- Joined
- Feb 25, 2008
- Messages
- 2
- Reaction score
- 0
Hey BladeMDA - super cool name and avatar, btw. Can you expand on this point? Would love to hear ideas on how to do this.
Obama the Socialist
- Thread starter BLADEMDA
- Start date
Hey BladeMDA - super cool name and avatar, btw. Can you expand on this point? Would love to hear ideas on how to do this.
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2008
- Messages
- 2
- Reaction score
- 0
Gasem, you are sounding really bitter and angry. I know you made a lot of sacrifices, but quite honestly, we doctors are NOT the only people to make sacrifices for their jobs, work hard, NOT have fun in high school or college due to work, sacrifice for others' benefit, etc. And some doctors are in it for the wrong reasons (solely for $$, solely to be better than other people, etc.) Such an over-arching attitude will hurt you more than help you in the future.
Peace.
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2007
- Messages
- 289
- Reaction score
- 0
Thank you. Well said. I think there are a lot of well-off folk who will especially agree with the last statement above that I bolded. I, too, think that I can do much more good with the money I earn than the government can. Unless, of course, you're talking about fixing our crumbling infrastructure...(another good point, IMHO).
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2004
- Messages
- 165
- Reaction score
- 15
first off I AM a MEDICAL STUDENT just like you so get off your high horse, but unlike you I have had some pretty physically intense jobs but didn't get paid like a physician. You say that Americans are not willing to sacrifice 12 years to be a doctor. Come on 30,000 people apply for 15,000 spots it is not about what you sacrifice that makes your salary so high, it is supply and demand that simple. since we bringing up years of education lets talk PhD's most of them spend years on research that makes medicine possible and get paid like crap. Actually bush cut Grant money last year, showing that the government doesn't even respect their contribution to society. Why is it felt that somehow medicine owes us something,. Nobody held your hand and said' "You must be a doctor". I am grateful of the salaries because it has brought some very bright people into the field. I am not arguing doctors salaries but the notion that a physician making 500,000 dollars because of 12 extra years of education is very ******ed. Go out in public-yeah the real world- and find me someone who is not willing to sacrifice 12 years for a half million. I want doctors to get paid especially since I am about to be one. If we bring the argument on the freakin insane cost of medical education and lower physician reimbursement I am on your side. Just stay away from the whole "I deserve yada yada money because I am doctor"
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2007
- Messages
- 289
- Reaction score
- 0
I don't think that's the point of what Blade, et al are trying to say. I DON'T feel as if I'm entitled to X amount of money, and I know that I can live well off of much less than what most attending doctors make.
The thing that hacks me, Blade, and others on this forum off so much is the fact that we are being "punished" again and again for our hard work and successes...Doctors are the type of people who get targeted AGAIN and AGAIN because of their perceived wealth...whether it be from frivolous lawsuits or from people in government who think, "hey, these guys can afford it...let's tax them just a little bit more...for the poor and for the children!" This is already on top of the fact that people making a typical doctors' salary already pay the lions' share of taxes in this country, AND on top of the fact that these same folks aren't entitled to the deductions, etc that most Americans are able to take. Don't even get me started on the evils of the Alternative Minimum tax...
If Obama/Clinton are elected and physicians' incomes start getting taxed further toward the stone age, AND if things keep going the way they are with physician reimbursements, I would not be surprised to see less and less people enter into medicine...financially, it will get to the point where the entire investment in time, money, and energy is not worth it. This is already starting to happen with primary care.
/rant
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2004
- Messages
- 165
- Reaction score
- 15
As someone who's parents come from a country without taxes, trust me when left to the individual nothing gets done.
I like your argument though. The system is flawed, but at least their is a system. The irony is that medicare is made through taxes so essentially a lot of physicians are paying their own salaries.
The Ron Paul taxes on sales will help solve making illegal immigrants pay, but the bad side is that with 20% sales taxes the economy may suffer because people may not spend as much. I barely drive since gas went up. Think if you wanted to buy a watch for 100 and had to pay 120. the watch doesn't look so good anymore.
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2004
- Messages
- 165
- Reaction score
- 15
this is to me the biggest downfall to trying to be a physician. excellent post
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2006
- Messages
- 527
- Reaction score
- 1
You can go out in public and find many MILLIONS of people not willing to do it. Anyone can go to medical school if they want to. There would be far more than 30,000 applicants in that case. If doctors don't deserve 500K, then who does? Hospital administrators? Investment bankers? CEOs? We've all seen how professional athletes deal with the thought of making less than 10 million/yr for swinging a bat (strike). Do they deserve 10 million (or more) a year for playing a game? As others have said, it's all about supply and demand. The difference between doctors and other high paying professionals is that doctors are the only ones saying they don't deserve their salary and accepting constant cuts in reimbursement.
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2007
- Messages
- 289
- Reaction score
- 0
Take away the onerous burden of income taxes (anywhere from 30 to 50% of your money being taken by the government), and the 20%-25% sales tax doesn't look so bad.
Not saying that completely doing away with income taxes (and replacing them with a value-added tax on goods and services) is the perfect solution...I'd have to do a little bit of research on that before coming to a firm conclusion. Just wanted to throw out something to think about before completely dismissing Ron Paul's idea.
EDIT: The above idea is not Ron Paul's. That was an error on my part. See my post below.
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2006
- Messages
- 527
- Reaction score
- 1
Is that Ron Paul's idea? I thought it was called "the fair tax," which is also supported by Huckabee. Correct me if I'm wrong.
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2003
- Messages
- 1,337
- Reaction score
- 6
Wrong, Dr. Paul supports repealing the Income Tax and getting rid of the IRS, and replacing the tax with nothing. There would be enough revenue to run the government if spending was cut to 1998 levels. Very reasonable. We just need to cut government spending, not increase it.
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2007
- Messages
- 289
- Reaction score
- 0
Thank you for forcing me to look up the candidates' positions on these issues. Just to clarify:
Mike Huckabee is the candidate who supports the "fair tax", which is based on consumption of goods and services. His proposal would be that this fair tax would replace the federal income tax.
Ron Paul believes that all income taxes should be eliminated, and that the government should be trimmed down so that it could live within its means without taxing peoples' incomes AT ALL. He does not see the need to "replace" federal income taxes with any new revenue streams.
Again, I'd have to do some research to form a more firm opinion on either one of these ideas (I'm not sure right now whether we could get away with completely eliminating federal income taxes)...BUT the one thing I am in agreement with is the fact that our government is too big, too wasteful, and too intrusive. We're being asked to give more and more of our hard-earned money for more and more gov't programs...and what are we getting out of it?
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2008
- Messages
- 32
- Reaction score
- 0
A sales tax like the VAT (in the UK) is perfectly plausible idea but where would the spending be cut? Defense? Perhaps the best and least likely example. How about Medicare?
