PDA

View Full Version : Health care



Drop1
06-16-2007, 06:27 PM
There is talk,of a universal health care plan. If you are on medicare,you can't be that happy with the rising costs. And since most employers are putting more,and more of the cost on to the worker,we should have a look at alternatives,to the present get old,go broke,and die system we have now.

eg8r
06-16-2007, 07:32 PM
Why is the alternative always inclusive of someone else paying the majority instead of yourself? When is it time for you to accept some responsibility for your own healthcare?

eg8r

pooltchr
06-16-2007, 09:03 PM
Come on, Ed! You know that nobody should have to pay for their own healthcare. Those big bad profit grabbing companies should be REQUIRED to pay for employees who need to go to the doctor. In fact, I think they should be required to pay for housing, automobiles, gas, food, and everything else their employees need. Oops, wait a minute...that's what the paychecks they hand out every week are for, isn't it??????

Oh, yeah...and if the big bad employers can't pay for it, the government can. After all, when the government pays for it, it doesn't cost anyone anything. Right?? Oh, wait...I'm wrong again. Then it's the TAXPAYERS who end up paying for everything. So maybe we should just give all our money to the government right up front, and let them pay for everything. Then we won't need to work, and those big bad employers will all go out of business. And we can all live off the government.....wait...that would be awfully close to socialism /ccboard/images/graemlins/shocked.gif...... I already have my bumper sticker that says Run, Hillery, Run! I'm putting it on the front bumper!!! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif
Steve

Drop1
06-16-2007, 09:14 PM
I have always taken care of my own health care. I have paid five times to have my wife in intensive care because of a spastic vein in her heart. That was after the insurance company refused to continue paying. I have never used any source other than my own to cover all medical expenses. When does it come time to step in and lend a hand when people don't have the resources to cover their medical problems,is a question you don't seem to ask,you choke on the words,of helping others,so I will answer for you,the time to help others,is when they can't,and have exhausted all their own energies and monies,but still are inflicted with high medical expenses. I see how small a person can be,to let others suffer,and not have the decency to lend aid to the sick,and dying. When is it time to say I can help?

Drop1
06-16-2007, 09:23 PM
The only source of income the government has is taxation. Think about that,while you think about how to help,or is helping not your style? People are not red,or blue,and justice is not blind.

cushioncrawler
06-16-2007, 11:42 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Drop1:</font><hr> The only source of income the government has is taxation. Think about that,while you think about how to help,or is helping not your style? People are not red,or blue,and justice is not blind.<hr /></blockquote>Harry -- Taxation might be income, but income iznt cake, it iz "knife". The government duznt need income -- if the gov haz more income it really only haz more knivez (or a bigger knife). The cake iz made up of good or effektiv production (or something) -- but its difficult to define "cake" here (or anywhere). Did i ever mention bees and honey??? madMac.

pooltchr
06-17-2007, 08:54 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Drop1:</font><hr> The only source of income the government has is taxation. Think about that,while you think about how to help,or is helping not your style? People are not red,or blue,and justice is not blind. <hr /></blockquote>

Exactly! So every government program means a little less for every taxpayer left for their personal use. If the government is limited in when, where, and how they spend money, everyone would have more to do the other things they want and need to do...such as paying for their own medical insurance, or making charitable contributions to help out those who are down on their luck.

Government is very inefficient when it comes to administering the programs they put in place. Take a look at the new amnesty program the Senate and President are pushing. Look at how many new government jobs will be created to administer the program. Every new government employee is a double burden on the economy. First of all, they do not generate any revenue into the economy, and second, their salary is paid entirely by taxpayers. The bigger government gets, the weaker our economy becomes. Think about what will happen if half of all people employed in the country were government employees....our economy would be at zero growth! Because all of your income would be required to pay the salary for one government employee to be paid the same as you. /ccboard/images/graemlins/shocked.gif

More government is not a good thing!
Steve

Vapros
06-17-2007, 10:27 AM
Government administration is like giving yourself a transfusion from your right arm to your left arm, if you spill 80% of the blood along the way.

Drop1
06-17-2007, 12:02 PM
Yep,you wrote about bees,and honey,what I'm writing about is the sick,the disabled,the mentally ill. The problem,that I see,is partially semantics,when the words "universal health care" are used to describe a system,every god fearing republican,and democrat thinks some where,some how some one will get free health care,on the backs of the noble tax payers We have a health care system that is on the fast track to oblivion,because of the rise in medical costs,and the cost of medical insurance. We have thirty five million people entering the age,when they will go on Social Security,adding more,and more people each year. Taxes do not belong to the government,they belong to the people who trust the government to spend them wisely. Every public school,high way,park,museum,hospital,is funded with the money of the people by the government. There is a need for health care,and I have seen it first hand on the streets of Los Angeles,where Vietnam vets,have gone psycho,and fifty square blocks of homeless people sleep each night. We cannot deny the need for a health care system. But lets throw out the word universal,because it confuses,and clouds,what we should be seeking. By the way if you work for the government,you will be receiving a lot fewer benefits on your medical plan.

Drop1
06-17-2007, 12:02 PM
Yep,you wrote about bees,and honey,what I'm writing about is the sick,the disabled,the mentally ill. The problem,that I see,is partially semantics,when the words "universal health care" are used to describe a system,every god fearing republican,and democrat thinks some where,some how some one will get free health care,on the backs of the noble tax payers We have a health care system that is on the fast track to oblivion,because of the rise in medical costs,and the cost of medical insurance. We have thirty five million people entering the age,when they will go on Social Security,adding more,and more people each year. Taxes do not belong to the government,they belong to the people who trust the government to spend them wisely. Every public school,high way,park,museum,hospital,is funded with the money of the people by the government. There is a need for health care,and I have seen it first hand on the streets of Los Angeles,where Vietnam vets,have gone psycho,and fifty square blocks of homeless people sleep each night. We cannot deny the need for a health care system. But lets throw out the word universal,because it confuses,and clouds,what we should be seeking. By the way if you work for the government,you will be receiving a lot fewer benefits on your medical plan.

cushioncrawler
06-17-2007, 04:51 PM
Harry – I want to say a few things about “taxes” and “money of the people” and “free” and “belong to the people” and “costs” and “tax payers” and “spend them wisely”.

Every dollar that the govt spends is Spent-Tax – every dollar that the govt collects is Collected-Tax. Spent-Tax is the important one – u all pay for every dollar the govt spends (sort of equally). Collected-Tax is funded by the citizens that payed that tax (ie not equally). Anyhow, the real tax iz “what the govt spends”, not “what the govt collects”. Just a minor point, often overlooked.

I certainly agree that the govt shood spend wisely. But, one dollar of unwize govt spending affects the “cake” the same as one dollar of unwize non-govt spending. Just a minor point, often overlooked.

One of my billiards mates has been to the States a few times. He sez that it iz terrible the way that allmost every nook has a homeless tenant. The problem iznt that they are homeless, it iz that they are jobless. Just a minor point, often overlooked.

Costs aint costs. What most call "costs" are really only "charges". For example, if all doctors decided to take zero salary etc for one year, then the real cost to the country (ie the size of the cake) would be unchanged. Just a minor point, often overlooked. madMac.

Gayle in MD
06-17-2007, 06:26 PM
I don't think it's a minor point, friend, it's a major point, IMO. Corruption, incompetence, and the resulting waste of money, big, major point!

Presidential policies that are a huge burden to the country, financially, and do absolutely nothing to benefit the taxpayers. This war, is a good example. Loads of billionaires have made a fortune off this ill conceived, poorly planned, illogical war in Iraq. What have we gotten out of it? NOTHING. It has been a demonstration of incompetence on every level, and we now are being further gouged by our debt owners, China, and they are laughing at any talk of preventing their unfair trade practices, which lead to greater and greater trade deficits.

Billions lost and unaccounted for in Iraq, and Katrina. Again, incompetence and corruption. The huge costs we paid to merge all the agencies into Homeland Security, and they can't even respond to a national disaster.

Drop is right. If our Government is one of the people, for the people, and by the people, then it should not follow that only the upper middle class, rich and wealthy can afford health care. We pay a fortune for our health care, and in my lifetime, I have paid my way. I have been more fortunate, than many others, but I see what is happening around me, and most of our problems are the result of corruption, and incompetence.

It is insanity to wage war, while cutting taxes, and when the bill comes due, it will be far greater than anyone wants to talk about. One worde you will never hear coming from a Republican, is the word deficit.

I wonder, what are the odds...
President...Bush
Vice President...Cheney
Secretary of State...Rice
Secretary of Defense...Rumsfeld
Attorney General... (2) Gonzales and Ashcroft
National Security Advisor...Rice
Speaker Of The House...Hastard
Majority Leader....Tom Delay
General Services Administrator...Doan
FEMA Director...Brown and Chertoff..his boss...

