| Who will you vote for? (or who will win?) |
| McCain |
|
45% |
[ 10 ] |
| Obama |
|
54% |
[ 12 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 22 |
|
| Author |
Message |
beansidhe
Ensign, Junior Grade
Joined: 10 Aug 2007
Posts: 42
|
 Thu Jul 17, 2008 1:06 pm |
|
| LightningBoy wrote: |
5. Free markets are always a good thing, especially in healthcare. Maybe some day, someone motivated by profit will cure my Type-1 diabetes. Take away the motivation of proft, and I don't see a cure coming my way.
|
What is more likely to happen to a Type-1 diabetic under a free market system is that you'll develop expensive complications and max out your health insurance plan.
For how long do you think you could pay $50K a year for dialysis out of pocket? How about that $250K transplant and the $20K per year medication bills that go with it?
Your cynicsm about those in healthcare is instructive... Most of us--and I do mean the vast majority of us--are in the field because we are driven to help people and expand the bounds of medicine.
|
|
|
LightningBoy
Commodore
Joined: 09 Mar 2003
Posts: 1446
Location: Minnesota, U.S.A.
|
| Fri Jul 18, 2008 4:22 am |
|
Oh yeah, people pay hundreds of thousands to go to medical school just to help people...  I'm not saying it's not one worth-while achievement, but there needs to be incentive, just like ANY industry. I suppose we should just ignore the fact that doctors are extremely well paid. (deservingly so)
Reward breeds achievement, simple as that. I find any claim otherwise rather offensive. It's not cynicism, it's reliability. It's something I find to be a good, honest, and moral thing. If I need help, I can earn it from someone. No free-rides.
As for your assertion that i'd "develop expensive complications and max out your health insurance plan", I think you underestimate the power of the free market to provide CHEAP solutions to complex problems. ONLY when you under-incent research and development, will you hamper it.
Only regulation can hold back medical progress. And only government can deliver regulation. Therefore big government is the problem, not the solution!
|
|
|
Arellia
The Quiet One
Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 4425
Location: Dallas, TX
|
| Fri Jul 18, 2008 8:05 am |
|
If not helping people... then... why? Why bother going into medicine if that is not the reason? Why would you go through all the pain and trouble when you could pay less to become a lawyer or business person who makes more? Medical school is incredibly difficult to get into, let alone succeed in. The stress is huge. *shrugs* Doctors are well-paid, but I wasn't aware of that when I started down my own path to medical school. I think truly good doctors, people who are really healers at heart, aren't in it for the money. I don't think you can treat healthcare like a business, because it's a moral issue. Giving medical care to people who need it is a moral imperative--the hippocratic oath is entirely about being moral and doing what's right as a healer. The greatest reward is seeing someone who is sick become better, seeing innovations that save lives is a gift by itself.
I could not live with myself if I suddenly made the decision, "Well, I could go into research and save lives... but I could make more money doing ___, so I guess all those people will just get along without me." To me having the ability to work in medicine makes it my duty. To insinuate that I somehow require large sums of money to perform my duty is incorrect and slightly insulting to my honor.
But anyway, either way, both of us would like to see cheaper, cost-effective health care and cures. If your way wins and it works out to where people can afford cures, then that would be fine with me.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sat Jul 19, 2008 3:20 pm |
|
My latest column, to be published next week. I did the best I could with a 600-word limit.
| Quote: | Op-Ed #9: Socialized medicine isn�t the answer; freedom is
The thought of socializing healthcare is tantalizing for many Americans. Yet socialized medicine would cost hundreds of billions of dollars, create lengthy, life-threatening wait lines and result in inferior care. Not to mention that government-run healthcare is not truly free because somebody is going to pay for it�and that somebody is you, the taxpayer. In order to compensate for the costs, our taxes would have to go up.
The United States' healthcare system contains the greatest innovations, the highest-quality care and some of the best doctors in the world. The problem with our healthcare system is the disparity between those who can afford it and those who cannot. Neither Barack Obama's nationalization plan nor John McCain's tax credit proposal addresses the fundamental reasons healthcare costs are so high. The way to fix this is not through greater government control or tax credits, but through more freedom in the marketplace.
The healthcare industry is one of the most heavily regulated industries in the country, with the net cost of regulation estimated by Duke University Professor Chris Conover to be $169 billion a year. As with any industry, in order to pay for the dictates of the government, institutions of health are forced to raise costs, which extends to consumers in the form of higher prices.
Government regulations and policies have essentially mandated a third party-based system that forces the consumer to work through health insurance companies, HMO's, employers and other middlemen that pay the supplier. 84% of all personal healthcare spending is made through either private health insurance, the government or other private expenditures that are not directly from the patient.
Simple human nature tells us that when someone other than the consumer is doing the paying, demand will rise. Why? Because when an individual is separated from the spending and someone else is paying the costs, consumers are encouraged to use the service more as the incentive for individuals to save for themselves diminishes. After all, the mentality goes, if someone else is paying for it, why should I care?
