0
   

The Communist Origin of the Modern Conservative Movement VI

 
 
Zardoz
 
  2  
Reply Sun 5 Aug, 2018 09:16 pm
@Baldimo,
The most likely reason for someone in the middle class to file for bankruptcy is medical bills and most of those people have junk health insurance. Why bother to have health insurance if you are going to go bankrupt when you get sick? When people who have bought health insurance to cover sickness go bankrupt health insurance is a failure and it does not serve the purpose of insurance.

____________________________________________________
Accidents and sickness were never intended to provide an opportunity to rip the public off for millions. A television set for profit is one thing making millions off of children with cancer is another. Capitalism has its place, but medical care is not one of them.

____________________________________________________
If health care in America was not failing, there would have been no need to change anything everybody would have had health insurance and hospitals would not be closing because of unpaid bills. If you had an employee that you paid $10 an hour in 1974 and his health insurance cost $840 a year now that same employees health insurance costs $25,000 a year. When health insurance goes up wages go down. When you negotiate a contract the first thing that is made clear is there is only so much money available and you can apportion so much to wages and so much for benefits. If they have to cover the increases in health insurance there will not be any money available for raises. Of course, the health insurance companies had a solution offer junk health insurance policies which don’t cover many medical expenses. Int the early 90s general motors was backing national healthcare because the most expensive cost of making a car was health insurance.
__________________________________________________________________________________
That all depends on your perspective, if you are a rich multi-billionaire hedge fund manager the ACA was terrible but if you were retired with no health insurance and no way to buy it then it was a god send. Millions who had no health insurance and no hope of ever affording health insurance could now go to a doctor. Money is not the route to all evil Greed is the root to all evil.
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Aug, 2018 01:25 pm
@Zardoz,
Quote:
Why should there be difference in taxes between investment income and standard income?

If you have to ask this, then you don't know half as much as you claim about taxes. Maybe this will help:
https://taxfoundation.org/why-capital-gains-are-taxed-lower-rate/

Quote:
If one man’s income from gambling on the stock market, that is what it is legalized gambling, or standard income.

The income someone earn's from the stock market was already taxed once when the person originally earned that money, they then chose to invest it in the stock market and they are taxed a 2nd time on that money but at a lower rate.

Quote:
The only real difference is those that have money to invest are rich to start with. I don’t follow Buffet, so the reference is meaningless.

This is a flat out lie. A vast majority of the US public has investments in the stock market in the form of 401k's, which they hope to retire on. If you want to charge regular joe additional money on his retirement income, then you explain it to him. This is where you show you don't care about regular people, you only care about hurting the "rich".

Quote:
Do you know that the constitution was amended in 1913 to make the tax on excess wealth (income tax) possible so anything that predates the 16th Amendment is meaningless?

The Amendment was simply to allow Congress to pass an income tax, and says nothing about "excess wealth".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Quote:

Text:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Other Constitutional provisions regarding taxes
Article I, Section 2, Clause 3:
Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers...[1]

Article I, Section 8, Clause 1:
The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.

Article I, Section 9, Clause 4:
No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
This clause basically refers to a tax on property, such as a tax based on the value of land,[2] as well as a capitation.

Article I, Section 9, Clause 5:
No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.


Quote:
Everybody already pays taxes though some don’t pay the tax on excess wealth.

No one pays any taxes for "excess wealth", and no one should. You earn money, you pay a tax.

Quote:
If you make $82,000 and the income tax deductible was put back to where it belongs at $100,000 you would pay taxes only on a portion of your wife’s income, so you would be far better off.

I'm not a mooch or a sponge, I'm fine paying taxes and I think every US citizen should be taxes. I think non-citizens should pay a higher tax since they are not citizens.

Quote:
Why argue that multi-billionaires hedge fund managers should get by using the carried interest loophole paying only 5%? The hedge fund managers earn a salary like everyone else.

You are the only one who has argued for a separate tax, I think everyone should be paying. I'm all for equality, you are not.

Quote:
My preference would be the income tax be adjusted back to the original $100,000 deduction (in today’s dollars). This would give the economy a big boost as the middle class would spend the money and it would turn over several times. The ungodly greedy just bank the money or spend it overseas which stifles the economy.

There is not a single successful economic model that supports this working. In fact someone of the left's favorite "socialist" countries have an average income tax of 60% on all income earners, not just the wealthy. The problem with leftists is they always want something for free but don't want to pay for it, they want someone else to pay for it.

0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Aug, 2018 01:46 pm
@Zardoz,
Quote:
Insurance has been going up at near double-digit numbers for 50 years that is why we are in trouble.

No, it isn't the price of insurance that has caused the problem, it is govt regulation and nothing more. When you have "promised" prices, why do anything to lower costs when the "govt", taxpayers" will just be forced to hand the money over.

Quote:
Health insurance was designed to pool the risk, while not everyone is going to have a baby neither is everybody going to have cancer.

Health insurance pools worked prior to the ACA when they were based on real stats, not created by the govt for "fairness".

Quote:
Change of life babies are not uncommon our personal director was very surprised in her late forties to be expecting. You must have had a very cut-rate policy not to have maternity coverage. Do you have a daughter under 25? That would cover her.

Who said anything about maternity coverage? I'm talking about birth control coverage, they are 2 different subjects.

Quote:
The major problem with health insurance now is that is unaffordable for most of the middle class if not offered at work.

The vast majority of the middle class got perfectly good insurance prior to the ACA, it was the leftist liars who were spreading lies about insurance. Even the guy who wrote the ACA commented that the people were dumb and had to be fooled into liking the ACA.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/marc-thiessen-thanks-to-jonathan-gruber-for-revealing-obamacare-deception/2014/11/17/356514b2-6e72-11e4-893f-86bd390a3340_story.html?utm_term=.3ad9fd668682

Quote:
It is not like purchasing a car. If you can’t afford a car you can walk. If your child needs medical care you are going to see he gets it and if you have no insurance someone else with insurance will pay the bill.

