|
Post by jean on Jan 10, 2010 19:04:56 GMT
I believe there is better health care in Cuba for a larger proportion of the population than has hitherto been tha case in the USA.
It was pretty good in the Soviet Union too. In post Soviet capitalist Russia it is abysmal.
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Jan 10, 2010 20:44:07 GMT
You're absolutely right Jean, although things have improved a lot in Russia. The wrost time there was under Yeltsin and Putin's (with all his faults) improved the healthcare situation.
Of course you can support public healthcare without being a socialist and even being anti-socialist.
A lot of my relatives in Eastern Europe suffered under Communism so I'm anything BUT a fan of it!
(Mind you, they suffered even more when Clinton started murdering them in Yugoslavia!)
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Jan 17, 2010 10:19:43 GMT
""When any country lets the gap between rich and poor get too big - like it is in Britain and America - it's NOT good news for freedom and democracy. """ the gap between righ and poor...is interesting....as is how and why the gap widens... but should the wealthy and the not so wealthy really be subsidising the poor or relativly poor.... should not the tax system take into acount the effort that goes into individuals creating wealth...and should not the tax system be fairer to all rich and poor alike
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 17, 2010 12:46:36 GMT
Beth, I don't know why you assume that small business owners are 'fictitious.' I run a small business myself and have lots of friends who do the same. Millions of people work for small businesses and we are all struggling to keep going, especially with the current economic situation. You have to try and understand why we are in dire staights though Lin. The credit market has dried up and people are not spendng money. People on lower incomes have stopped spending money because they can no longer get easy credit. That has effected everyone else, Lin. People hawho rely on people to shop with borrowed money are finding the tills empty at the end of the month and they are spending less. They businesses that used to rely on these middle class earners spending money have suffered too and so on. We were told that the rich used to keep the poor going and Thatcherism and Reaganomics was built on this so called 'trickle down effect', but if the credit crunch has taught us anything, it teaches us if you remove money from the poor and EVERYONE suffers. It is not the 'trickle down' effect' it is the economic driver, it is the trickle UP effect that drives the real economy. Give a poor person a fiver and he will spend it. By the time enough fivers are spent, the middle class get rich! What BA's garage owner fails to realise is that the people who use his shops are those on lower incomes and if they get pay cuts then everyone will suffer and that will effect his bottom line. If people can get good health insurance then they will become better workers and not suffer illnesses as much and they will spend money on cars. The highest growth levels across the board in this Country was when we started to the NHS because people had more money to spend, we had full employment and an educated workforce thanks to unversial health care and universial education. We came out of the post war years into the sixties 'Never had it so good'. That only stopped when we made 3 million unemployed, which caused huge areas of the Country to lose money and more importantly, lose economic growth. When the taxpayer stopped propping up these areas, the North and West's economies collasped. Now the taxpayer spends more in the de-industrialised parts of the Country than ever before. THAT is the absolute reality. the imbecillic notion of supply side economics, and the even more ignorant trickle down stupidity has been totally discredited, repeatedly. your example is a perfect one. if you give a real person a five, he'll run down to the store and spend it, which creates ever more increasing jobs. when you give a rich fool a ten, he sticks it in stocks or money market where it does absolutely NOTHING to create jobs or increase the spending power of everyone else, as it is supposed to
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 17, 2010 13:08:22 GMT
Beth - From reading your post you seem to believe that the economy is like the storied perpetual motion machine. All we need to do is confiscate their earnings from the productive members of society, give those confiscated funds to the non-productive members of society, and watch them spend the money thereby boosting the economy and lifting all of us into a higher income bracket. It sounds too good to be true. That's because it is too good to be true. I don't think I want to hand over my life savings to Obama on the theory that he's going to give my money to poor people who are going to spend it and then it will come back to me so I'll then be better off. Is that really your theory? That's what it sounds like. your attempts to emulate isaac asimov don't bear fruit lad. writing this fantasy is not your niche. if you want to think that your greed and self centerdness is cool, that is your perogative, as long as you acknowledge it as such it wouldn't be quite as bad if you weren't so hypocritical. you oppose helping those who, through no fault of their own, are unable to help themselves, but fully support giant subsidies for the corporations who post profits in the tens of billions of dollars every year. your ethics are bass ackwards
