The economy of the world!

[The HuBBs]

and let the people who aren't working for their money and living off welfare get more of the filthy riches' hard earned moola.

[BenoitRen]

Living off welfare? In America? You've got to be kidding me. But let's suppose you're right. The poor people who can barely pay their taxes should suffer because of them?

I guess this is the usual argument to defend the rich people's money.

[Nate556]

I agree that we haven't seen the worst yet. But I don't think taxes will increase all that much. Obama is going to lower your taxes, and rax the filthy rich more.

He's not going to lower anyone's taxes, but raise the taxes on everyone.
A major flaw with his tax plan is that it taxes people and businesses more who make above a certain ammount. So, you put more of a burden on them, and they have a harder time keeping stock or paying wages, before long, someone's getting laid off.
A flat tax rate is better because it's fair to everyone. I personally don't have any problem with people being rich. They have the skills to make that kind of money, they deserve every cent. They already pay more in taxes, placing even more of a burden on them might cause them to close shop or reduce their business, who's going to pay the taxes then when everyone is poor and jobless ?

I heard a good analogy like this. 7 people go out to dinner every Monday, and each person makes a different ammount of money, so they all adjust how much each person pays on the bill. Frank is the richest, so he pays a good 55% of the bill, Kevin and Randy aren't so rich, but they still got money, so they pay 15% each, Mark pays 10%, and Billy pays 5%, Danny and Karl are unemployed, so they don't got to pay any.
Well, after so long of doing this, the 6 guys decide that Frank really does make a whole lot more than them, so he should pay even more than his 55%. So they tell Karl, he doesn't think so, so the 6 beat him up and rob him for the rest of the tab.
Monday rolls around again, except this time, Frank doesn't show up this time, but the 6 others don't care, they go on and order their food like always, have a merry ol' time, but then the bill comes, and they can't afford to pay it.... they're screwed.

In my opinion, it's better to have Rich, Well-off, and poor, rather than make everyone poor and dependant on the government.

[The HuBBs]

Living off welfare? In America? You've got to be kidding me. But let's suppose you're right. The poor people who can barely pay their taxes should suffer because of them?

I guess this is the usual argument to defend the rich people's money.

it happens, I live in near the outskirts of philly. IU've talked to people who abuse the system. I know a guy who's mom have a house with 7 kids and never worked a day in her life. And I've worked with people who have kids only because its an extra $300 in their pocket.

[BenoitRen]

I personally don't have any problem with people being rich. They have the skills to make that kind of money, they deserve every cent.

That sounds very naive. Not all the rich people deserved their money, or got it through ethical means.

The people who have money have more power. They can buy their way out of things. Forgot how Bush was manipulated by them? He only realised in 2006.

In my country, there are lot of rich people that don't pay their taxes at all. I don't know how they get away with it, exactly, but it happens a lot.

HuBBs, I believe you. But where does that money come from? The US doesn't have social health care and related systems.

[Nate556]

Sure, there are a few rich people who are scumbags and get away with a lot, but there are also a lot of them who work hard to keep people employed and donate to charty and other social programs. Is cutting everyone down any better ?
The best way for people without money and power to "get out of things", is to not break the law. I know a lot about people getting away with crime, and believe me, it happens to more than just rich people.

I personally do not trust my government one bit, and I have seriout doubts of it competency. It can't run the current welfare and social securty programs very well, how could they handle a socialized healthcare program any better ?

The money for welfare comes from the pockets of the Taxpayers. We already support these people, with even more unemployment and socialized healthcare, we'll be supporting them even further. We already have programs to help people with medicine and perscriptions, Medicaid and Medicare. It's also illegal for hospitals to refuse anyone treatment. If you are hurt or sick and you go to the hospital here, they cannot refuse treatment, or they could be sued big time. Did you know that we pay more on healthcare than we do on the war ?

In America, it's the rich people who work for the government that get away with crimes. George Soros, and look at our new head of Treasury, Timothy Geithner. He didn't pay his taxes, and he's still got his position as head of treasury! His excuse, "I forgot to pay them".
I can't trust these people to run Healthcare or anything else for that matter.

[BenoitRen]

Sure, there are a few rich people who are scumbags and get away with a lot, but there are also a lot of them who work hard to keep people employed and donate to charty and other social programs. Is cutting everyone down any better ?