Simple economics tells us that as demand rises and supply remains stagnant, prices (premiums) will inevitably go up, which in turn disadvantages those who pay directly, such as the self-employed.
Encouraging the third-party system are tax exemptions for employer-provided health insurance that the millions of self-employed and small business owners and workers who pay on their own do not receive. The government incentives, policies and regulations put in place, in large part by the federal tax code, serve to do nothing more than exacerbate the problem.
The layman's prescription for healthcare reform is increased competition and market freedom. Not a day goes by where we don't see commercials for Geico, AllState and other car insurance companies competing over who provides the best service at the lowest price�competition absent from healthcare because of the third-party system.
To fix this, the healthcare tax exemption needs to be equalized across the board so that everyone, not just the middlemen, will benefit from it, and tax-free health savings accounts need to be expanded. Adjusting the policies and regulations perpetuating the third-party system, like the tax exclusion, would increase competition by allowing consumers to shop around for themselves, decreasing costs substantially while maintaining high quality. Furthermore, due to the high cost of regulation, deregulation is key to opening up the market.
Of course these are just a few starting points that only scratch the surface, but one thing is undeniable: It's not more government we need to solve healthcare�it's more freedom. |
Last edited by Republican_Man on Sat Jul 19, 2008 3:23 pm; edited 1 time in total
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sat Jul 19, 2008 3:23 pm |
|
Two of my previous columns. While McCain is better on government, spending, and taxes than Obama, he's still not emphasizing the right points.
| Quote: | Op-Ed #6: Cut the pork
The United States of America is at a breaking point. Under the Bush Administration, the federal debt has grown by a whopping 61%, a shocking $3.5 trillion increase from an already frightening $5.7 trillion debt to a disgustingly high $9.2 trillion. This puts the nation in a downright perilous situation. It is important that individuals who provide for their families stay out of debt, but it is absolutely essential that a government with 300 million people to provide for keep a balanced budget.
For the financial and, frankly, national security of the country now and the wellbeing of the next generation of Americans, it is imperative that the government control its spending now. Contrary to popular belief, the Bush tax cuts are not the problem; they have actually increased tax revenues. The real problem is the spending, the issue which politicians in Washington must address, and soon, before it is too late.
Republican presidential nominee-to-be John McCain is fond of campaigning on a pledge to veto every pork barrel spending bill with the intention of �making the authors of it famous.� McCain, like other Washington politicians, puts undue emphasis on these programs; while it is a given that these line-items are wasteful and must be eliminated, the fact of the matter is that pork barrel projects represent less than $30 billion out of what may be, for fiscal year 2009, a $3.1 trillion budget!
Furthermore, there is the common misconception that the reason the debt is so high is due to spending on the Iraq War. In fact, by the end of this year the government will have racked up roughly $800 billion in total spending on the war, or the equivalent of just 8.7% of the federal debt. True, $800 billion in five years is significant, but it is far from the reason the debt is as high as it is.
The simple fact is that the chief component of the budget consists of entitlement programs like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. Entitlement programs represent a whopping 44% of the federal budget, and their 2007 costs alone totaled $1.2 trillion�more than double the defense budget. As the baby boomer generation enters into the forefront of Social Security and Medicare, those programs will, in effect, take an even larger bite out of the budget than they do presently.
The second-largest component is defense spending, which constitutes more than half a trillion dollars, or roughly 17% of the projected 2009 budget and 47% of total world defense spending. The third and final greatest single component is the interest on the debt, which will doubtlessly increase as the value of the dollar continues to go down and nations holding our debt demand a rate hike to offset the risk they are assuming. As of now, interest on the debt totals over $178 billion each year, or 6% of the current budget.
While Congress must put a stop to pork barrel spending and eliminate other wasteful expenditures, our politicians need to cut the pork and get serious about the budget. Ending earmarks is not nearly enough; our politicians have to focus on the real causes of this catastrophe, not the earmark smokescreen they constantly put up to shield them from making the tough decisions.
The question is: will there ever be the political will to do what must be done? |
| Quote: | Op-Ed #7: Real Solutions for America's Fiscal Crisis
Under the self-proclaimed �conservative� administration of President Bush, the federal debt now stands at a whopping $9.4 trillion, up a dramatic 64% from $5.7 trillion in 2001. As I addressed in my column last month (published March 6), the three largest single components of the budget are entitlements (more than 44%), defense (approximately 17%) and the interest on the debt (6%). In order to address budgetary concerns regarding the ever-increasing federal debt, serious action must begin by way of entitlement reform.
Entitlement programs, such as Medicare and Social Security, are those social welfare programs provided to all, irrespective of the circumstances. Their 2007 costs alone totaled $1.2 trillion�more than double the defense budget�and as the baby boomer generation enters into the forefront of Social Security and Medicare, those programs will take an even larger bite out of the budget than they do now. So let us address, briefly, how to fix them.
