Obama=socialism

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
That was the "American dream" of the 50s and 60s, but apparently that doesn't work anymore. Time for "change" so that it doesn't matter if you work hard or not, we all get your money.

Hmm, I couldn't find the sarcasm smilie... :barf:

The NEW American Dream:
"Woo, yeah! Get MONEY! I'll just sit here and watch TV while you work your ass off and pay a buttload of taxes so that way I can get free healthcare, food stamps, and a nice fat tax refund to finance my new Plasma screen. Yeah, GET MONEY!"

Members don't see this ad.
 
I just noticed you're actually a "pre-med." So it's hard to have a discussion with somebody who has probably never earned a paycheck or a w2 in their life. Come back and talk to me when your testes have descended and you start shaving.

Not only is this rude, it's also an ad hominem fallacy. Cheers.
 
Atlas Shrugged is a BOOK. It is not reality. Please stop citing fiction in political debates.

Here is a short story for you. It is not, in any form or fashion, a book. Enjoy:

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that’s what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. ‘Since you are all such good customers, he said, ‘I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his ‘fair share?’ They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

‘I only got a dollar out of the $20,’declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,’ but he got $10!’

‘Yeah, that’s right,’ exclaimed the fifth man. ‘I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I!’

‘That’s true!!’ shouted the seventh man. ‘Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!’

‘Wait a minute,’ yelled the first four men in unison. ‘We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!’

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics, University of Georgia
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Here is a short story for you. It is not, in any form or fashion, a book. Enjoy:

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

[...]

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics, University of Georgia

Kamerschen denies authorship here: http://davidk.myweb.uga.edu/

Snopes discusses the story and attributes it to a letter to the Chicago Tribune by a Don Dodson, whose academic credentials in business, taxation, and the economy are, sadly, unknown to this day.

http://www.snopes.com/business/taxes/howtaxes.asp
 
Well, the story is still true.

Maybe, but my issue with it is that it is an incomplete picture of the relationships and dependencies of the people. Plus it's a bit over the top with the beating. Whatever, people will have different opinions on the analogy.

But the story has gained undue credibility beyond its due because of the supposed affiliation with academia. I think it serves us better to see it for what it is and take what we will from it without any preconceived bias.
 
Last edited:
Maybe, but my issue with it is that it is an incomplete picture of the relationships and dependencies of the people. Plus it's a bit over the top with the beating. Whatever, people will have different opinions on the analogy.


How is this:

I only got a dollar out of the $20,’declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,’ but he got $10!’

‘Yeah, that’s right,’ exclaimed the fifth man. ‘I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I!’

‘That’s true!!’ shouted the seventh man. ‘Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!’

‘Wait a minute,’ yelled the first four men in unison. ‘We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!’

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

Any different than this:

The White House says it is unfair for high-income people to get a bigger tax break than middle-income people for claiming the same deductions or making the same charitable contributions.

Found here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/26/us/politics/26budget.html?_r=1&th&emc=th

In essence anyone who itemizes their deductions pays for any amount of property taxes, mortgage interest, charitable deduction, or other itemized deductions with pretax dollars minus the standard deduction (and medicare social security). The only reason higher income tax people get a larger tax break for this is that they pay a higher tax rate, but it is the same pretax dollars in essence. If you cap the rate charitable deductions can be used for itemized deductions below someone's marginal tax rate, then that is in essence a tax on charitable deductions.

Sounds the same to me, regardless of who wrote the analagy it sounds pretty accurate.
 
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

this reminds me of the (real-life, not a story) discussion of impending health care changes in the em forum. one poster suggested that they avoid higher taxes by practicing in new zealand. another poster promptly pointed out that it wouldn't be worth the pay cut. so any more stories to waste our time with?
 
Reading through these comments are somewhat depressing. Medicine is a tough field, but I guess one can be a competent anesthesiologist and still know nothing about issues outside of medicine.

Let the allegations of New York/New England elitism fly; some of these replies make me want to embrace the label.

It amazes me how "labels" or name calling is used when a liberal/progressive disagrees with a Conservative. I understand all these viewpoints but share the philosophical beliefs of our nation's founders:
Wealth belongs to the man who earns it.

The government can tax the people "fairly" when needed. Our founders believed in the philosophy of "if a man doesn't work he doesn't eat." I doubt they would be in favor of high taxes and redistribution of wealth.

Do I understand the Socialistic goal of Obama? Yes. Do I respect his view? Yes. Do I agree with him? No. If you want a Western European Socialistic Democracy then by all means support Pelosi/Reid/Obama's vision of the USA. If you want the DEmocracy of our founders then reject the "nanny state" and high taxes. But, if you accept the latter you can not ask for big government programs at the same time. Bush was totally mistaken in his pursuit of big government programs and low taxes. A true fiscal conservative understands that point.

