BF2S Forums Republican version of socialism vs. the Democrat one.

ATG wrote:

I'd rather have my tax dollars going for healthcare for me and college for my kids

Last edited by SealXo (2008-10-05 17:28:06)

PureFodder wrote:

The British system may look harsh towards the poor, but if you have a good look at that link you'll see the reason. The benefits that the poor get from the government as a whole greatly outweight their tax burden. It's far better to be poor in Britain and get free healthcare etc. than to be poor in America and pay zero taxes.

GorillaTicTacs wrote:

We should let Afghanistan be Russia's problem again, not ours.  That pipeline is looking less and less worth it.

TheAussieReaper wrote:

FEOS wrote:

GorillaTicTacs wrote:

We should let Afghanistan be Russia's problem again, not ours.  That pipeline is looking less and less worth it.

Are you thinking of Georgia?

It still doesn't make sense if he does...

"We should let Georgia be Russia's problem again, not ours."

wtf?

Mek-Stizzle wrote:

Why do the Islamic terrorists mainly hate the US? Because it ultimately goes down to screwing their countries over, because of oil related issues.

Mek-Stizzle wrote:

The only reason the U.S gives so much aid to Israel is because they need an ally in the immediate region. The only reason they need a strong ally in the immediate region is, well, oil. The only reason they needed to fuck up Iran and install a dictator in there, was oil. So, for the vast majority of reasons these people hate the US, you can say, is because of the US's need for Middle Eastern oil.

Remove that need. And you no longer need to bother about anything in that region, you can tell them fuck off and let them rot and never step foot in the region or even speak to them again. You no longer need to waste billions on keeping Israel afloat, because you don't even need them anymore.

I can't wait until all the Oil from the Middle East has dried up.

FEOS wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

The British system may look harsh towards the poor, but if you have a good look at that link you'll see the reason. The benefits that the poor get from the government as a whole greatly outweight their tax burden. It's far better to be poor in Britain and get free healthcare etc. than to be poor in America and pay zero taxes.

Poor people in America get free healthcare as well (something you euros often overlook). It's called MediCare/MedicAid.

PureFodder wrote:

The British system may look harsh towards the poor, but if you have a good look at that link you'll see the reason. The benefits that the poor get from the government as a whole greatly outweight their tax burden. It's far better to be poor in Britain and get free healthcare etc. than to be poor in America and pay zero taxes.

lowing wrote:

Actually, I do not remember writting anything about big oil, but if throwing me into your rant as part of your scratching post helps to sell your argument, by all means use me.

ATG wrote:

Economist wait with baited breath to see what will happen tomorrow, October sixth the year of Our Lord, 2008.


I have been pondering the differences between the two American parties version of socialism and Europes.

While on paper, Americans seem to emjoy a smaller than average overall taxation. imo when you get done factoring property, sales, capital gains and all the assorted thievery, business fees, parking fees, toll roads and what not America is right up there with the highest taxed in terms of cash money.

Taxes are a real problem for our nation in this;

Unlike the " socialist " nationstates of Europe, they actually get a hell of a lot more for their money than we do.

Sadly for the U.K., they seem to have their heads so far up their asses that there is no hope.

I'm not advocating one person or the other, I'm just asking a question;

Which of the two guys running for potus is more like to have policies that will give us a better bang for our tax paying buck? 

I'd rather have my tax dollars going for healthcare for me and college for my kids than for wallstreet bailouts to keep the bubble builders busy and stupid wars.

not again, that I am advocating for a particular guy.

PureFodder wrote:

Medicaid does cover a lot of the poorest Americans, but there are still plenty of poor people that don't get coverage. The cutoff point can be pretty low in many states.

In NY if you earn over $8,067 per year you have to pay for healthcare yourself, but you're still below the US poverty line of $10,400 per year.

Medicare website wrote:

Generally, you are eligible for Medicare if you or your spouse worked for at least 10 years in Medicare-covered employment and you are 65 years or older and a citizen or permanent resident of the United States. If you aren’t yet 65, you might also qualify for coverage if you have a disability or with End-Stage Renal disease (permanent kidney failure requiring dialysis or transplant).
Here are some simple guidelines. You can get Part A at age 65 without having to pay premiums if:

    * You already get retirement benefits from Social Security or the Railroad Retirement Board.

    * You are eligible to get Social Security or Railroad benefits but haven't yet filed for them.

    * You or your spouse had Medicare-covered government employment.

If you are under 65, you can get Part A without having to pay premiums if you have:

    * Received Social Security or Railroad Retirement Board disability benefits for 24 months.

    * End-Stage Renal Disease and meet certain requirements.

Medicaid website wrote:

When Eligibility Starts
Coverage may start retroactive to any or all of the 3 months prior to application, if the individual would have been eligible during the retroactive period. Coverage generally stops at the end of the month in which a person's circumstances change. Most States have additional "State-only" programs to provide medical assistance for specified poor persons who do not qualify for the Medicaid program. No Federal funds are provided for State-only programs.
What is Not Covered
Medicaid does not provide medical assistance for all poor persons. Even under the broadest provisions of the Federal statute (except for emergency services for certain persons), the Medicaid program does not provide health care services, even for very poor persons, unless they are in one of the designated eligibility groups. Low income is only one test for Medicaid eligibility; assets and resources are also tested against established thresholds. As noted earlier, categorically needy persons who are eligible for Medicaid may or may not also receive cash assistance from the TANF program or from the SSI program. Medically needy persons who would be categorically eligible except for income or assets may become eligible for Medicaid solely because of excessive medical expenses.

FEOS wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

Medicaid does cover a lot of the poorest Americans, but there are still plenty of poor people that don't get coverage. The cutoff point can be pretty low in many states.

In NY if you earn over $8,067 per year you have to pay for healthcare yourself, but you're still below the US poverty line of $10,400 per year.

Says the guy who doesn't live here.

It's not just the poor, it's the needy. There are many who qualify based on need, rather than income (mental/physical handicap, for example). The poverty line is not the only criteria when it comes to benefits.