Social Security: Long known as the �third rail of American politics,� or the issue that, when touched, could derail an individual�s candidacy, Social Security is on the road to bankruptcy. Last month Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson declared the program �financially unsustainable� and in dire need of reform. Upon his reelection to the presidency, President Bush, to his credit, bet his political capital on reforming this program through personal accounts�and he lost.
Modifying Social Security is both essential and complex. In sum, the program should first become means-tested, where individuals have to qualify in order to receive benefits. Next, Americans who meet the criteria should be eligible to opt out and instead build up their own individual retirement accounts (IRAs), such as 501K�s. Given the current direction of Social Security, the chances of younger Americans, particularly those under the age of 45, having anything left and therefore wishing to continue to benefit from the program will be virtually nonexistent, enabling it to be phased out.
Medicare: Medicare provides medical services to America�s senior citizens regardless of income level. In 2003, the President and Congress instituted additions which will swell costs by as much as $1.2 trillion in ten years, according to the Washington Post. These additions constitute what is known as the Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit which, in short, provides a subsidy to the prescription drug costs of the nation�s seniors.
The layman�s solution to Medicare lies in slapping a grandfather clause on Part D, meaning that those who are currently not on the program will not receive expansionist Part D benefits; in making Medicare means-tested; and in allowing qualified individuals to opt out of the program if they so choose. After all, why should Bill Gates get his healthcare paid for by the government after he turns 65?
Whether or not a person qualifies for entitlement benefits should rely upon several factors, principally income level but perhaps also including yearly expenses, savings and the number of dependents. The switch to a means-tested structure should pertain solely to those who are currently under the age of 50 or 55; that way, those who are already anticipating on receiving Medicare and Social Security benefits soon will get them. Greater reform in the healthcare industry must then occur for those under that age through free-market approaches, not a brand-new entitlement program, and IRAs must be greatly encouraged.
These are just a few starting points, but if the government takes serious action to implement the above proposals, we will at last be able to see a glimmer of hope for the debt�and for the next generation�without damaging the economy with tax increases or cutting benefits for those in need. |
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Lord Borg
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 27 May 2003
Posts: 11214
Location: Vulcan Capital City, Vulcan
|
| Sat Jul 19, 2008 3:31 pm |
|
I saw stills of McCain's negative (towards Obama) ad on CNN a few minutes again. I can't help but notice that none of Obama's images had a flag behind him, while all of McCains did. Normal I suppose, in IMO, it sends the wrong message about Obama.
-------signature-------
When you cried I'd wipe away all of your tears
When you'd scream I'd fight away all of your fears
And I held your hand through all of these years
But you still have
All of me
|
|
|
Arellia
The Quiet One
Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 4425
Location: Dallas, TX
|
| Sat Jul 19, 2008 5:24 pm |
|
So... how do tax-free health savings accounts help families who cannot save even a penny of their paycheck every month? And how would de-regulating healthcare be a good thing?
Also, why is encouraging greater use of health care a good thing? What's the fear? Needless plastic surgery, needless blood tests...? Someone going to the doctor for an ear infection, or the flu? What exactly is the fear of letting someone see a doctor when they feel they need to?
I mean, sure. I never saw a doctor when I was younger, because we couldn't afford it, and I'm alive. Does that mean I should have done that...? Well, probably not. Might have spared me getting bronchitis and chronic ankle issues, but I suppose in the interest of saving the government money, that was all well and good. I don't understand how doctors are suddenly going to authorize some kind of luxury, needless use of healthcare. Do people with proper insurance they're paying for anyway over-use their care?
Last edited by Arellia on Sat Jul 19, 2008 5:32 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
LightningBoy
Commodore
Joined: 09 Mar 2003
Posts: 1446
Location: Minnesota, U.S.A.
|
| Sat Jul 19, 2008 5:25 pm |
|
| Arellia wrote: | If not helping people... then... why? Why bother going into medicine if that is not the reason? Why would you go through all the pain and trouble when you could pay less to become a lawyer or business person who makes more? Medical school is incredibly difficult to get into, let alone succeed in. The stress is huge. *shrugs* Doctors are well-paid, but I wasn't aware of that when I started down my own path to medical school. I think truly good doctors, people who are really healers at heart, aren't in it for the money. I don't think you can treat healthcare like a business, because it's a moral issue. Giving medical care to people who need it is a moral imperative--the hippocratic oath is entirely about being moral and doing what's right as a healer. The greatest reward is seeing someone who is sick become better, seeing innovations that save lives is a gift by itself.
I could not live with myself if I suddenly made the decision, "Well, I could go into research and save lives... but I could make more money doing ___, so I guess all those people will just get along without me." To me having the ability to work in medicine makes it my duty. To insinuate that I somehow require large sums of money to perform my duty is incorrect and slightly insulting to my honor.
But anyway, either way, both of us would like to see cheaper, cost-effective health care and cures. If your way wins and it works out to where people can afford cures, then that would be fine with me. |
Oh yeah. Is that why medicine is one of the most highly paid fields in the world? People work to make money. People work hard to make more money. People innovate to get an edge over others. Take away money, take away medicine.