Blade, I live and work in LA for much less than 275K per year. In fact, 10% of that sum; It depends on what your idea of "living" is.
Socialism, in my opinion, is fantastic and, unfortunately for the Humanists among us, it falls utterly flat with regard to the very real concept of incentive. I think most Americans, even intelligent Americans fail to understand what Socialism really refers to and its distinction from Communism and Capitalism. It is not antithetical to Democracy and, many have argued well, is the ultimate philosophical extension of the Democratic ethos.
Obama and Clinton both appear to aspire to the tax structure of the mid-late 90's; A period with the lowest inflation and unemployment and federal deficit and highest dollar valuation. The Conservative, wealthy folk-friendly approach is great...for about 10 years. It will ultimately fail, much like our current system, unless curbed by more appropriate spending/tax allocation.
Good to see the opinions flying. At least you're all energetic about something.
Blade, I live and work in LA for much less than 275K per year. In fact, 10% of that sum; It depends on what your idea of "living" is.
Socialism, in my opinion, is fantastic and, unfortunately for the Humanists among us, it falls utterly flat with regard to the very real concept of incentive. I think most Americans, even intelligent Americans fail to understand what Socialism really refers to and its distinction from Communism and Capitalism. It is not antithetical to Democracy and, many have argued well, is the ultimate philosophical extension of the Democratic ethos.
Obama and Clinton both appear to aspire to the tax structure of the mid-late 90's; A period with the lowest inflation and unemployment and federal deficit and highest dollar valuation. The Conservative, wealthy folk-friendly approach is great...for about 10 years. It will ultimately fail, much like our current system, unless curbed by more appropriate spending/tax allocation.
Good to see the opinions flying. At least you're all energetic about something.
1
173291
I completely agree.
I will address other rants at a later time. At least I know someone understood what I was saying.
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2003
- Messages
- 1,337
- Reaction score
- 6
There were several factors which contributed to the hyper-growth of the 1990s, most of which had nothing to do with the Clintonian tax/spend structure. The most important factor is that the dollar and America were seen as the only solid, stable means of investment for countries abroad that they poured in their resources and invested heavily in the U.S.
We got lucky during the 90s, but that was shortly corrected with the tech bubble bursting in 2000, and now the credit bubble bursting in 2007-2008.
The strong dollar had NOTHING to do with Clinton's work.
1
173291
I agree.
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2008
- Messages
- 32
- Reaction score
- 0
At the risk of branding myself as a liberal, I just have to weigh in on this.
First of all, I'm a registered Independent. I vote for the candidate, not the party. If you looked over my shoulder at my ballot from 2006 (the last time I voted in state/federal elections), you would see an interesting mix.
That said, I generally agree with the Democrats. I consider myself socially liberal but fiscally conservative...in other words, the opposite of how the Republicans go about their business. The GOP spends way too much time, effort, and money trying to squash same-sex marriage, incorporate religion into the government (most of the Bush years especially), and grossly mismanage the finances of the country. Bush has put us into more debt in the past 8 years than we had in 200 years prior.
Is Barack Obama the answer? I need to hear more about what he stands for since he seems to be short on specifics for things, but I'd vote for him any day over Hillary Clinton. She WILL destroy medicine as we know it, and I acknowledge that each time I hear her speak about her plan for health care. Obama's plan may not be better, but I like what he offers overall compared to the Republicans. I'd like to see someone who has a chance at addressing more issues that would make our society a better place, and I think Barack has a better chance to do that than McCain.
Call me liberal if you want, but I haven't made up my mind between McCain and Obama. That's why I'm glad there are 8+ months until the general election. I simply won't vote based upon a percentage difference in my future income. That's far too selfish to me, and I'll see how things shake out as we move forward.
Still, I like Obama. It's a big-time dissent in this thread, so I'm waiting for the flame war to start. Bring it.
- Ket
First of all, I'm a registered Independent. I vote for the candidate, not the party. If you looked over my shoulder at my ballot from 2006 (the last time I voted in state/federal elections), you would see an interesting mix.
That said, I generally agree with the Democrats. I consider myself socially liberal but fiscally conservative...in other words, the opposite of how the Republicans go about their business. The GOP spends way too much time, effort, and money trying to squash same-sex marriage, incorporate religion into the government (most of the Bush years especially), and grossly mismanage the finances of the country. Bush has put us into more debt in the past 8 years than we had in 200 years prior.
Is Barack Obama the answer? I need to hear more about what he stands for since he seems to be short on specifics for things, but I'd vote for him any day over Hillary Clinton. She WILL destroy medicine as we know it, and I acknowledge that each time I hear her speak about her plan for health care. Obama's plan may not be better, but I like what he offers overall compared to the Republicans. I'd like to see someone who has a chance at addressing more issues that would make our society a better place, and I think Barack has a better chance to do that than McCain.
Call me liberal if you want, but I haven't made up my mind between McCain and Obama. That's why I'm glad there are 8+ months until the general election. I simply won't vote based upon a percentage difference in my future income. That's far too selfish to me, and I'll see how things shake out as we move forward.
Still, I like Obama. It's a big-time dissent in this thread, so I'm waiting for the flame war to start. Bring it.
- Ket
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2006
- Messages
- 527
- Reaction score
- 1
Yeah, it's worked well in the past.
But, it's a free country. YOU can give all of YOUR income to the government to feed the poor and the lazy. I'll keep mine thanks.- Joined
- Mar 17, 2006
- Messages
- 527
- Reaction score
- 1
No "flaming" intended, but what is it that you like about him? The only thing he ever says is "CHANGE!" For what it's worth, I don't really like any of them.
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2007
- Messages
- 289
- Reaction score
- 0
That's great...this is a forum that's open to differing opinions. Even if I/we don't agree with everything you say, you just might say something that'll make me think...and that's not a bad thing.
I think of myself as an Independent as well...though I do tend to vote Republican nowadays...not because they're Republicans, though. I just can't stomach nowadays a lot of what Democrats are standing for.
You sound kinda like a Libertarian...someone who's for smaller government and less spending...and a government that doesn't try to get into personal matters of how people live their lives. The more I think about things, the more I think that this is how government is supposed to operate. I'll say that despite my conservative leanings, I do think that fighting over gay marriage, etc, was a HUGE waste of time and tax dollars, ESPECIALLY when there are much more pressing issues that need to be dealt with.
Have you checked out McCain's website and his proposals for healthcare? If so, what are your thoughts? I do think that the Republicans are trying to come up with some ideas for healthcare; they just don't seem as sexy to the mass public at first glance as "healthcare for all".
