Like Herpes, He Returns (condo, how much, income tax)

[Dakster]

Reminds me of a famous quote, "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."

If anyone doubts we are almost evenly split, just go back and see how hard it was to pass a budget or get the debt ceiling raised. I am having a hard time remembering any other time in US History where it has been this divided. If one "side" had all the power, there wouldn't have been the long stalemate.

And I really hate that there are "sides", shouldn't there only be one side - the USA? So far, one of the many things that is great about the USA is that after an election, the "winner" is usually supported by a vast majority of the population, even the parts that supported a competing candidate. You learn to do your best to work with the winner. and of course you realize that next time you might be behind the winner and get to try out your competing or differing ideas. Otherwise you end up like some other countries that are in civil wars. Please don't read into that statement, I do not think we are anywhere near that - despite what the fear mongering websites and extremists would have you believe.

[Glitch]

Originally Posted by Dakster

Reminds me of a famous quote, "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."

If anyone doubts we are almost evenly split, just go back and see how hard it was to pass a budget or get the debt ceiling raised. I am having a hard time remembering any other time in US History where it has been this divided. If one "side" had all the power, there wouldn't have been the long stalemate.

And I really hate that there are "sides", shouldn't there only be one side - the USA? So far, one of the many things that is great about the USA is that after an election, the "winner" is usually supported by a vast majority of the population, even the parts that supported a competing candidate. You learn to do your best to work with the winner. and of course you realize that next time you might be behind the winner and get to try out your competing or differing ideas. Otherwise you end up like some other countries that are in civil wars. Please don't read into that statement, I do not think we are anywhere near that - despite what the fear mongering websites and extremists would have you believe.

I hope you realize that this USA of yours is a myth. A complete fabrication that never existed. Are you truly that naive to believe that those who voted for Romney and McCain now support Obama? Or those who voted for Kerry and Gore supported Bush (43)? Or those who voted for Dole and Bush (41) supported Clinton?

You need to put down those drugs and step away from these obviously drug-induced fantasies of yours.

[mikelizard860]

Originally Posted by Dakster

.. And what are the taxes like in Canada???

I think you are paying for health care in Canada, it just isn't a bill directly for health care.

They pay LESS for their ENTIRE medical healtcare system than we pay JUST for medicare per capita. So taxes for health insurance in Canada are LESS than we pay for medicare.

[bortstc37]

Originally Posted by Glitch

I hope you realize that this USA of yours is a myth. A complete fabrication that never existed. Are you truly that naive to believe that those who voted for Romney and McCain now support Obama? Or those who voted for Kerry and Gore supported Bush (43)? Or those who voted for Dole and Bush (41) supported Clinton?

You need to put down those drugs and step away from these obviously drug-induced fantasies of yours.

I'm not sure about the "never." I think that people were much more willing to compromise in times past. Now we elect people who promise never to compromise, and then we're surprised when there's so much dysfunction in congress. We elect people who essentially throw tantrums, refusing to even consider the viewpoints of others. That isn't surprising, considering that the general populace is heading that direction itself. The polarization we see in congress is a reflection of the population. Most Americans want their own way, everyone else be damned. As long as people refuse to compromise or consider others' views (empathy, anyone?), things will continue the way they've been going.

Have you ever tried to work with anyone who refuses to consider your ideas, regardless of how well they might work? That's what people in congress do on a daily basis, on both sides. I can imagine that it's very frustrating for the few that are actually trying to get things done.

[RayinAK]

Originally Posted by bortstc37

I'm just clarifying, since you said "Most of the richest Americans are Democrat and quite liberal." Bill Gates is not most of the richest Americans. Unless you meant that most of Bill Gates is democrat and quite liberal.

I posted the link because both side thinks that the other is the one where all of the power lies. It's actually fairly even, and slightly right-leaning (according to the link provided). But liberals think the conservatives control the media, conservatives think liberals control the media, and so on. When we look at the real facts, we find that they just want us to believe that the country is run by the other guys. It further divides us and guarantees future loyalty and funding to whoever we're listening to. Fear is a great motivator.

Not disagreeing with you.

But of the top 20 richest Americans in the Forbes list, most are Democrat. And yes, both sides accuse the other as being for the rich.

In relation to the media, I have no idea which side controls it. All I know is that the majority of TV and printed news outlets, unlike AM radio, lean left.

