- Joined
- Feb 11, 2011
- Messages
- 528
- Reaction score
- 15
i'm just pocking fun back at you, and you actually bother to defend her? Now who's on the bridge to nowhere?
Health law upheld, but health needs still unmet
- Thread starter startoverat40
- Start date
i'm just pocking fun back at you, and you actually bother to defend her? Now who's on the bridge to nowhere?
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2006
- Messages
- 15,649
- Reaction score
- 38
Youre the worst
Dont you see that usps could have been generating that profit that fedex and ups since the 70s?
The public pays for it and corporate profits, the routes, the streets, the public resources utilized in order to run such a business
They cant steal as directly from usps so they let a corporation in and collect later
You obviously have no perception of the US population as we have a much poorer, sicker one with more immigration than the europeans
If you so much as mention an AVERAGE salary ill jump through this screen
I'll bet my entire lifes earnings vs yours a single payer system wont fix it and i guess you didnt bother to read anything besides spouting off but none of those euro countries have it, as much as 50% is paid through supplemental insurance of which there is one company.
Our reform isnt for one payor either so what the hell are you talking about? Its going to increase the number of insurance companies
They are cutting medicaid like they have been and taxing people just out of the eligible income to pay for it
Why do tax brackets stop where they do? Why not 1 mill, 10 mill, 100 milll?
Theres lots of money out there from the rich they dont touch that was subsidized through public resources like usps to make a company like fedex or ups profitable. Or how about 1 trillion straight cash to your company from public resources?
Bet me son, whatever, 1 single government payor and how the health of our country will improve.
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2004
- Messages
- 27,996
- Reaction score
- 56,495
You should have read the cited article instead of just the wiki page...
Key findings
Data from the United States Linked Birth/Infant Death Data Set and the European Perinatal Health Report
Infant mortality rates for preterm (less than 37 weeks of gestation) infants are lower in the United States than in most European countries; however, infant mortality rates for infants born at 37 weeks of gestation or more are higher in the United States than in most European countries.
One in 8 births in the United States were born preterm, compared with 1 in 18 births in Ireland and Finland.
If the United States had Swedens distribution of births by gestational age, nearly 8,000 infant deaths would be averted each year and the U.S. infant mortality rate would be one-third lower.
The main cause of the United States high infant mortality rate when compared with Europe is the very high percentage of preterm births in the United States.
Table 2. Gestational age-specific infant mortality rates, United States and selected European countries, 2004
Selected countries 22-23 weeks1 24-27 weeks 28-31 weeks 32-36 weeks 37 weeks or more
USA 707.7 236.9 45.0 8.6 2.4
Austria 888.9 319.6 43.8 5.8 1.5
Denmark 947.4 301.2 42.2 10.3 2.3
England 880.5 298.2 52.2 10.6 1.8
Finland 900.0 315.8 58.5 9.7 1.4
N. Ireland 1,000.0 268.3 54.5 13.1 1.6
Norway 555.6 220.2 56.4 7.2 1.5
Poland 921.1 530.6 147 23.1 2.3
Scotland 1,000.0 377.0 60.8 8.8 1.7
Sweden 515.2 197.7 41.3 12.8 1.5
So we're #3 for 22-27, #4 for 28-31 weeks, #2 for 32-36 weeks. Its only for term infants that we suck.
As to that, my suspicion follows along with what SurfingDoctor suggested... plus adding in the usual lifestyle stuff (pre-eclampsia and gestational diabetes).
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2011
- Messages
- 528
- Reaction score
- 15
what a nice and kind person you are.
And since your comment is only a personal attack and devoid of any arguments, I'm not sure what that says about your intellectual prowess and integrity of character.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2011
- Messages
- 528
- Reaction score
- 15
VA DR
The point is that the US spends multiple times as much money as other countries, and all it can show for it, by some stretch of argument, is an equal outcome at best. Let's not forget the 50k people who die in the US due to lack of insurance, and the thousands who go bankrupt from health expenses. These negative outcomes do not result from single payer and non profit systems which the US insurance leeches try to scare us of!
