The truth about taxes

[JoeNormal]

I believer Rottweiler does understand that the rich getting richer is not what makes the poor more poor. I believe Rottweiler does understand is that you cannot help the poor by making the rich less rich. In fact you will invariably hurt the poor and dig them deeper into poverty every time you try that.

I don't believe he understands any such thing. Maybe you don't either. What's happening is that productivity has been rising for decades (largely thanks to engineers like me) but the rewards of that productivity have been sucked up almost exclusively by the people at the top. It's very much a case of the rich getting richer making the poor poorer.

 

[JoeNormal]

No Joe - what I would prefer is that we end the unconstitutional, nightmare socialism that the idiot liberals support, so that we can properly care of the men and women who earned it through their service.

It's "underfunded" because assholes just like you support Obamacare - which costs $2 trillion. That's $2 trillion that could have gone to the VA in spite of funding issues.

How sad that you would rather see welfare queens on crack with 12 children from 11 different men get healthcare over our military men and women who risk their ass every day so you can sit on yours.

They're underfunded because Tea Party pieces of shit like you never saw a government program the didn't need to be defunded. My father-in-law received excellent care at our local VA in spite of funding issues.

Oh, and as for me sitting on my ass all day, I'm not the one who seems to live on this site. Natural mistake for an ultra-right-winger though. You can't imagine anyone standing for a principle that doesn't immediately affect oneself.

"Principle"? Is that the new Dumbocrat code-word for communism? Here's the simple truth - if you A.) actually had a job and B.) actually gave a shit about people as you claim, you would simply direct your own money where you wanted it to go - rather than demanding that government direct other people's money.

The fact is, it's ****'n asshole Dumbocrats like you who have ensured our men and women in the military get fucked over royally while government redirects money to greedy, lazy, worthless parasites like you.

It obvious to me that you have less than zero understanding of the way society works.

 

[Mac1958]

Perfectly, beautifully, wonderfully 100% wrong.

Medicare Advantage plans have to take and serve all applicants regardless of health history or pre-existing conditions. They also add wonderful complimentary services such as health club memberships to keep seniors healthy, active and engaged. At least most of them do, a fine example of the creativity of free market competition.

Dang, my kingdom for some educated debate on this topic.

.

So far, you're the only one with any credibility who's said this. I'll look into it.

Ok, so I did a web search and all roads seem to lead to the Medicare.gov site. From there, I could not find the magic page that explained what is better about Medicare Advantage. Since I'm not old enough to qualify and have no family members currently in the system, I'm wont to spend a whole bunch of time trying to determine the 'advantage'. Maybe you can tell me in you own words why it's better.

Not sure what you mean by "better". But, I think it's one excellent option. Here's the short answer, well, as short as possible:

One big misconception about Medicare is "I have Medicare, so I'm covered." Well, you have coverage, but there are still many gaps. Medicare will pay 80% to Medicare docs, you pay the rest. Plus there is an annual deductible, somewhere around $250. So unfortunately, many seniors who can't afford the deductible just don't go to the doc.

That's where Medicare Supplements come in. They fill most of the gaps in coverage (they're also known as "Medigap" plans) so that when you go to the doc or hospital, you often spend zero, nothing. These are great freakin' plans, but they have two weaknesses: First, they're fairly costly for many seniors, usually $150 and WAY up based on age, geography, etc. Second, they do not include the prescription drug coverage, so that can be another $30 to $100 a month, plus co-pays, etc. Many seniors simply can't afford this.

So, enter Medicare Advantage.

These things went national on January 1, 2006 as a result of the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003. These are essentially HMO and PPO plans that are subsidized by the government. No deductibles, but they do have co-pays and co-insurance. So, as compared to Medicare Supplements, you do have to "pay as you go". Maybe $20 for a doc visit, more for hospitalization. So you can have a maximum out-of-pocket exposure of a couple thousand dollars annually. BUT their premiums are $0 in some places, $40 to $60 in others. PLUS they include the prescription drug component and often include other helpful stuff like health club memberships to keep seniors active, healthy and engaged. I could tell you some VERY cool stories about these benefits.