[RayinAK]

Originally Posted by mikelizard860

They pay LESS for their ENTIRE medical healtcare system than we pay JUST for medicare per capita. So taxes for health insurance in Canada are LESS than we pay for medicare.

Yes, per capita they pay less for their healthcare. But you have to take into consideration that per capita Canadians are more prosperous than Americans (more jobs). The Canadian provinces have more money to subsidize their healthcare system, but workers do pay a lot of taxes for healthcare.

[RayinAK]

Originally Posted by bortstc37

I'm not sure about the "never." I think that people were much more willing to compromise in times past. Now we elect people who promise never to compromise, and then we're surprised when there's so much dysfunction in congress. We elect people who essentially throw tantrums, refusing to even consider the viewpoints of others. That isn't surprising, considering that the general populace is heading that direction itself. The polarization we see in congress is a reflection of the population. Most Americans want their own way, everyone else be damned. As long as people refuse to compromise or consider others' views (empathy, anyone?), things will continue the way they've been going.

Have you ever tried to work with anyone who refuses to consider your ideas, regardless of how well they might work? That's what people in congress do on a daily basis, on both sides. I can imagine that it's very frustrating for the few that are actually trying to get things done.

Perhaps members of Congress in the past were more willing to compromise (I don't really know), but one thing for certain: past generations of Americans were patriotic. The compromises that should take effect should be for the good of the nation, something that's not being done these days.

[Dakster]

Glitch - Nope you need to set the pipe down -

I am not talking about holding hands around the campfire singing Kumbaya together. I am talking about the fact that we are not in civil war just because Romney lost. Unless I missed the Republican Army marching on D.C....

[RedJacket]

Originally Posted by RayinAK

The Canadian provinces have more money to subsidize their healthcare system, but workers do pay a lot of taxes for healthcare.

At least the Canadians get something worthwhile in return for the taxes they pay. We sure don't.

[richelles]

Originally Posted by RayinAK

I just don't get it, Richelles. Most of the richest Americans are Democrat and quite liberal. I don't think that they would agree with you about having their money taken away. By the way, Romney pays as much tax as other republican and Democrat multimillionaires.

I just don't agree with the idea of taking it from the rich to give it to the poor, since all that would do is to make the rich poorer while the poor stay as poor as ever. Instead, governments should make it possible for the private sector to create jobs to help the poor, which in turn can rise from poverty and become richer.

The fairest tax would be a flat tax.

I carefully reread my piece above and nowhere do I speak to the richest Americans being members of either party. I'm like Warren who thinks everyone should pay more in taxes than the person below him who earns less than I we do. I'm not sure how you make that progressive taxation because if you read it carefully it could be both of them paying the same effective tax rate which believe it or not is probably your definition of a flat tax.

But if bobblehead Mit was to pay 10% flat tax on his $120,000,000.00 income and Dax and I pay 10% on our probable $60,000.00 income then guess who is paying more? I personally don't think that is a very means tested manner of taxing because he can still spend more than 90% more than we do. Think about it he gets to spend $108,000,000.00 and we spend $54,000.00; and no matter how you faux news those amounts he still has an awful lot more left than we do. Could he afford to pay twice as much income tax and hardly miss it? Only someone with the warped faux news viewpoint would argue with that. I can't quite understand why you are opposed to progressive taxation. As long as the tax rate isn't 100% the rich bobblehead would still wind up with more money left over to spend. Get out your genius faux news calculator and see what the tax rate would have to be to bring the above example down to our level of spendable money after taxes.

And from your faux news way of speaking I would assume you are one of those filthy rich ones who call others poor because you have more than they do. And for your edification I keep using the French word faux because it sounds like the real one although it is spelled differently. Faux in French means FALSE. And the joke that the rich spend to create jabs is as faux as most of the rest of the slightly warm air that is emanating from the faux news specialists on board. You might check the meaning of words and consider what some people use for their stage names. Are the Koch brothers selling something that seems to have the same name? I doubt it. But they pay less than 5% in total taxes because they have that dear oil depletion allowance that says when you take the oil out of the ground you have a smaller asset base and can deduct that loss. So if you have a mineral lease to extract the oil on some ones farm you get to deduct for the loss of value because of the oil you have removed. But if you carefully examine that tax scam that should belong to the person who is getting the royalty not the person who is selling the oil and paying no taxes on the sale. So much for the rich paying taxes. We all know the Koch brothers don't create any jobs when they donate to politicians unless you are trying to tell us politicians actually are working at what they do.