There goes your job ....

[johnsonrod]

Do they email you the talking points, or do you just watch a lot of Fox (RNC apparatchik) News? I hope you were not this worried about the wealthy folks bottom lines back in 05 and 07 when you were looking for wages increases. I know I'm not.

So screw the uninsured as long as I gets mine. Is that it? Never mind that they are a drain on the overall health care system (everyone knows the best care can be found at your local E.R.) and we end up paying for the inefficiency of it all it in the end. http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/233530/july-14-2009/the-word---guns--credit--and-corn

Thanks Stalin for your comments. Say hello to Karl Marx for me. Think of it this way, the wealthy Americans drive production for everyone else if they spend more - it's like a domino effect. If the wealthy reduce their buying, everyone gets hit.

What everyone seems to forget is that tax REVENUES under Bush were the absolute highest in history after the tax cuts - revenues that could have been used to fund many social programs. People had more discretionary income and they spent it. Too bad Bush squandered it with war-related spending (2 wars!) and expanding the Fed government (anti-Republican). Bush totally blew it and he has ruined the Republican party for now.

Lowering taxes helps everyone via increased personal spending. Higher taxes provides a disincentive to work hard and it causes wealthy people to look for ways to avoid taxes via tax attorneys, etc. Look at what is happening in high-tax California - there is an exodus of wealthy people and small business owners who can't afford the taxes and California health-care related costs. High taxes don't work because business owners choose to avoid adding people (who are otherwise unemployed and not generating tax revenue) and they look to global outsourcing and adding technology instead. Higher taxes will hurt our employment rates even more - THANKS OBAMA (SOCIALIST)!!!!!!!! I guess you get what you pay for...

 

[AeroBoy]

An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before,
but had once failed an entire class.

--------------------------------------------

That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.


The professor then said, "OK,
we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan".


All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A.


After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B.
The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy.


As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.
The second test average was a D!
No one was happy.


When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.

The scores never increased as bickering,
blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.


All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.


Could not be any simpler than that.

I call Shenanigans on this one. Source please. Sounds like a made up story from the likes of Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck.

 

[gunfyter]

The electrical engineer in me says ...

The economy is like an electronic circuit. You add IMPEDANCE and you slow down current flow (or currency flow).

Wasteful government spending on health care (which is against the COTUS) ... is like parasite drag on an airplane ... it produces no lift to the economy ... while tax cuts for the rich ignite the economy....

Which is worse for general aviation...

This horrible tax increase on our customers... or the puny charges of proposed User fees or $25 or so for an approach? Which affects our pax more?

 

[ned plimpton]

Why is the solution for so many of you ALWAYS more and more government control? Seriously..... where does this instinct come from? Seems to me that it may come from the same place that compels many of you to label anyone who disagrees with you on this issue as some callous and greedy hate-monger that just doesn't care about "poor" people.

Can you even realize how frustrating that is? That YOU who believe in this illogical solution are claiming to be the sympathetic and noble righteous humanitarians?!?!

Seems to me that YOU are the "greedy" ones. The ones who want to stick your hands in anothers wallet and force them to finance a program that history has proven will lead to shortages and rationing and less innovation and lower quality etc etc etc not to mention further economic destruction in a RECESSION of all times!?!?!?! Who is being "greedy" here????

Is it not possible for you to see the role that government has already played in creating the very problems with healthcare they are now trying to fix? Are you not willing to even entertain the idea that government over-regulation in medicine is a major cause of the high prices, and lack of coverage, and disfunctional bureaucracy?

Wait... nevermind.....

 

[RP170]

Why is the solution for so many of you ALWAYS more and more government control? Seriously..... where does this instinct come from? Seems to me that it may come from the same place that compels many of you to label anyone who disagrees with you on this issue as some callous and greedy hate-monger that just doesn't care about "poor" people.

Can you even realize how frustrating that is? That YOU who believe in this illogical solution are claiming to be the sympathetic and noble righteous humanitarians?!?!

Seems to me that YOU are the "greedy" ones. The ones who want to stick your hands in anothers wallet and force them to finance a program that history has proven will lead to shortages and rationing and less innovation and lower quality etc etc etc not to mention further economic destruction in a RECESSION of all times!?!?!?! Who is being "greedy" here????

Is it not possible for you to see the role that government has already played in creating the very problems with healthcare they are now trying to fix? Are you not willing to even entertain the idea that government over-regulation in medicine is a major cause of the high prices, and lack of coverage, and disfunctional bureaucracy?

Wait... nevermind.....

Awesome. Very well said. The most rediculous part of this is that they are wanting to spend trillions more in a RECESSION! Have we not already spent enough!? Fix the damn economy first before worrying about this other crap!

 

[Sky Captain]

I am starting to agree with some of the arguments against healthcare reform. No one is ENTITLED to healthcare. As Gunfyter says, it would be better if everyone could afford it.

But costs continue to go up in healthcare during good times and in bad times. Median household incomes, unfortunately, have not nor will it ever keep up with healthcare increases. So the only way for any of us to keep coverage will be our willingness to accept decreases in coverage.

Along with decreases in coverage, we will need to accept higher premiums and copays. Its just that way it is.

I also believe we should see a reduction in Veteran benefits regarding VA hospitals and care. We cannot continue to support all sectors of our population regarding healthcare including retired military. Full payments should be paid if physically disabled due to military action or only if putting in 30 years or more of active service.