What I find most disturbing about progressive/liberals is their failure to include those who pay the most into our system. For example, in Europe the educational system is free for all citizens and not just the poor. The same thing holds true for health care. In addition, tax evasion is rampant in our system. I know this for a fact. The only way to fairly tax our people is two fold: A Value added tax/National sales tax plus the Clinton Tax code. Bill Clinton had the tax brackets right. While they were higher than Bush they were much "fairer" than Obama.

Europe understands people cheat on income declaration and taxes. That is why a VAT/National Sales tax must be part of any liberal agenda for fairness. In addition, $250,000 per year for a family in NYC or LA is not rich. Those individuals should not be at the highest tax bracket. Again, Bill Clinton had this right.

In short, we may have disagreements on issues but that doesn't mean we are "idiots" for doing so.

Blade
 
this reminds me of the (real-life, not a story) discussion of impending health care changes in the em forum. one poster suggested that they avoid higher taxes by practicing in new zealand. another poster promptly pointed out that it wouldn't be worth the pay cut. so any more stories to waste our time with?
If you cut salaries for doctors, many will work less, whether they leave, or simply decide it's not worth that extra shift, many will work LESS. That contributes to our health care shortage.

Look, i know you've been eating amsa lunches and hearing about how "fair" socialized medicine is. But nothing that costs money is a right. Should everybody have electricity in their house, even if they don't pay the electric bill? Should everybody have running water, even when they don't pay the bill? How about a car...? nothing that costs money, is a right. Once you start pretending it is, disaster ensues.
 
As I posted in another thread maybe some of these elites could explain to me the economic theory behind the following:

Why its economically a good idea to selectively raise taxes on people that contribute to charity and pay their mortgages on time? Or explain why you would build an anti-keynesian medicare surplus while in a recession, and simultaneously engaging in massive fiscal stimulus?

Maybe macroeconomic theory has changed in the 10 years since I got my BA in it?
 
Members don't see this ad :)
If you cut salaries for doctors, many will work less, whether they leave, or simply decide it's not worth that extra shift, many will work LESS. That contributes to our health care shortage.

Look, i know you've been eating amsa lunches and hearing about how "fair" socialized medicine is. But nothing that costs money is a right. Should everybody have electricity in their house, even if they don't pay the electric bill? Should everybody have running water, even when they don't pay the bill? How about a car...? nothing that costs money, is a right. Once you start pretending it is, disaster ensues.

let them work less. in the short term, we allow fmgs to fill their spots. in the intermediate-/long-term, we weed out from med school admissions those that are focused on the remunerative side of medicine but know not to admit it in interviews. given the cut-throat competition for med school, we'll still have plenty of qualified applicants. right now, there are good people that pay for 2 years of grad school to become social workers, or 3 years of law school to practice public law, and earn far than six figures. sorry, but we will have good, qualified people willing to work in the low-end of six figures as doctors in a single-payer system.

and this is a strange logic, that all things which are rights must be cost-free. so we should stop paying for police and courts to protect property rights? stop paying the military to protect other rights?

and on the labelling issue, just to be fair to both sides, supporting single-payer health care does not equal supporting socialism.
 
3 years of law school. wow. impressive. i know many who get into top 100 law schools with 3.0 gpas in easy college majors. do 3 years (a hard day of law school is an easy day in med school) and NO residency. the people that go to social work school...gimme a break. yea they make complete crap, but they also do a lib art college major where they write papers and smoke doobies and then do 2 years of grad school where they do the same.

med schools are competitive because of financial compensation and perceived prestige. also, fairy tales of being a superhero dr. help.
once you drop the compensation to low 100s and still make people pay 250k for the school and work (like NO OTHER PROFESSION in the world works) and the complete lack of prestige which is already known to those in the profession filters down the the brighteyed applicants, you will not have a pool of highly qualified applicants. you will have the mediocre.

the best and brightest will go into fields that make cash. period.




let them work less. in the short term, we allow fmgs to fill their spots. in the intermediate-/long-term, we weed out from med school admissions those that are focused on the remunerative side of medicine but know not to admit it in interviews. given the cut-throat competition for med school, we'll still have plenty of qualified applicants. right now, there are good people that pay for 2 years of grad school to become social workers, or 3 years of law school to practice public law, and earn far than six figures. sorry, but we will have good, qualified people willing to work in the low-end of six figures as doctors in a single-payer system.

and this is a strange logic, that all things which are rights must be cost-free. so we should stop paying for police and courts to protect property rights? stop paying the military to protect other rights?

and on the labelling issue, just to be fair to both sides, supporting single-payer health care does not equal supporting socialism.
 
