No, PRODUCING, is the only way to keep productivity up. Letting the rich, ( the ones who finance production) invest their money toward building businesses that put people to work, instead of paying them EARNED money by someone else to stay home and do nothing.AussieReaper wrote:
You've said numerous times that your in huge amounts of debt as a nation. Raising taxes is the only way to reduce that debt, along with funding cuts. You cut funding and then services will suffer. Taxes like this were inevitable, because you as a nation are in so much debt. Even if Obama doesn't have the tax money available, that's because Bush gave tax cuts to the wealthy, those making more than $250,000 for example, the US has spent trillions in Iraq and all Obama can do is repeal the tax cuts Bush gave out, and levy them onto the rich again.
Universal health care might not be a great way to to reduce national debt, but it is one way of keeping the productivity of America as a nation up.
I'm just gunna wait and see with this one. Hopefully it all works out.
Why? History has already shown this will not work, it was not Roosevelt's socialist agenda that brought us out of the Great Depression, it was productivity brought on by a war.Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
I'm just gunna wait and see with this one. Hopefully it all works out.
Currently wealthy people are paying for Americas healthcare system anyway through the insurance they give to their employees. The poor and old get it free of the government anyway. Wealthy Americans (except those in the insurance and medical admin businesses) will be the ones saving the money here as they'd no longer have to throw crap loads of cash at a hugely inefficient healthcare system. US healthcare is a massive burden on many US employers, especially labour intensive sectors or businesses competing with foreign companies. Lowering the cost of helathcare will be a welcome boost for rich Americans in hard times.lowing wrote:
You can not reason with a liberal about money and taxes ( or anything really), to them, if they do not have to pay for it, it is free.FEOS wrote:
There aren't enough Americans who are wealthy enough to pay for it.AussieReaper wrote:
wealthy Americans
That's the point of the OP.
It's something that's been conveniently ignored for the past year or so during the campaign: Obama thinks that there's this unlimited source of income in the upper 2-5% of Americans. There's not. At least not to support the level of spending he's proposing.
It's a vicious cycle. He's going to tax the hell out of people who own the businesses that are contracting because of the economic crunch. Thus, they have less money available for the government to collect. And even less after the government raises their primary and marginal tax rates, which further reduces the capital they have available to invest in their business (hire new employees, pay existing employees, expand the business, etc)...which exacerbates the economic crunch. Which leads to more taxes levied by Obama...and around and around we go.
And your proposal therefore is to...?lowing wrote:
Why? History has already shown this will not work, it was not Roosevelt's socialist agenda that brought us out of the Great Depression, it was productivity brought on by a war.Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
I'm just gunna wait and see with this one. Hopefully it all works out.
I disagree, companies pay for healthcare to it s employees as an incentive t odraw the best people to come to work for them, it is a benefit they pay for and in return they get employees that prodice for them and make them money.PureFodder wrote:
Currently wealthy people are paying for Americas healthcare system anyway through the insurance they give to their employees. The poor and old get it free of the government anyway. Wealthy Americans (except those in the insurance and medical admin businesses) will be the ones saving the money here as they'd no longer have to throw crap loads of cash at a hugely inefficient healthcare system. US healthcare is a massive burden on many US employers, especially labour intensive sectors or businesses competing with foreign companies. Lowering the cost of helathcare will be a welcome boost for rich Americans in hard times.lowing wrote:
You can not reason with a liberal about money and taxes ( or anything really), to them, if they do not have to pay for it, it is free.FEOS wrote:
There aren't enough Americans who are wealthy enough to pay for it.
That's the point of the OP.
It's something that's been conveniently ignored for the past year or so during the campaign: Obama thinks that there's this unlimited source of income in the upper 2-5% of Americans. There's not. At least not to support the level of spending he's proposing.
It's a vicious cycle. He's going to tax the hell out of people who own the businesses that are contracting because of the economic crunch. Thus, they have less money available for the government to collect. And even less after the government raises their primary and marginal tax rates, which further reduces the capital they have available to invest in their business (hire new employees, pay existing employees, expand the business, etc)...which exacerbates the economic crunch. Which leads to more taxes levied by Obama...and around and around we go.