No flames from me...glad to hear your thoughts, even if I don't agree with everything. I will leave you with a parting thought, though...if you got to keep a larger percentage of your income, don't you think you could do greater good with it (through charitable causes, donations, etc) than some big, wasteful government bureaucracy?
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2007
- Messages
- 22,322
- Reaction score
- 8,966
I agree completely. If I buy a Toyota Corolla or a Mercedes Benz SL 550 my tax reflects my purchase. The "rich" must pay for all those expensive goods without those loopholes. I can get the Toyota and save money. This Country needs more "savers" and less "spenders." We need to tax fairly and can give the poor a voucher for the first $20,000 of goods.
Why not reward savings and investment? Why not reward hard work?
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2007
- Messages
- 22,322
- Reaction score
- 8,966
Nice post. Yes, that is my point with this thread. I pay my taxes and will pay the 50% bracket when Obama wins. I may whine about it but I will still do it. However, in return, Obama needs to "balance the budget" and close the tax loopholes. My bet is that he won't be able to do either.
Thus, the burden for all his new federal programs will fall squarely on those of us not "rich enough" to avoid them.
As for what defines "middle class" I think Harvard got it right. They define middle class as $180,000 or less W-2 income per year. THose families earning less than that get a significant boost (?free ride) on their tuition. Harvard is a LIBERAL institution with a sign. leftward bias so the actual upper middle class is probably $250-$600,000 per year.
BUsh got the tax brackets right. Unfortunately, the loopholes are too numerous and many "small" companies can avoid taxes. However, he rarely vetoed a spending bill (did he even veto one?) and pork barrell projects were everywhere during his tenure. I won't even get into the Iraq War costs.
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2007
- Messages
- 22,322
- Reaction score
- 8,966
France is an example of Socialism. Perhaps, Denmark as well. They are Democratic Countries with a Socialistic viewpoint. In return for high taxes and redistribution of wealth the people get Medical, Dental, College, etc.
The USA has traditionally been a CAPITALISTIC Society based on the notion you "eat what you kill." If a man doesn't work he doesn't eat. Over the years, we have instituted a few. minimalistic social programs so the poorest among us have a safety net. These programs are MINIMAL and no where near the level found in France.
The founders of this great nation wanted us to work hard and prosper. To be able to pursue happiness and keep what we earn. They envisioned a nation with a minimal Federal tax burden and a very moderate State burden.
Of course, we have changed things over the past two hundred years and continue to evolve. But, the question remains do you want a society closer to what the Founders envisioned or a Society closer to one like France.
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2008
- Messages
- 32
- Reaction score
- 0
Obama is intelligent, articulate, likable, and often inspiring in a way that I've seldom seen in a politician. In other words, pretty much the opposite of George W Bush. Obama may not be this generation's JFK, but he's created a stir in the presidential race not seen in quite a while.
I agree with you that there needs to be more substance offered than just the word "change," and that's where my vote will be won or lost...for any of the candidates.
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2004
- Messages
- 165
- Reaction score
- 15
what public school are you talking about? Not in america. you must went to a private school.
every other thing you said has merit and I have to agree with.
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2004
- Messages
- 3,397
- Reaction score
- 10
I've never voted Democrat. But, what pisses me off about the Republicans is that they've lost their way. They've become a big government, big spending party. You can't do that and maintain the traditional low tax philosophy and SMALL government that have been the hallmark of Republicanism.
Eventually, someone needs to pay. OR cut the hell out of spending.
Am I the only one that feels really bumbed about our options? I feel like McCain will be more of the same, which is unsustainable IMO. Hillary is a no go for me. Obama sounds great, but I can't believe we're about to choose between Obama and McCain. Wow.
Eventually, someone needs to pay. OR cut the hell out of spending.
Am I the only one that feels really bumbed about our options? I feel like McCain will be more of the same, which is unsustainable IMO. Hillary is a no go for me. Obama sounds great, but I can't believe we're about to choose between Obama and McCain. Wow.
D
deleted50478
With a fair tax rate of 23%, no programs would need to be cut.
http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/Tax Notes article on FT rate.pdf
It would be great if programs were cut, and the extra income was used to pay down the national debt or to make the fair tax rate even lower.
Actually, the fair tax would favor US production & employment and therefore consumption, and would increase tax receipts through growth!
"Most importantly, the FairTax does not burden U.S. exports the way the current income tax system does. The FairTax removes the cost of corporate taxes and compliance costs from the cost of U.S. exports, putting U.S. exports on a level playing field with foreign competitors. Lower prices sharply increase demand for U.S. exports, thereby increasing job creation in U.S. manufacturing sectors. At home, imports are subject to the same FairTax rate as domestically produced goods. Not only does the FairTax put U.S. products sold here on the same tax footing as foreign imports, but the dramatic lowering of compliance costs in comparison to other countries' value-added taxes also gives U.S. products a definitive pricing advantage which foreign tax systems cannot match. " http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_basics_thumbnail
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2007
- Messages
- 22,322
- Reaction score
- 8,966
The fair tax is fair. Plain and simple. But, all the special interest Groups from Mortgage lenders, bankers and "small" companies (like Independent Anesthesia Contractors) like the current system. Some pay about 10% income tax and don't want CHANGE.
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2006
- Messages
- 899
- Reaction score
- 21
I saw excerpts from the Democratic debate over the weekend and heard Obama say that under his administration, people making less than $50,000 per year would NOT PAY ANY SOCIAL SECURITY TAXES. People making $75,000 per year would get a $1000 refund from their social security deductions.
So if you are making more than $50,000, you will be financing 100% of "poor" people's retirement. And probably won't be entitled to receive the social security money that you put into it when you retire. "Poor" people, meanwhile, who are the main beneficiaries of the program, don't have to lift a finger and will have a guranteed retirement.
So if you are making more than $50,000, you will be financing 100% of "poor" people's retirement. And probably won't be entitled to receive the social security money that you put into it when you retire. "Poor" people, meanwhile, who are the main beneficiaries of the program, don't have to lift a finger and will have a guranteed retirement.
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2004
- Messages
- 153
- Reaction score
- 0
You are correct. There are too many wealthy people and corporations for that to EVER get far. Also the only way for something like that to be revenue neutral would require eliminating ALL deductions, which I suspect many of you (and most other wealthy people) rely on. The other reason it will never happen is that the Fair(?) Tax would be the largest tax increase on the middle class in American history. Once the news organizations picked that up it would be dead in the water.
As far as the evils of socialism, France and Denmark are two of the best countries in the world to live. Most of the socialist democratic states in Europe are rated higher than the US in most standards of livability. And, despite what some of you say, the government does run many things much better than the private sector. Large, national programs with little ability to make profits (mail, roads, transit, education, and health care) are ALL much more cost-effectively and efficiently run by the government. Even in the USA.