If they are as benevolent as you say, surely they wouldn't mind paying some more taxes.

I personally do not trust my government one bit, and I have seriout doubts of it competency.

After 8 years of the Bush administration, I don't blame you.

The money for welfare comes from the pockets of the Taxpayers. We already support these people, with even more unemployment and socialized healthcare, we'll be supporting them even further.

And what's so bad about that? There are people out there who really need it.

We already have programs to help people with medicine and perscriptions, Medicaid and Medicare.

Which are largely insufficient. Both systems require a person to be eligible first, with strict, discriminatory criteria.

If you are hurt or sick and you go to the hospital here, they cannot refuse treatment, or they could be sued big time.

I don't claim to know as much about this, but I bet that in practice that's not how it happens. Poor individuals can't sue. You need money. But if they do get treated, they have a big debt.

I'm sure you have heard of stories where health insurance companies won't pay for an operation because it's too costly. Not to mention that such a company won't accept you if you have a disability or sickness of any kind. It gets even worse when you were covered, get sick, move, and then have to sign up for a different health insurance company. They won't accept you, because you're sick.

No, in America, everything's great, as long as you don't get sick. When you do, shit hits the fan.

Did you know that we pay more on healthcare than we do on the war ?

Considering that billions have been dropped on the war, I don't believe that. However, if it is true, I have no doubt that it is because the current system is so inefficient.

[Nate556]

If they are as benevolent as you say, surely they wouldn't mind paying some more taxes.

If they pay in more taxes, then they can't afford to donate to charities anymore.

After 8 years of the Bush administration, I don't blame you.

Bush has little to do with my distrust of the government. I think Clinton was a greater villain than Bush was, he started a war to prolong his court date. But rather, I understand the nature of the beast, and that is more power. Taxing more people means more power for the government. Taking guns away from people means more power for the the government. Controlling people's healthcare means more power for the government. Governments have a LONG history of abusing power, and that's why I do not trust my government to have my best interests at heart.

And what's so bad about that? There are people out there who really need it.

There are also people out there who abuse it. Someone before mentioned a single mother with 7 children because she gets a welfare check based on the ammount of children she has. 7 kids = bigger check. Now, what do you suppose those kids are going to do when they get older ? The boys are going to join gangs and contribute to this nations crime, and the girls are going to squirt out children and keep those welfare checks coming. Eventually, the system is going to be bogged down. Why should it be my responsibility to pay for the laziness and mistakes of others ? I work hard for my healthcare and other benefits, why should I support them ? Will they be supporting me when I get hurt or get sick ? I do not think so.

Which are largely insufficient. Both systems require a person to be eligible first, with strict, discriminatory criteria.

Is socialized healthcare so much more efficeint ? Where do people in Canada and Mexico go when they need to have a major surgery or operation ? They come here, to the USA. There is a 6 month waiting list for the MRI in most canadian hospitals. As it is now, you may have a debt, but at least you get treated ASAP. There are also government programs to waive that debt. If you refuse to pay your hospital bill, the Government pays it, and you cannot be prosecuted for it(I forget what law that is). They can also garnish your wages if you work, which means they take a certain ammount of your pay check so you pay back the debt over time without being broken by it.

I don't claim to know as much about this, but I bet that in practice that's not how it happens. Poor individuals can't sue. You need money. But if they do get treated, they have a big debt.

Let me explain how it work. When a person has a case, they visit a lawyer, and attourney. The Attourney examines their case and determins if it's legit and the odds of winning the case. Then they agree on the attourney's payment, which is usually a certain % of the ammount of the claim. So, suppose I want to sue a hospital for 200,000 bucks, the attourney's fee would be... say, 60% of that. If we win, he gets paid. IF the case loses, then the attourney takes the heat(make sure that's in the agreement!), and you are no worse off than before. So, you don't need money, but a good case.
There are MANY lawyers who work this way.

Considering that billions have been dropped on the war, I don't believe that. However, if it is true, I have no doubt that it is because the current system is so inefficient.

We spend roughly(and i may be mistaken) about 900ish billion a year on the war, and we spend about 2 trillion a year on healthcare. Our system may not be the best, but a national healthcare would cost us even more.