All, the worst in history, what are the odds, all in the same administration, and all Republicans. Not one single social issue has improved in over six years, not one.

Nothing will be solved until they're all out, and especially the Health Care Crises.

But, while Democrats are bringing these issues into investigations, particularly the plight of our Vets, and their poor equipment, and medical aid, and particularly the waste and incompetence of this failed foreign policy, which has caused great debt, and loss of respect, and exascerbated all the problems in the Middle East, including terrorism, some in this country can only grasp one false issue, taxes, and their great fear that some of their tax dollars might just feed some hungry Americans, or help a shell shocked Veteran, up from the depths of poverty, and mental illness.

It's disgusting.

Gayle in Md.





Veterans caught in the limbo of bureaucratic red tape.

pooltchr
06-17-2007, 07:48 PM
You might find it interesting that in a recent survey, people were asked "How much of everyone's income should be paid in the form of taxes?" The average answer? 15%. Those with higher education levels averaged in at around 22% while those with less than a high school education thought 9% should go to the government. (Federal, state, and local) The fact is that the average American ends up paying 33% of their income in taxes to the government. This comes in the form of income tax, property tax, sales tax and several other taxes. The last time we paid 15% was in the 1930's! Since then, we have had both Republican and Democrat control of Washington, so it isn't a party issue. It is a spending issue, pure and simple. Government spends (wastes) too much of our money on things they have no business spending it on.

My question. If we believe that 15% is reasonable to allow the governments to operate, why aren't we screaming bloody murder that they are spending more than twice that amount???????????? If the government quit taking away that extra 18% of your paycheck, you could probably afford to buy your own medical insurance, pay for your kid's education, and a lot of other things so many think should be provided to them by someone else! We are guaranteed life, liberty and the persuit of happiness. I'm still trying to find where we are guaranteed employer or government provided health insurance. You live near the coast...should everyone chip in to provide you with homeowners insurance in the event of a hurricane? Or earthquake insurance for those who live in California?

When did we become a country where everyone is entitled to everything, and it should be provided by someone else? There was a time when if someone's barn burned down, the neighbors pitched in and built a new one....without being forced to do it. But I guess that might have been a time before the government decided they were better equipped to handle things.

Eleven words that should send fear through the heart of anyone that hears them: "I am from the government, and I am here to help"!

Steve

Drop1
06-17-2007, 11:56 PM
The idea,is to explore the options to what we have. I watched my brother inlaw die of kidney failure,in the government run hospital in Mexicali,because of no available dialysis machine. He was thirty seven. I think we need to define,what the legitimate obligations of government are. I don't think breast implants for Richard Speck,while he was in prison was legitimate,but the government did. The tax payer has been abused so long,they want too say no to everything that smacks of the poor receiving aid,and I sympathize with that position,knowing welfare recepients are going into their ninth generation of receiving welfare at Hunters Point California. These people,are brain dead on drugs,unable to hold a job,learn a skill,or in any way get off wefare,but they can pump out more kids. Don't you think we should take a look at what we are getting for the money we spend,and where will these kids be in twelve years? We have a failed government,that spends two billion dollars a day,and borrow forty six percent of that amount from other countries. Iraq is Bush's war,and I won't comment further. I want to look at where the American dream is failing for millions of people,and is it possible to reverse the poverty,that is becoming the American way,through change in imperial government.

Gayle in MD
06-18-2007, 12:07 AM
You might be interested in this statistic. From 1776, the entire first 224 years of government spending, all 42 presidents combined, borrowed, from foreign governments, and financial institutions, 1.1 trillion dollars.

George Bush, and the Republican controlled Congress, in the first four to five years of this administration, borrowed 1.5 trillion, more than all previous presidents, and administrations combined.

During that time, we have had the highest trade deficits, the greatest drop out rate, the greatest gap between the rich and the poor since the twenties, weakening of enviromental protections, the worst performance in the prosecution of any military action in history, the greatest loss of allies, the worst treatment of American Troops, the most damage to our army, the worst record of emergency response, the largest increase in terrorist recruitments, the largest influx of illegal aliens, the greatest number of terrorist attacks, globally, and the greatest overall decline in international trust and respect for this country.

The only thing that Republicans have managed to accomplish, with vigor, is to increase the number of hungry children in this country, promote higher gas prices, increase the cost of pharmaceutical drugs, remove the traditional rule of shopping price, by extending no-bid contracts to their cronies, increas the numbers of workers working under the table, drive down the wages of industrial and blue collar workers, add more poison and pollution to our air and water, making people more ill, and mortgage our children's future.

It isn't about taxes. It is about corruption, fascism, waste, incompetence, no leadership, no moral principles, no Congressional Oversight, lies, and gross, decietful Republican manipulation of words, facts and figures, with the help of Right-wing corporate fascist media moguls, like Rupert Murdoch, and billionaire pigs who manipulate foreign policy, through fascist right-wing think tanks, such as The American Enterprise Institute, in order to fill their own, already bulging pockets.

http://www.ctj.org/html/gwb0602.htm

This thread is supposed to be about health care, and the many millions in this country who cannot afford it, but I'd just love to hear how these righties think that we can pay off the massive debt created by their conservative policies, (I almost throw up these days when I have to type THAT word) not to mention the accumulating interest on all this debt, and become the neocon's planned, pie in the sky notion of a nation of global dominance...LMAO...

If the wealthy in this country had ever really paid their fair share of taxes, which they haven't, affordable health care, social security, and a decent education for well fed
American children, across this land, would be a reality, instead of the impossible dream.

The honor of our country lies in its treatment of the least among us. There was a time when those words meant something to all americans, but that was before Reagonomics, and words like food challenged.

Gayle in Md.

cushioncrawler
06-18-2007, 04:09 PM
Gayle -- Same in Ozz. But in Ozz we have a 10% goods'n'services tax (in addition to the salary tax), so, now, the rich are paying a fairer share.

No 1 -- We (u) need a greener system (koz the most important thing is the distant future).
No 2 -- We (u) need an efficient system, in particular "full employment" (ie to have a bigger cake).
No 3 -- We (u) need a fairer system, ie to share the tax burden more fairly. Here, a 10% goods etc tax is a good start, but, we must remoov the salary tax alltogether. In fact, i say we shood remoov all taxes -- u karnt get fairer than that -- and it saves the cost of collecting etc taxes -- collecting might cost over 10% of the amount collected. madMac.

eg8r
06-18-2007, 05:01 PM
[ QUOTE ]
When does it come time to step in and lend a hand when people don't have the resources to cover their medical problems,is a question you don't seem to <hr /></blockquote> I don't ask it because as you would probably agree, you are in the minority as far as covering your part. The vast majority of your fellow constituents look to the government first to provide. Don't act like I am the only one that notices this, there is a reason why the Democrats continue to try their best to increase the size of Government handouts and it has nothing to do with the well-being of those recipients.

[ QUOTE ]
you choke on the words,of helping others, <hr /></blockquote> Do you know this for sure? If we are to base everything on what we read here, you choke on the words of self-responsibility and want everyone else to pay for your needs.

Stand up for yourself before looking for the government to bail you out. Is that such a bad message? Or is it one you don't want to hear because you feel it is time for someone else to pick up your expenses?

[ QUOTE ]
I see how small a person can be,to let others suffer,and not have the decency to lend aid to the sick,and dying. When is it time to say I can help? <hr /></blockquote> Lending aid on a personal front is much different than telling others to beg at the doorstep of the government. If you want to help, then help, but telling people that it is the governments responsibility to cover the expenses they cannot personally cover is not helping anyone.