3 years of law school. wow. impressive. i know many who get into top 100 law schools with 3.0 gpas in easy college majors. do 3 years (a hard day of law school is an easy day in med school) and NO residency. the people that go to social work school...gimme a break. yea they make complete crap, but they also do a lib art college major where they write papers and smoke doobies and then do 2 years of grad school where they do the same.

med schools are competitive because of financial compensation and perceived prestige. also, fairy tales of being a superhero dr. help.
once you drop the compensation to low 100s and still make people pay 250k for the school and work (like NO OTHER PROFESSION in the world works) and the complete lack of prestige which is already known to those in the profession filters down the the brighteyed applicants, you will not have a pool of highly qualified applicants. you will have the mediocre.

the best and brightest will go into fields that make cash. period.
Totally with Jeff - there is no way that you'll have high quality medicine if you're paid as a "social worker". You'll have a VA type of medical care. And BTW more CRNA-s and RN - s pseudo physicians. I f this is the way that medical industry it will be it is sad!
 
Here is an article discussing just this cohort. They are called HENRYs.
http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/24/mag...nrys.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2008102712
High
Earners
Not
Rich
Yet

Great article. Bill Clinton got the tax brackets right. $250-$375,000 should be taxed at 35-36% and not 39.6%. Obama is destroying the dream by taxing the upper middle class to death. It isn't patriotic or fair.

We need a National Sales Tax or VAT to spread the burden. There are so many tax cheaters out there who pay a fraction of what they actually earn. The system is rigged against the upper middle class.
 
Hit hard by taxes
The reason the HENRYs are strapped for both lifestyle and nest egg is twofold: First, they already face a large and rising burden for federal, state, and property taxes plus the knife of the AMT. "Taxes are by far my biggest expense," says Kwon. Second, the HENRYs invest heavily in a distinct set of high-grade staples that, in effect, defines them. They're all about the kids: saving for private colleges, paying for day care - practically a must, because Mom and Dad are both working - and providing dance, tennis, or gymnastics lessons. These might be seen as luxury items by middle-class workers, but they're absolute necessities to the HENRYs. The big tax bite and what they consider investments in their kids chew up most of the HENRYs' incomes, leaving little for either extravagant living or, in many cases, saving for an affluent retirement. Indeed, the HENRYs consider themselves "well off" and "successful" but nowhere near "rich."
"Wealthy people are those who have lots of cash reserves and don't have to go to work," says John Selden, 35, a dentist in Charlotte with a family income of $350,000. Adds David Twa, county administrator of Contra Costa County in California (salary: $250,000): "I feel middle class. To me, rich is people with golf-club memberships." Tony Molino, 50, an attorney in Rancho Palos Verdes, Calif., speaks for legions of HENRYs: "I've worked 50 to 60 hours my entire life, and I don't have a lot left over at the end of the month. I'm comfortable, but when Joe Biden talks about sucking it up, getting patriotic, and paying more taxes, I get livid."
 
We need a National Sales Tax or VAT to spread the burden. There are so many tax cheaters out there who pay a fraction of what they actually earn. The system is rigged against the upper middle class.

:thumbup: :thumbup: for the article. I also wonder why they don't do a national sales tax? I seriously think that it is one of the only fair solutions. What would be the pros/cons?
 
let them work less. in the short term, we allow fmgs to fill their spots. in the intermediate-/long-term, we weed out from med school admissions those that are focused on the remunerative side of medicine but know not to admit it in interviews. given the cut-throat competition for med school, we'll still have plenty of qualified applicants. right now, there are good people that pay for 2 years of grad school to become social workers, or 3 years of law school to practice public law, and earn far than six figures. sorry, but we will have good, qualified people willing to work in the low-end of six figures as doctors in a single-payer system.

As a pre-med I can tell you this is completely wrong. Just go and see how many "how many hours do attendings work in X" threads are popping up. We all want to help people, but we also do it knowing that there are financial rewards and prestige as well. Why do you think fields like derm are so competitive? Good hours high pay. Once pre-meds start hearing about the downturn in medicine i would put money that the ultra competitive applicants will go on to more lucrative endeavours. The applicant base will become more and more mediocore (especially when tort reform and debt reduction lag in respect to lowering reimbursements).
 
:thumbup: :thumbup: for the article. I also wonder why they don't do a national sales tax? I seriously think that it is one of the only fair solutions. What would be the pros/cons?

That was Dr. Ron Paul's assertion. Its a true conservative idea. (Not the big government, war mongering, Neocon conservatives).

Pros:
1) Illegals contribute to the government without forcing them to be American citizens.
2) If poor people want to buy unnecessary consumer goods such as expensive jewelry and electronics, must contribute to the government as well. (Unserviced food and basic living items of course tax free).
3) Promotes savings vs. spending.

Cons:
1) Illegals and Poor will not vote/support you.
2) Promotes savings vs. spending. Politicians think a sound economy is one where people spend everything they have as well as won't they don't (credit). Politicians would never jeopardize that balance.