[BenoitRen]

If they pay in more taxes, then they can't afford to donate to charities anymore.

Oh, please! They're rich, and make a lot of money! And it's not like those taxes can't be useful for the country.

I think Clinton was a greater villain than Bush was, he started a war to prolong his court date.

You can't be serious.

Taking guns away from people means more power for the the government.

Not really. I'm curious as to why you think that.

There are also people out there who abuse it.

So? Any system can and will be abused. Does that mean we should get rid of it all? People can use knives to stab people, does that mean we should ban knives? Don't laugh, a certain state or country I don't recall the name of is actually considering banning a certain kind of knives!

Why should it be my responsibility to pay for the laziness and mistakes of others ? I work hard for my healthcare and other benefits, why should I support them ?

This is quite narrow-minded, as you're not even mentioning or thinking of the people who do need support.

Is socialized healthcare so much more efficeint ?

Yes, it is. There is no discrimation; everyone gets it, and everyone that works contributes.

Where do people in Canada and Mexico go when they need to have a major surgery or operation ? They come here, to the USA. There is a 6 month waiting list for the MRI in most canadian hospitals.

This is a separate problem that has nothing to do with universal health care.

Our system may not be the best, but a national healthcare would cost us even more.

This is absolute bullshit. The US spends a ton of money on health care, but still has worse health care than most Western countries, because it's so inefficient and fragmented in contrast to national health care. Yet it's also the only wealthy, industrialised country to not give every of its citizens coverage.

There are many health insurance companies, and they cost a lot of money, especially in administration (double that of countries with national health care). If you cost too much money, they'll drop you, or they might not be willing to spend the money for your operation.

But health insurance companies don't cover everything. Doctor visits cost a lot of money, and because of this, people often don't go to the doctor, or go too late, so the treatment ends up costing more. It's even worse for people who aren't insured. With the current economic downturn, people are even less likely to spend on doctor visits and medication.

In America, if you lose your job, you don't have insurance either, as most insurance comes from employers. No unfairness like that with national health care.

Speaking as someone from Belgium, the national health care system is good and taken for granted, that we can't even imagine a wealthy country like the US not having this system.

If this system didn't exist, my mental health wouldn't be as good as it is today, as I wouldn't have had all the care that I needed as someone with what some would consider a mental 'handicap', or even know that I had it in the first place.

[Nate556]

Oh, please! They're rich, and make a lot of money! And it's not like those taxes can't be useful for the country.

What exactly is wrong with being rich and having money ? You seem to equate having money with villainy. As if, anyone and everyone who has money acquired it through unfair business practices or through cheating and lying. You seem to me ignoring the majority of business owners that got their money legitamitly. Why should they be punished for making money ?
Also, if you are going to punish people in this country for succeeding and doing well, what incentive is there to succeed and accomplish anything ? If I had a business and I was being punished for my success, I would pack up and move my business to another country where I could operate and succeed without strict taxes.

You can't be serious.

Why can't I ? How many sex schandals were there centered around Bush ? How many women came foreward with claims that Bush raped them ? Many of these current financial crisis where directly caused by many of the policies Clinton enacted. Now, I'm not saying that Bush was a great president, he's passed some policies I can't agree with, such as the Patriot Act, and he didn't do a lot of things that I think our nations needed done. Was he the best president ever ? No. Was he better than Clinton ? Yes. Just so you know, our current Congress, the other 2 parts of my Government, has an even lower approval rating than Bush did. Bush had an approval rating of about 22%, Congress' approval rating is a whopping 9%.

Not really. I'm curious as to why you think that.

An un-armed population has no line of defence from political tyrany and no means of defending themselves from robbers and other criminals. If the Government has guns, and the people have no guns, then the government is free to walk on and trample the people and their 'rights' any way they want to without the threat of a civil revolt. It's an American thing.

So? Any system can and will be abused. Does that mean we should get rid of it all? People can use knives to stab people, does that mean we should ban knives? Don't laugh, a certain state or country I don't recall the name of is actually considering banning a certain kind of knives!