There was a time when Medicare Advantage plans were more expensive than traditional Medicare (although their benefits were far more robust, you never hear that part). But now that the insurance companies have adopted the far more cost-controlled PPO and HMO models, costs have come down considerably. And, as I mentioned, pre-existing conditions must be covered (good description here: Medicare Advantage).

So, bottom line, MA plans are one good option, along with Medicare Supplements. Depends on the individual.

.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

This what happens when a system is underfunded and over utilized. As I said before, you'd probably prefer that the people these facilities serve would have the decency to just shuffle off and die as quickly as possible.

By the way - why do you change the subject when proven wrong? You said the VA Hospitals was "well managed". I just proved it wasn't.

Be a big boy and admit your ignorance on the subject....

How did I change the subject? You do realize that part of managing is doing the best you can with what you've got to work with don't you?

As I said before, you can blame your own party for those cuts to the military. Clinton did the same when he was Comander-in-Chief.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

I believer Rottweiler does understand that the rich getting richer is not what makes the poor more poor. I believe Rottweiler does understand is that you cannot help the poor by making the rich less rich. In fact you will invariably hurt the poor and dig them deeper into poverty every time you try that.

I don't believe he understands any such thing. Maybe you don't either. What's happening is that productivity has been rising for decades (largely thanks to engineers like me) but the rewards of that productivity have been sucked up almost exclusively by the people at the top. It's very much a case of the rich getting richer making the poor poorer.

You have to be willing to adapt with change as technology and needs for business changes to become more competitive. Only those who are unwilling to adapt to those future needs are the ones who feel left behind. Whether of not you are more successful will depend on how valuable you are as an asset to the company, with the amount of skills and knowledge that you possess. You don't seem to understand that. The idea that you can simply take more from those who are rich and successful, does not in any way help those who are poor. Personal value that is determined by education, adaptability, skills, a personal drive through initiative, and looking to opportunity - are the real means towards becoming more successful. We've had this discussion before, Joe, however you seem to always miss the mark of grasping it.

 

[JoeNormal]

By the way - why do you change the subject when proven wrong? You said the VA Hospitals was "well managed". I just proved it wasn't.

Be a big boy and admit your ignorance on the subject....

How did I change the subject? You do realize that part of managing is doing the best you can with what you've got to work with don't you?

As I said before, you can blame your own party for those cuts to the military. Clinton did the same when he was Comander-in-Chief.

I don't have a party but it's a matter of degree. Believe it or not, I'm registered as a republican (so I could vote for Ron Paul in the primaries). I got a huge amount of hilarious propaganda mail after that. Yeah, I generally think that republicans have become the scum of the earth but I don't think democrats are hugely better.

 

[JoeNormal]

I believer Rottweiler does understand that the rich getting richer is not what makes the poor more poor. I believe Rottweiler does understand is that you cannot help the poor by making the rich less rich. In fact you will invariably hurt the poor and dig them deeper into poverty every time you try that.

I don't believe he understands any such thing. Maybe you don't either. What's happening is that productivity has been rising for decades (largely thanks to engineers like me) but the rewards of that productivity have been sucked up almost exclusively by the people at the top. It's very much a case of the rich getting richer making the poor poorer.

You have to be willing to adapt with change as technology and needs for business changes to become more competitive. Only those who are unwilling to adapt to those future needs are the ones who feel left behind. Whether of not you are more successful will depend on how valuable you are as an asset to the company, with the amount of skills and knowledge that you possess. You don't seem to understand that. The idea that you can simply take more from those who are rich and successful, does not in any way help those who are poor. Personal value that is determined by education, adaptability, skills, a personal drive through initiative, and looking to opportunity - are the real means towards becoming more successful. We've had this discussion before, Joe, however you seem to always miss the mark of grasping it.

Here's the thing. I work in one of a small number of core technology centers in a large, multinational corporation. Our group consists of three guys with PhDs, three guys with masters degrees and me with two very different bachelors degrees. I'm the generalist of the group, the masters have specific areas of expertise and the PhDs can do almost anything because they're brilliant. Our value to the corporation is not in question and for the most part, we needn't worry about being let go - if it happens, chances are we'll land on our feet.