Imagine no IRS, no income tax. I would gladly pay a heavier sales tax.
 
Last edited:
the 5 million people who earn between 250-500k pay 25% of the taxes in this country (Henry article). that's about 1% of the population. but, that doesn't seem enough.

these are the responsible ones who don't have 5 kids, if they can't afford them. and who under their own steam without handouts educate and nurture their kids. here's our thanks for being the most educated, hardworking, responsible members of society.
 
i never denied the possibility that high-end applicants might go into other fields. but guess where the highest-scoring med students go now? derm and plastics. i say that if it's money they really want, let these best and brightest ibank instead.

my claim was that given the immense competition for med school now, we still be able to fill our med schools with good, qualified students if they knew in advance they'd be earning what primary care docs do now (low end of six figures). medicine is still a unique job, and there will be enough smart people wanting to do it.

look at the situation *right now*: the stats of successful med school applicants have only been getting more impressive, despite the ridiculous rise in tuition and dismal prospects for future earnings that we've been bracing for since the 1990s. there are faster routes to earning good money with less debt *right now*, and smart people are still choosing medicine.

i also agree with blade's point that the u.s. under single-payer shouldn't have doctors facing the same debt burden if they're going to have reduced salaries. but it's the med schools that have been pushing up tuition to ridiculous levels in recent years. i don't think it's a coincidence that this has happened while there have been far more qualified applicants than available slots. it's been a seller's market.
 
the 5 million people who earn between 250-500k pay 25% of the taxes in this country (Henry article). that's about 1% of the population. but, that doesn't seem enough.

these are the responsible ones who don't have 5 kids, if they can't afford them. and who under their own steam without handouts educate and nurture their kids. here's our thanks for being the most educated, hardworking, responsible members of society.

you forgot to finish the sentence: ", who disproportionately had the good judgment to be born into well-off, well-educated families."
 
you forgot to finish the sentence: ", who disproportionately had the good judgment to be born into well-off, well-educated families."

My father was poor, immigrated to this country in 70's, zero formal education, and worked hard for every dollar he earned. Me and my older brother both became docs... We CHOSE higher education, not unemployment and welfare. This country should reward hard work, not laziness.

There is ample opportunity for all citizens to stride for higher education so don't give me that "born w/ silver spoon" bullsh*t. I personally think silver spooners are the last guys that would go into a field requiring 12 years of education followed by 80 hour work weeks. And if they do, they shouldn't be scrutinized for it.
 
Last edited:
i never denied the possibility that high-end applicants might go into other fields. but guess where the highest-scoring med students go now? derm and plastics. i say that if it's money they really want, let these best and brightest ibank instead.

a little off-topic, but statements about the best and brightest going into derm/plastics are a little deceiving. There are only what, 200 spots for derm/plastics combined each year. There are WAAAY more than 200 extremely intelligent/hard-working/ambitious medical students in each graduating class. We're all in this together. If medicine as a profession becomes unattractive to high-quality applicants the consequences will be far greater than loosing 200 "good" applicants to the business world a year.
 
My father was poor, immigrated to this country in 70's, zero formal education, and worked hard for every dollar he earned. Me and my older brother both became docs... We CHOOSE higher education, not unemployment and welfare. This country should reward hard work, not laziness.

There is ample opportunity for all citizens to stride for higher education so don't give me that "born w/ silver spoon bullsh*t". I personally think silver spooners are the last guys that would go into a field requiring 80 hour work weeks.

that's great, but how many other doctors share this type of background? my family also wasn't well-off or highly educated, but like you i was blessed with parents who also instilled values of hard work and responsibility. i know i wouldn't be where i am if i had been born into many other families with the same SES. we're *lucky.*
 
i never denied the possibility that high-end applicants might go into other fields. but guess where the highest-scoring med students go now? derm and plastics. i say that if it's money they really want, let these best and brightest ibank instead.

my claim was that given the immense competition for med school now, we still be able to fill our med schools with good, qualified students if they knew in advance they'd be earning what primary care docs do now (low end of six figures). medicine is still a unique job, and there will be enough smart people wanting to do it.

look at the situation *right now*: the stats of successful med school applicants have only been getting more impressive, despite the ridiculous rise in tuition and dismal prospects for future earnings that we've been bracing for since the 1990s. there are faster routes to earning good money with less debt *right now*, and smart people are still choosing medicine.

i also agree with blade's point that the u.s. under single-payer shouldn't have doctors facing the same debt burden if they're going to have reduced salaries. but it's the med schools that have been pushing up tuition to ridiculous levels in recent years. i don't think it's a coincidence that this has happened while there have been far more qualified applicants than available slots. it's been a seller's market.

Look at the image of doctors *right now* as this degrades so does the applicant pool.