The Republicans think government is the problem. They seem to have no interest in proving themselves wrong so they do a terrible job running the country. McCain is an mostly honorable man, but he is basically someone who wants to keep things going in the direction Bush is sending us. George Bush has been a disaster of a degree that we will be suffering from for a generation. We need someone different and someone most can get behind. That person is Obama. Period.
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2007
- Messages
- 201
- Reaction score
- 0
You're being facetious, right?
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2006
- Messages
- 527
- Reaction score
- 1
Maybe you should work a month at the VA and rethink your opinion. What about socialism is so great? I prefer to pick up my own tab... not mine and everyone else who doesn't feel like paying. What incentive does ANYONE have to work hard or be successful when they are just punished for it with insane taxes? Our founding fathers would be rolling over in their graves if they ever knew that we had government programs where people could fake back pain/anxiety/depression and mooch off the government. Barack is definitely an inspiring speaker, but the very few actual plans that have come out of his mouth are crap. Period?
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2006
- Messages
- 172
- Reaction score
- 1
It's a shame that I miss 2 days on this forum, and I miss out on weighing in early on a post like this. Forgive any repeat ideas, but these are mine.
mochief... first of all, let me address you personally. I'll call you DW from here on out, because it's shorter than what I normally call people that spout with no reference, and SDN won't let me type what I really want to say without screening it. FIRST, you talk about Blade and all others being on their high horses for referencing salaries of 500,000, etc. Let's talk about you being on your high horse. You talk about how physical your labor was before medicine. You say that your work was harder than a physician and you worked more hours, but you still only made 27,000/year, blah blah blah. Okay, great for you. I worked in construction for many years, and then was a cement worker for several more. Worked lots of 90 hours weeks. Loved it. Made nothing compared to a doctor, but also didn't have the responsibility of a physician. If I made my mortar too thick, DW, the blocksetters threw the whole barrow out. If as a physician I give Dextrose and forget to give Thiamine, there is no throwing the deal out. My work as a physician will come as a sacrifice to my family, friends, and bank account. So get off your grandieur of being a warrior for the blue-collar class. You're not there anymore for a reason, DW.
On the idea of taxing the higher class more, well here is the argument I give my Obama loving brother. He can't understand it, but no democrat does:
If someone makes 30,000 (4 zeroes) and pays 10%, they pay 3,000 to the IRS at the end of the year.
If as a physician I make 300,000/year and pay 10% (the same percentage as everyone else), I pay 30,000/year to the IRS.
Now, maybe it's just me, but other than going to school for 12 years, putting off having kids, and driving a ****ty Pontiac 6000 while my construction friends all roll new Chevy Silverados, what have I done to pay 27,000/year more WHEN I GET NO BETTER BENEFITS than my fellow man? Not only is that enough of a difference, but if I actually make that much money, I pay 20% MORE than the person making less. AWESOME! Being punished for making money, cool idea.
Second, people who call for spending reform are right on. I'll make an analogy to obesity. People like eating. They love to eat, but not workout (that's too much work), so they get fat. Then they feel like crap, and really don't feel like losing weight. They forget the concept that eating less and being more active solves the problem in a simple way. I know it can be hard to work out when you have joint pains, etc. but the concept is still simple. This is analogous to our overspending American government. Instead of spending less, we spend more and TAX more... when taxes are even considered UN-constitutional under the great document drafted by our political forefathers. Why is it so hard to understand that SPENDING less, SAVING more is the answer? I know our government believes we have to support EVERY illegal immigrant, mother and father that don't want to work and have 8 kids, and pay for 150 million in AIDS care to people in other countries before we even make our own citizens comfortable and safe, but that is a problem.
Next, I address the national sales, or fair, tax. I believe, mochief, subsequent to this quoted line, you talk about how raising the price of a 100 dollar watch to 120 dollars doesn't make that watch look any better, and discourage people from purchasing. Exactly DW. This country needs to SAVE right now. Also, everyone pays the same. Whether you make 30,000 or 300,000 you pay the same amount on the 100 dollar watch, 15,000 car, and 12 gallons of gas to fill it. You don't get punished or special preference if you make more or less money. It encourages HEALTHY spending. It brings in a lot more money. If you make 300,000 and live like you make 30, you aren't punished for being frugal under the fair tax like you do under the current and proposed systems. FURTHER, it makes groups that aren't paying PAY. The illegal immigrants, which are a HUGE suck on the economy right now. The drug dealers, when they buy a car with their drug money. Prostitutes who buy condoms. Alcoholics on their cases. Everyone pays EQUALLY, and there is no preference. What a STRANGE idea for our great and democratic county. What is the big deal with people being turned away from spending 100 on a watch they don't need in the first place. And what are you, an ex-construction worker who "didn't make any money" doing buying a 100 dollar watch DW? Go buy a 12.93 Timex like I do, DW.
Finally, I am also a registered independent, and have a HUGE problem with none of the candidates addressing illegal immigration or the health of our country. I GUARANTEE you that if we make illegal immigrants either leave or pay, not give them free health care, not deliver their babies and then make them citizens requiring welfare, and impose a financial system to reward a NON-OBESE lifestyle for all Americans, the healthcare system in this country would NOT be in the dire straits it currently is. Call it HARSH, but it's TRUE. If you don't believe it, go look at the welfare stats for LA County, California. Scary.
With that, I'm off my soapbox for now. This country is great because we are free to debate our ideas in forums like this and in public. It's scary to me though when I hear people attacking fundamental ideas of a free country--a system requiring health care at government appointed locations, allowing non-citizens a free ride, and unjustly taxing those who make the most money.
Feel free to flame on any of these points, but beware, I bite.
mochief... first of all, let me address you personally. I'll call you DW from here on out, because it's shorter than what I normally call people that spout with no reference, and SDN won't let me type what I really want to say without screening it. FIRST, you talk about Blade and all others being on their high horses for referencing salaries of 500,000, etc. Let's talk about you being on your high horse. You talk about how physical your labor was before medicine. You say that your work was harder than a physician and you worked more hours, but you still only made 27,000/year, blah blah blah. Okay, great for you. I worked in construction for many years, and then was a cement worker for several more. Worked lots of 90 hours weeks. Loved it. Made nothing compared to a doctor, but also didn't have the responsibility of a physician. If I made my mortar too thick, DW, the blocksetters threw the whole barrow out. If as a physician I give Dextrose and forget to give Thiamine, there is no throwing the deal out. My work as a physician will come as a sacrifice to my family, friends, and bank account. So get off your grandieur of being a warrior for the blue-collar class. You're not there anymore for a reason, DW.
On the idea of taxing the higher class more, well here is the argument I give my Obama loving brother. He can't understand it, but no democrat does:
If someone makes 30,000 (4 zeroes) and pays 10%, they pay 3,000 to the IRS at the end of the year.