As for your argument about "equal pay for women"; did you ever stop to think about why there is an inequality? Do you think it's just greedy men pushing around women in the workplace? (Well, you probably do.) But no, the real reason there is an inequality is that women don't work as much as men. Women's careers are very often broken up, whereas men work straight through their life. Women (make the CHOICE to) stay home and have babies, raise a family, and stay true to traditionalism that's worked for generations. Some don't choose to do that, and that's fine too; but those women make good money, just as good as men.
|
|
|
Arellia
The Quiet One
Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 4425
Location: Dallas, TX
|
| Sat Jul 19, 2008 5:50 pm |
|
| LightningBoy wrote: |
Oh yeah. Is that why medicine is one of the most highly paid fields in the world? People work to make money. People work hard to make more money. People innovate to get an edge over others. Take away money, take away medicine.
As for your argument about "equal pay for women"; did you ever stop to think about why there is an inequality? Do you think it's just greedy men pushing around women in the workplace? (Well, you probably do.) But no, the real reason there is an inequality is that women don't work as much as men. Women's careers are very often broken up, whereas men work straight through their life. Women (make the CHOICE to) stay home and have babies, raise a family, and stay true to traditionalism that's worked for generations. Some don't choose to do that, and that's fine too; but those women make good money, just as good as men. |
Maybe it's highly-paid because it's a necessity? People will pay very high prices for someone who is very good at keeping them alive? I don't know. It's more a moral point of mine that the amount of money a physician makes would be ideally irrelevant to the physician. I would rather see a doctor who was in it for the act of helping than for the mercedes, but so be it. I still think research especially is prompted more by a wish to be helpful than a wish to be rich.
I don't believe doctors will see a significant decrease in their pay if we have a government plan available to those who want it. Besides that, I would point out that there would still be lots of plans, and doctors who do care more about their bottom line (if it becomes an issue) could simply not take that insurance. On my husband's military insurance there are several doctors who will not take it, and that's their prerogative. I wouldn't be one of those doctors, personally, but other doctors could do as they like. In that case at least there would be a few doctors that would help the less-fortunate who cannot afford a private plan, improving public health.
As for equal pay, if a woman is doing the same job at the same quality as a man, she deserves the same pay. That's what I think should be in the legislation. Many times women WILL be paid less because the employer assumes that the female worker will be taking time off in the future. I believe that in these cases a woman should have the right to demand pay equal to the pay of other similarly skilled men in the workplace; that's all. I would like to see nothing more than an option of recourse for women who are genuinely not getting paid what they should be. Could that be over-used? Probably. I think equality is worth it.
And, by the way, I'm not anti-male, but I am interested in protecting those who are sometimes discriminated against. I have the same concern for the equality of people of color and homosexuals. Women are just as capable of discrimination, and often participate.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu Aug 28, 2008 6:54 pm |
|
Yay! The One, the Only, the Obama-Messiah is about to speak at the Temple of Obama at Invesco Field! I'm so excited!
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Theresa
Lux Mihi Deus
Joined: 17 Jun 2001
Posts: 27256
Location: United States of America
|
| Thu Aug 28, 2008 7:00 pm |
|
One good thing about the DNC being on CBS is that I'm getting to bed early. It's all an ass-kiss-fest (IMO), When is the RNC?
-------signature-------
Some of us fall by the wayside
And some of us soar to the stars
And some of us sail through our troubles
And some have to live with our scars
|
|
|
Arellia
The Quiet One
Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 4425
Location: Dallas, TX
|
| Thu Aug 28, 2008 8:18 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | Yay! The One, the Only, the Obama-Messiah is about to speak at the Temple of Obama at Invesco Field! I'm so excited!
|
"I trust God speaks through me. Without that, I couldn't do my job."
[I was] �chosen by the grace of God to lead at that moment.�
�I believe God wants me to be president.�
- George W. Bush http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/nov/02/usa.religion
... you can make fun of him too, now.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu Aug 28, 2008 10:28 pm |
|
| Theresa wrote: | | One good thing about the DNC being on CBS is that I'm getting to bed early. It's all an ass-kiss-fest (IMO), When is the RNC? |
Next week. After that speech, two adults I talked to are literally scared at the prospect that Obama might become President. That's literally one of theirs word: scared, because of their personal economic damage that would come from this because they would likely wrongfully be considered rich by Obama. I am in agreement with that statement.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Arellia
The Quiet One
Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 4425
Location: Dallas, TX
|
| Thu Aug 28, 2008 10:39 pm |
|
I think people who are scared that they won't have money for food next month take some precedence. I'm not for taxing the "rich" to death, but ending corporate loopholes, making sure that the top people are not paying a lower rate than people closer to the bottom? Cutting programs that don't work, improving programs that do, and paying attention to the incredible economic strife we're enduring...? I can't argue with any of those things. It's harder for me to feel bad for people who might lose an extra couple percent from their comfortable income to improve the health and education opportunities of an entire country.