I love how you guys on the left use kids as weapons in your war... What about the adults who make crappy life choices and a majority of their medical problems are self-created? Kids are one thing, adults making unhealthy choices and expecting the rest of us the pick up their medical bills is disgraceful.

Quote:
The idea behind the ACA was to see that those with no coverage had to buy insurance which would help reduce everyone health insurance over time.

Yeah, that failed to work because the fines were not high enough, so the people who the ACA depended on, the young and healthy just paid the fine/tax/fee and didn't pick up insurance. Human nature trumped govt regulation once again.

Quote:
Before ACA medical coverage was limited to $1,000,000 the ACA removed that cap. Some children had exhausted their lifetime medical insurance coverage before the ACA removed the limit.

Here come the kids again... "But it's for the kids!!!"

Quote:
With car insurance there are certain coverage required by law one is uninsured motorist and the other is liability.

This is still done at the state level and not the federal level.

Quote:
Why should health insurance be any different? You could set down with a long list of inheritable diseases and pick out the ones that did not occur in your family and try and pick out the ones that you might get and buy only insurances on the diseases that ran in your family.

This is the BS that gets pushed with the left when this subject comes up. No one has ever bought insurance based on what they could get sick with. But we should be allowed to pick the coverage we need and or want. My wife and I are in our mid-40's and can't have kids, we no longer require any form of birth control or maternity coverage, we also no longer have little kids, so we could have a plan that only covered adult health issues and not children health issues.

Quote:
Health insurance was a total and complete failure and Presidents from as far back as Truman have tried to bring us kicking and screaming into the twentieth century with the rest of the first world countries.

Health insurance has been a success for a vast majority of Americans, it is a small minority that see any issues.

Quote:
The Republicans blocked the public option which is what would have made health insurance affordable.

BS, a report released within the last few weeks shows it would cost $32 trillion over 10 years, that's 3 trillion a year or what our entire federal budget is for 1 year. So instead of a 3 trillion a year budget, we would be looking a 6 trillion, 50% of it being for medical costs...


0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Aug, 2018 01:58 pm
@Zardoz,
Quote:
The most likely reason for someone in the middle class to file for bankruptcy is medical bills and most of those people have junk health insurance.

This has never been studied for reason, most of the info comes from surveys where people are asked. It's easier to say medical than say you over spent on that TV and vacation.
https://www.thebalance.com/medical-bankruptcy-statistics-4154729

Quote:
Why bother to have health insurance if you are going to go bankrupt when you get sick? When people who have bought health insurance to cover sickness go bankrupt health insurance is a failure and it does not serve the purpose of insurance.

Are many people going bankrupt from getting the flu or having colds? Did they have a $1000 bill from their Dr for those things? Nope, they likely paid $25 for a c0pay and then maybe $10 for a shot and never saw another medical bill from that visit. It's funny how leftist always equate insurance to cancer when a majority of people use the Dr. for nothing as serious.

Quote:
That all depends on your perspective, if you are a rich multi-billionaire hedge fund manager the ACA was terrible but if you were retired with no health insurance and no way to buy it then it was a god send. Millions who had no health insurance and no hope of ever affording health insurance could now go to a doctor. Money is not the route to all evil Greed is the root to all evil.

How about the regular Joe worker, a majority of us have seen our insurance rates sky rocket since the ACA started in 2014, I went from paying about $200 a month to paying almost $1000 for the same coverage. The ACA didn't care about me, it saw me as a cash cow for others coverage.
0 Replies
 
Zardoz
 
  2  
Reply Mon 6 Aug, 2018 09:19 pm
@Baldimo,
The ACA insured another 20 million people not 2 million. That means that we no longer have to pay their medical bills. If they had no medical insurance, we would be paying much higher insurance premiums today. These people still get sick with or without health insurance if they can’t pay for their medical bills the cost is shifted to those who have insurance.

____________________________________________________
Economics is not your strong point. Obamacare raised the tax on the ungodly greedy to fund the program a tax they can’t beat. This benefits the middle class as we cannot continue to pay the medical bills of those without insurance. It never ceases to amaze me how people who are just making a living feel sorry for billionaires. Who is young and healthy today will be old and unhealthy much sooner than they think. Besides the two groups that cost medical insurance most are those between 60 and 65 and those between 0 and six months. Guess which age group is responsible for most of those between 0 and six months? You can’t wait until you have cancer and need $500,000 in medical care to buy insurance. That is like waiting till your house is on fire to buy fire insurance. Economics 101 teaches there is no such thing as a free lunch medical insurance is the same it is not free. Fewer and fewer people can afford medical insurance most working people can not afford to buy health insurance and now most companies can no longer afford the cost of health insurance even state governments are passing the cost increases to their employees.

____________________________________________________
You are the big capitalist do you believe that the government can make a private business provide services to people that have absolutely no way to pay for the services. What are you a communist that believes government can dictate that a business must take non-paying customers. At one time hospitals were owned by the community or were run by charitable organizations. Our last charity hospital was recently purchased by another hospital. Hospitals are big business if they are forced to take patients that can’t pay the economics laws take over just as if the government ordered car dealerships to give cars to those who can’t afford them they would go out of business. One of the hospitals refused to treat a woman without insurance and she refused to leave. The police were called to escort her out and she died in the parking lot. So much for your lie. You don’t live in the real world you live in the world you imagine it to be. Hospitals in big cities routinely refuse treatment to the uninsured.

____________________________________________________
Don’t kid yourself we had five hospitals in town now there are only two and they closed long before Obama was elected 1,341 hospitals closed between 1978 and 2008. That should tell you the system is failing almost 20% of hospitals in America have went out of business because of unpaid medical bills. Your myopic view that you should be able to wait till your old and have a half million in medical bills before you buy insurance is why our insurance costs so much today. A business that is required to give away it services can’t stay in business.
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Aug, 2018 12:09 pm
@Zardoz,
Quote:
The ACA insured another 20 million people not 2 million. That means that we no longer have to pay their medical bills. If they had no medical insurance, we would be paying much higher insurance premiums today. These people still get sick with or without health insurance if they can’t pay for their medical bills the cost is shifted to those who have insurance.