It always amuses me how little the PhDs have to say to convey the fact that they view upper management as a bunch of superficial clowns. Unfortunately, they're clowns that as a group can determine their own compensation.

Most engineers have something of a idealistic nature. I'm in that camp. One of the things that drew me into the profession was the chance to make the world better. I suppose some things have made a small contribution to that end but where I thought the rising tide would lift all boats, it's really only enriched the rich.

It never seems to occur to the laissez faire crowd that those in power will sink to the lowest levels imaginable to keep themselves at the top.

 

[Foxfyre]

I believer Rottweiler does understand that the rich getting richer is not what makes the poor more poor. I believe Rottweiler does understand is that you cannot help the poor by making the rich less rich. In fact you will invariably hurt the poor and dig them deeper into poverty every time you try that.

I don't believe he understands any such thing. Maybe you don't either. What's happening is that productivity has been rising for decades (largely thanks to engineers like me) but the rewards of that productivity have been sucked up almost exclusively by the people at the top. It's very much a case of the rich getting richer making the poor poorer.

I think he understands it very well and I don't believe what you are saying for a minute. Did Bill Gates make the poor poorer or did his efforts, that made him one of the richest men in the world. result in thousands upon thousands of good paying jobs for others, and give many of those folks a chance to become rich themselves? It is tying the concept of resouces to entitlement rather than productivity--the absurd notion that financial success should be somehow reined in or capped or punished while those who do not prepare themselves for financial success are rewarded with other people's money that creates permanent poverty.

I have been very poor in my lifetime, but I knew my destiny was in my hands and that I didn't have to stay poor. I was lucky enough to have been poor before the government got involved in that, however. Unfortunately we have been raising generations of people who think they are entitled to other people's money; that they are entitled to be taken care of if they don't get around to doing that for themselves.

The truth about taxes is that if you want something to decrease, tax it. If you want something to increase, subsidize it. Think about that when it comes to economic success and poverty.

 

[JoeNormal]

I believer Rottweiler does understand that the rich getting richer is not what makes the poor more poor. I believe Rottweiler does understand is that you cannot help the poor by making the rich less rich. In fact you will invariably hurt the poor and dig them deeper into poverty every time you try that.

I don't believe he understands any such thing. Maybe you don't either. What's happening is that productivity has been rising for decades (largely thanks to engineers like me) but the rewards of that productivity have been sucked up almost exclusively by the people at the top. It's very much a case of the rich getting richer making the poor poorer.

I think he understands it very well and I don't believe what you are saying for a minute. Did Bill Gates make the poor poorer or did his efforts, that made him one of the richest men in the world. result in thousands upon thousands of good paying jobs for others, and give many of those folks a chance to become rich themselves? It is tying the concept of resouces to entitlement rather than productivity--the absurd notion that financial success should be somehow reined in or capped or punished while those who do not prepare themselves for financial success are rewarded with other people's money that creates permanent poverty.

I have been very poor in my lifetime, but I knew my destiny was in my hands and that I didn't have to stay poor. I was lucky enough to have been poor before the government got involved in that, however. Unfortunately we have been raising generations of people who think they are entitled to other people's money; that they are entitled to be taken care of if they don't get around to doing that for themselves.

The truth about taxes is that if you want something to decrease, tax it. If you want something to increase, subsidize it. Think about that when it comes to economic success and poverty.

Bill Gates' main qualification was being in the right place at the right time. He exploited the industry that the Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniac created but whereas Apple was 'insanely great', Microsoft was 'marginally adequate'. It was cheaper though and did the job if you didn't need much beyond email, word processing and spreadsheets. Gates also stole a lot of IP created by developers all over the world and litigated more than innovated IMO. At least he's trying to make up for the underhandedness by being charitable these days. I have no doubt that the PC revolution would have occurred with or without him though.

 

[Foxfyre]

I don't believe he understands any such thing. Maybe you don't either. What's happening is that productivity has been rising for decades (largely thanks to engineers like me) but the rewards of that productivity have been sucked up almost exclusively by the people at the top. It's very much a case of the rich getting richer making the poor poorer.