I just don't see how we can continue to afford funding a large, big government entitlement program without decreasing benefits just like the private sector is doing. And benefits should be limited to only those who put in a full time career. This will maximize the benefit to those who put in the most time and actually earn the full benefit. Those who put in the minimal amount of time or do reserve duty can earn wages to cover their healthcare in the private sector. Or work for a company which provides healthcare.

We have to get fiscally conservative again. We need to keep the government out of the equation while making cuts in programs that pay out entitlements to those who haven't earned it or put in enough time for the benefit.

I was expecting to have company paid healthcare retirement benefits after 30 years at my current company but that went away a couple years ago. Just the sign of the times and we ALL need to take cuts. Especially from any government program.

 

[gunfyter]

Sky,

I am not against reforming health care ... just don't want the government to run it or the taxpayer to fund it ....

1. As far as no one able to afford it ... I see ads all day long on TV that for the price of a pack of cigarettes a day ... you can have real health insurance .... I think most of the people without health care are smokers so I don't wanna hear they cant afford health insurance.

$10 bucks a day for a family. I looked at these plans and they are all most people need.

2. Drug companies: They are ripping us off with the help of government.

• NEW! The Generic Drug Rip Off
• Redefining Healthcare: Towards a Shift in the Medical Paradigm

 

[atpcliff]

Hi!

If we change to Universial Health Care, it will be hello to some jobs that we are losing now, as our crappy (about #34 worldwide, even though we spend the most money) health care system makes us less competitive worldwide.

Toyota was recently deciding between Tucson and Ontario for a new plant. They went with Ontario, because individuals pay more taxes in Ontario than in Tucson. Since Canada has Universal Health Care, Toyota wouldn't have to pay health care costs for their employees.

I realize that changing our Health Care system is scary, because change is scary, but if we improve our Heath Care System, it will be better than the old one. Our system has a LOT of room for improvement.

cliff
NBO

 

[ned plimpton]

I realize that changing our Health Care system is scary, because change is scary, but if we improve our Heath Care System, it will be better than the old one.
NBO

Wow......... Thanks.

 

[400pilot]

The economic and tax revenue pies

There are many things about economics and mathematics that most people don't know about, don't understand, or are capable of understanding but don't want to believe because it doesn't jive with political beliefs. The economic and revenue(tax revenue) pies are perfect examples of this.

First of all, one needs to understand that the economic and tax revenue pies are not fixed in size. Each can grow and shrink. Another important issue is their relationship with each other. All things being equal, the revenue pie is directly proportional to the economic pie. Growing the economic pie will automatically increase the size of the tax pie. However, simply increasing the tax pie (raising taxes) will not increase the size of the economic pie. This is because it robs the pie of the stuff it needs to grow, which is of course money, and gives it to the federal government. It is not that simple either because you have to consider the economic growth as a result of government spending (ie govt jobs, defense spending, etc). However, they never give as much as they take.

I respectfully disagree. Less tax revenue from the rich means somebody else would have to shoulder the load. Namely, You and I, and the rest of the middle class.

That is inaccurate. This argument makes assumptions and avoids basic economic facts. First, this argument assumes that the tax pie is fixed. This is not accurate. 2nd, for this argument to be valid, when taxes are cut on one individual or "class' of taxpayers, they then must be raised on a second individual, or "class" of tax payers. This is not what happens. Tax cuts for the rich do not raise taxes on or increase the tax burden on the middle class in any way. Now, one can certainly argue that in this scenario, more of a percentage of the federal taxes are paid by the middle class. However, it is all smoke and mirrors. This higher percentage DOES NOT translate into a higher amount that is paid and therefore is not an increased burden on any individual and therefore any "class" of people.

Democrats have been successful in using the argument that the Bush tax cuts have "Shifted the tax burden to the middle class." This a BS argument created by democrats to pray on the economic ignorance of the population. It is a BS argument for 2 reasons, the first of which I stated above. The 2nd reason its BS is because the Bush tax cuts actually resulted in "the rich" paying a higher percentage of the federal tax burden. This happened because everyone who paid taxes got a tax cut and it shrunk the overall size of the tax pie, initially. The tax pie actually grew tremendously following the tax cuts because of the resulting increase in the economic pie.

While the housing and financial sector started this recession, but it is primarily sustained because of less spending from the middle class.

Naturally...

If the middle class has to continue to shoulder the extra loads in tax obligations that the rich is avoiding, than the middle class' spending will continue to be depressed.

So by this logic, only by increase taxes on the rich will you have more money to spend? You and I are not shouldering anything. Our taxes have not increased. No one in the middle or poor class has had any tax increases. This argument is completely illogical for the reasons stated above. As evidence, following is the federal tax burden on a family of four making $70k in 1998 and 2007. This is one example but they all play out the same.

1998;
Taxable Income: $52,100
Federal Tax: $8,290
Payroll Taxes: $5,355
Total Fed Tax: $13,645 (19.5%)

2007;
Taxable Income: $45,700
Federal Tax: $4,073
Payroll Taxes: $5,355
Total Fed Tax: $9,428 (13.5%)

Where is it that this typical family has less money as a result of those tax cuts on the rich? Where is the extra load that this family is shouldering, holding them down?