20 million? First off the ACA failed in it's original mission of creating state level health exchanges, and a majority of states wanted nothing to do with them because they knew they wouldn't work and would be expensive. The states that did state their own exchanges, half of them have shutdown due to costs and all those people went over to the "federal" exchange. The plans offered on the exchanges are very heavily subsidized by the tax payers, and then with the Medicade expansion, that is even more taxpayer money. I'm not against people getting reasonable health insurance, I just think adding more govt regulation to a problem caused by govt regulation isn't the answer. No one on the left considered lifting the restrictions on purchasing cross state insurance plans, in the interests of "interstate commerce", that would have been a wise move. Expand the market, don't artificially insert the govt as a market player.

Quote:
That means that we no longer have to pay their medical bills. If they had no medical insurance, we would be paying much higher insurance premiums today. These people still get sick with or without health insurance if they can’t pay for their medical bills the cost is shifted to those who have insurance.

Who are you kidding, if they are getting insurance via the federal exchange, we are paying for their insurance as it is the govt, "taxpayer" who is providing that bulk payment on their health plan.

Quote:
That means that we no longer have to pay their medical bills. If they had no medical insurance, we would be paying much higher insurance premiums today. These people still get sick with or without health insurance if they can’t pay for their medical bills the cost is shifted to those who have insurance.


Quote:
Economics is not your strong point.

Says the socialist...

Quote:
Obamacare raised the tax on the ungodly greedy to fund the program a tax they can’t beat. This benefits the middle class as we cannot continue to pay the medical bills of those without insurance.

You mean yet another socialist scam to redistribute wealth? Which tax was raised on the wealthy only that had such a massive impact on the ACA?

Quote:
It never ceases to amaze me how people who are just making a living feel sorry for billionaires.

Who says anyone feels sorry for billionaires? I feel bad for anyone who has to pay additional taxes so that some leftist can feel they are doing something food for others. My taxes and insurance costs have increased since the ACA went into effect, it has done more damage to the middle class than it has to help the poor.

Quote:
Who is young and healthy today will be old and unhealthy much sooner than they think.

A good chunk of people's ill health is due to personal choices people have made and not bad luck, you can look at the obesity issue here in the US as the prime example.

Quote:
Besides the two groups that cost medical insurance most are those between 60 and 65 and those between 0 and six months. Guess which age group is responsible for most of those between 0 and six months? You can’t wait until you have cancer and need $500,000 in medical care to buy insurance.

Except that the ACA allows just that to happen, you don't carry insurance until you are sick and then you get it just to cover your sickness, that isn't insurance either.

Quote:
That is like waiting till your house is on fire to buy fire insurance. Economics 101 teaches there is no such thing as a free lunch medical insurance is the same it is not free. Fewer and fewer people can afford medical insurance most working people can not afford to buy health insurance and now most companies can no longer afford the cost of health insurance even state governments are passing the cost increases to their employees.

Look at the down fall of health insurance with the continued interference of govt regulation. The entire purpose of the ACA was the break the insurance market so that single payer would be the "only option".

Quote:
You are the big capitalist do you believe that the government can make a private business provide services to people that have absolutely no way to pay for the services.
We have a good system now. Hospitals can't refuse service for emergency services regardless if you can pay or not. If you come in with a gun shot wound, they have to treat you, but if you have a cold, they don't have to treat you.

Quote:
What are you a communist that believes government can dictate that a business must take non-paying customers.

See my answer above.

Quote:
At one time hospitals were owned by the community or were run by charitable organizations.

How could you forget Religious groups as well, can't forget all those Catholic and Methodist hospitals.

Quote:
Our last charity hospital was recently purchased by another hospital.

Why was the charity hospital bought, could it be that it costs money to run a hospital, it doesn't run on good cheer alone.

Quote:
Hospitals are big business if they are forced to take patients that can’t pay the economics laws take over just as if the government ordered car dealerships to give cars to those who can’t afford them they would go out of business.

The govt does reimburse hospitals for portions of the unpaid for care, that's the point you miss is that the govt does pay for some of the costs, but not enough to actually run the hospital.

Quote:
One of the hospitals refused to treat a woman without insurance and she refused to leave. The police were called to escort her out and she died in the parking lot. So much for your lie. You don’t live in the real world you live in the world you imagine it to be. Hospitals in big cities routinely refuse treatment to the uninsured.

Links? Facts? Proof? You provide enough "outrage" information but no real information. It's how the left works though.

Quote:
Don’t kid yourself we had five hospitals in town now there are only two and they closed long before Obama was elected 1,341 hospitals closed between 1978 and 2008. That should tell you the system is failing almost 20% of hospitals in America have went out of business because of unpaid medical bills. Your myopic view that you should be able to wait till your old and have a half million in medical bills before you buy insurance is why our insurance costs so much today. A business that is required to give away it services can’t stay in business.

Why is it you don't provide any proof of the stats you post? You just make statements and expect them to be accepted as gospel or expect me to do the leg work for you. I did a search on this stat: 1,341 hospitals closed between 1978 and 2008. You know what I found? Nothing, not even a single news article that makes this claim.