eg8r

pooltchr
06-18-2007, 05:08 PM
After muddling through all the mis-spelling of your post, somewhere in there I think you hit on a valid point. Neil Boortz authored a book calling for a flat tax (national sales tax, if you will) to replace all other forms of taxes. Pure and simple...the more you buy, the more taxes you pay. If you spend $50 a week at the grocery store, you pay $5 in tax. If you spend $200, you pay $20. If you buy a $12000 KIA, you pay $1200 in tax. If you buy a $60000 Lexus, you pay $6000 in taxes. That way, everyone not only pays the same fair share, but everyone has options depending on the lifestyle they are willing or able to live. If you want to live in a $6 million dollar home, be prepared to pay more taxes than if you decide to live in a $150,000 home. Kinda makes sense when you think about it. But then, people like Gayle wouldn't be able to complain that the rich don't pay their fair share. (Actually, right now, the rich pay the greatest percentage of all taxes collected by the IRS, a fact she doesn't seem able to grasp.)
Steve

eg8r
06-18-2007, 05:10 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Taxes do not belong to the government,they belong to the people who trust the government to spend them wisely. Every public school,high way,park,museum,hospital,is funded with the money of the people by the government. <hr /></blockquote> This quote is great proof that the government is doing a poor job spending the money wisely. Why should a government be paying for parks and museums? LOL, it is funny every time I have a Conflict of Interest course at work and I think about the Government education bills. Talk about conflict of interest. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

cushioncrawler
06-18-2007, 05:16 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr> After muddling through all the mis-spelling of your post, somewhere in there I think you hit on a valid point. Neil Boortz authored a book calling for a flat tax (national sales tax, if you will) to replace all other forms of taxes. Pure and simple...the more you buy, the more taxes you pay. If you spend $50 a week at the grocery store, you pay $5 in tax. If you spend $200, you pay $20. If you buy a $12000 KIA, you pay $1200 in tax. If you buy a $60000 Lexus, you pay $6000 in taxes. That way, everyone not only pays the same fair share, but everyone has options depending on the lifestyle they are willing or able to live. If you want to live in a $6 million dollar home, be prepared to pay more taxes than if you decide to live in a $150,000 home. Kinda makes sense when you think about it. But then, people like Gayle wouldn't be able to complain that the rich don't pay their fair share. (Actually, right now, the rich pay the greatest percentage of all taxes collected by the IRS, a fact she doesn't seem able to grasp.)Steve<hr /></blockquote>Steve -- In fact i think that zero tax could work. Would save the cost of collection (??%). madMac.

eg8r
06-18-2007, 05:19 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Gayle -- Same in Ozz. But in Ozz we have a 10% goods'n'services tax (in addition to the salary tax), so, now, the rich are paying a fairer share.
<hr /></blockquote> This business about fair is complete crap. Fair is everyone paying the same. You just cannot get your mind off the fact that the rich guy is more successful than you are and he should have to pay extra for it.

[ QUOTE ]
Here, a 10% goods etc tax is a good start, but, we must remoov the salary tax alltogether. In fact, i say we shood remoov all taxes -- u karnt get fairer than that -- and it saves the cost of collecting etc taxes -- collecting might cost over 10% of the amount collected. <hr /></blockquote> Obviously no one can remove all taxes, as it has already been stated, taxes are the only form of income. How could anything be distrubted to those in need if none is coming in at the other end.

The Fair Tax is trying to get going here in the US and I would guess that in a few years it might actually make it to the floor for a vote. It seems to cover a lot of the tax issues that are floating around and it continues to allow those who pay no takes now to continue.

eg8r

eg8r
06-18-2007, 05:22 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Steve -- In fact i think that zero tax could work. Would save the cost of collection (??%). madMac. <hr /></blockquote> That would only solve the collection costs, but it does not solve the other side. You know, the side that is still spending money? Taxes are the only income. Maybe what you mean is zero income taxes. I think Steve meant to say Fair tax, not flat tax and it does remove income taxes. The big reason why it has not been voted on yet is because it eliminates the IRS who are the biggest lobbyists on the hill alongside of the oil guys.

eg8r

pooltchr
06-18-2007, 05:30 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr>

If the wealthy in this country had ever really paid their fair share of taxes, which they haven't, affordable health care, social security, and a decent education for well fed
American children, across this land, would be a reality, instead of the impossible dream.


Gayle in Md.

<hr /></blockquote>

Could you please tell me where in the constitution is the federal government given the responsibility, authority, or right to provide healthcare, public education, or a retirement plan for everyone in the country? I thought education was supposed to be the job of local governments. Insurance companies are in the business of selling insurance. Investment bankers can help anyone plan for retirement. Of course, an individual would have to take responsibility for those decisions. I guess it's just much easier to give everything over to the government and let them take care of our lives for us, since we are all to stupid, or lazy, to take responsibility ourselves.

Let's take a typical middle class family with a combined income of say $60,000. Right now, the government gets $20,000 of that income. If the tax rate could be cut in half (Meaning the government cuts out all the extra spending that isn't their job anyway), that family just got an extra $10,000 a year. With just a little fiscal responsibility, that money could be invested and provide plenty to pay for insurance, retirement, and OMG! even enough to help out someone who might need a helping hand. Of course, some of those families will just buy a bigger car, put a swimming pool in the back yard, and get a boat to play on the lake. Those are the ones who will come right back to the government looking to get help because they used poor judgement when they had the opportunity. And the liberals in this country will look at them, feel sorry for them, and start the cycle all over again.

I am getting tired of paying for the stupidity of others.
On the other hand, I have no problem helping someone who needs it, but only to the extent that I can afford it. Give me 15% more of MY income, and I could do a lot of good. And probably do a better job than the morons in Washington!
Steve

cushioncrawler
06-18-2007, 05:43 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> ...This business about fair is complete crap. Fair is everyone paying the same. You just cannot get your mind off the fact that the rich guy is more successful than you are and he should have to pay extra for it......<hr /></blockquote>Ed -- The concept of "fair tax rates" is difficult -- i havnt spent much time on it -- i must google this sort of thing to see what the experts say.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr>....Obviously no one can remove all taxes, as it has already been stated, taxes are the only form of income. How could anything be distrubted to those in need if none is coming in at the other end. The Fair Tax is trying to get going here in the US and I would guess that in a few years it might actually make it to the floor for a vote. It seems to cover a lot of the tax issues that are floating around and it continues to allow those who pay no takes now to continue...<hr /></blockquote>Ed -- Now here i think i can add something to the debate. Tax is only a method of sharing "the cake" more efficiently and/or more fairly. And i say that tax iz unnecessary. When the gov spends a dollar, everyone pays, whether that dollar iz backed-up by a collected dollar or not. See??? madMac.

pooltchr
06-18-2007, 05:57 PM
I think Ed's point is that we all know we need to pay taxes. There is a legitimate need for government in our society, and there are costs connected with having a government. Our government is charged with providing a defense force to protect our people from foreign invaders, something they haven't done a very good job of lately, and provide basic services to all of us. They build highways for everyone to use, provide security in the form of police, and a justice system to deal with those who can't or won't conform to the rules of our society. Yes, there are legitimate reasons we need government. The problem is when government oversteps the limits outlined in the constitution. When Senators and Representatives push bills through to fund their pet projects for the sole reason of buying votes, it's time to take a stand.

I think we need an incentive for Washington to control spending. If we offered our congressmen a percentage of every dollar they could actually cut from the budget (Cut a $million, you get 2% or $20,000) how long would it take to have all those pet projects disappear?

In my job, I have a budget. If I stay under budget, I get a bonus, if I go over, I don't! Let me tell you, I think twice before spending a dollar of my company's money!

Steve

cushioncrawler
06-18-2007, 06:01 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote madMac:</font><hr> Steve -- In fact i think that zero tax could work. Would save the cost of collection (??%). madMac. <hr /></blockquote> That would only solve the collection costs, but it does not solve the other side. You know, the side that is still spending money? Taxes are the only income. Maybe what you mean is zero income taxes. I think Steve meant to say Fair tax, not flat tax and it does remove income taxes. The big reason why it has not been voted on yet is because it eliminates the IRS who are the biggest lobbyists on the hill alongside of the oil guys. eg8r<hr /></blockquote>Ed -- I must look into that Fair Tax. Re "income", the fed govt duznt need any income. Roozy had a hard time swallowing this concept when he came to office. In Ozz, the feds can have a deficit, but the states havta balance their books (here i can hear the sound of a million accountants laughing) -- probably iz the same in USA.

Put it this way -- all i am saying is that the deficit can be (shood be) 100%, instead of the current ??%.

I agree that the IRS shood be eliminated -- this will give a bigger cake. But all paperwork costs money, and i bet that the Fair Tax will have lots of paperwork etc. It keeps kumming back to what i say -- zero tax is the answer -- karnt get fairer than that, and cheeep az hell to collect. Look at that cake grow.

Re "spending", yes, the most important thing (now and for the future) is how and where etc the govt spends its dollar. This determines the size and shape and wt and taste and color etc of the cake more than any tax system could. madMac.

eg8r
06-18-2007, 06:12 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Ed -- The concept of "fair tax rates" is difficult -- i havnt spent much time on it -- i must google this sort of thing to see what the experts say. <hr /></blockquote> It just takes a little common sense. As far as looking to see what the experts think you might as well look just a little bit more to see which side of the fence that particular expert is sitting on. The sides are definitely split and the expert will only see it from his view of the fence.

