By the time Im old enough to receive social security and such there wont be any.

And THAT is the fault of "defense" spending and tax cuts. Social security, education, the earth, public transit, actual border defense, coast guard, health care, green energy, the list goes on and on.

No it's not, it's because of misappropriated funds. Social Security was never cleared to be used for defense spending or any of the things you listed. It was for social security. Has their been frivolous spending? Of course always, but it wouldn't effect social security if people in the g'ment stopped making decision for people on what they should spend their earned income on.

That's like blaming McDonalds because someone borrowed $20 from you but a bunch of Big Macs and never paid you back.

And Rezz you're right, you'll never see that money.

What are you talking about? Bush and Clinton both "borrowed" from Social Security.

Not legally.

Read the entire post so we don't clog up the thread.

That's still not accurate. Congress controls the purse and approves all things fiscal so it was done in a perfectly legal manner. Obviously it wasn't moral but that's more then you can expect.

This is the most blow hard douche bag post in my music banter life but, if you think congress approving reappropriation of tax money without voter legislated mandate then you have no concept of how the United States Constitution (is supposed to) work(s).

I know you do get though because you did acknowledge the moral absurdity it all. That's my primary quarrel anyway.

If you're going to criticize me for not understanding the Constitution then maybe you should actually look into a bit more and realize the "voter" was always the elite, educated, affluent, etc in those times or to put it in shorter terms Marx's bourgeois. The Founding Fathers idea of how it was supposed to work had nothing to do with a "voter legislated mandate" and everything to do with the bourgeois and Congress doing whatever the hell they wanted. Which is more or less how the system operates now.

double post

Someone brought in the high horse today!

What does any of this have to do with anything we are talking about.

If I was trying to argue with you I'd simply say "No taxation without representation" (just about) everyone would know what I was referring to and you'd (have to...?)see how simple the point I was making was.

I fully acknowledged the poor presentation of my previous post to specifically avoid this response from you.

I'm not going to debate or discuss with you if your goal is simply to win an argument by changing the subject multiple times based on wild interpretations of otherwise rational statements or exhausting your combatant with your stubborn will and foolish teenage angst.

Have you been well?

No i'm not talking about that.. I'm talking about that little refund check that you get every year. People seem to forget about that.

&

People are taxed without being represented every day! I think it's obvious that congress does a poor job of representing the American people. I don't think that statement makes the point as blatantly obvious as you make it out to be. You can present your argument without being rude to jack and resorting to insults. Your behaviour shows you are more immature despite your age.

That was me pointing out how every time I get into a discussion with you, despite me not saying anything remotely personal, you turn around and turn it into a personal diatribe against me. It gets old.

This has nothing to do with you, you are completely ignorant to the context of my responses to Ethan.

On the topic, my point was that the fault is not because money was spent on any of your items but because it was taken from social security in the first place.

I can read just as well as anyone else, so unless you're communicating by pheromones I'm not completely ignorant, thanks.

For the record I meant all those things I listed to be things that suffered because of vigorous "defense" spending, not things money was spent on. God knows the money spent on education has not nearly been enough or allocated well enough, not to mention everything else. The budget is supposed to be a limited system, so in order to spend more on war (without asking for the public's help like they used to) the government has to cut things at home. I don't understand how we disagree.

I don't think we do, who said we did, again I was just saying that even simpler then arguing about why the money isn't there, why was it taken in the first place. Sort of a "Yes and" response.

As for Sleepy Jack, I'm sorry if I came off insulting, but I just mean that my frustration goes back a lot of discussions with him not just the few tonight.

Good reading: A System From Hell

It's not against you it's against the way the debate and discuss. You never want to talk about ideas, you or why you feel like you do, you continuously divert from the topic to argue minor points usually because of misinterpretation. And if it's getting old just don't respond and it'll go away.

If you're getting back money there are multiple concerns. First you are horrible at tax planning. It's better to owe a little bit.
Second and more importantly, if you're getting back everything you pay you're likely working some crap parttime job and have no idea what paying taxes really mean.