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 17, 2010 13:26:12 GMT
Beth - From reading your post you seem to believe that the economy is like the storied perpetual motion machine. All we need to do is confiscate their earnings from the productive members of society, give those confiscated funds to the non-productive members of society, and watch them spend the money thereby boosting the economy and lifting all of us into a higher income bracket. It sounds too good to be true. That's because it is too good to be true. I don't think I want to hand over my life savings to Obama on the theory that he's going to give my money to poor people who are going to spend it and then it will come back to me so I'll then be better off. Is that really your theory? That's what it sounds like. Do you think? Funny, reading back up the thread, I don't see anything I've written that could be construed in any such way, but it's late, perhaps I'm missing something. If you don't mind, please quote the post to which you've made reference. Then, I'll be happy to respond. The one thing I'll offer right now is that, IMO, trickle down economics does not work as some would like us to believe. As I said before, my husband owns a small business, and while times are hard right now and business is down some, we're doing OK. We are able to pay our taxes without a lot of weeping and wailing. I think you should face up to and admit the transcript in the origin post is not a "real" document, but a PR piece by the right. Some seem a bit confused about that. If you want to be helpful, go out and buy a coat or jacket at Land's End. I hear they are hurting. They sell mid priced products of good quality and deserve your support. I just bought each of my daughters a parka they love. Go - do - you won't regret it. unfortunately hon, land's end doesn't post fifty billion dollars a quarter profits, such as exxon mobil and haliburton. das believes only in corporation welfare and giving to the obscenely rich
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 17, 2010 13:28:50 GMT
This speech has to be a wind-up, surely? In the UK it wouldn't be out of place in a left-wing satire. For a start, closing down someone's workplace, making them travel somewhere else for a meeting and then graciously reassuring them they will get paid would trigger some fine retorts from any normal workforce. Perhaps it did and the heckling wasn't reported. Then take this paragraph: "Numbers are boring, I know ... but let's talk a bit more about that $534,000. That's the money that was left last year from company revenues after I paid all of the salaries and expenses of running this business. Now I could have kept every penny of that for myself, but that would have left us with nothing to grow our business, to attract new customers and to hire new employees. You're aware that we've been talking about opening new stores in Virginia Beach and Newport News. To do that I will have to buy or lease property, construct a building and purchase inventory. I also have to hire additional people to work in those stores. These people wouldn't immediately be earning their pay. So, where do you think the money for all of this comes from? Right out of our profits .. right out of that $534,000. I need to advertise to bring customers in, especially in these tough times. Where do you think that money comes from? Oh sure, I can count it as an expense when I file my next income tax return .. but for right now that comes from either current revenues or last year's profits. Revenues right now aren't all that hot ... so do the math. A good effective advertising campaign might cost us more than $300,000."Would staff be nodding sagely and offering to take wage cuts in gratitude at their employer's bounty ? I think not! Even the most naive will realise that losses and expenses can be offset against profits for tax purposes - and I'm quite sure that the speaker won't be spending a single penny unless he can time it to perfection to maximise his tax position. And his threat to cut employees' wages if he is fined for not providing healthcare will hopefully lead the government to change their mind over the whole scheme.They should just lock this numbskull in jail until he complies. I'm sure his businesses can manage without him. that's because there isn't a word of truth in the entire page. it is a sick fantasy dreamed up by nutjobs such as rush limbaugh and ann coulter, with dickhead cheney tossed in