If as a physician I make 300,000/year and pay 10% (the same percentage as everyone else), I pay 30,000/year to the IRS.
Now, maybe it's just me, but other than going to school for 12 years, putting off having kids, and driving a ****ty Pontiac 6000 while my construction friends all roll new Chevy Silverados, what have I done to pay 27,000/year more WHEN I GET NO BETTER BENEFITS than my fellow man? Not only is that enough of a difference, but if I actually make that much money, I pay 20% MORE than the person making less. AWESOME! Being punished for making money, cool idea.
Second, people who call for spending reform are right on. I'll make an analogy to obesity. People like eating. They love to eat, but not workout (that's too much work), so they get fat. Then they feel like crap, and really don't feel like losing weight. They forget the concept that eating less and being more active solves the problem in a simple way. I know it can be hard to work out when you have joint pains, etc. but the concept is still simple. This is analogous to our overspending American government. Instead of spending less, we spend more and TAX more... when taxes are even considered UN-constitutional under the great document drafted by our political forefathers. Why is it so hard to understand that SPENDING less, SAVING more is the answer? I know our government believes we have to support EVERY illegal immigrant, mother and father that don't want to work and have 8 kids, and pay for 150 million in AIDS care to people in other countries before we even make our own citizens comfortable and safe, but that is a problem.
Next, I address the national sales, or fair, tax. I believe, mochief, subsequent to this quoted line, you talk about how raising the price of a 100 dollar watch to 120 dollars doesn't make that watch look any better, and discourage people from purchasing. Exactly DW. This country needs to SAVE right now. Also, everyone pays the same. Whether you make 30,000 or 300,000 you pay the same amount on the 100 dollar watch, 15,000 car, and 12 gallons of gas to fill it. You don't get punished or special preference if you make more or less money. It encourages HEALTHY spending. It brings in a lot more money. If you make 300,000 and live like you make 30, you aren't punished for being frugal under the fair tax like you do under the current and proposed systems. FURTHER, it makes groups that aren't paying PAY. The illegal immigrants, which are a HUGE suck on the economy right now. The drug dealers, when they buy a car with their drug money. Prostitutes who buy condoms. Alcoholics on their cases. Everyone pays EQUALLY, and there is no preference. What a STRANGE idea for our great and democratic county. What is the big deal with people being turned away from spending 100 on a watch they don't need in the first place. And what are you, an ex-construction worker who "didn't make any money" doing buying a 100 dollar watch DW? Go buy a 12.93 Timex like I do, DW.
Finally, I am also a registered independent, and have a HUGE problem with none of the candidates addressing illegal immigration or the health of our country. I GUARANTEE you that if we make illegal immigrants either leave or pay, not give them free health care, not deliver their babies and then make them citizens requiring welfare, and impose a financial system to reward a NON-OBESE lifestyle for all Americans, the healthcare system in this country would NOT be in the dire straits it currently is. Call it HARSH, but it's TRUE. If you don't believe it, go look at the welfare stats for LA County, California. Scary.
With that, I'm off my soapbox for now. This country is great because we are free to debate our ideas in forums like this and in public. It's scary to me though when I hear people attacking fundamental ideas of a free country--a system requiring health care at government appointed locations, allowing non-citizens a free ride, and unjustly taxing those who make the most money.
Feel free to flame on any of these points, but beware, I bite.
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2004
- Messages
- 153
- Reaction score
- 0
Absolutely Not. This conservative mantra that the government can't run things is false. Social Security and Medicare have overhead costs a fraction of what private options have. My mail comes everyday (except Sunday), and I cannot think of any instance when something important was lost; and it's dirt cheap. National health insurance in most western countries delivers much better care for dramatically less money than in the US. The only reason these things fail is because they either get underfunded, mismanaged by people who want them to fail, or both. Compare that to the enormous failures of US corporations in recent decades to improve the lives of anyone who isn't on their board of directors or holds a lot of stock. Big corporations merge, downsize, outsource, or just fail every week because all they care about now is the next quarter's performance on Wall Street. I have no problem with them making money (that's what they're supposed to do), but making money is not always in the best interest of the public or even their lower level employees.
I have spent many months in VA hospitals, and they have become examples of exactly what an organization can do with limited funds. Their preventive care is second to none in the US, and, despite the general poor health of their patient population, they do exceedingly well when compared to private systems. The VA of today isn't the same thing that existed in the 70s and 80s. (Unfortunately, those days may return with the stress of the Iraq war, but that's a subject for another thread.)
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2006
- Messages
- 172
- Reaction score
- 1
If this is truly the case maybe you can tell me why then cost per patient in the VA system is around $18,740 (projected budget of 93.7BN divided by 5 million patients) versus expenditure of 7,026 for the rest of the population in 2006 (Office of the Actuary (OACT) of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services). Sounds like pretty limited funds to me. Just wanted to disprove your point that the government should run any system besides the government itself.
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2006
- Messages
- 172
- Reaction score
- 1
If you use 2006 numbers of a 70.8BN budget and treatment of 5.4 million patients, the number is 13,111 per patient. Almost double. Sounds pretty sweet. Let's let the government run everything.
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2007
- Messages
- 201
- Reaction score
- 0
I find your reasoning to be extraordinarily flawed. You state the government runs these ventures (mass transportation, mail, roads, etc.. ) because they CAN run them MORE EFFECIENTLY than the private sector.
I disagree. The only reason the government runs these programs is because there is NO INCENTIVE for the private sector to administor these programs for (as you actually correctly stated) there is LITTLE PROFIT in it. Ergo, the government steps in in those SPECIFIC INSTANCES where capitalism would not benefit the common good.
That argument does not, however, logically extend that the government is MORE EFFICIENT in providing every service. It should serve to provide those services WHICH WOULD NOT OTHERWISE BE PROVIDED by the private sector (and that otherwise benefit the collective good of the people).
Think for a second what would happen if all roads were private and we had to pay a seperate fee to drive on every street. Total chaos, cumbersome system, etc. Your government is, in this case, doing a good thing by being in charge of the roads. Same goes for a national defense. Chalk another one up for the government. You could possibly make the same argument for the mail service, but I'll take UPS or FedEx over the USPS anytime I want to be sure something gets where it's supposed to go on time (as they're actually accountable to me because they have an incentive - competition - to make sure they don't screw my delivery up).
There are certainly things the government should be responsible for, but it does not mean that the government SHOULD take something over every time that they CAN take something over.
The government is the only game in town in those instances -what are you comparing it to when you say it is the MOST EFFICIENT means of delivering those services? More efficient than whom? When is the last time you passed a highway project and said "man, those guys are working hard and making great progress"? I actually did say that one time. But I was in Italy.