And sorry to get on topic but I fail to have seen anyone note on the how this is a good idea at this economic timing and how some people fail to acknowledge how Obama has been a fan of the single payer system.

False. You don't know much about taxes as you claim to think you do but do whatever you want.

Some people like to let them take more off the top so that they get back a refund and there are people like you that rather have more in their paycheck but have to owe the IRS come tax time. There also are things such as tax credits and itemized deductions. I think you need to read up on both.

this is probably the most sensible thing i've read in this entire thread :clap:

i also find it rather funny how it's obvious who the canadians in this thread are.



what i don't get is why no one busted out a little math here... they're talking about $1 trillion over 10 years for a country of 300 million.

that's $333 more in taxes per year per person over the next decade, or about $28 a month. which is less than a store bought cup of coffee per day...

Lmao. Seeing as how I intern as a tax consultant at a Big 4 firm I'd guess I know a bit more than you. And if you are getting money back you are essentially giving the government an interest free loan, while if you owe slightly you are the one receiving said loan. There's absolutely no reason to want them take out more than you should properly owe. I'll tell you what, you research up some time value of money tables and I'll look up those ooo so strange tax credits and itemized deductions (which by the way have no footing in this discussion).

As to dave, the take the total and divide by population calculation doesn't work at all.

Geez, is it that obvious?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...e_Leaf.svg.png

Your math sounds nice to me.

That sucks. Healthcare in Australia is really good IMO. I have very low level cover health insurance (because I'm only 21 and poor) and at the beginning of this year I got my tonsils out and it didn't cost me a cent. Very short waiting list also. Then after the surgery there was a complication and I had to go back to hospital for 2 weeks and that didn't cost me a cent either. All I had to pay was $10.40 for some medication to go home with. Lots of doctors here bulk bill and they are just as good as any other private doctor.

You have health insurance? Lucky. I had to get several letters written to the public dental school to take my wisdom teeth out without a year long waiting list because it cost $600 to get them out rather than $2000+ private. You've really got to have money to look after yourself in this country.

That's sucks :( I got insurance because I wear contact lenses and have to buy new ones every 6 months or so, and also because I knew I'd be having my tonsils out eventually. It only costs me $80 a month... which is cheaper than gym membership. And it's paid off with the amount of medical shit I've had done in the past year! Would have costed me thousands if I didn't have insurance.

Not having socialised healthcare just seems to be a very callous system for such a rich country. I agree with Hesher that it's basically just an extension of all the other benefits people pay taxes for.

Although, the timing of implementation is a bit worrying considering how far America is already in debt.

Over 35% of the country has 0 tax liability anyway, and I'm fairly sure that's greater than the % of those without health insurance. So it's borderline wealth redistribution at that point.

Not to mention we should expect a group of bureacrats who have never run anything to effectively manage our healthcare is a laughable thought.

yeah i realize i'm not factoring inflation / deflation, tax brackets, and other overall economic trends. but at the same time 99% of the time when people start throwing huge numbers around they also start screaming that the sky is falling and the world is ending. i was just trying to toss out a bit of perspective on how 1 trillion can be broken down into a manageable amount.


@hesher - i'm with you, just on the other coast :thumb:

socialized healthcare is awesome until you need something relatively urgent taken care of... then it kind of goes all random as phoque. haha

by the way, I think we're getting off topic. Back to the $1 trillion health care proposal!!

Well now we're talking governments, which I'd love to discuss with you guys, but not in a Healthcare thread.

One of America's more powerful strengths is that we're flexible, the world can hate us, we switch presidents and we're at least at neutral again.

Congress can pass a resolution directly addressing the Iran riots, and the Executive says vauge points to not get involved.

In thos situations its great, but in certain situations its a pain in the ass, like on healthcare. We can claim up and down that we believe anythings possible, and we can make things work, and yet we're 29th in the world in Infant mortality. We refuse to fix healthcare because of our representitives political interests.