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 17, 2010 13:40:05 GMT
to give my money to poor people who are going to spend it "" perhaps the question is WHY are there poor people ? is it because they are feckless...have no ambition..or is it because they are thick...make the wrong choices..make no effort to help them selves..spurn education ..etc etc i have no desire to help those who WILL not help them selves those who CANNOT help them selves are a different kettle of fish...by cannot i mean the disabled..not the idle..drug adicted..drunks..gamblers or jusy plain stupid although some of it is about those who CHOOSE to be poor, the druggies and other assorted misfits, that is NOT what any of this is actually for. this is about rendering aid to those who are unable to provide for themselves, THROUGH NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN. it is about providing health care to the people who work their azz off but have no health care because the corporation has abrogated its obligation to provide it. it is about the people who WANT to work, but are unable to because the government has abrogated its responsibility to force american corporations to stay in america and provide american jobs. it is about the people who work their azz off trying to make a bare bones living for their family while a worthless executive sitting on his dead azz doing absolutely NOTHING buys gold shower curtains for his bathroom. and the list goes on
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 17, 2010 13:44:32 GMT
I don't think I want to hand over my life savings to Obama on the theory that he's going to give my money to poor people who are going to spend it and then it will come back to me so I'll then be better off. Is that really your theory? That's what it sounds like. That is exactly how capitalism works. Money goes trough the system as many times as possible and the more transactions in the economy, the higher the GDP. Where do you ACTUALLY think all those profits come from? It comes from the fact that millions of people spend money in the economy, the more times that money is recycled trough the economy the bigger it grows. Think about it for a second. Take all the guys from the City and stick them on Mars without a single penny. How rich would the y be in fifty years time and where would that wealth come from? They could hardly sell each other stock of companies that don't exist, can they? They would need millions of people producing wealth for them to gather up. the thing is, the chaps with the irrational thinking as das, and there are far too many like that, refuse to comprehend the FACT that capitalism is supposed to reward those who actually work hard, not those who sit on their azz and do nothing. they refuse to acknowledge the fact that, as you quite correctly point out, it is the man on the assembly line that makes the economy run, NOT the fool in the office on the fiftieth floor
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 17, 2010 13:56:16 GMT
The gap between rich and poor is relatively small in Britain and the USA. It's countries like Haiti and Somalia that have a huge gap. When government steps in and attempts to regulate wealth distribution you wind up with Cuba and the Soviet Union. i already told you that writing fiction such as this is not your strong suit. you really need to strive to get a little closer to reality
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 17, 2010 14:00:52 GMT
""When any country lets the gap between rich and poor get too big - like it is in Britain and America - it's NOT good news for freedom and democracy. """ the gap between righ and poor...is interesting....as is how and why the gap widens... but should the wealthy and the not so wealthy really be subsidising the poor or relativly poor.... should not the tax system take into acount the effort that goes into individuals creating wealth...and should not the tax system be fairer to all rich and poor alike that is the whole point. YOUR individuals creating wealth are not doing it by working for it, they do it by depriving everyone else. and yes, the tax system should be fairer. if someone who got a million dollars a year paid fifty percent tax, he would still have five times as much as the person who made a hundred thousand and paid no tax you can't get any fairer than that
|
|
|
Post by clemiethedog on Jan 19, 2010 15:30:25 GMT
"if someone who got a million dollars a year paid fifty percent tax, he would still have five times as much as the person who made a hundred thousand and paid no tax you can't get any fairer than that "
Well that's a bit simplistic to explain progressive taxation and it does not at all represent graduated tax rates.
Taking fairness out of the loop, as it is arbitrary; it makes the best sense to enact progressive and graduated rates. It makes no sense to burden those who cannot afford taxes for the benefit of those who can. Running up debt to satisfy the greed of the wealthiest 2% makes no sense and it's not only bad policy but bad economics.
