tax on wealthy is legitimate

[DCortez]

Didn't watch Meet the Press, changed the channel when I saw Sebilius was on. But here's a nugget.

[url]http://www.politico.com/blogs/politicolive/0709/Tax_on_Wealthy_is_Legitimate.html?showall[/URL]

 

[M. Sage]

She says that there's money in the system!? Where?! Where is the money in a system that's running a trillion plus in the red!? Show me this mythical money!

 

[Texas42]

They are playing with monopoly money anyways. . . . . .

The sad thing is that there is a lot of really stupid ideas of what "wealthy" is. I doubt there is any person or business that makes 250K a year considers themselves wealthy. Sure they are doing better than most people, but frankly they don't have enough money saved.

Even if it is morally ok, to tax "wealthy people," there simply isn't enough money to tax to pay for it all.

I always find it funny, in a sad sort of way how people just don't get it. The Bush "tax cuts" lowered taxes for lots of people, but government revenues went way up.

You raise taxes, it hurts the economy, and the government makes less money in taxes.

The tax code should be set up to encourage economic growth, but Obama and his team are using it as a political hammer to garner political and ideological support.

I hate politicians, and I hate socialists politicians the most.

 

[Jeff B]

Anyone who has climbed onto Obama's bandwagon will go on the air or in print to spout the party line. Most of them know that it is total BS, and that the only way to come anywhere close to paying for these grand Marxist dreams will be to tax the hell out of everybody. Their goal is to create a country that is dependant on, beholden to and completely submissive to the Federal (Central) Government.

The day that one or several states seriously begin to move towards regional sovereignty is coming closer all the time. It's fine with me if the Northeast and California want to live in the workers paradise, just don't insist on dragging me along for the ride...

Jeff B.

 

[GM.Chief]

The problem with the people who want to tax the wealthy is that they don't really believe it. Or should I say it's ok until they become wealthy, then it's stay the hell away from my money.,

 

[idleprocess]

Anyone who has climbed onto Obama's bandwagon will go on the air or in print to spout the party line. Most of them know that it is total BS, and that the only way to come anywhere close to paying for these grand Marxist dreams will be to tax the hell out of everybody. Their goal is to create a country that is dependant on, beholden to and completely submissive to the Federal (Central) Government.

So, uhm, why didn't Obama nationalize the banks, transform GM into a state industry, or sweep aside the insurance companies given the key opportunities in the recent past?

 

[Nikolai]

She says that there's money in the system!? Where?! Where is the money in a system that's running a trillion plus in the red!? Show me this mythical money!

Just because you've never seen a million bucks doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

 

[Okierifleman]

Anyone who believes that the wealthy need to be taxed at some jacked up rate has never had to work in the private sector. I would go out on a limb and say that 75% of Washington has never worked for a living or that it has been such a long time since they have that they have totally forgotten what it is like. They are being paid by those of us that are the private sector, elected by those of us in the private sector, and are the first to rape and pillage us for more.

If the government wheel starts getting a little rusty and they need a little more money to give away to crappy union controlled companies, John Murtha's projects, welfare, illegal immigrants, banks, or anyone else they need to buy votes from, they have two options. They can either print some more, or they can steal it from people who have worked for it. Either way, the people who create jobs pay for it. Our way of life is in serious danger. The more people who get on the government tit, the more democrats get in office.

"Government takes from the needy and gives to the greedy"

 

[DCortez]

Stupid people seem to think money grows on trees and don't have a problem confiscating other people's hard work, good fortune, or inheritance.

 

[Texas1911]

So, uhm, why didn't Obama nationalize the banks, transform GM into a state industry, or sweep aside the insurance companies given the key opportunities in the recent past?

Because he can't outright do it does not mean he won't in the long term.

No one can deny that Obama is a socialist. If you do, then you are blind.

 

[idleprocess]

Because he can't outright do it does not mean he won't in the long term.

No one can deny that Obama is a socialist. If you do, then you are blind.

The label "socialist" is bandied about so often that it has lost it's meaning. If you want a genuine socialist then look at weirdos like Dennis Kucinich, who can't even make it into early-phase primary debates. As good of friends as Onama and company seem to be withthw banks and insurers (and as powerful as those interests are in DC), I really don't even see any of this paranoia coming to be.