The point is that the US spends multiple times as much money as other countries, and all it can show for it, by some stretch of argument, is an equal outcome at best. Let's not forget the 50k people who die in the US due to lack of insurance, and the thousands who go bankrupt from health expenses. These negative outcomes do not result from single payer and non profit systems which the US insurance leeches try to scare us of!
Last edited:
Look up how much more of our population lives in poverty
This doesnt have to do with healthcare spending as these countries have a better standard of living for all
They all spend more as a % of healthcare expenditures on doctors
Corporation and pharm do not make the same criminal profit margins
Minimum wage in australia is like $16-17 an hour that blew my mind and all docs make significantly more
Malpractice is still an issue when the cost is almost 20% of what we spend on docs
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2011
- Messages
- 528
- Reaction score
- 15
yes so we have more people in poverty who can't afford the for-profit-covers-nothing insurance policies. those countries have much higher tax rates on the rich, and that's why they have a better standard of living for all. that goes to show how wrong the right wing propaganda against high taxes on the rich and more social protection benefits is.
we should also raise taxes on the 1%, and cut out the for-profit no-benefit-add insurance companies from healthcare. we will save 400 billion in admin costs, and we will have more than enough to cover every single American.
we should also raise taxes on the 1%, and cut out the for-profit no-benefit-add insurance companies from healthcare. we will save 400 billion in admin costs, and we will have more than enough to cover every single American.
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2012
- Messages
- 7,815
- Reaction score
- 1,229
The top 1% pay 36.73% of federal income taxes.
The bottom 50% pays 2.25%
http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html
Raising taxes on the freeloading bottom 50% makes much more sense.
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2011
- Messages
- 528
- Reaction score
- 15
the bottom 50% are barely surviving, what taxes do you want them to pay? the 1% owns an overwhelming portion of the nation's wealth. they should put more of that wealth (that the 50% helped create) back into the society so the whole society can have a higher standard of living.
those who can only blame the poor for being poor show how callous and heartless and brainwashed they are.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph
those who can only blame the poor for being poor show how callous and heartless and brainwashed they are.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2011
- Messages
- 528
- Reaction score
- 15
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2012
- Messages
- 7,815
- Reaction score
- 1,229
The interest rates shouldn't be "kept down" in the first place, as government isn't supposed to be involved in student loans. The subsidies the federal govt. provides to education produces this grotesque tuition bubble, which has not helped us. And how does bleeding O-care hurt doctors? The bill is a disaster.
What an idiot. Most small business owners I know vote Republican as much as possible (some RINOs are no better than Democrats), because Republicans understand that high taxes are bad for business. Get it?
The Democrats have brought us Social Security, (Medicaid,) and Medicare which have bankrupted this country. They will not be around by the time it's relevant for us.
Why on earth would our generation support a party which has continually lied to us and brought the SS Ponzi scheme (yes, Rick Perry was right) to our doorstep?
I expect no more from a ***** who uses the term "1%", though. An arbitrary line drawn by illiterates in OWS.
Go educate yourself on who donated to Obama in 2008. Facts are Kryptonite to the left.
Some of us realize that raising tax rates takes potential investment money out of the market to offshore accounts and the like. Oh, and conservatives are not as quick to let our envy get the better of us. With almost half the nation clamoring for a piece of government pie, it is tempting to join the throngs. But principles - principles - withhold some from exerting every effort to steal others' money.
Actually, what all med students and doctors need to take a hard look at is the legions of slip-and-fall lawyers swarming out of this nation's law schools. Therein lies a good chunk of the solution to healthcare's high costs.
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2012
- Messages
- 7,815
- Reaction score
- 1,229
Here's a tip, startoverat40: I don't want to see any taxes raised. I'd like to see govt. spending decreased (yes, in all areas, including military). The problem in this country is not lack of revenue, it's outrageous spending.
See? We can all win. If states wish to enact their own welfare/healthcare programs, fine.