The US actually had a surplus for four straight years, 1997-01, but then Bush and his band of plutocrats starting enacting tax cuts that benefited mostly the wealthy. Predictably, those surpluses turned into deficits. Worse yet, Bush offered up additional tax cuts that only benefited the rich, on the eve of a war and long-term military occupation no less, and the debt exploded. Bush and the Republicans mortgaged the future for no benefits.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 19, 2010 15:51:13 GMT
"if someone who got a million dollars a year paid fifty percent tax, he would still have five times as much as the person who made a hundred thousand and paid no tax you can't get any fairer than that " Well that's a bit simplistic to explain progressive taxation and it does not at all represent graduated tax rates. Taking fairness out of the loop, as it is arbitrary; it makes the best sense to enact progressive and graduated rates. It makes no sense to burden those who cannot afford taxes for the benefit of those who can. Running up debt to satisfy the greed of the wealthiest 2% makes no sense and it's not only bad policy but bad economics. The US actually had a surplus for four straight years, 1997-01, but then Bush and his band of plutocrats starting enacting tax cuts that benefited mostly the wealthy. Predictably, those surpluses turned into deficits. Worse yet, Bush offered up additional tax cuts that only benefited the rich, on the eve of a war and long-term military occupation no less, and the debt exploded. Bush and the Republicans mortgaged the future for no benefits. that has ALWAYS been republican policy. ronnie created the biggest deficit in history up until that time. after twenty years, the democrats managed to create the largest surplus in history, which, as you say, dumbya promptly turned into the biggest deficit EVER. the primary tenet of the republican party is to steal from the poor to give to the rich. always has been, and with the dearth of rational people in the republican party, is always likely to be
|
|
|
Post by clemiethedog on Jan 19, 2010 15:59:13 GMT
While what you say about Reagan and Bush is true, that has not always been the case with the Republicans. Eisenhower was committed to balanced budgets, and for that reason he left the higher tax rates alone (top rate was 90%, graduated). The US interstate highway system, among other things, was financed with these tax rates. Kennedy, the democrat, sought to reform the then 21-year old tax structure with some reduction (top rate dropped to 71%). President Ford was also committed to fiscal responsibility.
Republicans today site the Kennedy tax cut as a justification for cutting taxes. What they don't mention was that the top rate then was double of what Clinton enacted (and Obama will permit this year), and they call it socialist. Quite frankly, I think conservatives would only be happy if the poor and the working classes paid all taxes the rich paid nothing. Their greed is insatiable.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 20, 2010 21:01:46 GMT
While what you say about Reagan and Bush is true, that has not always been the case with the Republicans. Eisenhower was committed to balanced budgets, and for that reason he left the higher tax rates alone (top rate was 90%, graduated). The US interstate highway system, among other things, was financed with these tax rates. Kennedy, the democrat, sought to reform the then 21-year old tax structure with some reduction (top rate dropped to 71%). President Ford was also committed to fiscal responsibility. Republicans today site the Kennedy tax cut as a justification for cutting taxes. What they don't mention was that the top rate then was double of what Clinton enacted (and Obama will permit this year), and they call it socialist. Quite frankly, I think conservatives would only be happy if the poor and the working classes paid all taxes the rich paid nothing. Their greed is insatiable. that's what every republican candidate for public office has been saying for thirty years
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Jan 23, 2010 0:40:22 GMT
We have government entities with their hands in our pockets at every level - federal, state, and local. We pay income tax, gas tax, toll road tax, liquor tax, sales tax, property tax, payroll tax, and a seemingly infinite number of other taxes. I'd like to see all of those taxes repealed and a limit placed on total taxation by all government entities combined. I'm thinking around 20% should be the upper limit. No citizen should have to give away more than 20% of his income to all government taxing authorities combines.
|
|
|
Post by clemiethedog on Jan 24, 2010 16:56:20 GMT
I'll agree with some of your points, BM, especially wrt sales taxes, sin taxes, VAT taxes, etc, as they are painfully regressive and often an easy tool for cowardly politicians to take money without calling something a 'tax increase'. The difference is in the details. Many services cost money and it's the government's job to utilize the most effective method to fund those services without causing undue hardship. Regressive taxes not only harm the most, but also realize smaller revenues.
I like to refer to the process as a swinging pendulum. When it swings too far to the right, wealth is concentrated into too small of a circle; when it swings too far to the left, incentives are damaged. An example of the former is the current US economy; an example of the latter is the UK under the Labour government of Harold Wilson. Wilson and Callihan, et al, were rightly drumed from office in 1979 when the top graduated rate in the UK reached a staggering 98%; Thatcher had to step down after she proposed that awfully destructive poll tax.