[ QUOTE ]
Now here i think i can add something to the debate. Tax is only a method of sharing "the cake" more efficiently and/or more fairly. And i say that tax iz unnecessary. When the gov spends a dollar, everyone pays, whether that dollar iz backed-up by a collected dollar or not. See???<hr /></blockquote> Take what you are saying and apply it to the average citizen. Every time the citizen spends a dollar of which he does not have a dollar coming in he is driven into debt. What you are proposing (if you don't mean to only eliminate income taxes) would continue to lead us deeper into debt despite the fact that Bush is still outspending what is coming in.

eg8r

cushioncrawler
06-18-2007, 06:19 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr> I think Ed's point is that we all know we need to pay taxes. There is a legitimate need for government in our society, and there are costs connected with having a government. Our government is charged with providing a defense force to protect our people from foreign invaders, something they haven't done a very good job of lately, and provide basic services to all of us. They build highways for everyone to use, provide security in the form of police, and a justice system to deal with those who can't or won't conform to the rules of our society. Yes, there are legitimate reasons we need government. The problem is when government oversteps the limits outlined in the constitution. When Senators and Representatives push bills through to fund their pet projects for the sole reason of buying votes, it's time to take a stand.

I think we need an incentive for Washington to control spending. If we offered our congressmen a percentage of every dollar they could actually cut from the budget (Cut a $million, you get 2% or $20,000) how long would it take to have all those pet projects disappear? In my job, I have a budget. If I stay under budget, I get a bonus, if I go over, I don't! Let me tell you, I think twice before spending a dollar of my company's money! Steve<hr /></blockquote>Steve -- How about a better watchdog, a department that points out the bad and the krap. Might be money well spent. At present the watchdogs wont bite the hands that feed them. madMac.

cushioncrawler
06-18-2007, 06:29 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote madMac:</font><hr>...Now here i think i can add something to the debate. Tax is only a method of sharing "the cake" more efficiently and/or more fairly. And i say that tax iz unnecessary. When the gov spends a dollar, everyone pays, whether that dollar iz backed-up by a collected dollar or not. See???<hr /></blockquote> Take what you are saying and apply it to the average citizen. Every time the citizen spends a dollar of which he does not have a dollar coming in he is driven into debt. What you are proposing (if you don't mean to only eliminate income taxes) would continue to lead us deeper into debt despite the fact that Bush is still outspending what is coming in. eg8r<hr /></blockquote>Ed -- Roozy took a while to be convinced that the govt finances dont operate like a household's finances. Look at it this way -- Look at the govt like a great big household -- a household where the husband owes money to the wife, and this debt grows'n'grows and in fact is never repaid.

But any debt to the next-door-neighbours (China) is a real debt -- this is a different problem. A problem that China haz solved, but which eludes the proud products of Harvard and Princeton. madMac.

eg8r
06-18-2007, 06:33 PM
Fair tax is easier to control/maintain than the current system. On top of eliminating the IRS it also frees up the stress on the citizens that is developed during tax season. The issue of paperwork is drastically reduced also because the only tax is sales tax which I think they are proposing to be 22% or something like that. The other group that goes away are all the accountants who work for a few months each year during tax season. No more 500 page updates to the tax code. No more loop holes to worry about. Less companies leaving the US because of the high tax burden. Huge increase in foreign companies relocating to the US because of relieved tax burdens.

The only people who don't see anything good about the Fair tax are the politicians, lobbyists, IRS agents, and tax accountants.

eg8r

eg8r
06-18-2007, 06:40 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Could you please tell me where in the constitution is the federal government given the responsibility, authority, or right to provide healthcare, public education, or a retirement plan for everyone in the country? <hr /></blockquote> Great point Steve, but Gayle and the rest of the tax loving fiends are nothing but goons and bullies. They are unable to give you a number that would be fair, because they would just want to get more once that peak was reached.

The fact is 80% (or probably higher) of the tax is paid for by 2% or so of the citizens of this country. The left doesn't think that is enough, they always want someone else to pay more.

eg8r

cushioncrawler
06-18-2007, 06:46 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> Fair tax is easier to control/maintain than the current system. On top of eliminating the IRS it also frees up the stress on the citizens that is developed during tax season. The issue of paperwork is drastically reduced also because the only tax is sales tax which I think they are proposing to be 22% or something like that. The other group that goes away are all the accountants who work for a few months each year during tax season. No more 500 page updates to the tax code. No more loop holes to worry about. Less companies leaving the US because of the high tax burden. Huge increase in foreign companies relocating to the US because of relieved tax burdens. The only people who don't see anything good about the Fair tax are the politicians, lobbyists, IRS agents, and tax accountants. eg8r <hr /></blockquote>Ed -- Sounds good to me -- allmost too good to be true. Of course, there will be the uzual amount of black-market stuff going on. And most small biznesses will have 2 cash registers, az uzual. My "zero tax" system duz away with all of that -- zero paperwork -- but it raizes a few new problems of course (what duznt).

Hmmm -- How will Fair Tax affect churches?? -- I bet they will get a new bag of tax breaks.

I still karnt beleev that there are economists in USA that can see throo all of the Freidman "chicago school" sort of dogma, and kum up with something that actually makes sense. Wait, i know, i bet that economists had nothing to do with this new scheme. madMac.

Drop1
06-18-2007, 07:11 PM
So you would have been against the GI bill helping people get an education. I don't understand what you think government does. one fifth of all jobs,are related in one way or another to the government,and government contracts. Anyway you are against government aid to babies with aids,or are there moments where you might bend,if you saw the need. What do you suggest a blind eighty year old person with renal failure do, become a greeter at Wal-Mart? Everyone knows there are abuses, the idea is to look at the future. What we have is not working. We have a minus saving sum in the U.S.,compared to twenty percent personal savings in China. Maybe you have a crystal ball,but I believe in preparation.

Drop1
06-18-2007, 07:23 PM
I think Aristotle said it best,"good writing is easy to read". I don't know why you choose the long way around to make a point,that could be written with the intent of being understood quickly. I read your posts,and I understand what you are saying, I would respond to many,but I feel no need.

Qtec
06-18-2007, 07:27 PM
[ QUOTE ]
The fact is 80% (or probably higher) of the tax is paid for by 2% or so of the citizens of this country. The left doesn't think that is enough, they always want someone else to pay more.

eg8r<hr /></blockquote>

Incme tax maybe, but what about the rest, the greater part, that is paid by the low earners? Every beer, every cigarette etc has tax added. They pay tax all the time and on a low income.

Q

Drop1
06-18-2007, 07:58 PM
Have a look at the "Federal Employees Retirement System"

cushioncrawler
06-18-2007, 08:54 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Drop1:</font><hr> I think Aristotle said it best,"good writing is easy to read". I don't know why you choose the long way around to make a point,that could be written with the intent of being understood quickly. I read your posts,and I understand what you are saying, I would respond to many,but I feel no need.<hr /></blockquote>Harry -- Writing is difficult for me. If i write an article (not here), i find that i need say 10 minor and major edits at first, and then I have another look in say 12 months and find that it reads like krap, so, a complete rewrite and then more edits. Then, say 12 months later later, i pick it up and find that the logic and conclusions are flawed, and i havta do the tests'n'measurements'n'writing all over. Wish i could have the same sort of luxury with this here forum.

Who woz it that said words to the effect that....
.... there is little chance that something good will eventuate untill someone who iz not used to talking is heard by people who are not used to listening. madMac.

Drop1
06-18-2007, 10:32 PM
Mac,a person cannot talk and listen at the same time,and since most of us would rather talk,than listen,talking being the stronger position,has left people challenged,when it comes to listening. When it comes to ,those ideas that don't fit the listeners preconceived idea of what the world is about,the listener shuts down,and goes into a mental fetal position. I have never learned anything talking,but listening has taught me much.

Drop1
06-18-2007, 10:47 PM
Who do you call,when your house is on fire,and thanks to zero tax,there is no fire department?

cushioncrawler
06-18-2007, 11:04 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Drop1:</font><hr> Who do you call,when your house is on fire,and thanks to zero tax,there is no fire department?<hr /></blockquote>Who do u call when the USA is on fire??
Who do u call when your house is sinking neath the waves??

But, Harry, i saw the answer to your question on TV the other night, on "Cops". The cops caught this hobo peeing into a cardboard box in any alley. They threw him into the clanger for the night. When asked what hiz excuse woz, he said that that woz the second time that week that hiz house had caught fire, and he didnt have house insurance. madMac.

eg8r
06-19-2007, 06:22 AM
With the beginning of your post it shows you don't know anything and you are just blindly making accusations about what I am "for" and "against". If you wanted to be an honest person, then all you would be trying to do is understand that I think the Government has grown too much, is over-reaching its real mission, and it needs to be cut back. You are obviously not good at guessing.

