What is a conservative, anyway?

[Modbert]

The problem isn't the privatization, which is the excuse of every government bureaucrat there is for his own incompetence, and or inability to take advantage of new opportunites. in fact privatization has helped fund the VA medical complex, which Halliburton has nothing to do with this whatever the idiot in your video says. The chief problem the VA has is that it doesn't pay doctors or nurses a competitive wage and hence there is always a shortage of health care workers. This is in general papered over by all kinds of really bizarre strategies and a few really good ideas that ought to be looked at more closely and applied more widely.

I am by the way a veteran and have experience with the VA medical system. It's, by and large a joke, and one of the better arguments against turning America's health care over to the federal government.

VA is the biggest clusterfuck ever when it comes to our soldiers health. Have you heard how they are classifying soldiers with PTSD instead with "Personality Disorders" so the military doesn't have to pay their medical bills?

Fucking disgusting scumbags.

But privatization is part of the problem and don't let anyone tell you otherwise. How the hell can people get proper medical treatment when the private companies jack up the prices of prescriptions and hospital visits?

Sure, we got heart pills for you sir but it's going to cost you your life savings.

Sure, you can stay at this hospital for 5 days but it's going to cost you $28,000 to do all these complex tests but then we later figure out all you had was food poisoning.

 

[Modbert]

Midcan I'll have to check out the book. If it is what I expect I'll find it rather easy to debunk the lies myths and innuendoes.

By the way I'm still waiting for some one on your side of the aisle to explain to me why if the Bush tax cuts disproportionately benefited the rich that the richest five percent now pay a larger portion of the total American tax receipts than at any time since the 1930's

But you tend to forget thanks to Bush policies including tax % that the rich make more then ever before and have a higher amount of wealth in this country.

Besides, stop being ignorant on the fact the rich can afford to find loopholes and pay even less taxes.

Greatest example? Warren Buffett

Warren Buffett has stated that he only paid 19% of his income for 2006 ($48.1 million) in total federal taxes, while his employees paid 33% of theirs, despite making much less money.

This was in Forbes mind you if you're wanting a source.

 

[Old Rocks]

Midcan I'll have to check out the book. If it is what I expect I'll find it rather easy to debunk the lies myths and innuendoes.

By the way I'm still waiting for some one on your side of the aisle to explain to me why if the Bush tax cuts disproportionately benefited the rich that the richest five percent now pay a larger portion of the total American tax receipts than at any time since the 1930's

Because they now have all the money, you stupid ass!

 

[Old Rocks]

But you tend to forget thanks to Bush policies including tax % that the rich make more then ever before and have a higher amount of wealth in this country.

Besides, stop being ignorant on the fact the rich can afford to find loopholes and pay even less taxes.

Greatest example? Warren Buffett

Warren Buffett has stated that he only paid 19% of his income for 2006 ($48.1 million) in total federal taxes, while his employees paid 33% of theirs, despite making much less money.

This was in Forbes mind you if you're wanting a source.

Both Warren Buffet and Bill Gates argued against the tax breaks for the wealthy.

 

[Modbert]

Both Warren Buffet and Bill Gates argued against the tax breaks for the wealthy.

That is also true.

Warren Buffett does not believe in dynastic wealth either. Which is when you're born into a rich family and should receive all of your parents money. Which is why Bill and Warren are donating the majority of their fortunes to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

Warren Buffett has called the concept of dynastic wealth, "members of the lucky sperm club."

 

[Cecilie1200]

Wikipedia is a collection of reliable sources put together to make articles. Or do you not notice the massive amount of articles at the end of each page that they cite?

Wikipedia has as many errors as any other information site might have.

Spoken like someone too lazy to do real research. I'm still laughing at you.

 

[Gord]

 

[Modbert]

Spoken like someone too lazy to do real research. I'm still laughing at you.

I can easily find out of the way websites if you like. However, I don't see you posting anything to refute my points, just ignorantly laughing by yourself at your own sort of joke. Which in itself is sad.

 

[Modbert]

*Points to the Warren Buffett example*

Despite the fact he's only paying 19% of his taxes, that's still $48 million.

How many families in the lowest 20% do you think it would take to reach $48 million?

It could be even higher for the rich, they will still find loopholes and pay larger amounts by far then anyone because they earn much more then anyone. You're comparing the top 20, who will be paying more money by far then the poorest of the poor.

 

[Gord]

*Points to the Warren Buffett example*

Despite the fact he's only paying 19% of his taxes, that's still $48 million.

How many families in the lowest 20% do you think it would take to reach $48 million?

It could be even higher for the rich, they will still find loopholes and pay larger amounts by far then anyone because they earn much more then anyone. You're comparing the top 20, who will be paying more money by far then the poorest of the poor.

Has anyone got a Daily Kos decoder ring?

 

[Skeptik]

The actual result of the "tax cuts for the rich" was that the rich paid more in taxes. Now, on the face of it, that seems to be another contradiction, or perhaps an unintended result.

How do you explain such a phenomenon? Did wealthy people quit hiding so much of their income because rates were lower? Did it encourage people to take capital gains? Did it lower the income of the poor and middle class, so that they were paying less?

Quite often, a government action produces exactly the opposite of what one would expect, and the tax cuts appear to be a prime example, so the question remains: Why?

 

[Gord]

The actual result of the "tax cuts for the rich" was that the rich paid more in taxes. Now, on the face of it, that seems to be another contradiction, or perhaps an unintended result.

How do you explain such a phenomenon? Did wealthy people quit hiding so much of their income because rates were lower? Did it encourage people to take capital gains? Did it lower the income of the poor and middle class, so that they were paying less?

Quite often, a government action produces exactly the opposite of what one would expect, and the tax cuts appear to be a prime example, so the question remains: Why?