BTW, you are replying to a post from May... that's 2 months old. You can either keep up or I'm going to stop responding to months old comments that have been addressed in sooner posts numerous times.
0 Replies
 
Zardoz
 
  2  
Reply Tue 7 Aug, 2018 09:15 pm
@Baldimo,
If you kept up with current events you would know that one of the billionaire’s wives was the one that made a billionaire’s issue out of repealing Obamacare. If there is one thing the ungodly greedy have learned is that they can’t make a stand by themselves if all the billionaires had come out against the tax increase on billionaires to fund Obamacare the vast majority would not care about a tax cut for billionaires. The billionaires spent billions to fund an anti-Obamacare movement to tell the masses how to think. How could anyone be against insuring another 20 million, so they would no longer have to pay for their medical bills. That is a big plus for the middle class it reverses a trend that has been one of the main forces driving increasing insurance cost for 50 years. Conservatives really believe in a free lunch that if you can’t pay your medical bills the tooth fairy will pay them.

____________________________________________________
Isn’t it strange how all the other left leaning countries provide good health care for a fraction of the greed driven failing healthcare system we have?

____________________________________________________
The unions had nothing to do with GM management looking at the hard facts of what it costs to provide health insurance for 5 times as many people as they employed. GM was one of the main driving forces in Hillary Clinton push for government health care. GM’s management understood the figures and where health insurance was going in the future. If they had to pay for the healthcare costs for their employee and then four others who have no insurance in 90s it would be 50 in the future. Not only will are medical system collapse but it will ruin our manufacturing base oh that right it has already destroyed most of our manufacturing base. Whether it is wage or health insurance it all comes down to dollars and if we are going to compete on the world stage national healthcare is the only solution.

____________________________________________________
We do have many foreign automotive plants including a Toyota plant only a few miles from here that has expanded three times. But those plants were built many years ago and that is changing as the Japanese realize that America has not dealt with our health insurance problems and even after being offered a ½ billion in incentives to build in America they decide to build in Canada.
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Aug, 2018 08:51 am
@Zardoz,
Quote:
If you kept up with current events you would know that one of the billionaire’s wives was the one that made a billionaire’s issue out of repealing Obamacare.

Who? Links? Facts? Proof?

Quote:
If there is one thing the ungodly greedy have learned is that they can’t make a stand by themselves if all the billionaires had come out against the tax increase on billionaires to fund Obamacare the vast majority would not care about a tax cut for billionaires.

This comment makes no sense.

Quote:
The billionaires spent billions to fund an anti-Obamacare movement to tell the masses how to think.

They spent billions? Links? Facts? Proof?
In reality, it was Obama and his leftist ilk who spent millions lying to the American people about their faulty health insurance scam. It's a tax, it's a fine, it's a fee... You can keep your plan and your Dr...
We even have the articect of the ACA Jonathan Gruber telling us they lied to the stupid American people in order to pass the law.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2014/11/10/aca-architect-the-stupidity-of-the-american-voter-led-us-to-hide-obamacares-tax-hikes-and-subsidies-from-the-public/

Quote:
How could anyone be against insuring another 20 million, so they would no longer have to pay for their medical bills. That is a big plus for the middle class it reverses a trend that has been one of the main forces driving increasing insurance cost for 50 years. Conservatives really believe in a free lunch that if you can’t pay your medical bills the tooth fairy will pay them.

20 million? It was suppose to insure over 30 million US citizens, the majority of those 20 million are not normal insurance holders, they are mostly Medicaid holders who don't pay a dime for their insurance and have no financial responsibility for their coverage, that's called freeloading.
https://www.americanactionforum.org/insight/20-million/

Just saying 20 million have coverage doesn't tell the whole story.

Quote:
Isn’t it strange how all the other left leaning countries provide good health care for a fraction of the greed driven failing healthcare system we have?

The US provides some of the best healthcare in the world, making it free doesn't do anything to increase how good it is, in fact if you look at innovation in the medical world, a majority of the best medical research comes from the US, not the EU.

Quote:
The unions had nothing to do with GM management looking at the hard facts of what it costs to provide health insurance for 5 times as many people as they employed.

Unions had everything to do with what health insurance costs to companies. When the unions refuse to have their members pay for insurance, it forces the company to pay for it in order to retain good workers. Modern day unions are a cancer and have lead to the down fall of more than one company.

Quote:
GM was one of the main driving forces in Hillary Clinton push for government health care.

When a company gets in bed with a politician like Hillary Clinton, you know nothing good will come of it. You want to talk about the "ungodly greedy" and then you mention Hillary Clinton?

Quote:
GM’s management understood the figures and where health insurance was going in the future.

Yeah, all because of govt regulation. If you look at the costs for medical procedures that are not covered by insurance, you will see prices in those area's have steadly dropped over the last 30 years while the tech and procedures have advanced at a quicker rate.

Quote:
If they had to pay for the healthcare costs for their employee and then four others who have no insurance in 90s it would be 50 in the future.

You need to explain this word salad a little better.

Quote:
Not only will are medical system collapse but it will ruin our manufacturing base oh that right it has already destroyed most of our manufacturing base. Whether it is wage or health insurance it all comes down to dollars and if we are going to compete on the world stage national healthcare is the only solution.

The only thing that is going to cause our medical field to collapse is the continued creation of BS govt regulations on the medical field and the medical insurance field.

Quote:
We do have many foreign automotive plants including a Toyota plant only a few miles from here that has expanded three times.

None of which would have happened if those were Union controlled jobs, which they are not.

Quote:
But those plants were built many years ago and that is changing as the Japanese realize that America has not dealt with our health insurance problems and even after being offered a ½ billion in incentives to build in America they decide to build in Canada.

Links? Facts? Proof?


0 Replies
 
Zardoz
 
  2  
Reply Wed 8 Aug, 2018 09:29 pm
@Baldimo,
You still can’t grasp the simple economics of the health insurance problem. Free markets work on simple markets because the consumers have the ability to refuse to buy a car for instance and those who cannot afford a car don’t buy a car. The healthcare problem is far more complex. A newly married couple has a very premature baby they have no insurance the cost to keep the child alive will be $500,000. They cannot possibly pay the medical bills without health insurance. There are two choices here somebody else pay for the baby’s medical care or let the child die. In a true free market, they would let the child die because the couple can’t pay but our society has decided that the child will be given the medical care and cost will be shifted to others who have insurance. GM union employees did not decide that they wanted to pay for all the medical bills of all the uninsured people in Michigan our society decided that access to medical care is a right and that it will be a burden that is shared by those who can afford to pay.

