How do you justify this lunacy?

#26
#26
Vol Mania 21 said:
couldn't have said it better myself. why do you think ppl from other countries who have the universal healthcare come here??? maybe because their healthcare blows

universal healthcare would be one of the worst things that could happen
Click to expand...

I read an article today that said in a survey about 20% of doctors would stop practicing if universal healthcare was enacted. This is an enormous number. Granted, their reason was the money that would NOT be going in their pockets as a result of universal healthcare. What they fail to look at is, what are they going to do for work? What other job are they going to get that pays anywhere near what they would make even with universal health care?
Yes we have a problem in this country with health care. Socialized medicine is not the answer. It would only make the problem worse. You would not only have fewer people in the medical field, but fewer who want to get into it. Overall quality of care will decline and the result would be more trips to the doctor. Which results in a larger burden on the health care system. And who will be responsible for the cost? Joe Taxpayer that's who.
Competition is the answer. Not socialization.
 
#27
#27
If you want to know what the government will do with healthcare, take a look at everything else that is government operated. Why are people coming form Canada to the U.S. to have surgery? Free healthcare doesn't exactly help me if I die before I can use it. If you think government spendind is out of control now, wait until UHC is implemented.

I will certainly stand aghast at that point.
 
#29
#29
Looking in the emergency room recently (thanks to my foot) everyone already gets free health care. So why does it make you angry if placing the people without insurance on a plan, at worst life stays the same at best cost go down.
 
#30
#30
TennNC said:
How about I ask you a question?

Obama just named his top economic adviser - the protege of the chairman of Citigroup's executive committee.

Obama Names Rubin Ally Furman to Economic Policy Post - Yahoo! News

Does that sound like he's pursuing a Socialist economic policy?
Click to expand...
Did you actually read the article? That's a virtual who's who of the liberal economics world.

Bottom up economics is very much a socialist agenda that makes little sense. The whole, we're empowering people to control their own financial realm, is just consultant speak for robbing Peter to pay Paul so Paul will vote for me forever.

So, in a word, yes.
 
#31
#31
Yea, I figured BPV would weigh in with that. I didn't see how the article TennNC posted was supposed to help TennNC's case.
 
#32
#32
allvol123 said:
Yea, I figured BPV would weigh in with that. I didn't see how the article TennNC posted was supposed to help TennNC's case.
Click to expand...
you calling me predictable? I've been called a lot of things in my life, many of them true, but this is a first for predictable.
 
#33
#33
No, just an economic guru. I came to the same conclusion as you, but knew you would word it better.
 
#34
#34
jamesd1628 said:
America already has the best health care in the world.

Socialist health-care systems in other countries don't work.
Virtually anything the government tries to operate is a failure.

Socialism has been tried over and over again - it has never worked. It never will.

Obama saying that he will provide healthcare is nothing more than an attempt to buy votes based on ignorant sympathies. Unfortunately, that seems to work.

The government can't provide anything - all they can do is take money from one part of the population and give it to someone else. That's called theft, robbery, plunder, etc. It's a crime if an individual tries to do it, it's called Socialism if the government does it.
Click to expand...

Terrible point. This is one I get sick of hearing the far right cry out. Aren't we supposed to be better than everyone else? Can't we find a solution like no other country has? Certainly we can. I hate your argument, using other countries as a barometer. It has no merit. We have the resources to do things most every other country can't do. I am not a huge Obama supporter, but am not going to vote for McCain under any circumstance.

I respect your opinions, but that is only what they are.

Do you guys on the right even look at the FACT that the middle class proportion to national wealth has dropped significantly over the past six years? It is why EXXONMOBIL SHOULD be paying more tax. They aren't creating jobs. In FACT, they have REDUCED their workforce significantly over the past 12 years and are making record PROFITS. There is no trickle down from them.
 
#36
#36
truefan said:
Terrible point. This is one I get sick of hearing the far right cry out. Aren't we supposed to be better than everyone else? Can't we find a solution like no other country has? Certainly we can. I hate your argument, using other countries as a barometer. It has no merit. We have the resources to do things most every other country can't do. I am not a huge Obama supporter, but am not going to vote for McCain under any circumstance.

I respect your opinions, but that is only what they are.