[ QUOTE ]
Everyone knows there are abuses, the idea is to look at the future. What we have is not working. <hr /></blockquote> If you want to be honest and really clue into what we "know" then make sure to include the "common knowledge" that throwing money at problems NEVER WORKS! Quit throwing money at social programs.

[ QUOTE ]
We have a minus saving sum in the U.S.,compared to twenty percent personal savings in China. <hr /></blockquote> Well, that may be true, but do you really think increasing taxes will teach the citizens how to save? Individual savings plans are definitely not even close to a major problem with this country and the way its Government handles itself so there is no reason to throw this in unless you want a pat on the back for remembering a useless fact.

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe you have a crystal ball,but I believe in preparation. <hr /></blockquote> If you call common sense a crystal ball, then that explains a lot about your post. Your belief in preparation sounds like you believe we should be taxing more and the government growing and spending more. What I believe we need to do is to reduce the size of Government, lower government spending and begin digging out of the hole we are in.

eg8r

eg8r
06-19-2007, 06:31 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Ed -- Sounds good to me -- allmost too good to be true. Of course, there will be the uzual amount of black-market stuff going on. And most small biznesses will have 2 cash registers, az uzual. My "zero tax" system duz away with all of that -- zero paperwork -- but it raizes a few new problems of course (what duznt).
<hr /></blockquote> Criminals will always look for a way to cheat.

[ QUOTE ]
Hmmm -- How will Fair Tax affect churches?? -- I bet they will get a new bag of tax breaks.
<hr /></blockquote> I get it, you don't like the church and find them to be the root of all evil. I just wish you would get past that, if you remove all taxes except for a sales tax, then where would the NEW breaks come in to play.

[ QUOTE ]
I still karnt beleev that there are economists in USA that can see throo all of the Freidman "chicago school" sort of dogma, and kum up with something that actually makes sense. Wait, i know, i bet that economists had nothing to do with this new scheme. <hr /></blockquote> Well, there certainly have been plenty of economists help on the project. There will always be at least two sides to the story anyway so you need to pick and choose whom to believe.

eg8r

eg8r
06-19-2007, 06:40 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Incme tax maybe, but what about the rest, the greater part, that is paid by the low earners? Every beer, every cigarette etc has tax added. They pay tax all the time and on a low income.
<hr /></blockquote> Yes, the number I gave was for income tax. As far as taxing the poor on beer and cigs, I say raise the taxes on those items so high they could never afford them. If you are poor and cannot provide for yourself or in a worse case cannot provide for a family then you don't have any business buying "luxury" type items anyway.

I know someone like you will twist what I am saying to say I think beer and cigs should be for the rich only and I am giving them another benefit, but that is as far from the truth as possible. I think the poor people of this country need to be a lot smarter about what they spend their money on. There are more important things the money can be spent on. Sure it is their money and they can do what they want with it, but if they are going to continue to be irresponsible then why is that something the taxpayer should be burdened with?

eg8r

Drop1
06-19-2007, 08:50 AM
Mac,no taxes,no police. In a fit of unusual generosity,the government gave the military a two percent raise for 2007,that is for the grunt. Took a big slice of cake /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Drop1
06-19-2007, 09:00 AM
Guess again Karnac. Please direct me to the part of my post that says we should raise taxes. Fixing a broken system,is what I'm asking you to look at,not raising taxes. To be honest,I never think of you, I think of where this Country is going,and what is the quality of life my grand kids can expect.

eg8r
06-19-2007, 10:32 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Guess again Karnac. Please direct me to the part of my post that says we should raise taxes. <hr /></blockquote> Well then how do you think your health coverage is going to be paid for? Come on, use a little common sense. I was hoping you were old enough to not have to still be spoon-fed.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
06-19-2007, 11:38 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Could you please tell me where in the constitution is the federal government given the responsibility, authority, or right to provide healthcare, public education, or a retirement plan for everyone in the country? <hr /></blockquote>

Social Security, is an insurance plan, not a retirement plan.

Public education shouldn't be a problem in one of the richest countries in the world. What do you want, nothing but private schools and tuition for everyone? How do you think the poor would ever have a shot at coming up in the world? Do you ever think of the likely results of some of your ideas, on the country, overall?

Please tell me where in the Constitution is says that this country shouldn't give a damn about its citizenry.

You righties never want to talk about the likely consequences of your philosophies. Anyway, when it comes to spending, wasting money, and corruption, it might be a good idea to end the right wing Billionaire social security program, that allows them to own and operate huge billion dollar corporations, and squirrel all their money away in the Carribbean, to avoid paying their fair share.


A nation must have roads, hospitals, rescue operations, schools, police departments, for the life of me, I don['t understand how the hell you righties think a country can function, without collecting taxes, particularly when we're going to have to face all the debt, eventually, that has been accumulated through Bush's Nation Building, and tax cuts, all aquired on borrowed money. Is that what you call conservatism?

Eg, on here bashing everyone else, people who never had the opportunities that he came into the world with, and then admitting that he's depending on his kids getting scholarships to get through school. What a joke.

I've been priveledged in my life, and never been poor, or hungry, but that doesn't remove my duty to care about those who did not have my same good fortune. A nation that doesn't assist its citizenry in times of financial ruin, strife, old age, catestrophic illness, and provide eduacation, highways, bridges, and the infrastructure of civilization, through state and federal taxes, is certainly not a country where I would want to have to live my life.

Ever heard of..."Of The People, For The People, and By The People? What the hell do you think that means, anyway?

Gayle in Md.

eg8r
06-19-2007, 11:57 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Eg, on here bashing everyone else, people who never had the opportunities that he came into the world with, and then admitting that he's depending on his kids getting scholarships to get through school. What a joke.
<hr /></blockquote> Here is the goon again completely making stuff up. When you want to be honest let me know.

As far as coming into this world, you are right I did have some things that others did not. I was blessed that I had parents who did everything they could to make sure that my family had a roof over our heads, food in our stomachs and a sense of security. My father and mother both worked multiple jobs for most of my young childhood to make sure the bills were paid. Wow, I was living in the lap of luxury wasn't I.

Your post is foolish and you wonder why you get bashed. The only time you don't screw up something someone has said is when you are doing a copy/paste and still at that point you are foolishly taking everything out of context.

As far as my children and scholarships, you will never find a post of mine in which I stated I would be dependant on my children receiving a scholarship.

I swear you are no different than Ann Coulter. You cannot even get simple things correct and you want us to think your brain can handle half the books you read. Forget it. You only read what you want to read and if what you want to read is not there you will fabricate and perpetuate the lie until you really believe it.

eg8r

Drop1
06-19-2007, 01:37 PM
Why don't you try to think. I said discuss options,and you can't come up with a single thing. The only thing you can think of is it has to mean raising taxes. Did you know that Hong Kong,had a single fifteen percent tax,and was one of the great trading and financial centers of the world. You probably think you are talking to a democrat,well, you are not. First last and always,I'm a citizen,where as with you,first you are a republican,and after that you cannot think. I doubt you even pay taxes,or have a government job,and get by sucking the big Federal tit.

eg8r
06-19-2007, 01:45 PM
Well, judging by your past guessing abilities, there is no surprise you fell on your face again. Wrong wrong wrong and wrong again. Every time you open your mouth with assumptions you have been wrong. Maybe you should just go back to checking others grammar. Oops, you were screwing that up also. Nevermind.

eg8r

Drop1
06-19-2007, 02:20 PM
Says you,nevermind is two words "never mind" fell on your own sword again ha ha tit sucker.

cushioncrawler
06-19-2007, 04:10 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Drop1:</font><hr> Mac,no taxes,no police. In a fit of unusual generosity,the government gave the military a two percent raise for 2007,that is for the grunt. Took a big slice of cake /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif<hr /></blockquote>Harry -- That 2% actually equals zero. Printing more money, and giving pay raizes, duznt affect the size of the cake, it affects the way the cake-knife iz uzed. It gives grunts a bigger slice, sure, but only untill everyone else gets their next raize. Wage/pay raizes only really raize inflation. Inflation will be (can be) good for some, but, if so, it will therefore be bad for others. Inflation duznt really affect the size of the cake, it only affects the way the cake-knife iz uzed. madMac.