____________________________________________________
Car Insurance is not necessary as you can choose other modes of transportation as a bus, or a cab. There is absolutely no substitution for health. It is a completely different type of problem.

___________________________________________________
I had no problem filling out my own taxes after I got married and bought a house and had a child and even after I had rental property. It is something any sixth grader that can read and follow directions could do.

____________________________________________________
I have books that explain the flat tax and it would tax only income that was spent. The middle class spends all their income and in fact spends far more than their income using credit meaning they would pay tax on income they didn’t even make. The ungodly greedy spend only a small portion of their income the effective rate would be a fraction of what the middle class would pay. There is another thread on the board where I showed the flat tax was a fraud that would never work.
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Aug, 2018 09:32 am
@Zardoz,
Quote:
You still can’t grasp the simple economics of the health insurance problem.

I've said many times what the problem is with health insurance is, you don't seem to understand that the problem is govt regulation.

Quote:
Free markets work on simple markets because the consumers have the ability to refuse to buy a car for instance and those who cannot afford a car don’t buy a car.

I've already shown you how there is a free market in the insurance/medical field but you are stuck on "profit". US citizens are limited by in their choices of insurance simply because they can not shop across state lines for insurance plans. The govt has mandated minimum coverage, that increases the cost of the plans and limits choice in what people want. This in no way resembles the free market, it is instead a heavily regulated market and the regulations do nothing to lower the costs, only drive them higher.

Quote:
The healthcare problem is far more complex.

The federal and state govts have made healthcare far more complex than it needs to be.

Quote:
Car Insurance is not necessary as you can choose other modes of transportation as a bus, or a cab. There is absolutely no substitution for health. It is a completely different type of problem.

That's not true. A majority of people do not live near their place of work and many people have to commute. To say they can take a bus or a cab is ignorant of how the majority of Americans actually live. Cabs only work for city people. If you live in the burbs there is no taxi service, but there might be trains if your city is large enough. The fact is about 95% of Americans own cars, you can't say don't need one when only 5% of Americans don't. That's just a BS ploy to increase govt control of the healthcare/ health insurance sector of the economy.

Quote:
I had no problem filling out my own taxes after I got married and bought a house and had a child and even after I had rental property. It is something any sixth grader that can read and follow directions could do.

I also had no problems for many years, it wasn't until the last 5 or 6 years where my taxes started to get complicated that I sought assistance. Your "intellectual" ignorance is starting to show, the attempted smugness is noted.

Quote:
I have books that explain the flat tax and it would tax only income that was spent.

Wrong, you are confusing a consumption tax with a flat tax. A flat tax on income is exactly what it sounds like, the same tax rate across the board on all incomes. The key word being income, not wealth and not on what someone spends. Hell, I would even agree that the flat tax starts at 20k a year and if you make less than that, you pay no taxes at all.
So at 20k a year, you would pay about $3k a year in federal income taxes. If you make $1 million a year, you are pay $150,000 a year. Make 1 billion you pay $150 million in taxes.

Quote:
The middle class spends all their income and in fact spends far more than their income using credit meaning they would pay tax on income they didn’t even make.

What does this mean? You are implying that the flat tax is a consumption tax, when it isn't. The middle class has a tendency to live above it's means at times, how many TV's do we really need, does every bedroom need a TV? How often do people need to buy a new car? How often do people need to eat out? Almost all of these items are paid for on credit.

Quote:
The ungodly greedy spend only a small portion of their income the effective rate would be a fraction of what the middle class would pay. There is another thread on the board where I showed the flat tax was a fraud that would never work.

When you talk about the "ungodly greedy", are you talking about anyone in the 1%? Seeing how you have debated several subjects here, I don't think you proved anything, your posts are extremely thin on facts and usually only contain your words and nothing to back them up. I mean you have already tried to confuse the flat tax with the consumption tax, so it's doubtful fraud was proven. Intellectual fraud by the floating head maybe, but not fraud with the flat tax system.
0 Replies
 
Zardoz
 
  2  
Reply Thu 9 Aug, 2018 09:14 pm
@Baldimo,
Tax cut? You better think twice. You said you had kids that means you have lost at least four personal exemptions of $4,000 when you lose the exemptions that means you will be paying tax on more of the money you make. The loss of $16,000 in personal exemptions, if you have two kids, some of the $16,000 loss for personal exemptions will be offset by the raise in the standard deduction and upping the childcare credit a $1,000. Those extra $1,000s in taxable income will be taxed at 28% assuming your wife makes a decent income. Whether a 3% cut in the tax bracket between $9,000 and $38,000 will offset the increased income that is subject to taxes will be interesting. You will save $30 for every thousand which amounts to a tax saving $600 on that $20,000 in income but the loss of personal exemptions means you have at least another in $3,000 taxable income which will be taxed at the highest rate you pay. That $3,000 will be taxed at 28% or $840. If you have more than two kids add another $840 in taxes due for each one. Have a good tax cut. Trump is a conman from way back. The beauty of the Republican tax con was to make more of the middle class’s income subject to taxes and give them upper middle class an illusionary cut in the tax bracket. You got it wrong you are not going to get a tax cut you are going to pay more taxes determined by how many kids you have, and the Republicans are going to give it to the ungodly greedy in huge tax cuts. Trump will take a few more campaign trips with the extra taxes you are going to pay.

____________________________________________________
School secretaries are not teachers and many of them work year-round. You don’t get holidays off or vacations? What we don’t know about the school secretary is whether she has children. If she has children and the majority do she is in for a nasty surprise as she will have to use that $1.50 a week back pulse a $1,000 or so in increased taxes.
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Aug, 2018 08:26 am
@Zardoz,
Quote:
Tax cut? You better think twice. You said you had kids that means you have lost at least four personal exemptions of $4,000 when you lose the exemptions that means you will be paying tax on more of the money you make.