I don't know how you can seriously look at any government beurocracy in the US and say it does anything efficiently - there is no incentive to do so and unfortunately it is not in mankind's nature to do much of anything totally altruistically.
Big Business is painted as the "Evil Empire" because they "merge, downsize, outsource, or just fail every week because all they care about now is the next quarter's performance on Wall Street". They do that to sell their product more competitively in the marketplace. Provided there is fair and sufficient competition, these corporations would cease to exist if they were providing a sub-standard good/service for an unfair price. It follows then that these business do persist because WE, as consumers, make the conscious choice day after day to do WHAT WORKS BEST FOR US. In so doing, businesses are forced to provide better services for reasonable costs.
In the end, I think all of us on here want to in some way help our fellow man out and contribute something to this world. We all agree on that (to some degree) and would (likely) otherwise not be in the medical field whatsoever. I know that many people who argue against Big Government come across as being heartless and insensitive to the needs of the less-fortunate. In the end, however, I think it makes more sense to set up a system where people have INCENTIVE TO CONTRIBUTE and DISINCENTIVE TO NOT CONTRIBUTE, as that is fairly consistent with human nature. It is frustrating to see proposals set up which would provide for an endless cycle of entitlements under the guise of "being fair". I think that's where a lot of us are coming from when we caution against implementing entitlement programs.
D
deleted50478
Lets consider the Dept of Education. Created in 1979 with a budget of $14.5, it has increased every year and was $47.6 billion in 2002, $120 billion if education programs in other departments are included. But look at the results... for all the expense, education gets worse and worse every year, and the department is more of an impediment to improving education than a vehicle for improvement.
D
deleted50478
Where did you get the idea that they deliver better care?
Is it the WHO rankings? They are hardly based on quality of care at all.
(Health level 25%, Health distribution 25%, Responsiveness 12.5%, Responsiveness distribution 12.5%, Financial "fairness" 25%)
The WHO ranking prefer uniformly mediocre care to partly superior and partly mediocre care. They ignore factors such as diet/activity/obesity, drug use, smoking, and homicide. The rankings are clearly ridiculous and designed to favor a leftist view of healthcare, not to fairly evaluate quality of care.
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2004
- Messages
- 153
- Reaction score
- 0
EVERY organization that ranks healthcare rates them better. I don't disagree that these organizations prefer uniform care to our system of occasionally superior care and often substandard care, but that's probably what they SHOULD prefer.
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2004
- Messages
- 165
- Reaction score
- 15
Man, you are so disrespectful. I never once called you out of your name. I expressed my views in a respectful manner. wow!
since we are disrespecting let me give you a nickname: DA
lets be honest you never worked near a construction site because if you did you would not LIKE it.
first I said YOU get off YOUR high horse, nobody else DA. and second CAN you read. I clearly was making a point that you are not the only freaking person in the world that works hard, but you get paid well for that hard work. You make the assumption that ever person is just lazy that is why they are not making your 500,000 that you make. Your mad that you get taxed more. How do you think a society functions DA. You tax more the people who can afford it and less the people who can't. Is the system without flaws hell no. but your solution is just not smart. You more focused with your money and not the good of the country.
so, essentially you are saying that when a person becomes disabled or has AIDS they are no longer citizens, because they don't deserve government assistance? See, the problem with your views is that it is too narrow. You forget the million more people who do work and support your families and need that government assistance. That women who got AIDS from her husband who was a productive member of society. should they be neglected too? You have to take the good with the bad. I live in the freakin hood that you see on tv DA. Trust me, a lot of people abuse the system, a lot don't.
your tax break came straight out of G. Bush's own journal. come on in a dream world i would love that fair tax since I hope to be making your 500,000 one day, but that is not realistic. You would just create a deficient adding to Bush. Dam, do you want China and Russia to own us. The amount of revenue from taxes has to stay the same for the Government to do its job like pay teachers, cops etc (yeah we kinda need these things). so you either raise lower class taxes and raise upper class taxes or vise versa. That's all that politicians do, mess with the numbers.
you seem to have something against immigrants. Look, who in a America is not an immigrant(except for the Native Americans). you tell me your origin and I will tell you a time when your ancestors had to fight also for them to be accepted. Immigration IS out of control. Didn't Obama say that he'll punish companies for hiring illegal immigrants. They wouldn't be here if they couldn't get a job. So tell them rich friends of your to stop hiring cheap labor.(low blow, I know I couldn't resist
).You clearly have not been stung by a scorpion. bring your best bite I am waiting. just keep it civilized. I will only disrespect you if you disrespect me.
side note: I actually like your argument esp. the fat analogy. Very well thought out.
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2006
- Messages
- 172
- Reaction score
- 1
Man, you are so disrespectful. I never once called you out of your name. I expressed my views in a respectful manner. wow!
since we are disrespecting let me give you a nickname: DA
lets be honest you never worked near a construction site because if you did you would not LIKE it.
first I said YOU get off YOUR high horse, nobody else DA. and second CAN you read. I clearly was making a point that you are not the only freaking person in the world that works hard, but you get paid well for that hard work. You make the assumption that ever person is just lazy that is why they are not making your 500,000 that you make. Your mad that you get taxed more. How do you think a society functions DA. You tax more the people who can afford it and less the people who can't. Is the system without flaws hell no. but your solution is just not smart. You more focused with your money and not the good of the country.
so, essentially you are saying that when a person becomes disabled or has AIDS they are no longer citizens, because they don't deserve government assistance? See, the problem with your views is that it is too narrow. You forget the million more people who do work and support your families and need that government assistance. That women who got AIDS from her husband who was a productive member of society. should they be neglected too? You have to take the good with the bad. I live in the freakin hood that you see on tv DA. Trust me, a lot of people abuse the system, a lot don't.
your tax break came straight out of G. Bush's own journal. come on in a dream world i would love that fair tax since I hope to be making your 500,000 one day, but that is not realistic. You would just create a deficient adding to Bush. Dam, do you want China and Russia to own us. The amount of revenue from taxes has to stay the same for the Government to do its job like pay teachers, cops etc (yeah we kinda need these things). so you either raise lower class taxes and raise upper class taxes or vise versa. That's all that politicians do, mess with the numbers.
you seem to have something against immigrants. Look, who in a America is not an immigrant(except for the Native Americans). you tell me your origin and I will tell you a time when your ancestors had to fight also for them to be accepted. Immigration IS out of control. Didn't Obama say that he'll punish companies for hiring illegal immigrants. They wouldn't be here if they couldn't get a job. So tell them rich friends of your to stop hiring cheap labor.(low blow, I know I couldn't resist
You clearly have not been stung by a scorpion. bring your best bite I am waiting. just keep it civilized. I will only disrespect you if you disrespect me.
side note: I actually like your argument esp. the fat analogy. Very well thought out.