Do you guys on the right even look at the FACT that the middle class proportion to national wealth has dropped significantly over the past six years? It is why EXXONMOBIL SHOULD be paying more tax. They aren't creating jobs. In FACT, they have REDUCED their workforce significantly over the past 12 years and are making record PROFITS. There is no trickle down from them.
Click to expand...
I can't force you to think rationally, but it would help if you would try.

First, the comparative healthcare lie vis a vis quality of US care relative the rest of the world was floated by one of your brethren. That lie has been touted by fringe UN style loonies for years. Nobody has better healthcare and nobody in the US gets turned away. I know it doesn't support your Robin Hood nature, but that's the truth.

What on earth does Exxon's tax bill have to do with this mythical wealth shift you describe? And why should they be employing more people if they can make larger profits without them? That is as socialist an idea as humanly possible and is the reason that our Auto industry is in shambles and shedding jobs like Daly at the TrimSpa.

Finally, if you believe your provider of wealth transition info, have you thought through the driver of that trend. Wonder if it has anything to do with stock bubble burst and housing bubble burst?
 
#39
#39
truefan said:
. . . Aren't we supposed to be better than everyone else? Can't we find a solution like no other country has? . . .
Click to expand...

This is a trap that has been the downfall of every great society that has ever tried Socialism and/or Communism. "We know everyone else has failed at this, but we can do it, we're better." Socialism doesn't work because of the basic laws of economics. We can't change those laws no matter how great we are. It's the equivalent of a drug addict thinking he can fly and jumping off a building. Even if that drug addict is, say, the greatest athlete of all time, he's still going to crash to the ground because, no matter how great of an athlete he is, he cannot change the law of gravity.

truefan said:
. . . EXXONMOBIL SHOULD be paying more tax. . . .
Click to expand...

Is it that difficult to understand that you can't tax a corporation that is engaged in an ongoing business? Those taxes will simply get passed to the consumer in the form of higher prices. Taxing the oil companies simply means taxing the consumer in the form of higher gas prices. Do you want higher gas prices? On top of that, what do you propose to do about the ridiculous amount of money that the government makes off of oil, without raising a finger to do anything to help bring that oil to the market? The oil companies work for their profits, whereas the government just sits back and collects its oil money for nothing. Who really should be punished in this scenario?

truefan said:
. . . the FACT that the middle class proportion to national wealth has dropped significantly over the past six years . . .
Click to expand...

I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make with this statistic, but as we all know, there are a variety of ways to interpret such statistics. Say, for example, a country as a whole increases its wealth over a six-year period, and the richest members of society increase their wealth during that period more than the middle class increases its wealth. Is that a bad thing? Maybe it means that the super-wealthy were in that position for a reason, and thus took better advantage of the overall increase in wealth during that period. The problem with Socialism is that it will make everyone poorer, those at the top, middle and bottom. Capitalism does produce differences in wealth among the members of society, but so what? Some people work harder, work better, are smarter, etc., and thus deserve more of the wealth. But the key point to note is that Capitalism raises society as a whole. Those at the bottom of the heap are much better off in a capitalist society than they would be in a Socialist society. It sounds to me like you just can't live with some people having more than others.
 
#40
#40
BigPapaVol said:
Did you actually read the article? 1) That's a virtual who's who of the liberal economics world.

Bottom up economics is very much a socialist agenda that makes little sense. The whole, we're empowering people to control their own financial realm, is just consultant speak for robbing Peter to pay Paul so Paul will vote for me forever.

So, in a word, yes.
Click to expand...

I did read it.

This is your perspective. You must think Clinton was a Socialist too, I presume.

Here's a different perspective:

Obama's selection of Jason Furman as economic advisor is criticized - Los Angeles Times

Why do you supposed liberal/leftist economists and interest groups are criticizing Furman? Shouldn't they be in his camp?
 
#41
#41
TennNC said:
I did read it.

This is your perspective. You must think Clinton was a Socialist too, I presume.