Edit: you think it's easy for people in my situation to take this position? I'm nowhere near the so-called "1%", but it just doesn't feel right to me, screaming for blood (or, exorbitant taxes). Sure, many rich people are unscrupulous, greedy, and took risks with others' money expecting to be bailed out. But there are many good people at the top as well, and one cannot fairly call all rich people "corporate vultures" etc.
See? We can all win. If states wish to enact their own welfare/healthcare programs, fine.
Edit: you think it's easy for people in my situation to take this position? I'm nowhere near the so-called "1%", but it just doesn't feel right to me, screaming for blood (or, exorbitant taxes). Sure, many rich people are unscrupulous, greedy, and took risks with others' money expecting to be bailed out. But there are many good people at the top as well, and one cannot fairly call all rich people "corporate vultures" etc.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2012
- Messages
- 7,815
- Reaction score
- 1,229
This is just flailing around in the quicksand when we need a clear-thought approach. Subsidies to higher education have led to dramatically increased tuition (this happens everywhere the govt. sticks its hands, from healthcare to housing), and this cannot be solved by more artificially low rates from federal loans. If federal loans were phased out (e.g. only for STEM majors, extremely poor students, etc.) you'd quickly begin to see a crop of cheap schools which could be attended by anybody. Y'know, students used to actually be able to work their way through college.
The effects of the legislation are the current $1 Trillion in student debt. This is breathtakingly preposterous. Sorry, we don't need to subsidize any more Art History or Asian Studies students. Such majors are useless.
It's hard for me to check, but I suspect that you just pulled this qualitative point out of nowhere. First, Democratic policies tend to hurt small business owners the most. Second, who's talking about student loans? So many small business owners succeed because of common sense, without having gone to college. I know many. The idea that college is a key ingredient to success in life is absurd, and is a recent development.
1) Yes, and there is $1 Trillion dollars of student debt in this country. Why is it that whenever Democrats (all politicians, to be fair) are "trying to help" they completely bungle it? Because government is incompetent. Especially incompetent when the Party platform seems to be to pander to as many groups as possible and promise everyone a free lunch.
What Reagan (He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named on these boards) said applies to so many areas: the scariest 9 words for small businesses to hear: "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help."
2) You're not really this dense, are you? Paul Ryan was all but accused of "pushing Grandma off a cliff" when he introduced his idea to reform Medicare/caid and SS. Even though his plan is a joke (doesn't do so for a very long time). It's Republicans who want to give us the option of opting out of the Ponzi scheme that is SS.
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2011
- Messages
- 528
- Reaction score
- 15
excess unearned wealth needs to be cycled back into the economy in order to help bring up the bottom. stock transactions need to be taxed. gazillionaires need to pay higher tax, especially on their unearned capital gains. by unearned i mean wealth that begets wealth. they get their money to generate more money, without producing any product or providing any service. they literally make money grow on trees. this extra wealth should be taxed more to help bring up the bottom tiers of the society. this would benefit the rich also, because the lower end consumers could buy more products created by the rich.
if even out of complete selfishness, the rich should be happy to help out the poor. so says economics nobel prize winner.
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2011
- Messages
- 528
- Reaction score
- 15
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2011
- Messages
- 3,477
- Reaction score
- 1,676
Wrong. Absolutely wrong. We have 30 years of data now showing that low taxes on the top brackets leads to economic inequality and lowered growth.
During the 40s, 50s, 60s and 70s, the US experienced the largest economic expansion in the history of the world. The taxes on top earners was something like 40% effective.
Low taxes, along with other other policies, leads to bubble formation, inefficient use of wealth and economic inequality. All of these things, unquestionably, is bad for the economy. For the best example, look at what happened during the Bush years. It was a conservative's wet dream. Low taxes, deregulation and extremely business friendly policies. In the end, we had a lost decade of growth and over the last 30 years, a lost generation of wages. The average person today makes no more money than 30 years ago. That's what happens with all these conservative principles for business.