I also agree, that tuition should be lower as reimbursements go down. But that will only be fixed when the applicant pool starts becoming less competitive.
 
As I posted in another thread maybe some of these elites could explain to me the economic theory behind the following:

Why its economically a good idea to selectively raise taxes on people that contribute to charity and pay their mortgages on time? Or explain why you would build an anti-keynesian medicare surplus while in a recession, and simultaneously engaging in massive fiscal stimulus?

Maybe macroeconomic theory has changed in the 10 years since I got my BA in it?

I'm not sure what you mean. Lots of people - in fact the vast majority of people - who give to charity and pay their mortgages on time will see their taxes cut or stay the same.

As for your question about Keynesian theory, let me reiterate that these changes will go into effect in 2011. It may be that this recession will last more than three years, but it's unlikely. And, as I'm sure you know, the whole idea is that the federal government act "counter-cyclically," spending and/or cutting taxes when times are bad, and raising taxes and cutting spending - ideally enough to build up a surplus - when times are good. I'm betting these budgets are not set in stone, either - they can be changed as circumstances dictate. So maybe everyone here can take a deep breath and let their panties untwist.

As for the Medicare surplus, I have no idea. How big is the surplus this year? I'd guess, but I don't know, that it is simply transferred to the General Fund anyways.
 
Do I understand the Socialistic goal of Obama? Yes. Do I respect his view? Yes. Do I agree with him? No. If you want a Western European Socialistic Democracy then by all means support Pelosi/Reid/Obama's vision of the USA. If you want the DEmocracy of our founders then reject the "nanny state" and high taxes. But, if you accept the latter you can not ask for big government programs at the same time. Bush was totally mistaken in his pursuit of big government programs and low taxes. A true fiscal conservative understands that point.

What I find most disturbing about progressive/liberals is their failure to include those who pay the most into our system. For example, in Europe the educational system is free for all citizens and not just the poor. The same thing holds true for health care. In addition, tax evasion is rampant in our system. I know this for a fact. The only way to fairly tax our people is two fold: A Value added tax/National sales tax plus the Clinton Tax code. Bill Clinton had the tax brackets right. While they were higher than Bush they were much "fairer" than Obama.

Europe understands people cheat on income declaration and taxes. That is why a VAT/National Sales tax must be part of any liberal agenda for fairness. In addition, $250,000 per year for a family in NYC or LA is not rich. Those individuals should not be at the highest tax bracket. Again, Bill Clinton had this right.

In short, we may have disagreements on issues but that doesn't mean we are "idiots" for doing so.

Blade

Nobody called anyone an "idiot"...right?

A few things:
1. $250k earners are not, and will not be, in the highest tax bracket.
2. The public educational system in the U.S. is open to rich and poor...not just the poor. Same with the health care system.
3. Which of the tax brackets, specifically, do you have a problem with? Here is a handy reference:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html
 
dude, those born into rich families don't care about any of this, even if they go to medical school. the vast majorty of medical students come from working families. yep, families who may be "well-off" but, who can't NOT work.

you want to punish the parents of these kids for also having the good sense to save, to invest into their children's education, etc? doesn't seem fair.

my family came from complete and utter poverty. yea, right around welfare level poverty. WORKED our way up without a cent from the government. i've paid my way through college and med school (to which i got by working my ass off in a mediocre public school). my parents ascended to upper middle class by saving and not overspending and not living off credit. now they are being punished. now i am being punished. and in return my kids will be punished.

you talk about changing the system so people know what to expect? what about all the people currently in the system who did not sign up to make 100k while finishing with 300k in debt? do we just sweep them under the rug?

this is not the way to treat your physicians, the professional class. when the intellectual professional class begins to be blatantly robbed by those without as much money - which is now happening in US through the corrupt politicians that hold power for their own reasons (Obama who had a 1.9 million dollar house BEFORE he moved to the white house and millions in the bank - DOES NOT CARE ABOUT YOU), a society dies. i believe the beginning of the end of the US is here.


you forgot to finish the sentence: ", who disproportionately had the good judgment to be born into well-off, well-educated families."
 
One thing to consider is the actual benefit we all receive from the taxes we end up paying. First off, not all gov't expenditures are a waste, since there are some public goods that would normally not be provided for by "the market".

Also, I look at the tax increase and stimulus being proposed as insurance coverage. Right now, the economy is in a recession. People are losing their jobs. The smart/educated ones find new jobs, and those that don't end up on the streets, homeless, or worse yet, stealing my sh$t. I'd rather take a 3-4% tax increase to be able to give some schmuck $800 a month as a welfare payment so that he can eat without having to steal my car. The average Joe, despite the foolish perception that "everyone is equal" can't adjust their lifestyle/education/way of life quickly. Yes, people spent more than they were making, and they shouldn't have, blah blah blah. But what also happend in the market is that the job cuts and credit cuts happened way too fast for people to be able to handle. Now I'm not saying that the average person is an idiot, but they aren't a rocket scientist either. Going from $40K per year to $0 with no warning is just too quick. Which is where these "welfare" programs come in. Yes, there will be some abuse in the system, but the average person just wants a job and if we have to take care of people for the next several years before things pick up, so be it.