cushioncrawler
06-19-2007, 04:26 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr><blockquote><font class="small">Quote madMac:</font><hr>Hmmm -- How will Fair Tax affect churches?? -- I bet they will get a new bag of tax breaks.<hr /></blockquote> I get it, you don't like the church and find them to be the root of all evil. I just wish you would get past that, if you remove all taxes except for a sales tax, then where would the NEW breaks come in to play.<hr /></blockquote>Ed -- It wouldnt take much to have a reduced rate (or zero) for some classes of industry or some uses etc, az iz done in Ozz.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr><blockquote><font class="small">Quote madMac:</font><hr>I still karnt beleev that there are economists in USA that can see throo all of the Freidman "chicago school" sort of dogma, and kum up with something that actually makes sense. Wait, i know, i bet that economists had nothing to do with this new scheme. <hr /></blockquote> Well, there certainly have been plenty of economists help on the project. There will always be at least two sides to the story anyway so you need to pick and choose whom to believe. eg8r<hr /></blockquote>Western economics is a dogma. Encouraging two sides (or three or four sides) is az beleevable az having Christians wellcoming Mohammedan views. I have only ever kum across one good economist -- it woz a yank professor, being interviewed on Ozz radio -- when asked about the answer to some sort of economic problem, he said -- ".... well, firstly, u need to encourage full employment...". I nearly fell over. I thort that this sort of heretical view had been snuffed out in USA -- it woz a bit like a priest saying that the devil didnt exist. madMac.

cushioncrawler
06-19-2007, 04:35 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr>.....Ever heard of..."Of The People, For The People, and By The People? What the hell do you think that means, anyway?<hr /></blockquote>Gayle -- I think that "corporations" legally became "people" under USA law in about 1930. However, homosexuals are not so lucky -- perhaps they shood try to bekum corporations. madMac.

Gayle in MD
06-19-2007, 04:58 PM
An irony that should make Americans ashamed. I find it interesting that the same repubs who complain about politicians being interested only in getting votes, are themselves, only interested in getting their taxes cut, regardless of the gross incompetence, and illegal, immoral behavior of their party. Drop is quite right. Anything beyond Republican dogma, is beyond their grasp. Selective comprehension, is the only thing one can call it.

BTW, I never have any trouble reading your posts, friend. I thought selective shorthand was acceptable on the internets. /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

cushioncrawler
06-19-2007, 05:27 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr>....BTW, I never have any trouble reading your posts, friend. I thought selective shorthand was acceptable on the internets. /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif<hr /></blockquote>Gayle -- Somewhere along the line i got angry that the english language haznt advanced (improoved) for perhaps 150 years. We all benefit from old improovments, but for some reezon there havnt been any improovments lately.

This became very apparant when i wrote "The Cushion Crawler'z Bible" -- in places i quoted bits from Lococks 1901 book "Side and Screw", my favorit author and book -- microsoft Word kept rejecting hiz wordage and spelling, especially hiz "x" and "z" -- i realized that english had actually gone backwards in the past 100 years. And, computers (and countrys where english is the second language) will now kill off any advances.

Of course it would be terrible if english went too phonetik, like german etc, ugh, but some minor changes would be wellkum, just like Teddy wanted to do. madMac.

pooltchr
06-19-2007, 06:28 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
Could you please tell me where in the constitution is the federal government given the responsibility, authority, or right to provide healthcare, public education, or a retirement plan for everyone in the country? <hr /></blockquote>

Social Security, is an insurance plan, not a retirement plan. <font color="blue"> A plan that collects money when you are working, and pays you after you retire is a retirement plan. </font color>

Public education shouldn't be a problem in one of the richest countries in the world. <font color="red"> Public education should not be a function of the Federal Government. Local and State governments could probably do a better job without Washington pulling their strings. </font color> What do you want, nothing but private schools and tuition for everyone? <font color="blue"> It would be a more affordable option if we all had more of our money to spend as we see fit, rather than giving it to Washington to blow. </font color> How do you think the poor would ever have a shot at coming up in the world? <font color="blue"> Maybe using a little better judgement in how they spend their money. </font color> Do you ever think of the likely results of some of your ideas, on the country, overall? <font color="blue"> Yes. </font color>

Please tell me where in the Constitution is says that this country shouldn't give a damn about its citizenry. <font color="blue"> The same place it says the government should take from a few so they can spread the wealth among everyone else. </font color>

You righties never want to talk about the likely consequences of your philosophies. <font color="blue"> I think the likely consequences of conservative fiscal spending, and reduced government is that the country becomes stronger. The path we have been on for the last 60 years has been eroding our strength.</font color> Anyway, when it comes to spending, wasting money, and corruption, it might be a good idea to end the right wing Billionaire social security program, that allows them to own and operate huge billion dollar corporations, and squirrel all their money away in the Carribbean, to avoid paying their fair share. <font color="blue"> And it might be a better idea to stop the unlimited flow of money into Washington so it can be passed out in order to buy votes. </font color>


A nation must have roads, hospitals, rescue operations, schools, police departments, for the life of me, I don['t understand how the hell you righties think a country can function, without collecting taxes, <font color="blue"> I'm sorry I didn't say it a dozen times so it would sink in...We do need government, and we do need taxes to be paid to operate essential functions of government. We just need to limit how much of our taxes are flowing through Washington. </font color> particularly when we're going to have to face all the debt, eventually, that has been accumulated through Bush's Nation Building, and tax cuts, all aquired on borrowed money. Is that what you call conservatism? <font color="blue"> Not at all...and I have stated on more than one occasion that I do not believe the present administration has shown any fiscal conservativism. </font color>

Eg, on here bashing everyone else, people who never had the opportunities that he came into the world with, and then admitting that he's depending on his kids getting scholarships to get through school. What a joke. <font color="blue"> That's between you and Ed. Scholarships are something any college has the perfect right to offer. They don't have the ability to force me to pay for someone elses education. The Government does, and that's my point. </font color>

I've been priveledged in my life, and never been poor, or hungry, but that doesn't remove my duty to care about those who did not have my same good fortune. <font color="blue"> Good for you. That's your personal choice. Everyone has to make personal choices. What I don't agree with is the government forcing us to make those choices. </font color> A nation that doesn't assist its citizenry in times of financial ruin, strife, old age, catestrophic illness, and provide eduacation, highways, bridges, and the infrastructure of civilization, through state and federal taxes, is certainly not a country where I would want to have to live my life. <font color="blue"> Again, I never said there wasn't a legitimate need for government for certain functions. As for your last comment, this is still a free country...you are more than welcome to look for a better place to live. </font color>

Ever heard of..."Of The People, For The People, and By The People? What the hell do you think that means, anyway? <font color="blue"> I can tell you what it doesn't mean. It doesn't mean that politicians sit up in Washington and make decisions based on how it will impact their political career, rather than doing what is right by the people they supposedly represent. </font color>

Gayle in Md.
<hr /></blockquote>
Steve

pooltchr
06-19-2007, 06:33 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> Every beer, every cigarette etc has tax added. They pay tax all the time and on a low income.

Q



<hr /></blockquote>

Thank you for making my point. If someone is so poor that they can't pay for the necessities of life, the probably don't need to be buying beer and cigarettes anyway. So we have to pay for the poor judgement used by people too stupid to figure out that milk might be a better choice to spend their money on than a 6 pack of Miller or a pack of Marlboros???????????
Steve

eg8r
06-20-2007, 06:23 AM
Check your dictionary bonehead.

eg8r

eg8r
06-20-2007, 06:29 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote madmac:</font><hr> Hmmm -- How will Fair Tax affect churches?? -- I bet they will get a new bag of tax breaks. <blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> I get it, you don't like the church and find them to be the root of all evil. I just wish you would get past that, if you remove all taxes except for a sales tax, then where would the NEW breaks come in to play. <blockquote><font class="small">Quote madmac:</font><hr> Ed -- It wouldnt take much to have a reduced rate (or zero) for some classes of industry or some uses etc, az iz done in Ozz. <hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote> Again I ask you, where would the "NEW" breaks come into play. If sales tax is the only tax and the tax exempt clause is still in effect (which I don't know if it would or not), then NOTHING has changed. You stated there would be a NEW bag of tax breaks and I am simply telling you there would not be anything NEW.

eg8r

Chopstick
06-20-2007, 08:15 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Drop1:</font><hr> Fixing a broken system,is what I'm asking you to look at,not raising taxes. <hr /></blockquote>

Hi Harry, I think you make a good point. Throwing money at the problem, ie. raising taxes is not going to fix it. Making it into a Federal program is just going to make it much worse.

So, what is the actual problem? All we hear about is the ever rising cost of health care. Is the cost of health care actually rising? It must be. Everybody says so. Ask the next nurse you see about her pay scale (be prepared to duck). The fact is that hospital jobs are low paying, so where is all of this rising cost coming from?

One major place is insurance. Not ours, the doctors and the hospitals etc. A typical surgeon has to pay $30,000 or more, a month for malpractice insurance to protect him from a possible law suit. This is even if he has never been sued. The hospital's payments are astronomical.