Here's a different perspective:

Obama's selection of Jason Furman as economic advisor is criticized - Los Angeles Times

Why do you supposed liberal/leftist economists and interest groups are criticizing Furman? Shouldn't they be in his camp?
Click to expand...
Seems to me another article that you only skimmed or misunderstood. The people complaing aren't griping about his penchant for taxing and spending. They complained specifically that he's too easy on Wal-Mart, doesn't support unions and he's for globalization (which is anti-union). That's hardly where you're trying to go in making him out to be something other than he is. Being called a centrist by the LA Times is akin to being called a centrist by Limbaugh.

Regardless, why don't you walk me through the monetary cycle under a bottom up regime. Tell me how the growth and transition to prosperity works out. It's nothing but a better name for wealth redistribution, because amazingly enough, money never, ever, ever, ever starts at the bottom, unless stolen.
 
#43
#43
I didn't mean to lump the middle class wealth reduction with the Exxon statement. They are two different subjects entirely.

My point about Exxon is against everything against what you believe. I have heard the wealthiest, most profitable companies shouldn't pay more tax because they are providing jobs to the middle class - which stimulates the economy.......
:birgits_giggle:

They are making record profits at the EXPENSE of the middle class...get it. Reduce work force. Many middle managers laid off....can't get same type of job, i.e. salary, forced to take lower paying job. Less disposable income, but pay more tax, while EXXON pays less tax. While CEO pays less tax. Now, former employee of EXXON making 65,000/yr. Big adjustment. Tax increase hits. Can't purchase another car for two years because he/she just doesn't have the same disposableincome as before. And when they buy new car, it is a Dodge Avenger instead of a Lexus. Guess what, if you reduce his tax, a little, he might be able to purchase Lexus again. Guess what, if you increas the CEO's tax, a little, he is STILL going to purchase his new Mercedes.

it is an easy fix
 
#44
#44
truefann, you must not remember the 90's well when gas was under a dollar. many oil companies had to shut down because the the supplies were so great. all the major oil companies struggled during the 90's.

Truefann, it is really good seeing a true example of a socialist's beliefs.
 
#45
#45
truefan said:
I didn't mean to lump the middle class wealth reduction with the Exxon statement. They are two different subjects entirely.

My point about Exxon is against everything against what you believe. I have heard the wealthiest, most profitable companies shouldn't pay more tax because they are providing jobs to the middle class - which stimulates the economy.......
:birgits_giggle:

They are making record profits at the EXPENSE of the middle class...get it. Reduce work force. Many middle managers laid off....can't get same type of job, i.e. salary, forced to take lower paying job. Less disposable income, but pay more tax, while EXXON pays less tax. While CEO pays less tax. Now, former employee of EXXON making 65,000/yr. Big adjustment. Tax increase hits. Can't purchase another car for two years because he/she just doesn't have the same disposableincome as before. And when they buy new car, it is a Dodge Avenger instead of a Lexus. Guess what, if you reduce his tax, a little, he might be able to purchase Lexus again. Guess what, if you increas the CEO's tax, a little, he is STILL going to purchase his new Mercedes.

it is an easy fix
Click to expand...

Jeez, truefan, do you realize that you're a socialist, or are you attempting to contend that it's just a matter of opinion?
 
#46
#46
truefan said:
Now, former employee of EXXON making 65,000/yr. Big adjustment. Tax increase hits. Can't purchase another car for two years because he/she just doesn't have the same disposableincome as before. And when they buy new car, it is a Dodge Avenger instead of a Lexus. Guess what, if you reduce his tax, a little, he might be able to purchase Lexus again. Guess what, if you increas the CEO's tax, a little, he is STILL going to purchase his new Mercedes.
Click to expand...

So Big Oil will spur American auto production in your opinion. That is a good thing right?

:ermm:
 
#47
#47
truefan said:
I didn't mean to lump the middle class wealth reduction with the Exxon statement. They are two different subjects entirely.