Very similar to what we all preach with preventative medicine. I would rather take a hit up front, as opposed to dealing with getting car-jacked or getting mugged on a regular basis. Not to be cynical, but that is something we need to worry about if things get much worse. The unemployment rate in the inner-city is over 50% in Milwaukee right now. I'm sure it's no different in Baltimore, the Bronx, Compton, Beverly Hills (ok, maybe not), or *insert-major innercity-here*.

Just think of it as temporary insurance coverage. There are cycles in life, and this is one of those down times. After things pick up, we can talk about cutting back but the bottom line is right now, we have no work for the workers so those with the big pockets have to dole some cash out. Just be happy we aren't in Argentina, China, or some place that will take a big hit like Nigeria when oil bottoms out.
 
great post Jeff, sums up my opinion/background as well..

In the future, what will be the reward for believing and acting on what your parents taught you about "working hard, contributing to society and passing those values on to the next generation"? The satisfaction that you've never been part of the problem? The smug realization that through your taxes you've allowed millions of people the ability to live a sedentary existence in the quiet comfort of their well-entertained living rooms?

I'd like to think that I'm happy to support life in all forms. That said, it is far more fulfilling for a person to use his physical/mental abilities towards some greater goal (through a lifetime of work...) than to be content to do as little as possible to get by. Put a depressed, obese person in a situation where he must work the fields in order to survive and I think 99% of the time after a few years he will be healthier both mentally and physically. heck, sitting in med school everyday I know I could benefit from a few 12 hour days working in the garden/landscaping. A system that rewards those who bust ass and reach their goals is far better than a system that encourages sloth.
 
Nobody called anyone an "idiot"...right?

A few things:
1. $250k earners are not, and will not be, in the highest tax bracket.
2. The public educational system in the U.S. is open to rich and poor...not just the poor. Same with the health care system.
3. Which of the tax brackets, specifically, do you have a problem with? Here is a handy reference:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html

1. Obama's Tax code makes $250,000 the highest bracket. All income above $250,000 will be taxed at 39.6% and deductions will be phased out. This starts in 2011.

2. The public educational system does not include college and medical school. In Western Europe these are part of the socialistic system. So, Physicians get a free education from birth to M.D. Then, they earn a government paid wage for practicing Medicine. Obama proposes a $5,500 government grant per year for college to "certain" Americans while those in the upper middle class get nothing but the bill.

A Physician in the USA can expect high college/medical school cost while Obama Health care pays that person a Socialized Medicine wage. The worst of both systems. You can't overhaul one without addressing the other.

3. The Bush Tax Brackets are fair but don't stand a chance of being made permanent. The Bill Clinton Tax rates are much fairer to the middle class than Obama's proposed tax schedule. Please check these facts out for yourself.

4. Those who pay the least taxes will benefit the most from Obama's new tax code. Clearly, income redistribution. However, due to his "bold" socialistic agenda we still remain a debtor nation and are hundreds of billions in the hole after 2013. In fact, more taxes will be needed from multiple other sources like the "cap and trade for energy" to get close to just a few hundred billion in debt per year. We are now 13 trillion in debt and Obama is just going to make that debt even worse.
 
Residency: I'm going to do it here

The wage earning years of my life: I'm finding a country that will fairly reimburse me. Peace out.
 
One thing to consider is the actual benefit we all receive from the taxes we end up paying. First off, not all gov't expenditures are a waste, since there are some public goods that would normally not be provided for by "the market".

Also, I look at the tax increase and stimulus being proposed as insurance coverage. Right now, the economy is in a recession. People are losing their jobs. The smart/educated ones find new jobs, and those that don't end up on the streets, homeless, or worse yet, stealing my sh$t. I'd rather take a 3-4% tax increase to be able to give some schmuck $800 a month as a welfare payment so that he can eat without having to steal my car. The average Joe, despite the foolish perception that "everyone is equal" can't adjust their lifestyle/education/way of life quickly. Yes, people spent more than they were making, and they shouldn't have, blah blah blah. But what also happend in the market is that the job cuts and credit cuts happened way too fast for people to be able to handle. Now I'm not saying that the average person is an idiot, but they aren't a rocket scientist either. Going from $40K per year to $0 with no warning is just too quick. Which is where these "welfare" programs come in. Yes, there will be some abuse in the system, but the average person just wants a job and if we have to take care of people for the next several years before things pick up, so be it.