Correlation vs causation
What im still shocked is that you guys consider these top brackets income "top" stopping at 300k is a slap in the face when you consider we have 7% of the population that are millionaires excluding primary residence. and a tax structure that gives preference to those who invest not in anything that contributes to our economy but personal growth of their wealth on a passive basis. As well as corporate structure Allowing market speculators and manipulators to be taxed for 100k at working mans rate and 15% for millions. I mean what 40%, 45% for some of these worthless millionaires cant take a 5% hike. They already have the best resources to make this number as low as possible
There is no trickle down effect and it just leads to these bloated overinvested companies who can end up employing illegal strategies to bring quarterly gains that are just unsustainable or toxic to others in the industry. at best they just buy other companies stifling their growth to fall in line with expected returns, and ruining further independent enterprises and innovations
How does it possibly make sense for everyone to invest in the same few big companies, it leaves the whole market at risk because so much of its momentum is due to just a few big ones.
These companies do not employ more people generally when they receive more investments
Why are people penalized for working, especially as professionals who get hit with the AMT tax
And we get dicked the whole process, i think alll of australias tax deductions are above the line. A huge difference when they are being limitied. Everyone gets an automatic 20k tax free deduction. Its the people in the lower 3-4 brackets that lose any discretionary income to patronize businesses and stimulate their local economy. Or at least have a more liveable wage given the still inflated housing market and high rents caused by wall street and inaction by the fed
Corporations were given the right to own property and pursue legal rights that were reserved for individuals in the 14th amendment. Sliding it in with the end of slavery. At the very least they should be paying the 33% bracket on their profits
So much tax money is lost here intentionally and carried by individuals
With bush cuts ending the lowest income bracket will be paying more as a % than corportions, with some of the richest in the world
Theres no socialist interpretation of this, its just equitable tax liability. One that doesnt clearly favor corps and not individuals
look who are the second largest group of people in the 1%.
Dude do some reading before you pull some more bad data that just hurts you
Do you understand what a corporation is? An S corp?
This allows people making 10x a physician to make 100k "income" and the rest as dividends at a lower 15% tax rate
The problem is not people who work for a living and provide a necessary skill or service to the real economy, its jackasses that get to enjoy less tax liability and more income for the least necessary aspect of the economy and society. Often just cause they can influence policies by corrupting politicians and from the pure power that large sums of money can have on markets in a completely destructive fashion for everyone else
The greatest single loss in americans wealth, from working class to physicians at the upper end of Im still going to say working class, was with the housing bubble which was a pure market manipulation strategy that the government let go on till it was finished. Who gives a **** now about laws after, and this was criminal fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud that they still let go.
But nice orange bar graph, you kids are such suckers and will make better ones as doctors. Unbelievable "income"
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2011
- Messages
- 251
- Reaction score
- 30
Lol have you taken an economics class before? Who defines unearned wealth? You? No one needs to pay higher taxes. Most small business owners already pay over 50% in tax. In addition to federal and state taxes, there are medicare and social security taxes that together are over 10%. We have a problem in America and its not the 1%. It's not taxes. It's spending. You can tax all the billionaires in this country 100% and you still won't fix the problem. The spending is outrageous. Buffet's millionaire tax supposedly only raises the revenue in ten years to run the government for three days. That's 3 out of 3650 days. Relatively insignificant. So much wasteful spending is done in this country. Before you increase taxes one cent on ANY bracket, you need to reign in spending.
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2011
- Messages
- 251
- Reaction score
- 30
And come on the 40% tax rate caused the post ww 2 economic boom? That just doesnt even make sense when youre stupid
Post ww 2 the US accumulated an enourmous amount of wealth and power after bailing out europe from the nazis, and obvioulsy good cause they were more evil then people realized
We negotiated from a very unfair place as france, england were bombed to pieces to safeguard all their gold reserves till nixon took us off it in the 70s. We were one of the few developed countries stilll standing as well to function productively besides having to rebuild our streets from bombed rumble.
Thats around when they made the dollar the only currency in which oil could be bought or sold in to this day, although i think the yuan may have their own deal soon.