I think he understands it very well and I don't believe what you are saying for a minute. Did Bill Gates make the poor poorer or did his efforts, that made him one of the richest men in the world. result in thousands upon thousands of good paying jobs for others, and give many of those folks a chance to become rich themselves? It is tying the concept of resouces to entitlement rather than productivity--the absurd notion that financial success should be somehow reined in or capped or punished while those who do not prepare themselves for financial success are rewarded with other people's money that creates permanent poverty.

I have been very poor in my lifetime, but I knew my destiny was in my hands and that I didn't have to stay poor. I was lucky enough to have been poor before the government got involved in that, however. Unfortunately we have been raising generations of people who think they are entitled to other people's money; that they are entitled to be taken care of if they don't get around to doing that for themselves.

The truth about taxes is that if you want something to decrease, tax it. If you want something to increase, subsidize it. Think about that when it comes to economic success and poverty.

Bill Gates' main qualification was being in the right place at the right time. He exploited the industry that the Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniac created but whereas Apple was 'insanely great', Microsoft was 'marginally adequate'. It was cheaper though and did the job if you didn't need much beyond email, word processing and spreadsheets. Gates also stole a lot of IP created by developers all over the world and litigated more than innovated IMO. At least he's trying to make up for the underhandedness by being charitable these days. I have no doubt that the PC revolution would have occurred with or without him though.

Did ya'll hear that whistling noise as the point went sailing right over Joe's head?

But it wasn't the others who created Microsoft and, as a result, created all those great jobs and created all those millionaires. It was Bill Gates and he deserves the credit. The automobile industry would have developed without Henry Ford, too, but he was the one who first figured out how to make the industry profitable beyond anybody's wildest dreams up to that point even as his effort resulted in thousands and thousands of new jobs. He gets the credit. The big retailers would no doubt have happened anyway but it was Sears & Roebuck and J.C. Penney who figured out the big picture market for clothing and house wares. They all became very rich men earning much more than their store employees, but they created jobs not only in their stores but for thousands of companies who supplied them. They deserve the credit.

You don't have to appreciate the product to appreciate the accomplishment. The fact is that it is the fantastic and insanely profitable accomplishment of men with vision and ability and no doubt a degree of good luck that provides all the rest of us with paying jobs. We should be encouraging more people to become insanely rich because it invariably results in more opportunity for the rest of us to do so.

Except in vary rare cases when large corporations are deliberately unethical and destructive, the poor are not hurt by the rich becoming richer. The more rich there are, the more opportunity there is for the rest of us. Our tax system should never punish the rich for being rich. It should be encouraging a lot more prosperity instead of attempting to punish it.

 

[Redfish]

I don't believe he understands any such thing. Maybe you don't either. What's happening is that productivity has been rising for decades (largely thanks to engineers like me) but the rewards of that productivity have been sucked up almost exclusively by the people at the top. It's very much a case of the rich getting richer making the poor poorer.

I think he understands it very well and I don't believe what you are saying for a minute. Did Bill Gates make the poor poorer or did his efforts, that made him one of the richest men in the world. result in thousands upon thousands of good paying jobs for others, and give many of those folks a chance to become rich themselves? It is tying the concept of resouces to entitlement rather than productivity--the absurd notion that financial success should be somehow reined in or capped or punished while those who do not prepare themselves for financial success are rewarded with other people's money that creates permanent poverty.

I have been very poor in my lifetime, but I knew my destiny was in my hands and that I didn't have to stay poor. I was lucky enough to have been poor before the government got involved in that, however. Unfortunately we have been raising generations of people who think they are entitled to other people's money; that they are entitled to be taken care of if they don't get around to doing that for themselves.

The truth about taxes is that if you want something to decrease, tax it. If you want something to increase, subsidize it. Think about that when it comes to economic success and poverty.