Very similar to what we all preach with preventative medicine. I would rather take a hit up front, as opposed to dealing with getting car-jacked or getting mugged on a regular basis. Not to be cynical, but that is something we need to worry about if things get much worse. The unemployment rate in the inner-city is over 50% in Milwaukee right now. I'm sure it's no different in Baltimore, the Bronx, Compton, Beverly Hills (ok, maybe not), or *insert-major innercity-here*.

Just think of it as temporary insurance coverage. There are cycles in life, and this is one of those down times. After things pick up, we can talk about cutting back but the bottom line is right now, we have no work for the workers so those with the big pockets have to dole some cash out. Just be happy we aren't in Argentina, China, or some place that will take a big hit like Nigeria when oil bottoms out.

Several problems with your post - the poor schmuck who gets that 800$ per month will start depending on it and not go get it for himself (and he still might steal your car). And things will not pick up. This is the beginning of the end of our country. There are not enough people or income to tax to cover the amount of spending our government is doing (even if they tax high-earners at 100% of "excess" income). We will continue to borrow money from China until they won't give it to us, then we will start printing more money. Then inflation becomes nasty, gallon of milk $10-15, etc. unemployment 15-20%, crime is rampant, high earners/working professionals become even more disenfranchised - no incentive to be productive. "Temporary insurance coverage" ? Try guarantee for disaster.
 
Several problems with your post - the poor schmuck who gets that 800$ per month will start depending on it and not go get it for himself (and he still might steal your car). And things will not pick up. This is the beginning of the end of our country. There are not enough people or income to tax to cover the amount of spending our government is doing (even if they tax high-earners at 100% of "excess" income). We will continue to borrow money from China until they won't give it to us, then we will start printing more money. Then inflation becomes nasty, gallon of milk $10-15, etc. unemployment 15-20%, crime is rampant, high earners/working professionals become even more disenfranchised - no incentive to be productive. "Temporary insurance coverage" ? Try guarantee for disaster.

No problems at all actually. First off, the whole welfare dependence argument is just political propaganda. The vast majority of people actually don't mind having a job. They enjoy what they do. It gives them a sense of purpose and is actually part of their social network. Plus, it's not like welfare is a panacea. There is some stigma associated with it. I know people on unemployment and they can't wait to get back to work. Yes, there will be abuse.

As for it being the end, if it is, who cares what you get taxed then. Having $100K vs. $200K in the bank won't matter if it's worthless, unless I want to wallpaper my house with it and need that much paper.

Life isn't that bad, and it's not the end of the world. Just a cycle. Talking to peeps who went through this, it's better than the 70's were, and certainly better than what the depression was like (aka >25% unemployment).

Plus, in 4 years, everyone can have another crack at picking someone else to decide what to do.
 
No problems at all actually. First off, the whole welfare dependence argument is just political propaganda. The vast majority of people actually don't mind having a job. They enjoy what they do. It gives them a sense of purpose and is actually part of their social network. Plus, it's not like welfare is a panacea. There is some stigma associated with it. I know people on unemployment and they can't wait to get back to work. Yes, there will be abuse.

As for it being the end, if it is, who cares what you get taxed then. Having $100K vs. $200K in the bank won't matter if it's worthless, unless I want to wallpaper my house with it and need that much paper.

Life isn't that bad, and it's not the end of the world. Just a cycle. Talking to peeps who went through this, it's better than the 70's were, and certainly better than what the depression was like (aka >25% unemployment).

Plus, in 4 years, everyone can have another crack at picking someone else to decide what to do.


I have seen this cycle before and it isn't pretty: JIMMY CARTER
 
Jimmy Carter vs. Inflation

Monday, Mar. 24, 1980






COVER STORY


More Related




He promises budget cuts and credit curbs, but more is needed
As Jimmy Carter stepped before the television cameras in the East Room of the White House last Friday, his task was not just to proclaim another new anti-inflation program but to calm a national alarm that had begun to border on panic. Inflation and interest rates, both topping 18%, are so far beyond anything that Americans have experienced in peacetime—and so far beyond anything that U.S. financial markets are set up to handle—as to inspire a contagion of fear. Usually confident businessmen and bankers have begun talking of Latin American-style hyperinflation, financial collapse, major bankruptcies, a drastic drop in the American standard of living.
For three weeks the White House struggled to develop a plan that would restore the public's confidence that the Government could bring the economy under control. It summoned business leaders and representatives of civic groups from all over the country, consulted daily with ever widening circles of influential Congressmen. There was talk of a televised presidential address to a joint session of Congress. But the dramatized search for an anti-inflation program proved slow and frustrating. Within the Administration, economists fretted endlessly over the pros and cons of various budget-balancing proposals. The President's aides finally canceled all plans for Carter to address Congress, which was reluctant to play host to what was bound to be an unpleasant message.
But the runaway prices and the increasing national anxiety demanded that the President say something, and make it substantive, and do it quickly. So on Friday afternoon, Jimmy Carter strode into the East Room, having carefully waited until half an hour after the major financial markets had closed in the East, to outline his plans to an invited group of 175 Government officials, congressional leaders and businessmen. His program had many details to be filled in, and his speech had been written hastily in the previous 24 hours. In fact, it was clapped together so hurriedly that one page of the final draft was left out of the copy that Carter took before the cameras, and he had to skip over three missing paragraphs of the official text.