By forcing this transaction for everyone in europe in order to buy this necessary commodity it made the dollar less available because of supply and demand for all these different large transactions. It also gave it an inherent value more than any other currency as it could be equated to oil, at the very least since we left the gold standard. Whose value is more antiquated at this point anyway.
But dont worry cause if you still think you make too much when the dollar loses its tie to oil because of yuan competition, and who most say will be the next reserve currency. As their government although still self serving and corrupt is not as ridiculous as ours. At the very least they feel some connection to their country and dont look to bleed it dry like ours did in a century.
They could always do the same in a long enough time frame as corporations they played us like a fiddle here have no citizenship and can move to greener pasteurs. We cant even leave the country if we owe the irs 50k in back taxes and are the only country to double tax on foreign income.
Post ww 2 the US accumulated an enourmous amount of wealth and power after bailing out europe from the nazis, and obvioulsy good cause they were more evil then people realized
We negotiated from a very unfair place as france, england were bombed to pieces to safeguard all their gold reserves till nixon took us off it in the 70s. We were one of the few developed countries stilll standing as well to function productively besides having to rebuild our streets from bombed rumble.
Thats around when they made the dollar the only currency in which oil could be bought or sold in to this day, although i think the yuan may have their own deal soon.
By forcing this transaction for everyone in europe in order to buy this necessary commodity it made the dollar less available because of supply and demand for all these different large transactions. It also gave it an inherent value more than any other currency as it could be equated to oil, at the very least since we left the gold standard. Whose value is more antiquated at this point anyway.
But dont worry cause if you still think you make too much when the dollar loses its tie to oil because of yuan competition, and who most say will be the next reserve currency. As their government although still self serving and corrupt is not as ridiculous as ours. At the very least they feel some connection to their country and dont look to bleed it dry like ours did in a century.
They could always do the same in a long enough time frame as corporations they played us like a fiddle here have no citizenship and can move to greener pasteurs. We cant even leave the country if we owe the irs 50k in back taxes and are the only country to double tax on foreign income.
Ok i need an advil pm
what i said was true, but yea thats hard to read. I cant type on this phone too
Let them open up those secret swiss banks and youll see where alot of this countrys life earnings went too
Theyll tax me on over 95k in a year abroad locum tenen but theyll let some bastards keep money in a secret swiss bank account just sitting there. Id just be paying bills and loans anyway. Dude if you dont see how you and everyone around you gut b****ed then you must have had some serious deepdicking in the past
what i said was true, but yea thats hard to read. I cant type on this phone too
Let them open up those secret swiss banks and youll see where alot of this countrys life earnings went too
Theyll tax me on over 95k in a year abroad locum tenen but theyll let some bastards keep money in a secret swiss bank account just sitting there. Id just be paying bills and loans anyway. Dude if you dont see how you and everyone around you gut b****ed then you must have had some serious deepdicking in the past
Yea I do bitch, money that makes money, is money earning not the person
And that wasnt applied to small businesses so dont cherry pick my argument you coward. Most states make it harder now for a small business to be an s corp so thats a thing of the past. The fed just goes off the state
Oh ok one guy, yea I didnt think warren buffet was behind it all.
Its the entirely unnecessary and unregulated way in which wall street functions that is plain as looking out around you and counting the foreclosed homes, or ones behind, or ones underwater, or the ones that willl be underwater
Economic oppression is a real force that only the most biased and self serving economists could deny
But I'll just check back on sdn in about 15 years and you tell me how things look from there. Why the hell else is this entire reform setup to have every doc working in a hospital as well as limiting them from even owning one from many stringent self referral requirements
First time ever everyones got to file a return even if they dont owe taxes, thats them making you their bitch bro
But please given warren buffett your extra money, not going to deny you that
And personally I think it is ****ing pathetic and pointless to have billions when millions of kids and women dying from cheap and preventable causes. Some Bed nets for christ sake. And I think sustainability is a ****ed way about talking about other people dying and putting an acceptable dollar amount horribly sad.
So i couldnt care less about buffett, I dont think Id care to know him or hear his opinion on anything. I dont find him impressive and wish I never heard of him
and 95% of what he got was because of the right place at the right time.