 

[DCortez]

I really don't even see any of this paranoia coming to be.

It's like anything. You can't build a bridge over night, and you have to have a plan.


I think it's coming but I hope you are right.

 

[Okierifleman]

The label "socialist" is bandied about so often that it has lost it's meaning. If you want a genuine socialist then look at weirdos like Dennis Kucinich, who can't even make it into early-phase primary debates. As good of friends as Onama and company seem to be withthw banks and insurers (and as powerful as those interests are in DC), I really don't even see any of this paranoia coming to be.

Well, I am not quite sure what you are going to try to call what is happening to this nation. But when the government owns everything, its called socialism where I come from. When the government gets to dictate who gets money and who they get to steal it from, you can call it socialism or Marxism or whatever makes you sleep better at night. But it still remains that both are a redistribution of wealth and who does the distributing. That is right out of Lenin's writings. " An order of civilized co-operators to which the means of production are socially owned" So, you can agree that Obamanana is a Socialist or not, but does any of this sound familiar????????????????????????????????????????

 

[Texas1911]

The label "socialist" is bandied about so often that it has lost it's meaning.

Obama wants to redistribute wealth in the country, he wants to tax the wealthy in order to provide service to the poor, and he's wanting to socialize health care and retirement in the United States.

No matter how you cut it... that is a socialist ideology at work. Modern day liberals are socialists, and modern day Republicans are far from conservatives. The entire title scheme in Washington is inept, but that doesn't mean that the words themselves don't hold their own value.

The fact that he's in with the money doesn't mean he's not a socialist, it just makes him a politician. He knows he has to fund his new agenda, and needs the backing of the private sector. The private sector is smarter than Washington, they'll play Washington and motivate themselves into a profitable position no matter what is passed down the sewer.

 

[Texas42]

. . . .
No matter how you cut it... that is a socialist ideology at work. Modern day liberals are socialists, and modern day Republicans are far from conservatives. The entire title scheme in Washington is inept, but that doesn't mean that the words themselves don't hold their own value.

The fact that he's in with the money doesn't mean he's not a socialist, it just makes him a politician. He knows he has to fund his new agenda, and needs the backing of the private sector. The private sector is smarter than Washington, they'll play Washington and motivate themselves into a profitable position no matter what is passed down the sewer.

+1

I believe it was Lenin who said something along the lines of, "the business would sell us the rope we used to hang them."

Businesses aren't conservative or liberal. They just try and make money.

 

[idleprocess]

This is where I make it apparent that I have no interest in being the most popular member of the forum.

I'm an adherent to one of the more common interpretations of Occam's razor:
The simplest answer is usually the correct answer

Could President Obama be plotting some weird socialist movement in spite of a lack of broad support for such a thing? Sure. Are the big policy actions we've seen possible opening moves in such a things? Sure. Does it seem likely? To me it doesn't seem likely at all.

If you start out with a foregone conclusion, every action becomes a stepping stone towards that which you think will happen. The Obama administration's virtual ejection of Rick Waggoner from GM (not a good thing for GM in my opinion) becomes as clear stepping stone towards socialism as President Obama's choice of cheerios or wheaties for breakfast next Teusday.

The bank and automaker bailouts started under President Bush. President Obama hasn't done much to alter those. I disagree with the bank bailouts because it prevents a much needed correction in our inflated real estate market and the deep-pockets idiots don't take the bath needed for them to re-learn market fundamentals. If we're going to throw hundreds of billions at the banks so they can keep up the funny money smoke-and-mirrors game, then I have no problem throwing a few tens of taxpayer billions of money at real industry ala the automakers - who produce real wealth unlike the inflation that we have the banks to thank for.

Healthcare has been a simmering political issue over the past 20 years now that's threatening to boil. Private industry, left to itself (and with help from legislatures state and national), has succeeded in driving up the costs of health care without any real benefit to the consumer. Small surprise that congress feels the need to act since the free market has generated inefficiency with the middleman squeezing both ends.