You now seem to think that healthcare is going to be free because the govt. provides it. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Tax cuts fo rthe producers and company builders. Let those that earn the money spend it. This will put people people back to work, and give incentives for investors to start investing again.AussieReaper wrote:
And your proposal therefore is to...?lowing wrote:
Why? History has already shown this will not work, it was not Roosevelt's socialist agenda that brought us out of the Great Depression, it was productivity brought on by a war.Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
I'm just gunna wait and see with this one. Hopefully it all works out.
Robbing the producer and investors and give it to those that do not will not do anything except remove the incentive to produce and invest. Or do you think we all will work for the fun of it, instead of for reward?
Will be so much fun to talk about universal healthcare with you lowing after some years when you can't possibly understand how genious it is and that it wasn't implemented before ...
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
if only the republicans were in power........
You are confusing business expenses with personal expenses. Obama is not talking about the corporate tax rate (which would tie to your healthcare premiums argument)...he is talking about the personal income tax rate.PureFodder wrote:
Currently wealthy people are paying for Americas healthcare system anyway through the insurance they give to their employees. The poor and old get it free of the government anyway. Wealthy Americans (except those in the insurance and medical admin businesses) will be the ones saving the money here as they'd no longer have to throw crap loads of cash at a hugely inefficient healthcare system. US healthcare is a massive burden on many US employers, especially labour intensive sectors or businesses competing with foreign companies. Lowering the cost of helathcare will be a welcome boost for rich Americans in hard times.lowing wrote:
You can not reason with a liberal about money and taxes ( or anything really), to them, if they do not have to pay for it, it is free.FEOS wrote:
There aren't enough Americans who are wealthy enough to pay for it.
That's the point of the OP.
It's something that's been conveniently ignored for the past year or so during the campaign: Obama thinks that there's this unlimited source of income in the upper 2-5% of Americans. There's not. At least not to support the level of spending he's proposing.
It's a vicious cycle. He's going to tax the hell out of people who own the businesses that are contracting because of the economic crunch. Thus, they have less money available for the government to collect. And even less after the government raises their primary and marginal tax rates, which further reduces the capital they have available to invest in their business (hire new employees, pay existing employees, expand the business, etc)...which exacerbates the economic crunch. Which leads to more taxes levied by Obama...and around and around we go.
That's not to say there doesn't need to be some kind of healthcare reform...but it can't come on the backs of those who drive the bulk of the economy.
$634 billion isn't free. And that's not lower any costs anywhere.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
right. lolVaregg wrote:
Will be so much fun to talk about universal healthcare with you lowing after some years when you can't possibly understand how genious it is and that it wasn't implemented before ...
Yeah right, this coming from countries that are 20 times as old as the US and a 1/64th as important on the world stage. Please try and remember, our economy affects yours, not the other way around.Varegg wrote:
Will be so much fun to talk about universal healthcare with you lowing after some years when you can't possibly understand how genious it is and that it wasn't implemented before ...
And don't forget 1/10th the size/population (or smaller).lowing wrote:
Yeah right, this coming from countries that are 20 times as old as the US and a 1/64th as important on the world stage. Please try and remember, our economy affects yours, not the other way around.Varegg wrote:
Will be so much fun to talk about universal healthcare with you lowing after some years when you can't possibly understand how genious it is and that it wasn't implemented before ...
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
pretty much all the same people also. sure they have their tokens, but countries like finland and sweden the people are hard to see because of the snow.FEOS wrote:
And don't forget 1/10th the size/population (or smaller).lowing wrote:
Yeah right, this coming from countries that are 20 times as old as the US and a 1/64th as important on the world stage. Please try and remember, our economy affects yours, not the other way around.Varegg wrote:
Will be so much fun to talk about universal healthcare with you lowing after some years when you can't possibly understand how genious it is and that it wasn't implemented before ...
yes I did forget ot mention all of those that flocked to the US over the past hundred years. If Europe was so fuckin great socially, why was everyone leaving, to make room for the Muslims I guess.FEOS wrote:
And don't forget 1/10th the size/population (or smaller).lowing wrote:
Yeah right, this coming from countries that are 20 times as old as the US and a 1/64th as important on the world stage. Please try and remember, our economy affects yours, not the other way around.Varegg wrote:
Will be so much fun to talk about universal healthcare with you lowing after some years when you can't possibly understand how genious it is and that it wasn't implemented before ...