And i never made any remark that it would fix anything economically, I can multiply.
The point was why it stops there, do you think it was just for fun? Arbitrary?
The point is the same as all this physician compensation propaganda, and thats to avoid people looking at incomes higher then that. Which if one person taxed obviously wouldnt fix the damage but the number of millionaires and billionaires related to the rise in cost of healthcare and scams like housing market.
And more directly, as most dont leave themselves that personally attached to such wealth in income, is the rise in market cap of these companies
94% unrelated to physician income and a 2.5 trillion annual expenditure, talk to those numbers punk
Trace them back and to this point, utterly moot point so stick your orange graph up your orange vag
The point was why it stops there, do you think it was just for fun? Arbitrary?
The point is the same as all this physician compensation propaganda, and thats to avoid people looking at incomes higher then that. Which if one person taxed obviously wouldnt fix the damage but the number of millionaires and billionaires related to the rise in cost of healthcare and scams like housing market.
And more directly, as most dont leave themselves that personally attached to such wealth in income, is the rise in market cap of these companies
94% unrelated to physician income and a 2.5 trillion annual expenditure, talk to those numbers punk
Trace them back and to this point, utterly moot point so stick your orange graph up your orange vag
Name of the game is where the spending goes and who profits, then in such a corrupt and oppressive manner why dont those guys we give all our money to help us?
Hey if the spending was used in the interest of the public their would be no problem, 2.5 trillion could do alot
I would stick my MD up my ass and leave cause looks like the fed came through and spent all the tax money wisely improving the standard of living and healthcare of people
Dont turn this into a gov vs business cause they are clearly the same
Hey if the spending was used in the interest of the public their would be no problem, 2.5 trillion could do alot
I would stick my MD up my ass and leave cause looks like the fed came through and spent all the tax money wisely improving the standard of living and healthcare of people
Dont turn this into a gov vs business cause they are clearly the same
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2011
- Messages
- 3,477
- Reaction score
- 1,676
I'm sorry, but the only thing I can think of when I see jonmadden is this.
[YOUTUBE]Hv6RbEOlqRo[/YOUTUBE]
[YOUTUBE]Hv6RbEOlqRo[/YOUTUBE]
Heres the play by play
-Theyll run with this insurance exchange and let them make what money they can, off what little people have left with taxpayer grants to increase the bottom line.
-Theyll continue to cut medicaid like they have been and medicare is basically doomed to begin with. despite an extra tax on 200k plus income coming, so reducing payments to physicians will reduce who they take and what services hospitals will provide or they close down if they arent safety net.
-Then after what will seem like their only choice and in a move to save peoples healthcare they fully take over healthcare. to keep old people from dying in the streets, and despite previous income losses and decreased quality of life theyll bring it to the last ****ty level for everyone. as now you have no option but to be their HO.
And I dont anticipate a thriving upper middle class or people with money to spare on conciergie medicine. Nothing in the global economy says that till the dollar is devalued to a point some industry comes back and at which point people will be happy just for a job and some healthcare coverage which will be provided by the taxpayers so businesses dont have to pay as a further incentive to bring some jobs back here
I also dont like the option that theyll likely use before all this and thats levy wages for student loan repayments. Pushing for docs as employees makes this more of reality for them, and collecting early from FICA and any federal witholding
-Theyll run with this insurance exchange and let them make what money they can, off what little people have left with taxpayer grants to increase the bottom line.
-Theyll continue to cut medicaid like they have been and medicare is basically doomed to begin with. despite an extra tax on 200k plus income coming, so reducing payments to physicians will reduce who they take and what services hospitals will provide or they close down if they arent safety net.
-Then after what will seem like their only choice and in a move to save peoples healthcare they fully take over healthcare. to keep old people from dying in the streets, and despite previous income losses and decreased quality of life theyll bring it to the last ****ty level for everyone. as now you have no option but to be their HO.