I am not sure whether you are questioning the chart or not. If you are, the chart does not say that the rich "paid more in taxes", but that their proportion of taxes paid increased in relation to the other proportions paying taxes. If you are not referring to the chart, the rich can end up paying more tax dollars even with a reduction of their rates simply because their incomes increased proportionately more than their taxes decreased - a sign of a growing economy. This also happened when the Contract with America cut taxes, when Reagan cut taxes, and when JFK cut taxes.

 

[editec]

The actual result of the "tax cuts for the rich" was that the rich paid more in taxes. Now, on the face of it, that seems to be another contradiction, or perhaps an unintended result.
How do you explain such a phenomenon? .

Of course they did...for a while. They also made a much higher percentage of all the money made. Or haven't you been keeping up with that side of the GDP balance sheet?

Did wealthy people quit hiding so much of their income because rates were lower?

No

Did it encourage people to take capital gains?

yes

Did it lower the income of the poor and middle class, so that they were paying less?

Well, sort of. Millions of American are actually making less than they were ten or twenty years ago. You haven't noticed the increasing percentage of people who are officially living in poverty?

Quite often, a government action produces exactly the opposite of what one would expect, and the tax cuts appear to be a prime example, so the question remains: Why?

Blowback.

 

[AllieBaba]

The federal poverty level goes up every single flipping year.
Who do you know personally who is making less than they were making 20 years ago?

 

[Skeptik]

The federal poverty level goes up every single flipping year.
Who do you know personally who is making less than they were making 20 years ago?

In terms of constant dollars, or in terms of the actual value of those dollars?


In 1970, I was making $10,000. I can remember that, because it was such a nice, round figure. That would be below the poverty line today, of course, but back then I bought a house for $13,500, a car for $3,000, and put gas it it for 25 cents a gallon.

Now, just multiply those figures by a factor of 10 to update them, and ask yourself whether a teacher at the bottom of the salary scale is making more or less than I did back then.

 

[garyd]

The fact that our Southern border leaks like a sieve explains most of the increase in poverty,

A new house in 1960 was likely less than 1000 square feet and had a one car garage and one bathroom. A house forty years later contains 2500 square feet and has at least a two car garage and quite possibly 3 car garage and at least two bathrooms and not infrequently 3. You opened the hood on your new car forty years ago You saw the engine the starter, the air cleaner, and carburetor and you could change out the engine in a car in probably three hours tops. Now you open the hood and you don't see hardly anything recognizable. A new car today now has more computing power under the hood than the whole country had in 1960 and you're lucky if you can find the starter in three hours let alone change it out.

 

[mash107]

The federal poverty level goes up every single flipping year.
Who do you know personally who is making less than they were making 20 years ago?

We all are. It's called inflation. It's what we get for having excess government spending-- whatever money that can't be borrowed or taxed is printed, a directly inflationary effect. Keynes' theory was that it was the government's duty to go into deficit to 'prime the pump' to spur consumer spending and aggregate demand, however, he even acknowledged that printing the money for this, as the Fed's done with the $8.5 trillion they've injected recently, is horrible for the economy, and even more horrible for the poor and the workers. Wages never keep up with the rate of inflation, and so our standard of living has been on a constant decline, as the poster above me details from his firsthand experience. This is what we get for believing socialism or government can solve any of our problems. Self-reliance is the only way to go, what many conservatives believed and preached, once upon a time. Those breed are rare in the Republican party, today.

 

[editec]

The federal poverty level goes up every single flipping year.
Who do you know personally who is making less than they were making 20 years ago?

Me, my ex wife, many of my friends, people who work with me on Rosetta.

All of us are college grads, all of us are professionals and all of us are making less (in absolute terms, not even taking inflation into account) than we were making two decades ago.

What? Are you going to tell me everyone you know is doing swell, or something?

I mean, I don't doubt that could be true if you exist in a cacoon of the affluent.

Because some professions have done very well in this economy, that is certainly true.

The upper 20% income brackets have actually done very well in the last thirty years. It's just the lower 80% or so who have been losing ground.

Obviously the lower down in the income backets you were in, the worse things have gotten generally.


Why do you think people are having trouble paying those mortgages?

 

[Old Rocks]

We all are. It's called inflation. It's what we get for having excess government spending-- whatever money that can't be borrowed or taxed is printed, a directly inflationary effect. Keynes' theory was that it was the government's duty to go into deficit to 'prime the pump' to spur consumer spending and aggregate demand, however, he even acknowledged that printing the money for this, as the Fed's done with the $8.5 trillion they've injected recently, is horrible for the economy, and even more horrible for the poor and the workers. Wages never keep up with the rate of inflation, and so our standard of living has been on a constant decline, as the poster above me details from his firsthand experience. This is what we get for believing socialism or government can solve any of our problems. Self-reliance is the only way to go, what many conservatives believed and preached, once upon a time. Those breed are rare in the Republican party, today.

Well, you analysis of the problem is correct. Your so called solution is what caused the problem. Capitalism has to be well regulated, just as a militia does, or it begins to run the government, with the results that we seeing right now.

 

[mash107]

Well, you analysis of the problem is correct. Your so called solution is what caused the problem. Capitalism has to be well regulated, just as a militia does, or it begins to run the government, with the results that we seeing right now.

Capitalism being regulated is what caused the results we're seeing now. Banks were always given the promise of a bailout. They were also forced to give bad loans to credit-unworthy people, through the community reinvestment act. Government and its regulations are precisely what caused this problem.

What you've just said was akin to... People might one day rebel against the government... we must take their rights to assemble away through regulations and hope they don't get too pissed off! Owait, look at that, they're rebelling! What pissed them off!? We needed better regulations against assembly, goddamnit!