I think that the health care system in this country has been litigated to death. What we need to reform first is the damn lawyers. If we reform how malpractice is handled, reduce or eliminate these monstrous insurance payments, and the costs of health care would go wayy down.

eg8r
06-20-2007, 08:30 AM
Great point Chop which is exactly why Edwards is such a sleazy rat and is a perfect Dem candidate.

However, in order for the US Government to do anything as far as reform or not, it takes tons of money. This is always "new" money because no one wants to take away from programs that are already receiving money. So back to what I said which drop cannot get past is that in order for the Government to do anything they require money, the only place to get the "extra" money that will be needed is through a TAX increase. Drop wants to ignore this little fact.

eg8r

Drop1
06-20-2007, 12:18 PM
I did,and as usual,you are hallucinating,same way you read posts. Bone head,fine with me, hollow head. ha ha ha what a jerk you are.

Drop1
06-20-2007, 12:53 PM
And you want to ignore the little fact,I proposed getting rid of Social Security. Try and grasp this hollow head,"other solutions" Try to grasp this, get rid of welfare,again "other solutions" So I want to dump Social Security,and I want to dump welfare,and I'm against immigrants becoming citizens,none of these programs work,so get rid of them. Get the Federal government out of State government. We are going to have taxes,and you will pay,so why not look for other solutions.

eg8r
06-20-2007, 01:04 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I did,and as usual,you are hallucinating,same way you read posts. Bone head,fine with me, hollow head. ha ha ha what a jerk you are. <hr /></blockquote> LOL, drop the spanish to english dictionary and get a real dictionary. It is in dictionary.com, it is in my webster collegiate dictionary, what more is there to say. Once again you are checking someone's grammar and you look like a fool. You wear it well.

eg8r

eg8r
06-20-2007, 01:08 PM
[ QUOTE ]
And you want to ignore the little fact,I proposed getting rid of Social Security. Try and grasp this hollow head,"other solutions" Try to grasp this, get rid of welfare,again "other solutions" So I want to dump Social Security,and I want to dump welfare, <hr /></blockquote> I don't remember reading that, so point me to it again. When did you say you wanted to get rid of those social programs?

Hollow head, lol, if that is not the pot calling the kettle black. So tell me brainiac, since you believe the Federal Government has failed in all those areas, what makes you think they can handle a healthcare system. You just don't seem to be thinking at all here.

eg8r

cushioncrawler
06-20-2007, 05:21 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr><blockquote><font class="small">Quote madmac:</font><hr>Hmmm -- How will Fair Tax affect churches?? -- I bet they will get a new bag of tax breaks. <blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> I get it, you don't like the church and find them to be the root of all evil. I just wish you would get past that, if you remove all taxes except for a sales tax, then where would the NEW breaks come in to play.<blockquote><font class="small">Quote madmac:</font><hr> Ed -- It wouldnt take much to have a reduced rate (or zero) for some classes of industry or some uses etc, az iz done in Ozz.<hr /></blockquote>Again I ask you, where would the "NEW" breaks come into play. If sales tax is the only tax and the tax exempt clause is still in effect (which I don't know if it would or not), then NOTHING has changed. You stated there would be a NEW bag of tax breaks and I am simply telling you there would not be anything NEW. eg8r<hr /></blockquote>Ed -- I looked up wiki for the fair tax, and the von mises website. I notice that fair tax would indeed inklood exemptions for religions and charityz. I suppoze that religions are presently exempt from corporation tax, so the new system would need a new type of break. Dont know what sort of exemptions the States hand out.

I notice that the fair tax rate will be 30%, the 23% mentioned in places is bullkrap. madMac.

Drop1
06-20-2007, 06:20 PM
LOL Eg,why don't you check the Merriam-Webster dictionary,and have another hallucination. Use the English one. Fell on your sword again,ego ego ego,thats all you are,pathetic and hollow. You can find ego,in Dictionary.com.

Drop1
06-20-2007, 06:36 PM
Look at my post dated 6/02/07,and have someone read it to you,the one that says Social Security. Its obvious you can't connect the dots. Fell on your sword again ha ha

Gayle in MD
06-20-2007, 08:00 PM
It isn't called the Social Retirement plan. SECURITY,...as in Social Security, and is accessed by many others, than retirees, FYI.

I am completely against the economic philosophies of the so called conservatives, who run us into a recession every time they get into office, and run up huge debts, and then lie about everything, and blame everyone but themselves.

Reagan left George H. W. Bush, with such a depleted budget that he was forced to violate his "Read my lips" BS, and raise taxes. Giuliani left Michael Bloomberg, with such a huge budget gap, that Bloomberg, too, was forced first to borrow to pay operating expenses and then to raise property taxes, to his lasting regret. Bloomberg, a real-life businessman, refused to buy into Giuliani's BS about gross government inefficiency. He saw, instead, a reasonably efficient city government and said that reducing services would do more than a tax hike to drive away those who wanted to live or work in the city.

You tax cut happy Republicans should stop denying the success of the policies of Bill Clinton. By hiking taxes on the top 1 percent of income earners in America against the wishes of some of his political advisers at the time, Clinton helped bridle the runaway federal budget deficit he'd inherited. This eased the jitters of U.S. investors, and set the stage for the stock market surge and powerful economic growth that followed.

Few politicians took greater political advantage of the prosperity touched off by the Clinton-era tax hike than Giuliani. Now, America's 9/11 mayor, who was too busy making money off 9/11, to attend the Iraq Study Group's Meetings. Instead he goes around the country speaking, George W. Bush-like, of the wizardry of tax cuts because he figures that's what the nutty 28% need to hear.

What we need to limit is how much of the pie is going to the richest in this country, and stop them from utilizing cheap illegal aliens, polluting our water and air, and buying off politicians.

The first step in doing that, is public financed campaigns. But until then, the best we can do is keep Republicans out of office.

[ QUOTE ]
I think the likely consequences of conservative fiscal spending, and reduced government is that the country becomes stronger. <hr /></blockquote>

Good, then Don't vote Republican, or all you'll get is bigger Government, lower wages for the Middle Class, tax cuts geared to redistribute money to the wealthiest in the country, who don't need it, a huge increase in poverty levels, and huge Trade deficits, and National Debt, and more killing and war mongering, to pleast the huge Military Industrial Complex....

eg8r
06-21-2007, 06:12 AM
[ QUOTE ]
LOL Eg,why don't you check the Merriam-Webster dictionary <hr /></blockquote> Don't have a hardcopy available but it is there in the online version. Once again, it is also in the other two sources I gave you. You cannot admit it when you are wrong but as far as grammar police you are the worst.

eg8r

eg8r
06-21-2007, 06:17 AM
The wiki is wrong about the rate, the Fair Tax as it is being pushed is a 23% rate. There are economists who say it cannot be viable unless it hits 30% but they are ignoring the authors of the fair tax. The 30% is wrong and the book will explain it.

As far as the church exemptions, which ones are exactly new? The point I am saying is that what is there will stay with relation to sales tax. There is nothing new as far as I can tell. You stated there will be new ones so I am just asking specifically which ones will be new.

eg8r

eg8r
06-21-2007, 06:44 AM
[ QUOTE ]
tax cuts geared to redistribute money to the wealthiest in the country <hr /></blockquote> This is flat out one of the most thoughtless, ignorant statements I have ever read here...THE MONEY WAS THEIRS IN THE FIRST PLACE!

You people have never been able to explain how any of this is a strain on the poor who OH BY THE WAY DO NOT PAY TAXES AS IT IS! You lie incessantly about the poor and middle class carrying the burden but it is just BS and you have purposefully refused to give any type of proof otherwise.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
06-21-2007, 10:45 AM
Well that's pretty damn funny, Ed, coming from the guy who just posted about Obama, being the guy responsible for the 9/11 disaster!

The facts, on my statements, support my statements. The government statistics, prove, that the middle class, has lost ground, everytime a Republican is in office, and that poverty elvels go up. I'm sick of tax cuts, paid for with borrowed money. Reagan threw us into a recession, and Bush Sr. had to raise taxes because of it. bush, has borrowed more money than all the previous presidents before him, put together, yet you still buy into their economic Bs.

Oh, and BTW, it was Osama, who was responsible for the collapse of the WTC, not Obama! LMAO!

Awful when the post police make such glaring, careless, absurd statements...

/ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Drop1
06-21-2007, 01:13 PM
Lets pick a third party to decide,because you are wrong,and have your shorts in a knot. Grammar police,now that would, take a very anal retentive person,such as yourself. Do the sword hurt that much Ha Ha I don't care how you spell,or use grammar.

eg8r
06-21-2007, 03:22 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Lets pick a third party to decide,because you are wrong, <hr /></blockquote> I gave you 3 third party sources yet you are too dumb (just so you know, YES the word dumb is spelled with a "b" at the end) to look them up.