And I dont anticipate a thriving upper middle class or people with money to spare on conciergie medicine. Nothing in the global economy says that till the dollar is devalued to a point some industry comes back and at which point people will be happy just for a job and some healthcare coverage which will be provided by the taxpayers so businesses dont have to pay as a further incentive to bring some jobs back here
I also dont like the option that theyll likely use before all this and thats levy wages for student loan repayments. Pushing for docs as employees makes this more of reality for them, and collecting early from FICA and any federal witholding
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2011
- Messages
- 251
- Reaction score
- 30
Lol dude wtf. Once again you post this long, irate response to me when I was talking to someone else... Look at the quote I was responding to. I was responding to startoverat40, not you lol... I haven't actually disagreed with anything you've said (mostly because I can only understand about 30% of it).
Lol that hits the nail right on the head. In my opinion, almost every single post of jonmadden could be turned into a full feature blockbuster film. Each post has plot, drama, surprises (there is almost no continuity in any of his responses), and so much damn emotion (most notably his asking of sean to "ready a towel" as he would soon "ejaculate some wisdom").
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2011
- Messages
- 528
- Reaction score
- 15
not sure what the point of such an idiotic comments is. the grapsh shows the number of people who make up the 1% top income earners. it's not a graph of their incomes. Physicians are the 2nd largest group making up the top earners. Doesn't mean they earn the 2nd largest incomes. the group in the finance sector probably makes the most money, even though they are a smaller group.
those people in the finance sector especially need to pay higher taxes, on their stock transactions and unearned income from capital gains. this would reduce the wealth disparity, and create a much healthier society.
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2011
- Messages
- 528
- Reaction score
- 15
I agree that spending is a problem. spending on military, spending on bailinig out thieves in the banks.
spending on infrastructure, health, and education is good spending, and we are not doing enough of that.
(if we can spend trillions on wars-based-on-lies and bailing out thiesves, then we can spend money on improving our country. anybody who says otherwise is full of cr@p)
by unearned income I mean income that they didn't work for. their initial wealth they earned, then they put it into investments and stock transactions, and their wealth begets more wealth. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with that, but if anything deserves to be taxed at a higher rate, it is money that just begets more money.
we need this higher tax so that our govt can provide better infrastructure, public schools, and healthcare for all. our bridges are collapsing, our schools are a disgrace, and our healthcare system is unsustainable. right wing propaganda and brainwashing against the govt, and trickle-down voodoo economics is what's got us into this mess.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2012
- Messages
- 7,815
- Reaction score
- 1,229
You lazily refuse to look up the data, and I've posted the numbers many times on this site so I won't do it again. If you think military spending is a problem look up the numbers for the budget. Entitlements are the looming brick wall, not the military.
Oh, and we wouldn't have to spend so much if the Europeans would pay for their own defense, but they're too busy flushing money into Eutopia to be bothered with such archaic notions. This is one of the many counter-arguments to the assertion that European healthcare systems work so well - they only work to the extent that they do (which is a bad joke) because they rely on us for their defense. If they were truly self-sufficient, the bill would have been presented a long time ago.
As far as the bailouts go, guess who did that? THE GOVERNMENT. Stunning hypocrisy when you complain against the bailouts and then at the end of your rant, you mock conservatives for distrusting the federal government of doing most things competently.
Again, ignorance. Spending more on education does not improve quality (look up Utah public schools vs. New York). Spending more on health is also not the solution; creating a freer market is, as well as introducing healthcare insurance, which we do not currently have. What we have now is a government-subsidized payment plan funneled through insurance companies.
Public schools are a disgrace because of the teachers' unions and declining moral values in this nation's youth. Money can't fix that.