"Middle class families will see their taxes cut � and no family making less than $250,000 will see their taxes increase. The typical middle class family will receive well over $1,000 in tax relief under the Obama plan, and will pay tax rates that are 20% lower than they faced under President Reagan. According to the Tax Policy Center, the Obama plan provides three times as much tax relief for middle class families as the McCain plan.
Families making more than $250,000 will pay either the same or lower tax rates than they paid in the 1990s. Obama will ask the wealthiest 2% of families to give back a portion of the tax cuts they have received over the past eight years to ensure we are restoring fairness and returning to fiscal responsibility. But no family will pay higher tax rates than they would have paid in the 1990s. In fact, dividend rates would be 39 percent lower than what President Bush proposed in his 2001 tax cut.
Eliminating Capital Gains Taxes for Entrepreneurs and Investors in Small Business. Barack Obama
understands that small businesses are the engines of our economy, and he will eliminate all capital gains
taxes on investments in small and start up firms."
$250,000 a year is 100 times the amount of money my family ever had. The top two tax brackets for the 07 fiscal year had rates of 33 and 35%. People in these brackets would be paying 3% more.
EDIT: Further, and I didn't know this before, taxes for those making a deal of money actually work thusly.
* 0% of the first $8,950 of income,
* 10% of the income between $8,951 and $16,975,
* 15% of the income between $16,976 and $41,500,
* 25% of the income between $41,501 and $87,800,
* 28% of the income between $87,801 and $173,500,
* 33% of the income between $173,501 and $366,650, and
* 35% of the income exceeding $366,650.
Under Obama, the last two percentages would be 36 and 39%.
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Sat Aug 30, 2008 4:54 pm |
|
I honestly don't see how 250k makes anybody "rich."
It just kind of annoys me because people who do make that amount of money have usually gone to school for an extensive period of time and work an incredible amount of hours. They earn their money, just like people who make less, so why should they be penalized for it?
-------signature-------
"Nelly, I am Heathcliff! He's always, always in my mind: not as a pleasure, any more than I am always a pleasure to myself, but as my own being."
-Wuthering Heights
|
|
|
Arellia
The Quiet One
Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 4425
Location: Dallas, TX
|
| Sat Aug 30, 2008 5:46 pm |
|
I can't see 250k as anything but rich. My mother worked 1 full-time and one part-time job to make a measly 2,000 a month while I grew up. Double that income? Dear lord, we could have lived comfortably. She didn't get to go to college. She made mistakes. She ended up raising a kid alone. It wasn't that she didn't work hard, but it was the case that even with her best efforts she could not afford to pay income tax. Not a cent--everything we had went into the cost of living. People who have enough to live comfortably can pay more, while some people can't pay at all. Perhaps people who haven't lived that can't understand.
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Sat Aug 30, 2008 8:13 pm |
|
If anything, 250k seems to be upper-middle class to me.
I don't see how life-stories have much to do with "world news," but if that's the way it is, so be it.
By those standards, my family is pretty much considered to be "rich." We don't have anything out of the way extraordinary. We live in a middle class neighborhood and have middle class friends. But in any case, they both work on average 65 hours a week. I don't remember a time in my life where I wasn't being dropped off before school to sit around in the morning and having to stay until 5:30 or 6 when school got out at 3 because my parents have jobs, just like yours, not to mention having to be babysat on weekends because they had to go to work. We only once went on vacation for more than week because they had other things to do. Although they can afford to pay for things, they don't have time for much else, including being happy. I hardly ever see them because they simply work all the time. I'm sure that your interest in the medical field means that you know about the correlation between job stress and health, so I won't go much further about that, except to mention that it applies.
That's a lot of feeling sorry for myself, but why should people who work as hard as they do have money taken away from them?
-------signature-------
"Nelly, I am Heathcliff! He's always, always in my mind: not as a pleasure, any more than I am always a pleasure to myself, but as my own being."
-Wuthering Heights
|
|
|
Arellia
The Quiet One
Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 4425
Location: Dallas, TX
|
| Sun Aug 31, 2008 11:20 am |
|
I was using a brief anecdote to illustrate why I believe that a certain amount of money is rich based on my background. You were insinuating that people who make a small amount of money don't work very much, which is sometimes the case, but is frequently not the case. I wasn't personally being sorry for myself, because I think my experience living around the poverty level changes my perception of living for the better. While 250k seems upper-middle-class to some, and perhaps it is, from my perspective, it is way more than the amount of money it takes to pay for decent things in life. It's an insurmountably large amount from where I sit, so I see it as being "rich."
However, on taxes, I'm speaking to fairness here. Someone has to pay enough taxes so that the government can run. Whether the upper brackets pay 70% (ludicrous, this is an example) or 12%, I think they should always pay more than people who barely even have money for food. They have more taken from them, but they can give more without becoming homeless or having their children walk around without clothes that fit. Not everyone is so lucky as to be able to pay income tax at all.