Bill Gates' main qualification was being in the right place at the right time. He exploited the industry that the Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniac created but whereas Apple was 'insanely great', Microsoft was 'marginally adequate'. It was cheaper though and did the job if you didn't need much beyond email, word processing and spreadsheets. Gates also stole a lot of IP created by developers all over the world and litigated more than innovated IMO. At least he's trying to make up for the underhandedness by being charitable these days. I have no doubt that the PC revolution would have occurred with or without him though.

So Gates got rich by being smart and having good timing---------how awful.

 

[JoeNormal]

I think he understands it very well and I don't believe what you are saying for a minute. Did Bill Gates make the poor poorer or did his efforts, that made him one of the richest men in the world. result in thousands upon thousands of good paying jobs for others, and give many of those folks a chance to become rich themselves? It is tying the concept of resouces to entitlement rather than productivity--the absurd notion that financial success should be somehow reined in or capped or punished while those who do not prepare themselves for financial success are rewarded with other people's money that creates permanent poverty.

I have been very poor in my lifetime, but I knew my destiny was in my hands and that I didn't have to stay poor. I was lucky enough to have been poor before the government got involved in that, however. Unfortunately we have been raising generations of people who think they are entitled to other people's money; that they are entitled to be taken care of if they don't get around to doing that for themselves.

The truth about taxes is that if you want something to decrease, tax it. If you want something to increase, subsidize it. Think about that when it comes to economic success and poverty.

Bill Gates' main qualification was being in the right place at the right time. He exploited the industry that the Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniac created but whereas Apple was 'insanely great', Microsoft was 'marginally adequate'. It was cheaper though and did the job if you didn't need much beyond email, word processing and spreadsheets. Gates also stole a lot of IP created by developers all over the world and litigated more than innovated IMO. At least he's trying to make up for the underhandedness by being charitable these days. I have no doubt that the PC revolution would have occurred with or without him though.

Did ya'll hear that whistling noise as the point went sailing right over Joe's head?

But it wasn't the others who created Microsoft and, as a result, created all those great jobs and created all those millionaires. It was Bill Gates and he deserves the credit. The automobile industry would have developed without Henry Ford, too, but he was the one who first figured out how to make the industry profitable beyond anybody's wildest dreams up to that point even as his effort resulted in thousands and thousands of new jobs. He gets the credit. The big retailers would no doubt have happened anyway but it was Sears & Roebuck and J.C. Penney who figured out the big picture market for clothing and house wares. They all became very rich men earning much more than their store employees, but they created jobs not only in their stores but for thousands of companies who supplied them. They deserve the credit.

You don't have to appreciate the product to appreciate the accomplishment. The fact is that it is the fantastic and insanely profitable accomplishment of men with vision and ability and no doubt a degree of good luck that provides all the rest of us with paying jobs. We should be encouraging more people to become insanely rich because it invariably results in more opportunity for the rest of us to do so.

Except in vary rare cases when large corporations are deliberately unethical and destructive, the poor are not hurt by the rich becoming richer. The more rich there are, the more opportunity there is for the rest of us. Our tax system should never punish the rich for being rich. It should be encouraging a lot more prosperity instead of attempting to punish it.

The point apparently sailed right over your head when I said that he stole a lot of IP from developers all over the world. That was a transfer of wealth from the people who created something of value to the corporation (and the people it employed) that merely exploited it. It was a net zero gain unless you happen to be one of the people who got ripped off.

The biggest contribution of the PC revolution was the productivity increase it created in the world at large. That productivity increase would have occurred no matter which company had been dominant during that time. I just happen to think that the company that created the industry (Apple) should have been the primary beneficiary of the rewards.

 

[Indeependent]

Bill Gates attained most of his wealth from stealing ideas, underselling competitors and outright lawsuits.
Since 1998, he has spent the majority of his life in the halls of Congress being a de facto politician increasing business visas and labeling Americans as stupid and lazy.

His last appearance on Faweed Zachariah had him espousing the superiority of the Indian and African educational systems above every other nation.
I guess his enthusiasm has nothing to do with his hunger for cheap, compliant labor.

 

[Foxfyre]

Bill Gates attained most of his wealth from stealing ideas, underselling competitors and outright lawsuits.
Since 1998, he has spent the majority of his life in the halls of Congress being a de facto politician increasing business visas and labeling Americans as stupid and lazy.