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Jan 25, 2010 1:29:00 GMT
545 vs 300,000,000 EVERY CITIZEN NEEDS TO READ THIS AND THINK ABOUT WHAT THIS JOURNALIST HAS SCRIPTED IN THIS MESSAGE. READ IT AND THEN REALLY THINK ABOUT OUR CURRENT POLITICAL DEBACLE.
Charley Reese has been a journalist for 49 years.
545 PEOPLE By Charlie Reese
Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.
Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?
Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?
You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does.
You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.
You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.
You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.
You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.
One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine Supreme Court justices equates to 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.
I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.
I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason.. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a president to do one cotton-pickingthing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.
Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.
What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits... The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.
The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? Nancy Pelosi. She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow House members, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.
It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million can not replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.
If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.
If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red ..
If the Army &Marines are in IRAQ , it's because they want them in IRAQ
If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.
There are no insoluble government problems.
Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation," or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.
Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.
They, and they alone, have the power.
They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses.
Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees.
We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!
Charlie Reese is a former columnist of the Orlando Sentinel Newspaper.
What you do with this article now that you have read it.......... Is up to you.
This might be funny if it weren't so darned true. Be sure to read all the way to the end: Tax his land, Tax his bed, Tax the table At which he's fed. Tax his tractor, Tax his mule, Teach him taxes Are the rule. Tax his work, Tax his pay, He works for peanuts Anyway! Tax his cow, Tax his goat, Tax his pants, Tax his coat. Tax his ties, Tax his shirt, Tax his work, Tax his dirt. Tax his tobacco, Tax his drink, Tax him if he Tries to think. Tax his cigars, Tax his beers, If he cries Tax his tears. Tax his car, Tax his gas, Find other ways To tax his ass. Tax all he has Then let him know That you won't be done Till he has no dough. When he screams and hollers; Then tax him some more, Tax him till He's good and sore. Then tax his coffin, Tax his grave, Tax the sod in Which he's laid. Put these words Upon his tomb, Taxes drove me to my doom....' When he's gone, Do not relax, Its time to apply The inheritance tax. Accounts Receivable Tax Building Permit Tax CDL license Tax Cigarette Tax Corporate Income Tax Dog License Tax Excise Taxes Federal Income Tax Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA) Fishing License Tax Food License Tax Fuel Permit Tax Gasoline Tax (currently 44.75 cents per gallon) Gross Receipts Tax Hunting License Tax Inheritance Tax Inventory Tax IRS Interest Charges IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax) Liquor Tax Luxury Taxes Marriage License Tax Medicare Tax Personal Property Tax Property Tax Real Estate Tax Service Charge T ax Social Security Tax Road Usage Tax Sales Tax Recreational Vehicle Tax School Tax State Income Tax State Unemployment Tax (SUTA) Telephone Federal Excise Tax Telephone Federal Universal Ser vice Fee Tax Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Taxes Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge=2 0Tax Telephone Recurring and Non-recurring Charges Tax Telephone State and Local Tax Telephone Usage Charge Tax Utility Taxes Vehicle License Registration Tax Vehicle Sales Tax Watercraft Registration Tax Well Permit Tax Workers Compensation Tax STILL THINK THIS IS FUNNY? Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago, and our nation was the most prosperous in the world. We had absolutely no national debt, had the largest middle class in the world, and Mom stayed home to raise the kids. What in the hell happened? Can you spell 'politicians?' And I still have to 'press 1' for English!?
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Jan 25, 2010 9:51:54 GMT
Thatcher had to step down after she proposed that awfully destructive poll tax."""
the poll tax would have been a far fairer tax than the present community charge...but the left[labour] didnt like it
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Jan 25, 2010 11:57:56 GMT
the poll tax would have been a far fairer tax than the present community charge...but the left[labour] didnt like it Er, I think you have got all your facts mixed up as usual. The 'Community Charge' was the offical name for the poll tax. The current Council Tax was invented by the Tories.
|
|