Two words. Meep merp.
You MIGHT want to actually READ my post before you attack it. We should totally support people with disability--TRUE disability. Not people who have 8 kids and use THEM as a disability. And I'm talking about AIDS in OTHER countries, not our own. I was listing it as an example of our priorities. Why spends millions on other countries when healthcare in our own is inadequate.
And I do have something against the ILLEGAL immigrants... because they don't pay into our system but expect to get the 50,000 video EEG when they have pseudoseizures. That is wrong no matter WHICH way you cut it. Pay in to receive. Just like the golden rule. I wouldn't give you 50,000 dollars of my OWN money if we didn't have a relationship unless you gave me a REALLY convincing argument--and stepping into a foreign country and "forgetting" to pay your taxes wouldn't be one!
Step out of the country before you start calling my views narrow. I have a big heart, I'm just not a huge fan of those people that continually take and take and expect more.
I don't have rich friends. I have middle class friends paying too many taxes. The number of luxury--wait, the number of cars period in my close circle is... 1. We all ride bikes.
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2003
- Messages
- 488
- Reaction score
- 7
The problem of taxes has been touched on by other people. We will never be able to convince Joe and Jane Public that taxing the rich is bad. The figures we throw out as salaries far exceed that 90% of the people in the US will ever achieve, regardless of how hard they work. All they hear is "tax the rich to pay for us". This sounds like a great message in theory, except if you happen to be in the upper bracket like ourselves. Most people feel that we make too much money anyway and we deserve to be taxed for it.
Most people are also middle class, they make too much money for government assistance but not enough to really live in the style that they would prefer. To these people, healthcare is a huge expense b/c they have to pay full price for it through insurance and deal with the hospital bills. These same people don't realize how much free healthcare we give away to the impovished. They see their bill, see how high it is and want it reduced. If they can do that with money taken from people making more than them without increasing their taxes, why would they not support this policy?
We are on the other side of this issue b/c we all plan to make 200k+ at some point in the future. We are in the minority in this country and policy is made for the majority. This is just the way it is for the country, unfortunately most people don't realize how these high taxes will discourage saving and cost them more in the end, especially after inflation kicks in and avg salaries rise.
Most people are also middle class, they make too much money for government assistance but not enough to really live in the style that they would prefer. To these people, healthcare is a huge expense b/c they have to pay full price for it through insurance and deal with the hospital bills. These same people don't realize how much free healthcare we give away to the impovished. They see their bill, see how high it is and want it reduced. If they can do that with money taken from people making more than them without increasing their taxes, why would they not support this policy?
We are on the other side of this issue b/c we all plan to make 200k+ at some point in the future. We are in the minority in this country and policy is made for the majority. This is just the way it is for the country, unfortunately most people don't realize how these high taxes will discourage saving and cost them more in the end, especially after inflation kicks in and avg salaries rise.
D
deleted50478
Revenue doesn't have to stay the same if the government stops doing things that aren't it's job.
Native Americans are descended from immigrants too. Immigrants from Siberia and possibly Western Europe and Oceania. Anyway...The fact that the US has been populated by immigrants is not a reasonable argument that we must continue to have open immigration. There is no relationship between the two ideas. Just because you've heard that so-called argument so many times doesn't mean that it is valid.
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2003
- Messages
- 3,116
- Reaction score
- 891
Are you sure about that? 44% voters making less than 50K/yr (who comprised 45% of all voters) voted for Bush in 2004.
A similar proportion voted for Bush in 2000 as well.
They voted for Bush despite repetitive TV commentary by liberal pundits describing how GW's tax cuts only benefit the upper 1%, and that the middle class is essentially screwed.
What do you suppose keeps these people from voting their economic interest?
I have my own ideas, but I'd like to hear your's.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/results/index.epolls.html
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2004
- Messages
- 1,054
- Reaction score
- 2
Where do people get off thinking that everyone that doesn't make over 50 grand a year is a mooch? When I was 20 years old, making <15 grand a year, living single, and eating generic mac & cheese, I recognized that I didn't want to be punished for trying to better myself, and that starting at the bottom without much, was INCENTIVE for getting off my butt and doing something w/ my life. Seeing the rich guy w/ his nice house didn't make me jealous and want to punish him by taking it from him, it made me want to work hard, to pay my dues, and to someday be able to do the same. It still does, and incentive is what pushes us through the hard days.
There are PLENTY of poor people who have some pride left, and don't believe in income redistribution and punishing success. My next-door neighbor makes <$20k/yr, and to hear him talk, you'd think he made >$500k. He's an incredibly intelllgent guy who recognizes that capitalism benefits everyone from the top down through jobs, and a fluctuating but historically stable economy.
The smartest among those recognize that the only places in the world where there is financial equality is where everyone is equally MISERABLE, and equally POOR.
What many liberal dems don't realize is that by pandering to the "poor", they often insult many who still believe in an honest days work, and believe that punishing success and encouraging laziness isn't in our country's best interest. A nice healthy bell curve works.
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2003
- Messages
- 3,116
- Reaction score
- 891
So your point is that people making <50K/yr feel "insulted" by proposals that benefit the middle class, and on the principle of fairness, support tax cuts for the wealthy. Is that your belief?
With respect the GW's tax cut of 2001, I would be surprised if someone making 21K/yr wasn't a little insulted to only receive about $50 back, versus someone making 315K getting 13K. The rich guy gets a much gets a much greater percentage of his money back from the government than the poor guy. Despite this insulting tax cut, the same group, it appears, voted for Bush again in 2004.
Do you have any other ideas why poor people vote the way that rich people want them to?
With respect the GW's tax cut of 2001, I would be surprised if someone making 21K/yr wasn't a little insulted to only receive about $50 back, versus someone making 315K getting 13K. The rich guy gets a much gets a much greater percentage of his money back from the government than the poor guy. Despite this insulting tax cut, the same group, it appears, voted for Bush again in 2004.
Do you have any other ideas why poor people vote the way that rich people want them to?
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2004
- Messages
- 1,054
- Reaction score
- 2
With all due respect, I think your math's a little off. Someone who makes 21k/yr, pays almost NO income tax. $50 in fact is probably about what he paid in. Whereas the guy making 315k is chunking out somewhere in the neighborhood of about 100k in taxes. If he gets 13k back, he's still paying 87k, or about 28% of salary in fed taxes.
If you want fair and equity, then the guy making 21k, should also be paying 28% or about 6k. Do we ask him to do that? No.
Are you saying that someone who doesn't pay taxes should get an "extra" refund beyond what they paid in? That's the mantra of the left. Income redistribution (or stealing, if you don't mind the hearing the truth), is taking from one person against their will, and giving to another.
Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness doesn't entail stealing.