His last appearance on Faweed Zachariah had him espousing the superiority of the Indian and African educational systems above every other nation.
I guess his enthusiasm has nothing to do with his hunger for cheap, compliant labor.

It doesn't matter whether you disrespect, resent, hate, or love Bill Gates. It doesn't matter whether he deserved it or whether he was or was not a nice guy. It doesn't matter whether somebody else would have done that if he had not.

The net effect is the same. Try to focus here, please--something JoeNormal seems incapable of doing. Because Bill Gates managed to become incredibly rich, thousands upon thousands of people have had and have paying jobs--most good paying jobs. Many of those managed to become millionaires themselves. THAT is why we should not denigrate the rich for being rich. We can loathe them for the kind of people they are--though Bill Gates seems to be a decent enough guy--but the fact is we need lots and lots of rich people--people who got rich the old fashioned way in the private sector--before we can ever expect most of the poor to become unpoor.

 

[JoeNormal]

Bill Gates attained most of his wealth from stealing ideas, underselling competitors and outright lawsuits.
Since 1998, he has spent the majority of his life in the halls of Congress being a de facto politician increasing business visas and labeling Americans as stupid and lazy.

His last appearance on Faweed Zachariah had him espousing the superiority of the Indian and African educational systems above every other nation.
I guess his enthusiasm has nothing to do with his hunger for cheap, compliant labor.

It doesn't matter whether you disrespect, resent, hate, or love Bill Gates. It doesn't matter whether he deserved it or whether he was or was not a nice guy. It doesn't matter whether somebody else would have done that if he had not.

The net effect is the same. Try to focus here, please--something JoeNormal seems incapable of doing. Because Bill Gates managed to become incredibly rich, thousands upon thousands of people have had and have paying jobs--most good paying jobs. Many of those managed to become millionaires themselves. THAT is why we should not denigrate the rich for being rich. We can loathe them for the kind of people they are--though Bill Gates seems to be a decent enough guy--but the fact is we need lots and lots of rich people--people who got rich the old fashioned way in the private sector--before we can ever expect most of the poor to become unpoor.

Taxation of the rich is as low as it's been in something like 80 years. Some reputable estimates of Mitt Romney's tax rate put it in the single digits in the years that he was unwilling to submit tax returns for and he's probably not unique by any means. By your logic, jobs should be falling like rain. Where are they?

 

[Kosh]

Bill Gates attained most of his wealth from stealing ideas, underselling competitors and outright lawsuits.
Since 1998, he has spent the majority of his life in the halls of Congress being a de facto politician increasing business visas and labeling Americans as stupid and lazy.

His last appearance on Faweed Zachariah had him espousing the superiority of the Indian and African educational systems above every other nation.
I guess his enthusiasm has nothing to do with his hunger for cheap, compliant labor.

It doesn't matter whether you disrespect, resent, hate, or love Bill Gates. It doesn't matter whether he deserved it or whether he was or was not a nice guy. It doesn't matter whether somebody else would have done that if he had not.

The net effect is the same. Try to focus here, please--something JoeNormal seems incapable of doing. Because Bill Gates managed to become incredibly rich, thousands upon thousands of people have had and have paying jobs--most good paying jobs. Many of those managed to become millionaires themselves. THAT is why we should not denigrate the rich for being rich. We can loathe them for the kind of people they are--though Bill Gates seems to be a decent enough guy--but the fact is we need lots and lots of rich people--people who got rich the old fashioned way in the private sector--before we can ever expect most of the poor to become unpoor.

Taxation of the rich is as low as it's been in something like 80 years. Some reputable estimates of Mitt Romney's tax rate put it in the single digits in the years that he was unwilling to submit tax returns for and he's probably not unique by any means. By your logic, jobs should be falling like rain. Where are they?

Even more far left propaganda.

 

[thereisnospoon]

It seems to me that left unencumbered by the rules that the government SHOULD be enforcing, corporations would get away with even more crap than they do. What regulations do you think are impeding private sector commerce?