My point about Exxon is against everything against what you believe. I have heard the wealthiest, most profitable companies shouldn't pay more tax because they are providing jobs to the middle class - which stimulates the economy.......
:birgits_giggle:

They are making record profits at the EXPENSE of the middle class...get it. Reduce work force. Many middle managers laid off....can't get same type of job, i.e. salary, forced to take lower paying job. Less disposable income, but pay more tax, while EXXON pays less tax. While CEO pays less tax. Now, former employee of EXXON making 65,000/yr. Big adjustment. Tax increase hits. Can't purchase another car for two years because he/she just doesn't have the same disposableincome as before. And when they buy new car, it is a Dodge Avenger instead of a Lexus. Guess what, if you reduce his tax, a little, he might be able to purchase Lexus again. Guess what, if you increas the CEO's tax, a little, he is STILL going to purchase his new Mercedes.

it is an easy fix
Click to expand...
when you boil the arguments down to individuals, your emotional garbage works well and the individual CEO appears that he can easily afford it. But that is as intellectually dishonest as humanly possible. It's not about that CEO nor about the individual who lost his job. It's about sweeping policies that impact the nation as a whole and make long term impacts on everyone. The difference is enormous.

Nobody is arguing that they shouldn't pay more tax. They absolutely do pay more. They shouldn't pay more as a % than anyone else does. Otherwise, it's pure socialism, which would be an absolute deterrent in the oil industry. The biggest income tax providers for 2008 are going to be oil companies and those who own shares of oil companies. Both are going to get shelled, even under the current policies. Singling them out to pay more is simply nothing akin to capitalism. Call it what you will, but capitalism doesn't fit. Starting down that slippery slope is an enormous deterrent to risk taking in business, which is the heart of the economy that makes our country the economic marvel it is.

As a shareholder, I would fully expect everyone at Exxon to find a way to minimize expenses and maximize profits, rather than being in the social engineering business. Let's leave the social engineering on the part of corporations to folks in China.
 
#48
#48
jamesd1628 said:
Jeez, truefan, do you realize that you're a socialist, or are you attempting to contend that it's just a matter of opinion?
Click to expand...

:)

I am not going to argue with you. I am just trying to make a point about our current tax structure. I am not for major overhaul, just a little decrease for the middle class and a little increase for the wealthiest individuals.

I may or may not be a socialist. I am for a strong military yet it is time to get most of our soldiers out of Iraq. It isn't surrenduring or accepting defeat. We did what we set out to do, had no exit strategy and are now in a bind. They don't want us there, we don't want us there. They obviously haven't met their agreements. We can't continue to help them fight their civil war. it isn't our war against terror.... If in the future, we have to bomb Iran, then so be it.

I don't want to get on a soapbox. I need to go home and start getting ready for my excursion into Bonnaroo.

Lets just say there will be lots to talk about between now and November. You know Rush, Ann and Hannity will be happier if Barack wins. They will love it
 
#49
#49
truefan said:
:)

I am not going to argue with you. I am just trying to make a point about our current tax structure. I am not for major overhaul, just a little decrease for the middle class and a little increase for the wealthiest individuals.

I may or may not be a socialist. I am for a strong military yet it is time to get most of our soldiers out of Iraq. It isn't surrenduring or accepting defeat. We did what we set out to do, had no exit strategy and are now in a bind. They don't want us there, we don't want us there. They obviously haven't met their agreements. We can't continue to help them fight their civil war. it isn't our war against terror.... If in the future, we have to bomb Iran, then so be it.

I don't want to get on a soapbox. I need to go home and start getting ready for my excursion into Bonnaroo.

Lets just say there will be lots to talk about between now and November. You know Rush, Ann and Hannity will be happier if Barack wins. They will love it
Click to expand...

Unless you mean that will give them fodder for their shows/column, then why would they? Dems do enough without having to win a presidency to fill up a show every day.
 
#50
#50
truefan said:
:)

I am not going to argue with you. I am just trying to make a point about our current tax structure. I am not for major overhaul, just a little decrease for the middle class and a little increase for the wealthiest individuals.

I may or may not be a socialist. I am for a strong military yet it is time to get most of our soldiers out of Iraq. It isn't surrenduring or accepting defeat. We did what we set out to do, had no exit strategy and are now in a bind. They don't want us there, we don't want us there. They obviously haven't met their agreements. We can't continue to help them fight their civil war. it isn't our war against terror.... If in the future, we have to bomb Iran, then so be it.

I don't want to get on a soapbox. I need to go home and start getting ready for my excursion into Bonnaroo.

Lets just say there will be lots to talk about between now and November. You know Rush, Ann and Hannity will be happier if Barack wins. They will love it
Click to expand...

No, in fact we did nothing we set out to do in Iraq.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top