There is only one kid who can be claimed on taxes, his mother and her ex-husband trade years on who gets to claim him, both my kids are over 18 and are no longer claimable on our taxes.

Quote:
You got it wrong you are not going to get a tax cut you are going to pay more taxes determined by how many kids you have, and the

The only people who received any money from the IRS are typically those who are poor and receive more back in "refunds" than they actually pay into the system, so it really isn't a refund, it's more like a payment to the poor from those who actually do pay taxes.

Quote:
Republicans are going to give it to the ungodly greedy in huge tax cuts.

No one is giving anything to anyone. You claim you know how federal govt funding works and yet just like the rest of the leftist liars, it's always termed as the govt is giving money to the rich. This isn't true, being able to keep more of your own money isn't giving anything away, that's where you have the whole tax issue turned around. The greed is thinking someone else's money is yours.

Quote:
School secretaries are not teachers and many of them work year-round.

No they don't, they close down the offices when there are no kids in the building. My ex-wife works for a major school district here in CO and those offices are empty during the summer until about 2 weeks before school starts, then you will see them start coming into the office. No kids, no admin staff is needed.

Quote:
You don’t get holidays off or vacations?

I don't get 2 weeks at Xmas, I don't get 2 weeks at Spring Break and I don't get to sit on my ass for 2 1/2 to 2 months during the summer either. My company offers "unlimited PTO" but no one usually takes more than 2-21/2 weeks at the most for the entire year. Teachers also don't have an "on-call" schedule where they have to be available to help a student 24-7 for 7 days, 2 weeks off, 1 week on. If teachers had to work as many days and hours as normal people, most of us wouldn't have a problem with teachers.

I like teachers, I don't like teachers unions.


0 Replies
 
Zardoz
 
  2  
Reply Fri 10 Aug, 2018 09:08 pm
@Baldimo,
I am glad you got to attend your class reunion. I never attended any of mine I was usually racing (cars)on Saturday nights when they were held and if you missed a race you lost your position in the point standing. Now I am afraid if I went to a reunion I would need an awful lot of Kodachrome things don’t look better in black and white.

____________________________________________________
There are limits and when you have advocates of racism and Nazism speaking on college campuses that would cause riots there is a problem. Then you have the former head of Breitbart News that was advocating child molestation. These people can still speak they just have to speak under the rock they crawled out from under. Should child molesters be able to use colleges campuses to spread their perversion?
____________________________________________________
While slander and liable are not prosecuted by the government they are enforced by the courts in civil litigation. The civil courts enforce the judgements.
There are exceptions government employees have all their rights in tact as they work for the government. Public employees have their right to free speech. Private sector employers are not bound by the bill of rights.
___________________________________________________________________________________
All rights have limits and the courts have put limits on those rights time after time.
Zardoz
 
  2  
Reply Sat 11 Aug, 2018 09:11 pm
@Baldimo,
Rosanne works for a private employer she is a will and pleasure employee and can be terminated for any reason or no reason at all. Her employer does not need grant her freedom of speech. If she were a union employee she could only be terminated for good cause. It would be up to an arbitrator to decide if what she did amounted to just cause.
____________________________________________________________________________________
This is one many union members had a problem with they viewed the union as something separate from them. When they criticized they union you would have to remind them what the term union meant. If they had a problem they just needed to participate to make things better. Government is the same, to make things better all you need do is take an active part. If there is a bad politician vote him out or work against him. Run for office there are many part time government offices that you can run for. All that is necessary for evil to triumph is good people to do nothing and that is more true in our form of government than many others. It is easier to complain and do nothing than to try and make things better.

____________________________________________________
If government employees could not unionize they would not even make minimum wage. Governments are exempt from minimum wage laws. There is no doubt in my mind that belonging to a union is a free speech issue. When I was hired the city had only had a union for three years. The city had been the worst paying large employer in town. The only employees the city could hire came from the local jail or prison. People that worked there during that time period said there were only to clicks you could hang with the murders or the thieves. One former employee said the group he was hanging with were talking about the Christmases they spent in jail and he felt left out because he had never been jailed at Christmas time. Now think about that for a while every week the child molesters and thieves in the sanitation department went to every house in the city. The thieves could case every house in neighborhood and since they went by at 4 AM in the morning they could take a little extra. The police knew where to come to find the criminals they would go to the city garage every Monday to arrest the employees. Be careful what you wish for you might just get it.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you have a screw driver you know what it was designed for. If you have an assault weapon you know it was designed to kill as many people as possible. It is pretty simple to understand what something was designed to do.

____________________________________________________
Whitaker Chambers in his autobiography was very clear why he defected from the communist party he believed they were going to kill him and he hid out with his family for a good while before deciding to come in out of the cold.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I never understood why Whitaker Chamber was not executed by the parents of the American sailors that were killed when our battleships were sunk using the stolen plans sent to the Nazis by Whitaker Chambers. When the right made a national hero out of a known communist spy they tried to whitewash him. I notice your quotes don’t come from the best source on Whitaker Chambers his autobiography.
Zardoz
 
  2  
Reply Sun 12 Aug, 2018 09:07 pm
@Baldimo,
Whitaker Chambers not only gave the Nazis the top-secret plans for our battleships that showed the Nazis precisely where best to target their torpedoes to sink our battleships. Chambers also handed over top secret plans for a bombing site that made bombing runs more efficient to Nazis. These resulted in thousands of more American soldiers being killed. Contrast that to the Rosenbergs who were executed for passing secrets to the communists. What did the Republicans do? Make Chambers a national hero and Reagan awarded Chambers the Presidential Medal of Freedom. What would happen to a spy like Chambers today? I guess that depends on which party was in power. The Republicans would probably award him the Presidential Medal of Freedom after all that is what they did in the past.