The massive savings from removing the private health insurance burden will lead to higher wages and higher profits, hence both employees and investors will be earning more money.FEOS wrote:
You are confusing business expenses with personal expenses. Obama is not talking about the corporate tax rate (which would tie to your healthcare premiums argument)...he is talking about the personal income tax rate.PureFodder wrote:
Currently wealthy people are paying for Americas healthcare system anyway through the insurance they give to their employees. The poor and old get it free of the government anyway. Wealthy Americans (except those in the insurance and medical admin businesses) will be the ones saving the money here as they'd no longer have to throw crap loads of cash at a hugely inefficient healthcare system. US healthcare is a massive burden on many US employers, especially labour intensive sectors or businesses competing with foreign companies. Lowering the cost of helathcare will be a welcome boost for rich Americans in hard times.lowing wrote:
You can not reason with a liberal about money and taxes ( or anything really), to them, if they do not have to pay for it, it is free.
That's not to say there doesn't need to be some kind of healthcare reform...but it can't come on the backs of those who drive the bulk of the economy.
$634 billion isn't free. And that's not lower any costs anywhere.
Tax cuts? That's how your going to reduce national debt, by having less revenue?lowing wrote:
Tax cuts fo rthe producers and company builders. Let those that earn the money spend it. This will put people people back to work, and give incentives for investors to start investing again.AussieReaper wrote:
And your proposal therefore is to...?lowing wrote:
Why? History has already shown this will not work, it was not Roosevelt's socialist agenda that brought us out of the Great Depression, it was productivity brought on by a war.
Robbing the producer and investors and give it to those that do not will not do anything except remove the incentive to produce and invest. Or do you think we all will work for the fun of it, instead of for reward?
No, it won't. No, they won't.PureFodder wrote:
The massive savings from removing the private health insurance burden will lead to higher wages and higher profits, hence both employees and investors will be earning more money.FEOS wrote:
You are confusing business expenses with personal expenses. Obama is not talking about the corporate tax rate (which would tie to your healthcare premiums argument)...he is talking about the personal income tax rate.PureFodder wrote:
Currently wealthy people are paying for Americas healthcare system anyway through the insurance they give to their employees. The poor and old get it free of the government anyway. Wealthy Americans (except those in the insurance and medical admin businesses) will be the ones saving the money here as they'd no longer have to throw crap loads of cash at a hugely inefficient healthcare system. US healthcare is a massive burden on many US employers, especially labour intensive sectors or businesses competing with foreign companies. Lowering the cost of helathcare will be a welcome boost for rich Americans in hard times.
That's not to say there doesn't need to be some kind of healthcare reform...but it can't come on the backs of those who drive the bulk of the economy.
$634 billion isn't free. And that's not lower any costs anywhere.
Just overlook the fact that tax cuts have resulted in increased federal revenue...every single time.TheAussieReaper wrote:
Tax cuts? That's how your going to reduce national debt, by having less revenue?
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
And overlook the fact that services the govt. provides all fail because they have no funding.FEOS wrote:
Just overlook the fact that tax cuts have resulted in increased federal revenue...every single time.TheAussieReaper wrote:
Tax cuts? That's how your going to reduce national debt, by having less revenue?
no they fail due to govt. fraud waste and abuse.AussieReaper wrote:
And overlook the fact that services the govt. provides all fail because they have no funding.FEOS wrote:
Just overlook the fact that tax cuts have resulted in increased federal revenue...every single time.TheAussieReaper wrote:
Tax cuts? That's how your going to reduce national debt, by having less revenue?
They fail because there is nothing efficient about govt.
Is it really your contention that going further into debt is the way to reduce debt?
Not sure where you got that from considering I was suggesting a cut in spending and HIGHER taxes. You know, make more money and spend less money to pay of the huge deficit hanging over your heads?lowing wrote:
no they fail due to govt. fraud waste and abuse.
They fail because there is nothing efficient about govt.
Is it really your contention that going further into debt is the way to reduce debt?