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Sun Aug 31, 2008 4:51 pm |
|
I don't recall implying anything of the sort. I was stating general facts and as I said: they earn their money just like people who make less. Nor do I recall saying you felt sorry for yourself, I think I said "myself."
We all live in the same country but I'll admit we aren't all afforded the same opportunities. Everybody points to that fact when it suits them but are just as ready to bring up manifest destiny or luck to explain intense labor and dedication.
I just don't think the point should be if you can or can't sacrifice more and be able to survive but why should anybody have to give more than the next to support the same country or programs? Many of which are broken anyway.
|
|
|
Arellia
The Quiet One
Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 4425
Location: Dallas, TX
|
| Sun Aug 31, 2008 7:09 pm |
|
Do you think that people should choose what programs they fund? Or if they want to pay taxes to the United States at all? Would anyone choose to fund the pell grant? Would they fund medicare, the SCHIP program? Or would they save their money to spend on their own kids? If the government didn't step in to help people, there wouldn't be enough private organizations out there to do the same work. Say what you will of welfare and what have you, I agree, there are many dead end programs that need reform or to be cut entirely, but this country genuinely needs programs that help those with very little.
I suppose it's an ideological difference. I feel that those with little deserve help, and the money has to come from somewhere. If it has to come from somewhere, it has to come from people who can afford to pay. Maybe a flat tax for people over a certain amount, so it doesn't continue climbing? I don't have that answer. I don't know all the numbers. I do know that to abandon all social programs would be to abandon a generation of people who deserve--need--to accomplish something. Poverty breeds violence, breeds child abuse. Poverty is worth fighting.
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Mon Sep 01, 2008 12:01 am |
|
I'm not saying that taxes aren't necessary, and the only real way I can see to gauge how much people can give is based on income and other things like property. What I think is as you said: that there needs to be a stop somewhere in sight to the ever-increasing taxes that people have to pay. In certain areas taxes and the cost of living are already incredibly high in comparison to a four and a half hour drive away. Obviously it's impossible to take everybody's unique situation into account, but still.
On the liberal front the answer always seems to lie with money they don't have, so they'll just take it from ordinary citizens who work their asses off so they can give it to others. The whole Robin Hood mentality is awfully nice in a story book where all the people who have money are evil and deserve to have it taken away, but that just isn't the way it is.
-------signature-------
"Nelly, I am Heathcliff! He's always, always in my mind: not as a pleasure, any more than I am always a pleasure to myself, but as my own being."
-Wuthering Heights
|
|
|
Lord Borg
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 27 May 2003
Posts: 11214
Location: Vulcan Capital City, Vulcan
|
| Tue Sep 02, 2008 3:23 am |
|
Isn't that the point? If you think these programs are broken, then perhaps you should do your part to fix them. For people with giving more money then those below them its based on fact that the government needs a certain amount to operate this country. By having a higher tax rate for the rich (rather then a bigger break...) those that cannot pay as much (or even are unable to pay) are not harming the country by not doing so. To each, their own, I guess.
I also fail to see the "Robin Hood Mentality" as you so called it, in the idea behind the tax rates. The idea isn't to have those that work their asses off for what little they get, to have it taken away, but to have those that have like...twenty million in in the bank to pay taxes, instead of them finding ways to get out of doing it. In a way, that's what the entire thing with Wesley Snipes (as much of a joke the Judge and Prosecutor made it) was about, him, being super rich, does not make him exempt from taxes, and thats what its being seen, either through loopholes, or tax laws that are currently in effect.
I suppose though, I could see it from your point of view, as 250,000 is, and is not a lot, depending on your living cost and styles. Syd's point, however, is that her family never had that much to live on, and that she could make that much, live comfortable and put most in the bank...to pay the taxes, to pay for her future life, etc...
-------signature-------
When you cried I'd wipe away all of your tears
When you'd scream I'd fight away all of your fears
And I held your hand through all of these years
But you still have
All of me
|
|
|
Theresa
Lux Mihi Deus
Joined: 17 Jun 2001
Posts: 27256
Location: United States of America
|
| Sat Oct 18, 2008 9:32 pm |
|
This is a forward, I didn't check any of the facts, just posted it in case anyone else wanted to, or just wanted to read it.
| Quote: | KRLA-AM 870
A BLACK LOS ANGELES TALK RADIO HOST,
WENT DOWN A LIST OF THINGS SENATOR OBAMA HAS SAID THAT ARE NOT EXACTLY CORRECT.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Obama's Not Exactly's:
1..) Selma March Got Me Born - NOT EXACTLY, your parents felt safe enough to have you in 1961 - Selma had no effect on your birth, as Selma was in 1965. (Google'Obama Selma ' for his full March 4, 2007 speech and articles about its various untruths.)
2..) Father Was A Goat Herder - NOT EXACTLY, he was a privileged, well educated youth, who went on to work with the Kenyan Government.
3..) Father Was A Proud Freedom Fighter - NOT EXACTLY, he was part of one of the most corrupt and violent governments Kenya has ever had.