____________________________________________________
Opposite sides? Then why did so many prominent communists become Republicans?

___________________________________________________
The political spectrum is best described as a circle and one extreme is close to the other extreme.

____________________________________________________
Surely you realize that human greed has been here thousands of years before Marx was even born.
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Aug, 2018 09:20 am
@Zardoz,
Quote:
I am glad you got to attend your class reunion. I never attended any of mine

Thanks, it was a great time, but you realize this was back in late May... You are really falling behind. At this point, I will be responding to this post around Xmas.

Quote:
There are limits and when you have advocates of racism and Nazism speaking on college campuses that would cause riots there is a problem.

I love the labels of racism and Nazism... It isn't true and that is the major problem on college campus's and the left in general. When the leftists find disagreement, they label you with one or more terms and then move to silence that person, it's Fascism in it's purist form, couple that with their wanting to replace the current US system with Socialism and what do you have... Fascism! Which Constitutional Amendment covers ones emotions and feelings as something protected by the govt?

Quote:
There are exceptions government employees have all their rights in tact as they work for the government. Public employees have their right to free speech.

Your funny. A simple good search, which you are so fond of, shows all sorts of public employee's who have been fired for things they have said on social media. Don't kid yourself, in this day and age of social outrage, just about no one is safe.


Quote:
All rights have limits and the courts have put limits on those rights time after time.

Other courts have also changed those "limits". The case in which we are talking about is the perfect example. The actual merits of the case were overturned, regardless of how the example used in the original decision has lived on. Those limits get set and overturned all the time as well. You would think a Right would have extremely limited limits or none at all, other wise it becomes a Maybe/Sometimes and not a Right. Those who wish to limit Rights are not to be trusted.

0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Aug, 2018 11:00 am
@Zardoz,
Quote:
Rosanne works for a private employer she is a will and pleasure employee and can be terminated for any reason or no reason at all. Her employer does not need grant her freedom of speech. If she were a union employee she could only be terminated for good cause. It would be up to an arbitrator to decide if what she did amounted to just cause.

I'm not sure why you break up your responses to a single post into multiple posts and then do only a single post a night.

As I noted in the above post, plenty of public employees have been fired for the same type of speech issues. It seems being a public employee doesn't protect you from the mob.
https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/legal-and-compliance/employment-law/pages/public-employee-offensive-social-media-posts-unprotected.aspx

http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/public_employees_private_speech?icn=most_read

The Military also do not retain their full scope of Rights while serving in the military, as can be shown by a Marine who was discharged after being critical of President Obama. I can't seem to find any news stories about service members being discharged for being critical of either President Bush or President Trump.
https://www.cnn.com/2012/04/25/us/marine-obama/index.html

Just cause? Seeing the language being used by online leftwing "comedians", it would seem that the "just cause" line is movable and favors those who are criticize people on the right. Samatha Bee calling Ivanka Trump a ****? That's pretty bad if you ask me.

Quote:
This is one many union members had a problem with they viewed the union as something separate from them. When they criticized they union you would have to remind them what the term union meant. If they had a problem they just needed to participate to make things better.

They didn't want to be a part of the Union, so of course they saw it was something separate from them. You are a collectivist, these is no room for the individual. How do you feel about "scabs"?

Quote:
If government employees could not unionize they would not even make minimum wage.

Proof? Facts? Links?

Quote:
Governments are exempt from minimum wage laws. There is no doubt in my mind that belonging to a union is a free speech issue.

I do not believe they are exempt and even if they were, the majority of govt employee's are making well above the min wage. For the federal govt, they use the GS system for wages. This covers a majority of the positions for civilians in the federal govt. As for cities? That I can't tell you, you should be serving your community, not looking for a pay day.

Quote:
If you have a screw driver you know what it was designed for. If you have an assault weapon you know it was designed to kill as many people as possible. It is pretty simple to understand what something was designed to do.

You really need to stop attributing your own motives to guns. You can say what you think they were designed for, but isn't that guns in general? What matters is the reason people buy their guns and you will find that the vast majority buy them for 3 reasons, hunting, target shooting or self-defense. To claim these people have other motives is something you won't be able to prove but it won't stop you from coloring them in the worst light possible.

Quote:
Whitaker Chambers in his autobiography was very clear why he defected from the communist party he believed they were going to kill him and he hid out with his family for a good while before deciding to come in out of the cold.

You forgot to mention he says the Purge taking place in Russia and became disillusioned with Communism when he saw the lie it was built on. It had nothing to do with helping the people, but instead it was putting the people under the yoke of oppression.

Quote:
I never understood why Whitaker Chamber was not executed by the parents of the American sailors that were killed when our battleships were sunk using the stolen plans sent to the Nazis by Whitaker Chambers.

Now he was helping the Nazi's, I thought he was a Communist who spied for Russia? This is the problem with your type of propaganda, you can't keep your stories straight.

Quote:
When the right made a national hero out of a known communist spy they tried to whitewash him.

Your opinions on people who trash your political philosophy are not worthy of consideration.

Quote:
I notice your quotes don’t come from the best source on Whitaker Chambers his autobiography.

Wait, is the source-less person talking about other people's sources? You can't be serious can you? When you post even one link or source on this thread, then you can talk about my sources, which I actually provide in every single post. This is a little like living in a glass house and throwing stones...


0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Aug, 2018 11:29 am
@Zardoz,
Quote:
Whitaker Chambers not only gave the Nazis the top-secret plans for our battleships that showed the Nazis precisely where best to target their torpedoes to sink our battleships. Chambers also handed over top secret plans for a bombing site that made bombing runs more efficient to Nazis. These resulted in thousands of more American soldiers being killed.