And govt. doesn't lose money through fraud, waste and abuse as often as you think it does. They are not supposed to be run as a business, only to provide services to the tax payers. Throwing money into banks, auto industries and wars isn't good spending policy, but if they were run as a business you'd be taxed more than they spend and they wouldn't be trying to help the tax payer at all.
However with such a huge debt the govt. starts to be thinking like a business rather than throw money at the situation is doesn't have, or your grand solution of cutting taxes in the hopes it will get businesses investing. They aren't likely to do that for the pure and simple fact that the recession is far from over and nobody worth his salt is going to be investing large amounts of money, no matter how low the taxes are.
you can slice it anyway you want, spending a trillion dollars that you do not have to jump start the economy is going into debt for a trillion dollars.AussieReaper wrote:
Not sure where you got that from considering I was suggesting a cut in spending and HIGHER taxes. You know, make more money and spend less money to pay of the huge deficit hanging over your heads?lowing wrote:
no they fail due to govt. fraud waste and abuse.
They fail because there is nothing efficient about govt.
Is it really your contention that going further into debt is the way to reduce debt?
And govt. doesn't lose money through fraud, waste and abuse as often as you think it does. They are not supposed to be run as a business, only to provide services to the tax payers. Throwing money into banks, auto industries and wars isn't good spending policy, but if they were run as a business you'd be taxed more than they spend and they wouldn't be trying to help the tax payer at all.
However with such a huge debt the govt. starts to be thinking like a business rather than throw money at the situation is doesn't have, or your grand solution of cutting taxes in the hopes it will get businesses investing. They aren't likely to do that for the pure and simple fact that the recession is far from over and nobody worth his salt is going to be investing large amounts of money, no matter how low the taxes are.
Our country like it or not, is not founded on big govt. taxing the shit out of its people, remember we kinda had a revolution over our tax burdon to big govt.
Our country is founded on the notion that every man as the freedom to build his or her fortune without govt. interference. Our govts. job is to protect us while we build our American dreams. Not burdon us with crippling taxes to force big govt. down our throats.
Think your forgetting about interest. Yeah, it kind of collects on large sums of money also.lowing wrote:
you can slice it anyway you want, spending a trillion dollars that you do not have to jump start the economy is going into debt for a trillion dollars.
You either get "crippled" with taxes now, or your children will inherit a government that can't afford building projects, water, electricity, you name it. You might think it would just be simple to move all that to the private sector, but it'll end up all as outsourced and go to those who are willing to work for scruples and costs for the consumer are whatever the owners want them to be, regardless of competition, because you can't have competing sewer lines, or water supply.
1/3.75 in the case of Germany, hardly a spectacular difference when it also works for counties 1/20th the size of Germany.FEOS wrote:
And don't forget 1/10th the size/population (or smaller).lowing wrote:
Yeah right, this coming from countries that are 20 times as old as the US and a 1/64th as important on the world stage. Please try and remember, our economy affects yours, not the other way around.Varegg wrote:
Will be so much fun to talk about universal healthcare with you lowing after some years when you can't possibly understand how genious it is and that it wasn't implemented before ...
The idea that it won't work in the US because it's so big lacks any actual reasoning behind it, especially as nobody's ever actually tried it. The police, fire service, military, waste disposal etc. still work in America despite it being a big country, so why can't healthcare? It may even be more efficient as a lot of admin requirements don't increase in cost linearly with the size of program.
(technically the US has tried it with healthcare in a way with the relatively successful Medicare and Medicaid programs).
It is our great grandchildren that will be saddled with this debt.AussieReaper wrote:
Think your forgetting about interest. Yeah, it kind of collects on large sums of money also.lowing wrote:
you can slice it anyway you want, spending a trillion dollars that you do not have to jump start the economy is going into debt for a trillion dollars.
You either get "crippled" with taxes now, or your children will inherit a government that can't afford building projects, water, electricity, you name it. You might think it would just be simple to move all that to the private sector, but it'll end up all as outsourced and go to those who are willing to work for scruples and costs for the consumer are whatever the owners want them to be, regardless of competition, because you can't have competing sewer lines, or water supply.
The economy was improving without govt. stimulous, the democrats just needed to their pork into law before it was too late. Well, now it is too late and we are all fucked.