And when we finally get a president willing, and a champion dying of a brain tumor and we're really going to get there this time, everyone goes to the talking points. Currently HMO's tell you ya can't get treatments YOU PAY FOR! Why is the government, who may be slow in the worst case scenario, faulted for being a few months behind when so many of the working poor in this country are without healthcare because the insurance they have hires people to deny their claim.

There ought to be a fire set under the ass of these polticians, and I wish I was in a state where the senators opposed this because I'd run as a third party and steal their votes. The default for conservatives seems to be that the current system is fine.

Our system is christ-awful and anyone whos ever gone to the ER knows it. People are getting charged for things that aren't happening, for doctors they've never seen, and for treatments they don't need.

I have about 6 fillings in my mouth I didn't need from a dentist who knew they could get the money because as a minor with two state employeed parents, i was a gold mine. There is severe wrong in our current system.

I'm so mad. I had a damn essay typed up and my comp froze. If I get some time I'll restate it in a bit.

I think the system being broken is generally accepted but spending a trillion dollars the US doesn't have with no real plan to pay it back (other than Obama's vague promise that he would cut the deficit in half over his term...and he never really explained how he was planning to do it) is kind of a bad idea. I'm for universal health care but not for the US shoving it's fiscal problems off on the rest of the world.

Wow. I'm pretty sure this is the first thing I've ever nodded and agreed with you. Pretty much the summarized version of what I had. But I spent that time on it that I'm still posting it up.

I welcome socialized medicine. The government may simply put a cap on wrongful death/negligence lawsuits and the costs would come down dramatically, and the tax increases would be nothing compared to the average family's annual medical expenses as they are now.

I don't see it happening in 5 years though, not even 15 or 20...or perhaps ever. There is SO. MUCH. MONEY. in the insurance companies and drug companies that the lobbyists will completely block any such talk.

There would have to be some very drastic occurence that would shift the status quo.

Wrong. Eliminating wrongful death suits would maybe decrease costs 1-2%. Also I'm sure a bunch of people would want to sign up to a healthcare system that eliminates their right to tort law. Really GREAT idea.

And it's definitely coming. The polls are already starting to show a push against those currently in power. This will get through before the next set of elections.

As a conservative in the definitional sense of the word [i.e. please don't relate me to the so-called "conservatives" in office now], I definitely see the problems in healthcare. My problem is with how they plan on going about this economically. We have a bunch of bureaucrats in office that have for the most part never run a business in their collective lives [including the potus], but have put their hands in the banks, the auto industry, and now have their eyes set on healthcare.

I stated it earlier, but my preference would be for a tiered system. Create a safety net for those uninsured which comes from another payroll tax on them and their employers [~3%] on those that cannot show proof of insurance. Put them in a no-frills system that gives preventive cares, regular Dr. Visits, and emergency care. The gov't could contact with private providers that would run low-end facilities [thin staffing, long waits, potentially bad locations] and would be kept out hugely expensive non-compensated cares.

The problem is the idea of a single payer system that is probably the end result of the government entering as they want to. They enter ostensibly as "competition" in an effort, which they will do in the end as a result of rationing. They will force out any private competition they have because no one can truly compete pricing with the government, since the gov. has shown pure faith into just taking on more and more debt with no foresight into the future.

It's not a matter of whether I want my taxes going to those less fortunate. I have no problem with that. But do it responsibly. Maybe start by repealing the stupid ass stimulus bill that hasn't done anything and more than likely won't ever, and use that $$$ for healthcare. And if they're going to refute their promise to not tax healthcare benefits, how about you don't exclude your largest voting block from the taxes [the unions]? Then from there why don't we search into the idea that the people benefitting the most from this aren't paying a dime into it and figure out a way where more than 1/3 of those working aren't paying income tax. It's funny that most the people that don't pay taxes are the one's asking those that do why they don't want to help the less fortunate.