[ QUOTE ]
Grammar police,now that would, take a very anal retentive person,such as yourself. Do the sword hurt that much<hr /></blockquote> This happens every time you try to correct someone. I am beginning to wonder if you and madmac are one in the same. You don't need to worry about proving anyone else wrong if you cannot at least use the word "does" correctly.

As far as being anal retentive, I did not decide to pay close attention to your lack of spelling skills until you began picking on Bobby. At that point Bobby began noticing that you were screwing up left and right when trying to correct him. I found it funny. Then you got stupid and started looking for others (helpful tip for you...when you are in a hole quit digging). You are the dolt whose spelling is in the pits. I choose to continue to point it out because your posts offer no substance and frankly your poor use of the english language is worth a chuckle most of the time. When I read your incorrect use of the word "dodo" I cracked up thinking about the extinct bird. /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

eg8r

eg8r
06-21-2007, 03:32 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Well that's pretty damn funny, Ed, coming from the guy who just posted about Obama, being the guy responsible for the 9/11 disaster!
<hr /></blockquote> Hey, I missed a letter, you perpetuate lies. Mine was a mistake unlike you it can be corrected. However, I am leaving it because like yourself I did laugh when I noticed what I did. /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[ QUOTE ]
The government statistics, prove, that the middle class, has lost ground, everytime a Republican is in office <hr /></blockquote> Strawman argument. No one is asking whether the middle is losing ground. The issue is where is the proof that the burden is increasing for the middle and poor. This is a lie that you continue to tell us and I continue to point it out. The more rich there are, the less taxes the middle and poor end up paying.

As far as wanting to look at statistics, why do you continue to ignore the statistics about who pays the highest percentage of tax in the US? In case you do try to build back a little credibility why not list the percentage that the top 2% of income earners are paying as a percentage of the rest of the nation. Or, if you really want to act like you care, why not list the amount of money the top 10% pay as a percentage across the nation.

You see, you don't care about government statistics as a general term, you only care about very minute twisted little statistics that serve your point.

[ QUOTE ]
Oh, and BTW, it was Osama, who was responsible for the collapse of the WTC, not Obama! LMAO!

Awful when the post police make such glaring, careless, absurd statements... <hr /></blockquote> LOL, absurd? Did you find it absurd when you incorrectly spelled Walter Reed hospital? I bet not, why, because it was a mistake. No difference here. However, should Obama win the Presidency, Osama will smile all the way to his next meeting on bombing the US. If any of the current democrats running for President actually win the election, it will be completely detrimental to the security of our borders and people.

eg8r

cushioncrawler
06-21-2007, 04:05 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> The wiki is wrong about the rate, the Fair Tax as it is being pushed is a 23% rate. There are economists who say it cannot be viable unless it hits 30% but they are ignoring the authors of the fair tax. The 30% is wrong and the book will explain it.

As far as the church exemptions, which ones are exactly new? The point I am saying is that what is there will stay with relation to sales tax. There is nothing new as far as I can tell. You stated there will be new ones so I am just asking specifically which ones will be new. eg8r<hr /></blockquote>Ed -- Here in Ozz a receipt will show that an item price is say $100, then 10% tax is shown as $10, total price $110. If the USA paperwork is similar, it will havta say..... 30% tax = $30, total price $130. Otherwize i dont know how they would juggle the ink so that they can retain the 23% figure. But i dont disagree that the 23% figure givz a better comparison to the present income tax % -- but nonetheless, its bullkrap to call it a 23% tax. Re tax exemptions, if its a completely new Fed tax then any breaks must be new too. madMac.

Drop1
06-21-2007, 06:23 PM
You have already proven you don't read my posts officer Obama. I would read your posts,but they are so far and few between. You sound like the guy in the hole,so keep digging. "Never mind" is listed five times on dictionary.com,as two words,and one time as one word,but never mind,I had a good laugh,and as usual,you fell on your sword. I never saw a response to my phasing out Social Security post,but thats your style,I never saw a response to getting rid of welfare,but thats your style. Dodo got cut out by the censor, I thought any idiot would know the original word was sh!!t,as in Obama. once again you are the anal retentive idiot. Keep up the good work officer. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

eg8r
06-22-2007, 05:53 AM
[ QUOTE ]
"Never mind" is listed five times on dictionary.com,as two words,and one time as one word,but never mind, <hr /></blockquote> Exactly, it is mentioned and it is a word. You were wrong to correct me and you cannot even admit it.

[ QUOTE ]
I never saw a response to my phasing out Social Security post,but thats your style,I never saw a response to getting rid of welfare,but thats your style. <hr /></blockquote> It is not my style? You say you read but you don't. In my previous posts I have said the only way to do it is to get rid of social programs. It looks like you are agreeing with me. Does everything need to pointed out to you like this?

[ QUOTE ]
Dodo got cut out by the censor, I thought any idiot would know the original word was sh!!t <hr /></blockquote> LOL, talk about falling on the sword. Instead of being able to intelligently spell an alternative word you choose to spell it the way you did. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

eg8r
06-22-2007, 06:03 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Ed -- Here in Ozz a receipt will show that an item price is say $100, then 10% tax is shown as $10, total price $110. If the USA paperwork is similar, it will havta say..... 30% tax = $30, total price $130. <hr /></blockquote> The issue is not the math we are quite capable in that department. The issues is with the RATE that you are using. It will not be 30%, it is 23%. Why on earth would you be giving me a math lesson?

[ QUOTE ]
its bullkrap to call it a 23% tax. <hr /></blockquote> You are arguing with me over something you read on a wiki? Do you consider this responsible? Since when did a wiki become the law. The book is available so if you want to understand it, then buy the book, the authors explain themselves very well. They call it a 23% tax rate because they will charge you 23% tax on your purchase.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
06-22-2007, 08:35 AM
[ QUOTE ]
No one is asking whether the middle is losing ground. The issue is where is the proof that the burden is increasing for the middle and poor. <hr /></blockquote>

Turn off Rush, and check out the Government websites...

You can access the trends, in graphs, Reagan, Bush Sr.,
Clinton, Bush Jr. The proof is there...

Repubs in, Rich get richer, Middle and poor, lose ground...

You're economics arguments, are extremely unfounded, and Naive' but, I would expect as much from someone who was so easily neoconned...Twice!!!

/ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

eg8r
06-22-2007, 08:52 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Turn off Rush, and check out the Government websites...
<hr /></blockquote> I actually have a job so listening to Rush does not fit in the schedule. Just because I don't believe your BS lies does not mean I watch Fox, listen to Rush, and worship W. I just don't believe your liberal regurgitated, non-backed up BS lies.

eg8r

Drop1
06-22-2007, 11:35 AM
Ok,now that we know you were wrong,we can get back to the original post.Be vigilant Captain Obama ha ha. Hey, when did they start calling brains puppies.

cushioncrawler
06-22-2007, 06:20 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr>...You are arguing with me over something you read on a wiki? Do you consider this responsible? Since when did a wiki become the law. The book is available so if you want to understand it, then buy the book, the authors explain themselves very well. They call it a 23% tax rate because they will charge you 23% tax on your purchase. eg8r<hr /></blockquote>Ed -- Yes, but they hadta add 30% to their own price/cost to get that final price. If it iz up to the buyer to collect and forward the tax (which appears to be the case), then the buyer will look at it az being a 23% tax. The seller (responsible for the tax in Ozz) will look at it az being a 30% tax. madMac.

pooltchr
06-22-2007, 06:38 PM
Ed,
Give it up. The Fair Tax is just to simple a concept for them to wrap their liberal brains around. Even if the tax rate was 30% as opposed to the 23% it would actually be, dismantling the IRS would have a huge impact on the budget. Imagine getting rid of the second largest department in the federal government! Imagine how much could be saved by business when they don't need a huge tax department any longer. And, to keep the libs happy, imagine a huge company like H&amp;R Block or Jackson Hewitt going out of business!

They obviously haven't read Neil's book, or if they did, it was with the idea of trying to find fault with something in it.

Steve

eg8r
06-22-2007, 07:44 PM
I think you are just playing stupid because you think it is fun. Sorry little boy but I am not going to continue playing.

eg8r

eg8r
06-22-2007, 07:48 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Ed -- Yes, but they hadta add 30% to their own price/cost to get that final price. <hr /></blockquote> It makes no sense continuing this conversation. The actual professionals explain themselves perfectly. As Gayle would say, why don't you read a book. You are still trying to argue a point you read from a wiki and that just does not make any sense.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
06-26-2007, 09:07 AM
LMAO.... /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif