Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Maybe you are forgetting the massive issues with the private healthcare industry? The ever increasing massive increases in private healthcare that went along with your plan being cancelled if you ever truly needed it, or them burrying you in paperwork while you were horrifically ill?
This is my point, you're all against Obamacare...but when the idea came to fix it or replace it....there were no better ideas. And look at what you post? Again...no ideas.
And that lack of ideas is whats going to eventually force solutions you disagree with.
What about just saying "medicare will be offered at cost to anyone that wants to buy it"....surely the free market could have crushed medicare right?
RIGHT?
But no, thats not a idea from the right.
And things are soooo much better now that "Obamacare" is law - millions more uninsured, premiums higher than before, and deductibles nobody can afford.
There is no "fixing" the abomination that is "Obamacare." The ONLY solution is to abolish it completely, and elect a Congress that will actually abide by the US Constitution. Which means getting rid of a lot of Democrats. You are going to witness part of that Republican "solution" to "Obamacare" in November 2014, as Democrats lose their control of the Senate.
Maybe you are forgetting the massive issues with the private healthcare industry? The ever increasing massive increases in private healthcare that went along with your plan being cancelled if you ever truly needed it, or them burrying you in paperwork while you were horrifically ill?
This is my point, you're all against Obamacare...but when the idea came to fix it or replace it....there were no better ideas. And look at what you post? Again...no ideas.
Another lie.
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar
And that lack of ideas is whats going to eventually force solutions you disagree with.
What about just saying "medicare will be offered at cost to anyone that wants to buy it"....surely the free market could have crushed medicare right?
RIGHT?
But no, thats not a idea from the right.
The Left is bankrupt of ideas. Every idea put forth involves central planners (socialism) and less Liberty. We've seen where that takes nations. We fought wars to liberate people from the despotic "leaders" of socialist movements. Hitler anyone?
Karl Marx was a lunatic. Why do you people think he is some kind of hero?
Where in God green earth do you get your ideas? To start with, older workers are being forced out, by younger workers because many companies can hire the younger worker and pay them less.
Depends on the job. The older folks are taking away whats often viewed as "high school" jobs, the younger ones are certainly being competitive against some of the middle aged. But looking at the numbers unemployment of the young is brutal
Quote:
The more regulation we have, the more it costs the government, which in turn, costs us. Not to mention we lose our freedoms. I would think, you being a very young person, would not want to give up your freedoms.
I'm NOT a young person, I turn 44 in June...OK so thats young to some...but most put me at middle aged
We lose our freedoms because we regulate pollution? uhmmm...yeah our freedoms to get cancer. I've been to China, in multiple cities. I don't want that here. Yes too much regulation is ALSO bad. But I dont see us being there at the moment. Yeah I can see it in places, but not generally.
Quote:
The more socialistic government we have and the more government control, the more we all pay in taxes. Those of us who are older have reached our earning power and are not all that affected, what do you think will happen to your earning power when you end up paying 50 to 75% of your income to support programs that you have no control over or support those who can not or will not go to work?
Again an assumption. Im also making good money, no worries lol. But look at places that DO charge 50% in taxes, and what they get. It DOES go a long way towards addressing extreme inequality. Universal healthcare, paid for higher education, a good safety net. I want these things for me, my children, and our country. I recognize *I* will bear a larger burden in supplying them. But I am not seeing any better suggestions then what HAS worked for other countries.
Quote:
Do you have any idea what is and has happened in the past 5 years or so in socialistic countries? Do you understand the word bankrupt? When there is no money left, then what?
Sigh, Sweden, Norway, Switzerland, and many many others have done fine. Its not "socialism" that causes most issues, its "socialism" ran rampant by a corrupt leadership that causes most "socialism" horror stories, while you ignore where its worked well, and make excuses for why it worked.
Quote:
Have you traveled to countries where there is really a problem with poverty? These countries have kids that never even go to school. The average kid doesn't have his/her cell phone or computer. They work in the fields from the time they can walk. They live in shacks.
Yes I HAVE. Have you, or are you just repeating what you have heard? Because it sounds like you have, its dead on. Have you been somewhere nice? Where its worked well? Or do you just make excuses for where it works, and just think that where it fails is obviously because they tried to pay for higher education, or universal healthcare.
Quote:
Now, think about that and tell us how great socialism is!!!
And again in the end....you are missing the point of this thread. For fun I've replied to you, but lets be honest...we need ideas to improve our society that can be found to have worked.
The overall trend of history is a shift towards a regulated socialist nation. The article, "we are all socialists now" went into detail about how almost everyone has their favorite pet program.
Almost 80% of Americans support 4 things.
1. Do not touch, change, adjust, or tweak in any way social security.
2. Do not touch, change, adjust, or tweak in any way medicare.
3. Cut defense to pay for the first two.
4. Raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans to make up the difference.
Pretty simple.
Really?
As a percentage of federal spending, Social Security and MEdicare are 42%, while defense is 18%. The growth rate of Social Security and Medicare is exponentially positive, while the growth RATE of defense is static or marginally linear positive. What that means is today SS + Medicare = 42% and DoD 18%, but a decade from now, SS + Medicare will = ~50%, and DoD will be ~= 10-12%.
And if you raise taxes on the wealthiest ten percent, you'll get nothing or less than current in return. Hauser's Law says you'll get no more than 20% max, 17.5% average, and about 14% minimum of GDP in taxes NO MATTER WHAT THE TAX RATES are. That isn't a prediction, it's an historical fact of the last 70 years. Here's some quick proof, using data from the IRS:
1980:
Top marginal rate = 70%
Average tax rate (based on taxes paid vs AGI) of Top 10% actually paid = 23.45%
2008:
Top marginal rate = 35%
Average tax rate (based on taxes paid vs AGI) of Top 10% actually paid = 22.17% (1986 adjustment to AGI factored in)
OK, so you raise the top marginal to 70% again. That will get you 1% of the top 10%'s AGI (i was wrong, you do get something, just not much). For the reported year of 2008, that was ~$38 billion, or what the government spends about every 4 days. But you won't get much more than 22-23% of the top 10%'s AGI because once you raise the tax rates, people will change their behavior and alter the way they are compensated.
So is it really simple? Yes and no. Hauser's Law and history show us that no matter what the government does in regards to the tax rates and all that, they can reasonably expect 17-18% of GDP in revenue. Okie doke. So if you want a "solution" to any revenue problem, then growing GDP is your winner. If you want a solution to a budget deficit or national debt problem, then growing GDP + reducing overall spending is your winner. Notice that growing GDP is a necessary component of both solution to revenue and deficit/debt, and not government calculated where they think their spending is part of GDP. I mean GDP earned in the private sector that is subject to taxation, that GDP. So now how exactly does one propese to shrink income inequality while also growing GDP? Well, that leads us back to my above examples, where a 70% tax rate and various other federal punishments for success stall GDP and never produce the expected revenue.
May want to revisit the drawing board on what is and is not simple in relation to national economic problem solving, because "cut DoD and raise taxes" won't work...just ask history and that mountain of available evidence.
Last edited by Volobjectitarian; 01-07-2014 at 02:24 PM..
The fascist system we operate under could also be called "Crony Capitalism" or "Selective socialism". Our system has been corrupted to eliminate as much risk as possible for the financial/banking industry. The mortgage bubble is a fine example. The industry manipulates the market by making and then lying about loans and then, when the bubble bursts, calls for money from the government when what they should have gotten was massive prosecution for fraud.
Another is health insurance. The private sector was not even trying to insure everybody but only those unlikely to get sick. Judging by their managerial overhead they were also charging too much for what amounts to an accounting service. No wonder all the MediXXX programs are so popular. This is where the government can do a better and less costly job. We simply cannot afford a private health insurance industry.
The conservatives, as represented by their rhetoric, do not want equal opportunity but only want to protect and increase the power and wealth of the people that own them and the Republican Party.
Yes, this country does need radical economic and political change. It needs to restore actual Free Market Capitalism to the financial, insurance, banking and health care industry. it must also isolate political campaigns and politicians from the soft bribery inherent in private financing of elections.
Maybe you are forgetting the massive issues with the private healthcare industry? The ever increasing massive increases in private healthcare that went along with your plan being cancelled if you ever truly needed it, or them burrying you in paperwork while you were horrifically ill?
This is my point, you're all against Obamacare...but when the idea came to fix it or replace it....there were no better ideas. And look at what you post? Again...no ideas.
And that lack of ideas is whats going to eventually force solutions you disagree with.
What about just saying "medicare will be offered at cost to anyone that wants to buy it"....surely the free market could have crushed medicare right?
RIGHT?
But no, thats not a idea from the right.
How do you expect the private enterprise to compete with government sponsored, entities that are subsidized by hundreds of millions of individuals?
So theres no solution, so when income inequality was reduced from about 1940 to 1980 that just cant be repeated?
Sure, have another world war that destroys the economic base of Europe and the Eastern Asia powers and leaves them in rebuild mode for 40 years, because that was the magic of the 1940-1970ish prosperity growth of the US.
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar
And comparing income inequality to supply/demand inequality...explain to me how that makes any sense at all...the answer is it doesnt. It does sound great...but...no.
Income is wages over time, minus taxes. Wages are the price point set based on the demand for a job to be done and the supply of workers capable of doing that job within a given market. So income is, in fact, a direct result of supply and demand. The demand for NBA small forwards is great, and the supply of people capable of matching up with LeBron on any given night is very, very, very small. Guess what that sets the wage to for a starting NBA small forward? The demand for a fry cook is low, and the supply of people capable of being a fry cook is huge. Low demand and huge supply equals very low price. Holy cow, it's like I was there the day they taught economics in Economics class.
As a result of differences in supply and demand within industries, job markets and populations, there is a wild difference in wages, thus unequal incomes.
Minus a national law that says every job pays the exact same wage, and earning above that national average is a crime, you simply cannot get around the supply/demand inequality, thus you cannot get around income inequality. Your only choice is to remove freedom from the equation and then mandate that every job pays the exact same, so that LeBron, Obama, your neurosurgeon and a fry cook all make the exact same wage. But let us say we make that choice, and everyone is paid the exact same wage and we have eliminated income inequality...what incentive is there for anyone to do any job that requires harder effort, more training, more stress, longer hours, etc? For more on that, see "Soviet Union from 1945 to 1990" and you'll see that without a profit incentive (the individual seeking greater income inequality relative to their neighbor) the only way to get difficult jobs done is to force folks to do them at gunpoint...literally.
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar
Its funny, everyone seems to think I want to argue about how great the socialist solutions are, and completely misses the main point.
Either come up with a solution, or a solution you do not like is going to be forced on you that someone else creates.
PS-yes I could argue all the points you brought up, but you're missing the topic here. In fact hilariously so.
I did not miss the point. I got right to the heart of it - income inequality is not a problem, thus requires no solution.
Income inequality is the carrot at the end of the self-actualization and national economic progress stick. Without income inequality, few would ever strive to be more, do more, and achieve more....because they have no more incentive than the person mopping the floor or holding the "free cell phones now!!" placard on the side of the road. You disincentivize hard work when you make easy work pay the same.
Income inequality is NECESSARY! It isn't a problem, but one of the main ingredients to progress and economic advancement of the nation.
As a percentage of federal spending, Social Security and MEdicare are 42%, while defense is 18%. The growth rate of Social Security and Medicare is exponentially positive, while the growth RATE of defense is static or marginally linear positive. What that means is today SS + Medicare = 42% and DoD 18%, but a decade from now, SS + Medicare will = ~50%, and DoD will be ~= 10-12%.
And if you raise taxes on the wealthiest ten percent, you'll get nothing or less than current in return. Hauser's Law says you'll get no more than 20% max, 17.5% average, and about 14% minimum of GDP in taxes NO MATTER WHAT THE TAX RATES are. That isn't a prediction, it's an historical fact of the last 70 years. Here's some quick proof, using data from the IRS:
1980:
Top marginal rate = 70%
Average tax rate (based on taxes paid vs AGI) of Top 10% actually paid = 23.45%
2008:
Top marginal rate = 35%
Average tax rate (based on taxes paid vs AGI) of Top 10% actually paid = 22.17% (1986 adjustment to AGI factored in)
OK, so you raise the top marginal to 70% again. That will get you 1% of the top 10%'s AGI. For the reported year of 2008, that was ~$38 billion, or what the government spends about every 4 days. But you won't get much more than 22-23% of the top 10%'s AGI because once you raise the tax rates, people will change their behavior and alter the way they are compensated.
So is it really simple? Yes and no. Hauser's Law and history show us that no matter what the government does in regards to the tax rates and all that, they can reasonably expect 17-18% of GDP in revenue. Okie doke. So if you want a "solution" to any revenue problem, then growing GDP is your winner. If you want a solution to a budget deficit or national debt problem, then growing GDP + reducing overall spending is your winner. Notice that growing GDP is a necessary component of both solution to revenue and deficit/debt, and not government calculated where they think their spending is part of GDP. I mean GDP earned in the private sector that is subject to taxation, that GDP. So now how exactly does one propese to shrink income inequality while also growing GDP? Well, that leads us back to my above examples, where a 70% tax rate and various other federal punishments for success stall GDP and never produce the expected revenue.
May want to revisit the drawing board on what is and is not simple in relation to national economic problem solving, because "cut DoD and raise taxes" won't work...just ask history and that mountain of available evidence.
I didn't say the math worked. I said that it's what Americans want. It's possible for them to have that, if medicare spending can be cured. And we spend more money on defense then that. Total defense spending makes up about 33% of spending. The idea is that if we aren't funding foreign wars that lower spending will cause an increase in the marker.
Like I said. We'll drift further and further left until we can't sustain it. What allows us to sustain that growth is not really effected by government. It's all really dumb luck. Hey, look at the bright side. Arabs kill themselves so much, and we've created enough demand world wide that our oil sands are growing and creating jobs. We are on the verge of another boom. Did people in 1984 feel like a boom was on the way? Nope. But technology exploded. America has all the wealth we need to sustain our debt for a few more decades. A growing economy made Clinton look good, not his policies. The Bush administration kept lowering interest rates to float us along. Now we are on the verge of another growing period.
And we spend more money on defense then that. Total defense spending makes up about 33% of spending.
If you do not count SS + Medicare in the total pie. The graph that shows DoD as 33% is for on budget spending, and SS/Medicare are classified as off-budget. As % of total federal spending, on or off budget, DoD is ~18% of outlays.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