I don't particularly like President Obama, but I find I'm disliking him less than I did President Bush. I know he's been quoted saying some very leftist stuff in his younger years (some alarming race-baiting and outright wealth redistribution talk) - and actions along those veins should be scrutinized - but he hasn't proposed anything outrageous that I'm aware of.

Back to Occam's Razor - I see the Obama administration breaking with the Bush administration's policies in far milder ways than the election campaign would have left you thinking in November. They're not all good, but they're not all awful either. Thus I must conclude that the administration's claims are mostly valid on their face. I could be wrong and will certainly admit as much should circumstances change.

And before anyone wonders where I stand politically - I am neither conservative nor liberal; neither populist nor libertarian (although that's the quadrant I'm often closest to). I see the Republicans continually backing themselves into a corner with their over-reliance on their, uhm, Southern Methodist base and it disappoints me because they don't seem to be winning in the popular imagination anywhere near enough to counter the Democrats - who don't have better ideas, but go over better on the 6 o'clock news.

I expect that many will disagree with me. I am not trying to debate anyone nor am I determined to change minds. I'm just tossing some thoughts and ideas out there to further the discussion.

 

[Texas42]

Idleprocess,

I don't think Bush was anything close to a conservative.

I believe he had morals, and a general disregard for what people thought of him.

That doesn't make his actions right or wrong.

The only thing that I really disagree with you is about healthcare. Calling the Health industry a free market is a joke. Relatively few people individually purchase health insurance. They buy it through their job. This is bad. They lose their job, they lose their insurance, and there is less competition.

You want the price of regular health maintenance to go down? then make it so that the patient bears all the cost of "normal" medical procedures.

But people don't want that. They want to pay their 20 dollar co-pay or their 500 dollar deductible.

There is lots of reform that can be done to make things better, but the democrats aren't going to do any of them. I don't think the Republicans would do anything better.

I do think we have made lots of advancements in medicine, but we have had some real setbacks in the areas of emerging (kind of hard to still think of HIV an emerging disease, but it is realively new) and resistant diseases.

I've kind of gotten off topic, but this is discussing things. right?

 

[idleprocess]

You want the price of regular health maintenance to go down? then make it so that the patient bears all the cost of "normal" medical procedures.

But people don't want that. They want to pay their 20 dollar co-pay or their 500 dollar deductible.

Oh, I absolutely agree with you on that. I've long believed that "cash price" healthcare for the routine stuff would drive prices down to reality. Health insurance should be used like other insurance - for potentially life-ruining emergencies that most people can't pay for themselves.

But everyone likes the idea of it costing only the co-pay while their employer chunks out several hundred a month. Thus you get into the nasty cycle of the doctors inflating the cost of "usual and customary" price schedules in the hope of getting something reasonable out of the insurance company 90/120/180 days later. Of course, they have to positively shaft the few people paying cash in order to maintain the facade...

I gather that one can occasionally negotiate a reasonable cash price in advance for some major procedure if you approach the doctor in the right way - perhaps even offer a service swap if you have a useful skill that the doctor needs. It's often a significant discount off the "schedule" price, but still a lot to swallow.

The problem with the current system seems to be that the insurers effectively control the "supply" of doctors' services much like they also control the "demand" of paying patients. It will not be easy for any entity to open up or change that system due to inertia and the difficulties of working outside of it.

 

[Texas1911]

This is where I make it apparent that I have no interest in being the most popular member of the forum.

There's nothing wrong with having your own opinion. Especially if you are willing to back it up with some degree of intelligent and reasonable logic, as you seem to be.

Could President Obama be plotting some weird socialist movement in spite of a lack of broad support for such a thing? Sure. Are the big policy actions we've seen possible opening moves in such a things? Sure. Does it seem likely? To me it doesn't seem likely at all.

This is where I disagree. Our bipartisan political games and general simplicity minded rhetoric from the media has left many people seeing black and white. Obama is a socialist, but he is not a socialist in the absolute definition of the ideology. We call the right, Republicans, but they are far from a true living example.

There are differing degrees of everything, and Obama represents socialism when you contrast it to the ideals of a true republic, and the ideals this country was founded upon.

If you start out with a foregone conclusion, every action becomes a stepping stone towards that which you think will happen. The Obama administration's virtual ejection of Rick Waggoner from GM (not a good thing for GM in my opinion) becomes as clear stepping stone towards socialism as President Obama's choice of cheerios or wheaties for breakfast next Teusday.

In retrospect, the Government controlling, in the literal sense, a supposed "free-market" company is a fundamental ideal of socialism. I have never seen this in my lifetime. It is a major cause for alarm in my mind, and is considerably more intrusive than what the President decided to eat that day.

The bank and automaker bailouts started under President Bush. President Obama hasn't done much to alter those. I disagree with the bank bailouts because it prevents a much needed correction in our inflated real estate market and the deep-pockets idiots don't take the bath needed for them to re-learn market fundamentals. If we're going to throw hundreds of billions at the banks so they can keep up the funny money smoke-and-mirrors game, then I have no problem throwing a few tens of taxpayer billions of money at real industry ala the automakers - who produce real wealth unlike the inflation that we have the banks to thank for.

No politician wants to be a part of the collapse of the credit industry, and it's ramifications on the consumer level. Both parties are at fault (consumer and producer), and the Government played, perhaps, the largest role in the collapse of the market by continuously lowering the Fed rates.

This is a fundamental problem with the habits of the American consumer, and the result of letting the leash loose on the entire system at the Government level (namely flooding the market with cheap credit). Everyone wants to blame the business's but honestly that'd be ignorant of the entire situation.

The automakers need to go bankrupt. They need to shed themselves of the UAW and begin to focus on fulfilling the American, and emerging Chinese, market with marketable, and profitable, vehicles. By bailing them out we are really prolonging their inevitable death, and wasting tax payer dollars. The automakers are much more resilient because as you said, they have physical assets. Why do you think all of the other automakers like Nissan, Toyota, etc. have built factories in the Southern states? It's to avoid the stranglehold the UAW has on the northern midwest.

Healthcare has been a simmering political issue over the past 20 years now that's threatening to boil. Private industry, left to itself (and with help from legislatures state and national), has succeeded in driving up the costs of health care without any real benefit to the consumer. Small surprise that congress feels the need to act since the free market has generated inefficiency with the middleman squeezing both ends.

I really fail to see how the Government is going to improve the situation. If they are partially the root cause of the problem how is more governmental intervention going to solve anything? If anything socialized medical care will return less to the consumer, and at a greater long term cost.

I don't particularly like President Obama, but I find I'm disliking him less than I did President Bush. I know he's been quoted saying some very leftist stuff in his younger years (some alarming race-baiting and outright wealth redistribution talk) - and actions along those veins should be scrutinized - but he hasn't proposed anything outrageous that I'm aware of.

Nor will he, or Congress for that matter, at least until the latter portion of his tenure. Politicians are contempt slowing chipping away here and there until you are left with nothing. Doesn't matter what part of the aisle they come from, they all seem to chip away from the root of this country.

Back to Occam's Razor - I see the Obama administration breaking with the Bush administration's policies in far milder ways than the election campaign would have left you thinking in November. They're not all good, but they're not all awful either. Thus I must conclude that the administration's claims are mostly valid on their face. I could be wrong and will certainly admit as much should circumstances change.

Time will tell.

 

[Texas1911]

Oh, I absolutely agree with you on that. I've long believed that "cash price" healthcare for the routine stuff would drive prices down to reality. Health insurance should be used like other insurance - for potentially life-ruining emergencies that most people can't pay for themselves.

Honestly, the price of health care is going up but the one's getting rich aren't the Doctors. Most doctors, especially private practice, take a pay decrease every year because of increasing medical malpractice insurance, increasing equipment costs, etc. The entire system is mired in insurance bullshit because of the propensity for lawsuits and the entire middleman sequence involved in everything. Plus, since the 1970s the research costs for many things, in oncology for example, have increased significantly. Those costs have to be pushed down the ladder.

Ultimately I fear that with the Governement intervention into the medical industry we will lose the quality of our care. Maybe not initially, but down the road we will suffer a loss.