4..) My Family Has Strong Ties To African Freedom - NOT EXACTLY, your cousin Raila Odinga has created mass violence in attempting to overturn a legitimate election in 2007, in Kenya . It is the first widespread violence in decades. The current government is pro-American but Odinga wants to overthrow it and establish Muslim Sharia law. Your half-brother, Abongo Oba ma, is Odinga's follower. You interrupted your New Hampshire campaigning to speak to Odinga on the phone. Check out the following link for veri fication of that....and for more.
Obama's cousin Odinga in Kenya ran for president and tried to get Sharia muslim law in place there. When Odinga lost the elections, his followers have burned Christians' homes and then burned men, women and children alive in a Christian church where they took shelter.. Obama SUPPORTED his cousin before the election process here started. Google Obama and Odinga and see what you get. No one wants to know the truth!
5..) My Grandmother Has Always Been A Christian - NOT EXACTLY, she does her daily Salat prayers at 5 am according to her own interviews. Not to mention, Christianity would not allow her to have been one of 14 wives to 1 man.
6.) My Name is African Swahili - NOT EXACTLY, your name is Arabic and 'Baraka' (from which Barack came) means 'blessed' in that language. Hussein is also Arabic and so is Obama.
Barack Hussein Obama is not half black. If elected, he would be the first Arab-American President, not the first black President. Barack Hussein Obama is 50% Caucasian from his mother's side and 43.75% Arabic and 6.25% African Negro from his father's side. While Barack Hussein Obama's father was from Kenya , his father's family was mainly Arabs.. Barack Hussein, Obama's father, was only 12.5% African Negro and 87.5% Arab (his father's birth certificate even states he's Arab, not African Negro). From....and for more....go to.....
http://www.arcadeathome.com/newsboy.phtml?Barack_Hussein_Obama_-_Arab-American,_only_6.25%25_African
7.) I Never Practiced Islam - NOT EXACTLY, you practiced it daily at school, where you were registered as a Muslim and kept that faith for 31 years, until your wife made you change, so you could run for office.
4-3-08 Article 'Obama was 'quite religious in Islam'' http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=60559
8.) My School In Indonesia Was Christian - NOT EXACTLY, you were registered as Muslim there and got in trouble in Koranic Studies for making faces (check your own book).
February 28, 2008. Kristoff from the New York Times a year ago: Mr. Obama recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer, reciting them with a first-rate accent. In a remark that seemed delightfully uncalculated (it will give Alabama voters heart attacks), Mr. Obama described the call to prayer as 'one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.' This is just one example of what Pamela is talking about when she says 'Obama's narrative is being altered, enhanced and manipulated to whitewash troubling facts.'
9.) I Was Fluent In Indonesian - NOT EXACTLY, not one teacher says you could speak the language.
10.) Because I Lived In Indonesia , I Have More Foreign Experience - NOT EXACTLY, you were there from the ages of 6 to 10, and could not even speak the language. What did you learn except how to study the Koran and watch cartoons.
11.) I Am Stronger On Foreign Affairs - NOT EXACTLY, except for Africa (surprise) and the Middle East (bigger surprise), you have never been anywhere else on the planet and thus have NO experience with our closest allies.
12.) I Blame My Early Drug Use On Ethnic Confusion - NOT EXACTLY, you were quite content in high school to be Barry Obama, no mention of Kenya and no mention of struggle to identify - your classmates said you were just fine
13.)An Ebony Article Moved Me To Run For Office - NOT EXACTLY, Ebony has yet to find the article you mention in your book. It does not, and never did, exist.
14.) A Life Magazine Article Changed My Outlook On Life - NOT EXACTLY, Life has yet to find the article you mention in your book. It does not, and never did, exist.
15.) I Won't Run On A National Ticket In '08 - NOT EXACTLY, here you are, despite saying, live on TV, that you would not have enough experience by then, and you are all about having experience first.
16.) Voting 'Present' is Common In Illinois Senate - NOT EXACTLY, they are common for YOU, but not many others have 130 'NO' VOTES.
17.) Oops, I Misvoted - NOT EXACTLY, only when caught by church groups and Democrats, did you beg to change your misvote.
18.) I Was A Professor Of Law - NOT EXACTLY, you were a senior lecturer ON LEAVE.
19.) I Was A Constitutional Lawyer - NOT EXACTLY, you were a senior lecturer ON LEAVE.
20.) Without Me, There Would Be No Ethics Bill - NOT EXACTLY, you did not write it, introduce it, change it or create it.
21.) The Ethics Bill Was Hard To Pass - NOT EXACTLY, it took just 14 days from start to finish.
22.) I Wrote A Tough Nuclear Bill - NOT EXACTLY, your bill was rejected by your own party for its pandering and lack of all regulation - mainly because of your Nuclear donor, Exelon, from which David Axelrod came.
23.) I Have Released My State Records - NOT EXACTLY, as of March, 2008, state bills you sponsored or voted for have yet to be released, exposing all the special interests pork hidden within.