Nazi's? I thought he was a Communist spy? This was addressed in the last post, so I'm not going to finish.
As I have pointed out before, the only point you have is to discredit someone who turned against your political ideals. You don't care about him being a "traitor" to the US, you are pissed that he was a traitor against Communism. You are using the same type of smear campaign used by religions when someone leaves them, strike out and discredit them at every turn so no one believes what they are saying about the religion. Scientology is the latest example of this taking place, and apparently current Socialists use the same tactic against former Socialists. Lets not forget, that all Communists are Socialist but not all Socialists are Communists, you fall into the Socialist category and try to discredit people because they speak out against Socialism.

Quote:
Opposite sides? Then why did so many prominent communists become Republicans?

Let me rephrase that for you...
Why did so many former communists become Republicans?
Easy answer, when you want to fight against Socialism/Communism, you join the group who actually wants to fight them, you don't join a party that wants to be a just like the group you are fighting. Except for JFK, who saw Communism for what it was, the DNC has always flirted with Socialism, the New Deal being a prime example.

Quote:
The political spectrum is best described as a circle and one extreme is close to the other extreme.

I don't agree. To the extreme left you have Fascism and Communism, which is represented by total and utter control of a country by the govt, to the extreme right you have anarchy, where you have zero govt. Those are the political extreme's, trying to link "right-wing" dictators to left-wing dictators is silly. In fact a "right-wing" dictator sholdn't even exist as to the far right you have anarchy with no one in control of anything. Of course I base this on the US view of politics, with those on the left advocating for as much centralized govt control as possible and on the right with a belief that "govt should be small enough to drown in a bucket", meaning the less govt the better, which is closer to anarchy then it is to any form of dictatorship.

I don't see a religious right-wing group as being "right-wing" when they want to use the power of govt to enforce their ideals, that runs counter to Personal Liberty and what the Constitution was written to protect, it dips towards a tyrannical govt which on the spectrum once again points towards the left side of the spectrum and total govt control of the masses.

Quote:
Surely you realize that human greed has been here thousands of years before Marx was even born.

Greed is part of the normal human condition of survival, without it we would have died off a long time ago. Socialism leads to stagnation and a lack of innovation. Greed is good and has benefited the human species and will continue to benefit the species as we strive to reach out beyond our own planet and conquer the stars, you and your ilk will not curb human nature.
Zardoz
 
  2  
Reply Mon 13 Aug, 2018 09:08 pm
@Baldimo,
To start with you need to read both Whitaker Chambers autobiography and his biography and you need to know a little about history. On August 1939 The Nazis signed a nonaggression pact with Russia to prevent an alliance with the western powers In September 1st, 1939 Germany invaded Poland and started WWII. Russia did not join the allies until June of 1941. The communist shared Chambers stolen Intelligence with the Nazis during those two years. There is no question about this because the Chambers’ stolen intelligence was discovered in the Nazi’s hands.

Why was Whitaker Chambers such a hero to the conservatives? The Republicans had been voted out of power after they caused the Great Depression and for two decades they could not regain that power. In every hero’s tale there has to be a boogieman for the hero to overcome. In this case it was communism that was the boogieman, but the problem was that they had no smoking gun that would show that communists had taken over our government. That is where Whitaker Chambers comes in he can show that Alger Hiss was a communist working in our government because he was working for Chambers and Chambers has the originals from Hiss typewriter and the FBI found the typewriter. It was only one communist, but it was the trial of the century at the time and enough to elect the first Republican President in 20 years. It didn’t matter that Chambers was responsible for the deaths of 10s of thousands of American military men he was responsible for the Republicans return to power and they were quite willing to overlook those deaths.

During baby Bush’s term in office the conservatives still celebrated Whitaker Chambers birthday as a national hero in the Whitehouse. What we are seeing today is history repeating itself the Republican party has once again allied itself with communists to gain political power.
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Aug, 2018 08:54 am
@Zardoz,
Quote:
The communist shared Chambers stolen Intelligence with the Nazis during those two years. There is no question about this because the Chambers’ stolen intelligence was discovered in the Nazi’s hands.

Proof? Facts? Links?
I've searched online and I can't find a single reference to this claim except your own words.

Quote:
Why was Whitaker Chambers such a hero to the conservatives?

He saw the left start to drift towards socialism with the New Deal and knew if he didn't speak up that we would turn out like Russia, which the American left has no problem with.

Quote:
The Republicans had been voted out of power after they caused the Great Depression and for two decades they could not regain that power.

Caused the Great Depression?

Quote:
In every hero’s tale there has to be a boogieman for the hero to overcome. In this case it was communism that was the boogieman, but the problem was that they had no smoking gun that would show that communists had taken over our government.

Communism is as bad as they claimed it was, the Great Purge in the USSR proved this to be true. Over 100,000 million people have been killed by their own govt's in the pursuit of communism. The fact you are calling them the "boogieman" is funny.

Quote:
That is where Whitaker Chambers comes in he can show that Alger Hiss was a communist working in our government because he was working for Chambers and Chambers has the originals from Hiss typewriter and the FBI found the typewriter.

Yes, and Alger Hiss was proven to be a Soviet Spy.

Quote:
It was only one communist, but it was the trial of the century at the time and enough to elect the first Republican President in 20 years.

You mean almost 4 years later when there was an election? Project Verona was already in effect and as history has proven, the USSR was indeed using spies in the US to steal our national secrets. Why do you feel the need to show favoritism towards Communism?

Quote:
It didn’t matter that Chambers was responsible for the deaths of 10s of thousands of American military men he was responsible for the Republicans return to power and they were quite willing to overlook those deaths.

You have provided zero facts on this issue.

Quote:
During baby Bush’s term in office the conservatives still celebrated Whitaker Chambers birthday as a national hero in the Whitehouse. What we are seeing today is history repeating itself the Republican party has once again allied itself with communists to gain political power.

Just because you keep saying it, doesn't make it true. Only someone who is a Communist apologist would be upset by someone defecting from the Communism and fighting against the rise of Communism.

Why are you so favorable to Communism and why do you feel the need to defend it?
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2018 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 08/19/2018 at 11:17:04