But at least Carter had some specific measures to announce. His major goal: to balance the $612 billion budget for fiscal 1981, which begins Oct. 1. That would make it the first balanced budget since 1969, and only the second in the past 21 years.* His keynote: discipline—a word he repeated nine times.

Speaking earnestly and somberly, Carter opened by stating that "persistent high inflation threatens the economic security of our country," and that "this dangerous situation calls for urgent measures." He admitted in effect that the budget he submitted in January, which called for a deficit of $15.8 billion and which he termed at the tune "prudent and responsible," had become obsolete in only seven weeks. But the troubles had been building up for more than a decade, said Carter, and they could be traced largely to "our failure in Government, as individuals and as a society to live within our means." Glossing over his own record of rapidly rising spending and huge deficits, both of which contradicted his firm campaign pledges of 1976, he proclaimed his
 
and this is a strange logic, that all things which are rights must be cost-free. so we should stop paying for police and courts to protect property rights? stop paying the military to protect other rights?
Did anybody else notice he said the words "Property right" and "police" in the same sentence? And all in the context of taxing the rich to pay for free healthcare for all?? HAHAHA!!

You crack me up, seriously. You just don't have a clue how anything works. It's hard to discuss the issues with anybody who thinks we can just bridge the health care gap with FMG's/IMG's until we have enough benevolent dr's here in america who are willing to work their butt's off on the cheap.

are you serious??
 
080211_change.jpg


Change: After 4 years of Obama that may be all we have left in our pocket.
 
wow. the control we have. an average internist starting out of residency makes 90-110k in new york city. an average pediatrician makes about that as well. that's not enough to buy a 2 bedroom apartment...

New internists could choose to avoid New York City. Eventually the other 60 quadrillion NYC residents who aren't doctors might clue in, poke their heads out of the crowded tiny stacked brick boxes they live in, decide that they liked their ugly city better when doctors lived there too, and become part of the solution instead of part of the problem.

Meanwhile the new internists could be living elsewhere in the country, earning more in an area with a lower cost of living.

If I was in primary care, I wouldn't take a $90-110K job in any expensive big city, since there are so many other options. Then again, some measure of insanity is a prerequisite for going into primary care in the first place, so maybe I would be crazy enough to rent a sterile brick cube and eat Ramen for the "privilege" of living in NYC. (But that much mental pathology is tough for me to imagine.)
 
Just curious as a pre-med wanting to possibly go into Anesthesiology or some other specialty. What are we looking at for salaries if Socialized medicine does come into affect? I personally think that going to med school and obtaining over 100k dollars worth of debt and not being able to pay it off quickly would be financially irresponsible. As much as I am interested in medicine and helping people, I want to have a comfortable life after going through 12 years of school/training. Also, when this does happen, what are the ways around it? I would assume that the gov would not pay for Derm or Plastic surgery operations, so couldn't an anesthesiologist go work for one? If someone owns their own practice, could they refuse these patients?
 
well, my entire family is in and around nyc. all my friends. everything i know in life. i don't really want to "choose" to flee my home. i, and many who stay here, do not do it for the privilege of living in NYC, but because this is our home.

New internists could choose to avoid New York City. Eventually the other 60 quadrillion NYC residents who aren't doctors might clue in, poke their heads out of the crowded tiny stacked brick boxes they live in, decide that they liked their ugly city better when doctors lived there too, and become part of the solution instead of part of the problem.

Meanwhile the new internists could be living elsewhere in the country, earning more in an area with a lower cost of living.

If I was in primary care, I wouldn't take a $90-110K job in any expensive big city, since there are so many other options. Then again, some measure of insanity is a prerequisite for going into primary care in the first place, so maybe I would be crazy enough to rent a sterile brick cube and eat Ramen for the "privilege" of living in NYC. (But that much mental pathology is tough for me to imagine.)
 
I'd say maybe because of this part:
Is it ever proper to help another man? No, if he demands it as his right or as a duty that you owe him. Yes, if it's your own free choice based on your judgment of the value of that person and his struggle.

Objectivism doesn't mean "**** everybody but me, get money."

Is it better to choose to help someone, or to do it out of some misguided sense of guilt?

There is a difference between "misguided guilt" and a sense of reponsibility to help the less fortunate. Although I know it is easier to brush off by telling yourself it is "misguided guilt."
 
Top