24.) I Took On The Asbestos Altgeld Gardens Mess - NOT EXACTLY, you were part of a large group of people who remedied Altgeld Gardens You failed to mention anyone else but yourself, in your books.
25.) My Economics Bill Will Help America - NOT EXACTLY, your 111 economic policies were just combined into a proposal which lost 99-0, and even YOU voted against your own bill.
26.) I Have Been A Bold Leader In Illinois - NOT EXACTLY, even your own supporters claim to have not seen BOLD action on your part.
27.) I Passed 26 Of My Own Bills In One Year - NOT EXACTLY, they were not YOUR bills, but rather handed to you, after their creation by a fellow Senator, to assist you in a future bid for higher office.
28.) No One on my campaign contacted Canada about NAFTA - NOT EXACTLY, the Canadian Government issued the names and a memo of the conversation your campaign had with them.
29.) I Am Tough On Terrorism - NOT EXACTLY, you missed the Iran Resolution vote on terrorism and your good friend Ali Abunimah supports the destruction off Israel .
30.) I Want All Votes To Count - NOT EXACTLY, you said let the delegates decide.
31.) I Want Americans To Decide - NOT EXACTLY, you prefer caucuses that limit the vote, confuse the voters, force a public vote, and only operate during small windows of time.
32.) I passed 900 Bills in the State Senate - NOT EXACTLY, you passed 26, most of which you did not write yourself.
33.) I Believe In Fairness, Not Tactics - NOT EXACTLY, you used tactics to eliminate Alice Palmer from running against you.
34.) I Do not Take PAC Money - NOT EXACTLY, you take loads of it.
35.) I do not Have Lobbyists - NOT EXACTLY, you have over 47 lobbyists, and counting.
36.) My Campaign Had Nothing To Do With The 1984 Ad - NOT EXACTLY, your own campaign worker made the ad on his Apple in one afternoon.
37.) I Have Always Been Against Iraq - NOT EXACTLY, you were not in office to vote against it AND you have voted to fund it every single time.
38.) I Have Always Supported Universal Health Care - NOT EXACTLY, your plan leaves us all to pay for the 15,000,000 who do not have to buy it.
39.) My uncle (U.S Army) liberated Auschwitz concentration camp - NOT EXACTLY, your mother had no brothers and the Russian army did the liberating,
|
-------signature-------
Some of us fall by the wayside
And some of us soar to the stars
And some of us sail through our troubles
And some have to live with our scars
|
|
|
Arellia
The Quiet One
Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 4425
Location: Dallas, TX
|
| Sun Oct 19, 2008 3:18 pm |
|
| Quote: | WASHINGTON - Former Secretary of State Colin Powell endorsed Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., for president on Sunday, criticizing his own Republican Party for what he called its narrow focus on irrelevant personal attacks over a serious approach to challenges he called unprecedented.
�I don�t believe [Palin] is ready to be president of the United States,� Powell said flatly. By contrast, Obama�s running mate, Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware, �is ready to be president on day one.�
Powell also said he was �troubled� by Republican personal attacks on Obama, especially false intimations that Obama was Muslim and Republicans� recent focus on Obama�s alleged connections to William Ayers, the founder of the radical �60 Weather Underground.
Stressing that Obama was a lifelong Christian, Powell denounced Republican tactics that he said were insulting not only to to Obama but also to Muslims.
�The really right answer is what if he is?� Powell said, praising the contributions of millions of Muslim citizens to American society. |
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27265369/
As to T's post, I don't have time to document all the lies there. Anyone who believes them probably isn't for Obama anyway, and never will be.
|
|
|
squiggy
Stooge Two
Joined: 09 Mar 2004
Posts: 3007
Location: Messing with the fabric of Video Game realities. I'll summon Shiva on you! I SWEAR!
|
| Sun Oct 19, 2008 3:43 pm |
|
Arellia is actually quite correct there. First off, I note that whoever WROTE that article mis-spelled the Muslim faith's holy text, the Qur'an, and additionally, a great deal of that material((including all that stuff about indonesia)), seems rather petty, and boring. I suppose the real question to that article is "Who has that little of a life that they would even bother to research half that garbage?" and perhaps, just perhaps, the talk-show host in question could use a bit less time on Google, spouting barely supported accusations.
As to the article about Colin Powell, I say I'm both surprised that a politician has that much ethics left to actually SAY something like that, and happy that someone of the party doing it, pointed out the incredible amount of personal garbage being thrown at the other party, attacking not the party, not the party's ethics, but simply the candidate in question.
And that little quote at the end there is so true. "So what if he's Muslim?" or "So what if he is Christian?" or even "So what if he is a Satanic worshiper?" That is his RIGHT, under the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, to worship whatever Deity he wants to, and believes in. I think that the Republican campaign owes this man an apology, if nothing else.
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Star Trek �, in all its various forms, are trademarks & copyrights of Paramount Pictures
This site has no official connection with Star Trek or Paramount Pictures
Site content/Site design elements owned by Morphy and is meant to only be an archive/Tribute to STV.com
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