The current system is abused already, a nationalized healthcare will be abused even more because you will have more people bogging down the system. Healthcare is not a right, and neither is food. People need to work for both of them. If a person can't work, they need to prove it. Nothing short of being paralyzed should qualify... and even then. I'll use personal examples. My dad has servere back pain. Just sitting up was very painful for him, and he still managed to work. My brother is known as a partial-quad, that means he's paralyzed from the chest down with partial movement in his arms and hands. Even he managed to find work, while raising a daughter.
With national healthcare, why should any of us work to pay for our hospital bills ? Should I quit my job and rely on my government to take care of me ? What happens if everyone in America quits their job and waits for the government handout ?

This is quite narrow-minded, as you're not even mentioning or thinking of the people who do need support.

Okay, so there are people who really do need healthcare and food. When is it my responsibility to provide it for them ? Why should I be made to put food on their table and pills in their cabinet ? I earned the money, why should I not have a choice in spending it ? It's not that I don't care. I really do, and I do donate to charity, but charity should be a willing donation, not a forced(stolen) contribution.

Yes, it is. There is no discrimation; everyone gets it, and everyone that works contributes.

Descrimination is everywhere, to say that it doesn't exist in national healthcare is naive. Suppose you have a rich person and 3 illegal aliens in the waiting room, who do you think will be called on first ?
That there is another difference between the USA and Belgium. Now, I am by no means an expert on Belgium, I know very little about your country outside of a little history. But I don't think Belgium has the immigration problem that the USA does. If we were to install a socialized healthcare system, we will have so many people leeching off of it that it would be an enedless sieve sucking away all of our capital and supplies.
Maybe if we could deal with the illegal immigration problem, then such a system might work, but right now, it'll just hurt this country.

This is a separate problem that has nothing to do with universal health care.

I consider the problems linked.

This is absolute bullshit. The US spends a ton of money on health care, but still has worse health care than most Western countries, because it's so inefficient and fragmented in contrast to national health care. Yet it's also the only wealthy, industrialised country to not give every of its citizens coverage.

This is because America is not like Europe in any way. We did not create our government to supply for us. We did not (originally) give them the power to redistribute our wealth and resources.

There are many health insurance companies, and they cost a lot of money, especially in administration (double that of countries with national health care). If you cost too much money, they'll drop you, or they might not be willing to spend the money for your operation.

This is why it's important to work hard and pay for the best coverage you possibly can.

In America, if you lose your job, you don't have insurance either, as most insurance comes from employers. No unfairness like that with national health care.

If you lose your job, you go out and find another one. If you work hard, and the government doesn't tax your employer into bankruptcy, you shouldn't be losing your job anyways. I know that things happen and jobs get lost. That's when you get another job. I don't care who you are or what your skill is, there is always a job out there to be had.

Speaking as someone from Belgium, the national health care system is good and taken for granted, that we can't even imagine a wealthy country like the US not having this system.

As i touched on earlier, there are a lot of differences between your country and mine, and those differences make a national healthcare system for us a burden, rather than a blessing. We already have a problem with our government wasting money, if the people in government were competent, then perhaps I wouldn't be so much against it, but for now, it's not a good idea.

[BenoitRen]

What exactly is wrong with being rich and having money ? You seem to equate having money with villainy.

Don't change the subject. That's not why I'm justifying the raising of taxes on the rich. The rich can contribute more, so I don't see why they shouldn't.

Why can't I ?

Because Bush started a war for oil under the guise of making peace and confiscating weapons of mass destruction, costing a lot of lives and money. This distracted attention from the real war on terror in Afghanistan. He also, like you said, passed the PATRIOT act, and a lot of other bad laws. He destroyed all the good things that the Clinton administration did.

Clinton had his personal problems, yes. But a claim doesn't automatically become fact (do you really think some of these women didn't smell money?), and this is about his personal life, not how he governed the country. I thought we were talking about governing, not about the presidents' sex lives.

Many of these current financial crisis where directly caused by many of the policies Clinton enacted.

Not really. It's not as clearcut as that.

An un-armed population has no line of defence from political tyrany and no means of defending themselves from robbers and other criminals.

Yet this isn't a problem in countries that have strict gun regulation laws.

The current system is abused already, a nationalized healthcare will be abused even more because you will have more people bogging down the system.

Again, this is a flawed argument, as everything will be abused, and there are people who do need it.

If a person can't work, they need to prove it. Nothing short of being paralyzed should qualify...

This is lunacy. Do you really think it's that easy to get a job?! You seem hellbent on looking at all people as abusive assholes who shouldn't deserve a break unless they sweat hard for it.

With national healthcare, why should any of us work to pay for our hospital bills ? Should I quit my job and rely on my government to take care of me ? What happens if everyone in America quits their job and waits for the government handout ?

You still need to buy food, drinks, pay for education, and other things. National health care won't change this. The money you get for being unemployed is barely enough.

Okay, so there are people who really do need healthcare and food. When is it my responsibility to provide it for them ? Why should I be made to put food on their table and pills in their cabinet ? I earned the money, why should I not have a choice in spending it ?

Because this way everyone contributes equally, and fairly (of course, unless they cheat the system). Or would you really like it that someone works hard, gets a lot of money, yet doesn't contribute to society?

You're essentially complaining that you don't get a choice in paying taxes. It's basically the same thing. Don't be so self-centered.

Descrimination is everywhere, to say that it doesn't exist in national healthcare is naive.

It isn't, because you have to make quite an effort to not be covered by the system. Everyone gets it.

Suppose you have a rich person and 3 illegal aliens in the waiting room, who do you think will be called on first ?

Whoever got in first, of course. What, do you think everyone has a sticker on them with their welfare and migration status?

But I don't think Belgium has the immigration problem that the USA does.

While I wouldn't say it's as big, we do have an immigration problem. It gets on the news regularly.

I consider the problems linked.

They're really not. The efficiency and capacity of individual hospitals has nothing to do with how well health care works.

This is why it's important to work hard and pay for the best coverage you possibly can.

This doesn't negate or even compensate for the flaws I pointed out, and it certainly doesn't negate the huge administration costs.

If you lose your job, you go out and find another one.

It's not as easy as you make it sound.

If you work hard, and the government doesn't tax your employer into bankruptcy, you shouldn't be losing your job anyways.

This is naive. People lose their jobs when companies restructure, like they often do these days to cut costs. They also often lay off older people because they have become too expensive to pay, and replace them by younger people. There can be other reasons, too.

[Nate556]

Don't change the subject. That's not why I'm justifying the raising of taxes on the rich. The rich can contribute more, so I don't see why they shouldn't.

Sure the Rich could contribute more, and they should, but they shouldn't be MADE to. It's their money, they should spend it on what they want. The Government shouldn't be allowed to dip into their money or tell whem what to spend it on. That is not what Freedom is all about.

Because Bush started a war for oil under the guise of making peace and confiscating weapons of mass destruction,

Stop right there. Bush startd a war for oil ? Where did you get that ? Would you please explain to me why our gas and oil prices were so high ? How did Bush import all this oil, and what did he do with all of it ? Bush's war was to combat Islamic Terrorism. Saddam Hussein was a possible threat. Not only did the leaders of France, Germany, Spain, and the UK believed that Hussein was hiding WMD's, but He had ignored 17 UN resolutions. 17! Saddam Hussein had every chance to allow weapons inspectors full reign of his compounds and instellations and could have prevented this war, but he didn't.
If you really think this war was fought over oil, I would love for you to tell me where it all went, because we've not seen a single drop of that oil over here.

EDIt, i accidently hit submit, here is the rest of my points:

Clinton had his personal problems, yes. But a claim doesn't automatically become fact (do you really think some of these women didn't smell money?), and this is about his personal life, not how he governed the country. I thought we were talking about governing, not about the presidents' sex lives.

I think that a leaders personal life is interlinked with his professional life. Especially when he is using his position of authority to sexually harass his underlings, and use his position as president to get out of it, launching missles into other countries to get out of going to court. There is a difference between Sex and Rape as well. Clinton was found guilty for his crimes and lost all his power as president without being impeached.

Yet this isn't a problem in countries that have strict gun regulation laws.

Of course it is. The people just don't care because they are happy being lead around by their government like sheep. They have legalized drugs and prosistitution to distract them from the facts that they cannot defend themselves from robbers, openly speak out against their government and ridicule their leaders. And these countires also tend to have very high taxes and their governments are supported by the US... which is why when the US's ecconomy goes bad, these countries ecconomies are in a lot worse condition.
Ultimately, it's up to the people to decide the level of freedom they want. Our founding fathers left us with the tools to secure our own freedoms and prevent tyranical rulers from coming in and using the government to rob from us. Not everyone believes in Socialism, or agrees with it's principal. I for one do not lavish the idea of supporting a nation full of dependants. I value personal freedom over society's comfort.