And, my "belief" in fact is not that the "poor" support cuts for the "wealthy".
That's liberal dribble.
My "belief" is that many "poor" people understand that when those who provide jobs (your "wealthy") aren't stuck w/ a massive tax bill, that they're able to provide better wages and more jobs, which benefits everyone.
I'm telling you, if you can get past thinking that all "poor" people are at the govt. teet looking for a handout, and understand that many in that category are working hard to better themselves (and support the system that can best help them achieve success, rather than a system which strives to keep them in poverty), you'll understand why there are so many "poor" conservatives.
I do think it's comical that EVERY election, the left shake their heads in disbelief that many in the poorest income groups, the poorest geographical areas, etc. continue to vote Republican. They just can't understand it. It drives them crazy.
In the end, it doesn't have squat to do w/ income. Plenty of poor Reps, plenty of rich Dems.
It's all about philosophy. How much you believe in personal responsibility, pride, fairness, and reliance on self rather than government.
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2003
- Messages
- 3,116
- Reaction score
- 891
I simply pointed out that the poor vote Republican more frequently than would seem reasonable considering the lack of interest Republican's show in people who aren't wealthy. Then I asked why. I didn't really "say" anything.
When you say that the poor support tax cuts (I assume you mean by voting Republlican) for the wealthy, is it because you think they believe in "trickle down economics". Is that a correct statement?
Later you say "it doesn't have squat to do with income". Okay. Please reconcile this statement with the above.
You say [it depends on] "how much you believe in personal responsibility, pride, fairness, and reliance on self rather than government."
So the Republican party, in your opinion, is the party of "personal responsibility" and "fairness?"
Maybe we have different ideas about what it means to "take responsibility for one's self" and what constitutes "fairness." Does your Republican philosphy allow for any responsibility toward your community, or is it entirely self-centered?
Please provide some examples of fairness from the last 7 years of the Bush administration, because I can't think of any.
While you're at it, please provide some examples of what you mean by "personal responsibility" in Republican public policy (recent years, please).
When you say that the poor support tax cuts (I assume you mean by voting Republlican) for the wealthy, is it because you think they believe in "trickle down economics". Is that a correct statement?
Later you say "it doesn't have squat to do with income". Okay. Please reconcile this statement with the above.
You say [it depends on] "how much you believe in personal responsibility, pride, fairness, and reliance on self rather than government."
So the Republican party, in your opinion, is the party of "personal responsibility" and "fairness?"
Maybe we have different ideas about what it means to "take responsibility for one's self" and what constitutes "fairness." Does your Republican philosphy allow for any responsibility toward your community, or is it entirely self-centered?
Please provide some examples of fairness from the last 7 years of the Bush administration, because I can't think of any.
While you're at it, please provide some examples of what you mean by "personal responsibility" in Republican public policy (recent years, please).
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2004
- Messages
- 1,054
- Reaction score
- 2
Personal responsibility is about relying on oneself first, and the government last, not the reverse. One example of how the current administration has done that is by providing tax cuts that allow others to benefit by working harder (i.e. - by decreasing the penalty for success in this country).
(i.e. - give the tax break to the fisherman, so he can have more time and money to teach others how to fish (a skill which lasts a lifetime), rather than using the tax break to buy a couple buckets of fish for someone.
Simply, it is not up to the government to babysit someone from cradle to grave. The government should help those who've absolutely exhausted every other mean. (Self, family, church, charity, and then govt.)
And yes, I was talking about trickle-down economics as being why someone who wouldn't get a check in the mail since they didn't pay into the system, would still vote for tax cuts.
A conservative's view of personal responsibility towards the community doesn't involve the government being the wasteful middle-man. So if you're trying to get me to list a bunch of social give-aways from the current admin, you're out of luck.
And not to say that I'm happy w/ the current admin, and how the govt. has grown exponentially. I'm not. I believe in small govt. However, given 9/11, the war, you know, I can give a little here and there.
However, lets not forget that our economy was doing pretty darn good for a few years (after the Bush tax cuts that shallowed out the earlier recession I might add). We seem to be in a bit of a slump right now, but have you noticed that it's AFTER THE DEMOCRATS RETOOK CONGRESS. Funny how you don't hear much about that on any of the major networks. Hmm, had it been the other way around, it would've been, I promise.
BTW, the right-wing church crowd (of which I'm not a member BTW), is the most charitable group of individuals, bar-none, at the present time.
They don't need the govt. coming in, taking half their earnings and distributing it as it sees fit. They're already doing way more than the average lib, who likes to talk alot of talk.
Cracks me up to see celebs whining about how we have to do this and that to raise taxes, the AIDS crisis in Africa, etc. And then advertise that their monthly drinking water bill is over 10 grand. Nice Madonna.
Bottom line is, on the bottom of every tax return is an option to send additional money. For all those blabbing about not wanting the tax cuts, or not minding if we have our taxes raised, I say "Walk the walk, dude".
Let's see some of those returns.
(i.e. - give the tax break to the fisherman, so he can have more time and money to teach others how to fish (a skill which lasts a lifetime), rather than using the tax break to buy a couple buckets of fish for someone.
Simply, it is not up to the government to babysit someone from cradle to grave. The government should help those who've absolutely exhausted every other mean. (Self, family, church, charity, and then govt.)
And yes, I was talking about trickle-down economics as being why someone who wouldn't get a check in the mail since they didn't pay into the system, would still vote for tax cuts.
A conservative's view of personal responsibility towards the community doesn't involve the government being the wasteful middle-man. So if you're trying to get me to list a bunch of social give-aways from the current admin, you're out of luck.
And not to say that I'm happy w/ the current admin, and how the govt. has grown exponentially. I'm not. I believe in small govt. However, given 9/11, the war, you know, I can give a little here and there.
However, lets not forget that our economy was doing pretty darn good for a few years (after the Bush tax cuts that shallowed out the earlier recession I might add). We seem to be in a bit of a slump right now, but have you noticed that it's AFTER THE DEMOCRATS RETOOK CONGRESS
. Funny how you don't hear much about that on any of the major networks. Hmm, had it been the other way around, it would've been, I promise.BTW, the right-wing church crowd (of which I'm not a member BTW), is the most charitable group of individuals, bar-none, at the present time.
They don't need the govt. coming in, taking half their earnings and distributing it as it sees fit. They're already doing way more than the average lib, who likes to talk alot of talk.
Cracks me up to see celebs whining about how we have to do this and that to raise taxes, the AIDS crisis in Africa, etc. And then advertise that their monthly drinking water bill is over 10 grand. Nice Madonna.
Bottom line is, on the bottom of every tax return is an option to send additional money. For all those blabbing about not wanting the tax cuts, or not minding if we have our taxes raised, I say "Walk the walk, dude".
Let's see some of those returns.
