not run in the streets and marauding gangs of highwaymen do not invade my property with only me to defend it. We are entitled to these things because we pay taxes. Part of the compromise is that those who do not participate in the tax system also get to have them. The question is how much we give in taxes. It is already too much, but unfortunately because there is so much waste and inefficiency we have overloaded the system and now need to give more of it back. Sucks but true.

Last time I checked no one was proposing to give everyone Ray Bans and Plasma TVs. These are luxuries for which personal money is used, money which many of us earn and many of us do not. Money cannot be earned without an open society which requires others to purchase or otherwise compensate you for services you provide. These luxuries would do you little good in a country without government. People who use government funding to purchase luxuries should stop getting government funding. This is part of waste, which needs to be eliminated so that the excessive amount of money we pay in taxes is not wasted. Waste takes many forms, from freeloaders to corruption to inefficiency. If Obama doesn't address these things he will likely be a one term president.

Personally I do not agree that the government should be providing health care to everyone, houses, etc, anything beyond basic necessities of survival, plus some things that make life easier for everyone like public transportation, good roads, etc. But the republican party cares more about social issues now than financial issues so they aren't going to help matters either. They are just going to make things worse until they figure out what they really stand for and that railing on about social issues doesn't really help anyone except their reelection bids.

I was just gauging my response to the context of your reply to abc:

"abc: Why should someone who has worked hard, made good decisions, been responsible and stayed out of trouble be penalized to provide money for those less successful (many of whom have made poor decisions, been irresponsible, been lazy and gotten into trouble)? It's pathetic.

yaah: Because the country is being bankrupted by the opposite. I think it sucks too, but unfortunately that is the situation we are in. Denying reality doesn't really solve any problems. And the more things go, the more problems are created for society at large. Unless you live without electricity in the wilds somewhere and are self sufficient, tax dollars are needed to provide you with things you need to survive and enjoy life. "

He was talking about redistribution, which you appeared to justify, despite the fact that it "sucks."

And the TV thing was sarcasm...I was merely pointing out the ******edness of trying to draw the line between what the govt is required to provide and what it's not, which is what I stated in previous posts: ex: if the govt is responsibole for health care, where do we draw the line: Dental exams? 1 MRI / yr? Only preventative medicine? Free prescription glasses but only the cheap-o child-molester brand?

I don't buy the premise that govt is required to provide everything you "need" or everything to "enjoy life," and like you, that the govt shouldn't provide health care, housing, etc...I was merely suggesting that SOME people would consider every "need" and creature-comfort of life govt provisions, which is what your post sounded like with your response being a rebuttal to abc's post decrying the use of tax dollars for welfare.

Anyway, I don't plan on spending the next 4 yrs whining and moaning that "Obama is not my President" a la the Bush haters for the past 8 years...it's pathetic and annoying. He's just as much my President as he is everyones, and I hope he does as fantastic of a job as everyone who voted for him thinks he will.

 

[djmd]

What the **** are you talking about?

Hey Gutshot... I like the new avatar...

I thought that was photo-shopped, and then I realized, that really is Harvey Keitel... what does he have a perm in that movie or what???

 

[LADoc00]

Barry's campaign called me this morning, apparently Im near the top of the list for the big "wealth redistribution" plan.

sucks.

 

[Path_Anon]

Why should someone who has worked hard, made good decisions, been responsible and stayed out of trouble be penalized to provide money for those less successful (many of whom have made poor decisions, been irresponsible, been lazy and gotten into trouble)? It's pathetic.

Amen to that my brother (or sister). Basically, we (>250K'ers) are all f*cked. I hope the shmuck that ends up with my "taxed" hard-earned $$ goes berzerk with the money blowing it all on hookers in vegas or something. At least make me proud of my lost $.

Hell, maybe I should just go into to academics. At least I know then I won't have to worry about Obama's pickpocket tax scheme.

 

[Kitra101]

Amen to that my brother (or sister). Basically, we (>250K'ers) are all f*cked. I hope the shmuck that ends up with my "taxed" hard-earned $$ goes berzerk with the money blowing it all on hookers in vegas or something. At least make me proud of my lost $.

Hell, maybe I should just go into to academics. At least I know then I won't have to worry about Obama's pickpocket tax scheme.

Academics is sounding pretty sweet indeed.

 

[Gut Shot]

Want to know why your taxes are going to go up? Here's a clue:

Sure you're pissed, we all are. But stop for a moment and direct your anger at the people who got us here, not the ones who will hopefully try to dig us out:

P.S. In case anyone has forgotten, both Reagan and Bush 41 both raised taxes during their terms. Reagan when the "rosy scenario" failed to pan out, and Bush 41 to sweep up some of the vomit from the 1980's economic hangover.

 

[Pingu]

Basically, we (>250K'ers) are all f*cked.

Not necessarily. It's time to find a great accountant. Not just a good one, but a great one. Start educating yourself on financial planning and tax law. We won't dodge the bullet completely, but with proper planning, you can make sure it just grazes you and doesn't sever a major artery.