There are more than I would care to take the time to list here. But just a few are oppressive wage/hour laws, too high taxation with constant threats of even more taxes piled on top of that, unnecessary and unreasonable environmental requirements, barriers to development and expansion--think the Keystone Pipeline just for one. And the mandates associated with Obamacare are likely to be the largest killer of both businesses and jobs this country has ever seen.

The Keystone pipeline would be the biggest environmental disaster to befall this country even if it didn't spill a drop. And where do you think wages and hours would end up if left to a world market of starving slaves? I have some very marketable skills and I wouldn't even want to contemplate that one.

Now just a minute. You don't get to just state the pipeline would be an environmental disaster and think you can get away with just that. You have to support the statement with facts.
Have at it.
And don't cut and paste some nonsense opinion piece from a lefty blog.

 

[Ame®icano]

I see left still bitching about the rich.

Here is another statistic for you.

Bit over 75% of the worlds wealth is held in 20% of the worlds population.
How many Americans are in those 20%? All of them.

Still bitching about being poor? Well, at least you know you are richest poor in the world.

 

[P@triot]

They're underfunded because Tea Party pieces of shit like you never saw a government program the didn't need to be defunded. My father-in-law received excellent care at our local VA in spite of funding issues.

Oh, and as for me sitting on my ass all day, I'm not the one who seems to live on this site. Natural mistake for an ultra-right-winger though. You can't imagine anyone standing for a principle that doesn't immediately affect oneself.

"Principle"? Is that the new Dumbocrat code-word for communism? Here's the simple truth - if you A.) actually had a job and B.) actually gave a shit about people as you claim, you would simply direct your own money where you wanted it to go - rather than demanding that government direct other people's money.

The fact is, it's ****'n asshole Dumbocrats like you who have ensured our men and women in the military get fucked over royally while government redirects money to greedy, lazy, worthless parasites like you.

It obvious to me that you have less than zero understanding of the way society works.

Yeah - that's the problem with all of us who don't support your beloved communism JN. We just don't "get it"...

 

[P@triot]

I don't believe he understands any such thing. Maybe you don't either. What's happening is that productivity has been rising for decades (largely thanks to engineers like me) but the rewards of that productivity have been sucked up almost exclusively by the people at the top. It's very much a case of the rich getting richer making the poor poorer.

I think he understands it very well and I don't believe what you are saying for a minute. Did Bill Gates make the poor poorer or did his efforts, that made him one of the richest men in the world. result in thousands upon thousands of good paying jobs for others, and give many of those folks a chance to become rich themselves? It is tying the concept of resouces to entitlement rather than productivity--the absurd notion that financial success should be somehow reined in or capped or punished while those who do not prepare themselves for financial success are rewarded with other people's money that creates permanent poverty.

I have been very poor in my lifetime, but I knew my destiny was in my hands and that I didn't have to stay poor. I was lucky enough to have been poor before the government got involved in that, however. Unfortunately we have been raising generations of people who think they are entitled to other people's money; that they are entitled to be taken care of if they don't get around to doing that for themselves.

The truth about taxes is that if you want something to decrease, tax it. If you want something to increase, subsidize it. Think about that when it comes to economic success and poverty.

Bill Gates' main qualification was being in the right place at the right time. He exploited the industry that the Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniac created but whereas Apple was 'insanely great', Microsoft was 'marginally adequate'. It was cheaper though and did the job if you didn't need much beyond email, word processing and spreadsheets. Gates also stole a lot of IP created by developers all over the world and litigated more than innovated IMO. At least he's trying to make up for the underhandedness by being charitable these days. I have no doubt that the PC revolution would have occurred with or without him though.

If this isn't the battle-cry of the the loser liberal, I don't know what is. You notice that nobody is ever deserving of credit in the minds of the Dumbocrat? It's not that Bill Gates was talented, relentless, bright, or innovative - it was that he was "lucky". And it's not that JoeNormal is lazy, useless, dumb, or incapable - it's that he's "unlucky"

You know, for a group that mocks religion, this bunch sure does believe in some mysterious force controlling the results for everybody....