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2011
- Messages
- 528
- Reaction score
- 15
Yes the govt is broken, but the solution to that is to fix govt, not bash the concept that a democratic govt can provide for its people. if the concept of govt and social contract is to be thrown in the garbage, then we might as well live like Somalia.
we can fix the govt by removing the influence of money. by passing the const amdmt to reverse citizens united, and make election financing limited to public money only (equal amounts allocated to each candidate). I also think that voting should be mandatory, just like paying taxes is. those who don't vote should pay a fine, which would go into the public campaign financing bucket.
education is not borken because of teachers. right wingers want to bash teacher unions and public education, because they want to help for-profit private school corporations. always looking out for the rich. pretty soon only the rich can afford to educate their children. so the poor will remain uneducated therefore poor. hello feudalism.
your comment about lack of morals of the youth is a joke. you sound like the grumpy old grandpa from the '50s complaining about the moral decay caused by rock-n-roll.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2011
- Messages
- 528
- Reaction score
- 15
further example of right wing bashing of govt, and privatization:
for-profit prisons - incarceration nation - put more people into jail for idiotic charges, and use them as slave cheap labor.
for-profit prisons - incarceration nation - put more people into jail for idiotic charges, and use them as slave cheap labor.
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2012
- Messages
- 7,815
- Reaction score
- 1,229
And they call right-wingers fascist... Go figure.
You are such a joke. I went to private schools, and they were not "corporations." Seriously, you have the intelligence and talking points of Lawrence O'Donnell.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuCRx9eCFrU
Yep, honey, the kids are all right.
Dolt.
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2011
- Messages
- 528
- Reaction score
- 15
a democracy is a falacy without citizen participation. the least people can do is check boxes on a paper ballot and mail it in. it can even be postage-already-paid envelopes.
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2011
- Messages
- 528
- Reaction score
- 15
let's put people under more and more debt. "if money is free speach, and speach is freedom, then debt is slavery."
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2011
- Messages
- 528
- Reaction score
- 15
anybody who says that banks and financial sector need less regulation is either a *****, or a thief!
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2011
- Messages
- 528
- Reaction score
- 15
who's the lazy one? also realize that the govt can spend on military secret projects without disclosing it. And, if they can pull money out of thin air to bail out the banks, then apparently there is no budgetery problem at all, and all of the theatrics about extending the debt is just that. with the revelations about the LIBOR, the whole global financial system seems to be a sham anyways.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2012
- Messages
- 7,815
- Reaction score
- 1,229
Apparently you are too dim to realize you just proved my point.
Are you really going to med school, or are you just a leftist agitator?
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2011
- Messages
- 528
- Reaction score
- 15
I proved your point that we spend a lot of money on social protection, which is a good thing.
And I proved my point that we spend way too much on empire-building.
If there is so much money available for building a military and financial empire, then surely we can take care of our people with no problem at all. all the political fighting over the budget is just theatrics.
And I proved my point that we spend way too much on empire-building.
If there is so much money available for building a military and financial empire, then surely we can take care of our people with no problem at all. all the political fighting over the budget is just theatrics.
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2011
- Messages
- 251
- Reaction score
- 30
No it's not a good thing. In total, welfare spending (all forms) was $900 billion in 2010. That number has since risen. A lot of entitlement subsidies go out to families that make nearly $100k per year. They absolutely do not need government aid. It's wasteful spending. If you need financial help making close to $100k per year, then you are a complete *****. Entitlement spending takes up WAY too much of the budget. Far more than defense spending or any other sector. I would agree that defense spending needs to be cut, but I would take empire-building any day over expanding the welfare empire.
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2011
- Messages
- 528
- Reaction score
- 15
source?
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2011
- Messages
- 251
- Reaction score
- 30
I'll go a step further. We'll discuss millionaires. Here's one source - http://www.coburn.senate.gov/public...&File_id=544ae3e7-195b-40ad-aa84-334fdd6a5e1f
The article also lists several sources, such as the IRS.
In reality, you don't need sources for this topic. Many millionaires who lost their jobs are eligible for food stamps and unemployment benefits. That's the current policy. It doesn't distinguish millionaires from people below poverty level. If you have no provable income or one below the poverty line, you are eligible for benefits. They don't look at paper assets, like property.
Recently in the news was the story of a man in Michigan who had recently won the lottery, but was still receiving welfare benefits. This is actually not the first time this has happened. This is purely wasteful spending. Entitlement spending should not be raised another cent until they fix the system.
Similar threads