Again, this is a flawed argument, as everything will be abused, and there are people who do need it.

I need a new car, should the government buy me one ? I need a new computer, where is the government program for that ? The fact is, people don't need national healthcare. As i mentioned, if people are sick or injured, they can go to the Emergency Room and get treated, they cannot be turned away. So their need is fulfilled. They want National Healthcare because they don't WANT to pay for it. They want for free what should be earned.

This is lunacy. Do you really think it's that easy to get a job?! You seem hellbent on looking at all people as abusive assholes who shouldn't deserve a break unless they sweat hard for it.

I've never once in my life had trouble getting a job. I started working when I was 14, and I've always had a job. My first job was at a gun club where i loaded clay targets onto the machine that launches them into the air, and keeping score. After that I worked as a dish washer at a diner, and then eventually cook. Now I am a Deputy Marshall in my state. I worked hard and I never once demanded to be paid when i didn't work for it. What we have in this nation are people who want the pay check, but don't want the work.

You still need to buy food, drinks, pay for education, and other things. National health care won't change this. The money you get for being unemployed is barely enough.

The problem with Socialism is that it does not stop with Healthcare. People will start demanding free food and drinks, and then all those other things. Already kids can go to public school and get fed without their parents having to pay for it.

Because this way everyone contributes equally, and fairly (of course, unless they cheat the system). Or would you really like it that someone works hard, gets a lot of money, yet doesn't contribute to society?

But not everyone contributes equally and fairly! If someone works hard and gets a lot of money, it should be their money do with as they please. How they contribute to society is no one's business. They contributed to society by doing the work. Do you have a problem with people providing a service and getting paid for it ?
What about people who do not work or controbute to society at all, will they be denied healthcare or other benefits ? Why do you think the Government should be allowed to steal money from people, or force them to contribute to society ?

You're essentially complaining that you don't get a choice in paying taxes. It's basically the same thing. Don't be so self-centered.

I got no problem paying taxes. I have a problem with paying more taxes than i owe. I believe that there should be no more than a 10% consumption tax that is applied to everyone. No extra taxes based on how much a person makes, because by the nature of taxes, a person who makes 200,000 a year will still be paying more than the person who only makes about 40,000 a year, and way more than people who don't make anything. Everyone has the right to be as self-centered and selfish as they want to. It's not the Government's place to police peoples attitude, nor to force people to contribute more than they consume.

It isn't, because you have to make quite an effort to not be covered by the system. Everyone gets it.

There is the problem. Everyone gets it and the whole system gets bogged down and can't take care of everyone. So you have people who can't get their illnesses diagnosed or important surgery because they are stuck on a waiting list.

They're really not. The efficiency and capacity of individual hospitals has nothing to do with how well health care works.

It's not about individual hospitals, but the system as a whole that is inefficient, because it gets so bogged down that it doesn't have enough supplies or staff to handle all the patients. In America, you will have people living at the hospital and abandoning their children there. You will have people faking illnesses or even hurting themselves just so they can stay at the hospital. It's already a problem, if it's free for everyone, it'll be worse.

It's not as easy as you make it sound.

It's hard to NOT get a job. The problem is, people don't want jobs that they consider beneath them. Rather than take a job in fast food or any other kind of public service, just temporarily until they can get a better job, they sit on their lazy bums and moan about how they can't get a job. There are jobs out there, getting them is not hard, you just have to swallow your pride and shovel shit sometimes. It's a dirty smelly job... but it needs to be done and it brings home a pay check. Hopefully, the government won't tax too much of it away and you can afford something nice!

This is naive. People lose their jobs when companies restructure, like they often do these days to cut costs. They also often lay off older people because they have become too expensive to pay, and replace them by younger people. There can be other reasons, too.

And you think higher taxes in businessess wont make the problems worse ?

[BenoitRen]

I give up. Your way of thinking is just too different, so it's better to agree to disagree, I guess.

[The HuBBs]

thats politics in a nutshell.

[thriwren]

I stopped reading after Bush and Islam since I knew on where it was going.