http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/ … increases/
Really, and people think this guy is a genius? Why does he insist on making ideological proposals that even his own party wont support? This president is beyond inept and incompetent, he's moronic!
Hey there, M'Lady. I hope his finds you well.
It seems to me that some forum posts are getting more humorous and are sounding more and more like Public Relations releases. It is hard to take them seriously when their constant din drowns out the really meaningful discussions taking place around here. I often wonder if some are being paid by the Republican National Committee to print this stuff?
"People think this guy is a genius?" you ask. I don't really know if he is. He attended Occidental College, and received a degree in political science from Columbia University, an Ivy League member ranked 9th in the country. The President also graduated Magna Cum Laude from Harvard Law School, where he also served as President of the Harvard Law Review. Harvard Law School is ranked the second best Law School in America. Is he a genius? I don't have those academic credentials. Do you?
Citizens have the right to berate the President if it makes them feel better. But, a politician, regardless of his party affiliation, does not rise to the level of President of the United States and a leader of the free world by being inept, incompetent, and moronic. My tires may be worn and I may be a little slow on the upgrades, but even I know this. I call it common sense even though it is sometimes hard to find.
It is obvious that the Republican Party will not do anything to improve new job creation while President Obama is in office. Their brinkmanship cost this country its S&P AAA credit rating and they continue to demonstrate an ideology of obstructionism that prevents them from helping their fellow Americans who really need help now. And I expect we will continue to endure thunderous criticism about how the President is the one not doing anything to help the economy.
I am also amused that you support your rant with an article in the Washington Times that states, "Both Mr. Obama and House Speaker John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican, support broad tax reform with a goal of lowering tax rates for both individuals and corporations." So I guess if the Speaker of the House and the President agree on this issue then they both must be a tad "inept", "incompetent", and " moronic".
I look forward to your rants, especially those that make me smile.
Well at least you acknowledged my free speech rights. First the president never published anything until he came out with his books, unusual for a person with his accedemic creditials, and there is evidence to support the view that at least one of those books wasn't written by him.
As far as the aggreement between Obama and Bohener on the need for tax reform the parties couldn't be further apart in the way to achieve that. Obama wants to do so by increasing taxes 1.5 trillion dollars. Everyone from Kennedy, to Regan, and even Obama himself has stated tax increases in a recession is not a good idea, yet that's Obama's plan! Obama said this isn't class warfare, it's math. I think math was not Obama's strongest subject.
And what do Boner/Cantor/Ryan want?
3 dollas in cuts for every one dollar in taxes!!!
I'll take Obamas plan...he wants to tax the Uber wealthy FOR A CHANGE.
Coddling makes for Big Babies.
51% of the US don't pay taxes.
You're literally demanding that our police force steal money from the wealthiest 1% to pay "charity" to the bottom 51%...
... and you're calling it fair.
Theft is never fair, and this sure isn't charity.
Obama's plan won't work -- again -- and our deficits will continue to soar.
Look up "payroll taxes" please.
And since payroll taxes are capped, they comprise a larger percentage of poorer people's income than richer people's.
Payroll tax & sales tax & gas tax & property tax.
Everybody pays taxes - but the wealthy & some corporations pay less than their share.
Correction - some don't pay in a big way. Look at these welfare queens.
Profits: $4.9 billion
Taxes: -$34 million
Profits: $3 billion
Taxes: -$23 million
Profits: $49.37 billion
Taxes: -$681 million
Profits: $9.7 billion
Taxes: -$178 million
Taxes: -$951 million
Profits: $2.1 billion
Taxes -$72 million
*American Electric Power* Profits: $5.89 billion
Taxes -$545 million
Profits: $7.7 billion
Taxes: -$4.7 billion
Corporations don't pay taxes their customers do.
that is why corporations dont need to worry...so it is pro republican plan...why worry?
You really don't get it. Raising taxes on corporations hurts you and me because those "costs" are passed along as increases in prices for goods and services that we need especially for essentials like food energy and clothing but everything is affected housing banking and even medical services. When consumers have to pay more for things we need we have less to spend on anything else. Since the consumer is 2/3 of the economy spending less means lower sales and lower sales means lower profits unless you can lower costs by say, moving labor off shore or laying people off. Even JFK cut taxes to stimulate growth. If politicians are going to do right by the people and the country they'd cut taxes and shrink government but this president, these democrats don't care about people or the country, they care only about themselves and their power!
How is it that corporations are 'persons' in terms of unrestricted free speech (or the right to buy elections) but they aren't persons who should pay taxes.
In the health care debate 'my' insurance company spent part of my premium to prevent reform - but ensure profits. How is that fair?
They didn't spend part of your premium to oppose reform, they spent it to shape reform to insure they remain profitable. Would you rather they go out of business? Well, obviously yes, you libs want the government to be the provider of all things. Sorry, ain't happening. All the libs will be kicked out of government in 2012.
Non political view: Healthcare should never be profitable. Profit is driven by the need to reduce costs, set goals, please shareholders etc. - this means that often healthcare decisions are made because there is no profit in something - or conversely, tests are given because they make money.
Eliminate 90% of MRIs, sonar-grams and other tests that are not needed and healthcare costs would come down....many doctor's send you for MRIs because they don't want to be sued if they happen no to diagnose something....others fraudently send you for tests because they know they will get paid....
Who says those tests are not needed? You? Don't you think that decision should be between doctor and patient? The problem is too many decisions are between the doctor and the insurance company driven largely by a game of denial of payment and a need to get paid. Make the patient pay the doctor and submit the bill to the insurance company and you'll limit demand and fraud in the system lowering costs.
That's my point - the Doctor makes the decision - often this is clouded by profit not by necessity. So your idea of getting the patient to pay for them and then file a claim would probably actually work as the decision would be based on a discussion of the medical necessity between the doctor and the patient. I've had many tests myself I questioned the need for - the doctor said it was simply a precaution and that the insurance covers it - had I been responsible this would not have been acceptable and I would have gone into a longer discussion.
Here's an interesting article:
http://patients.about.com/od/followthem … rtests.htm
Right! You apparently get it. Liberals don't have a clue! Their answer is let the government do it, its cheaper and better. Really? Look at the recent green jobs investment by the govt, 520 million in the toilet the investors paid off before the taxpayers. Look at the waste fraud and abuse in medicare apparently 500 billion worth that Obama suddely found after 40 years. From top to bottom, everything the give does costs more and is less efficient than if it were done in the private sector.
Why is it then that Americans are less healthy, but pay a far higher percentage of our national income on health care, than every other developed country with either mandatory health insurance or socialized health care?
Let's try to limit the conversation to real-world realities, and not the hypotheticals and scare tactics wielded by the insurance industry and their GOP stooges.
And you can thank me for giving you the opportunity to earn another buck by your sponsors who are paying you to post GOP-friendly opinions here.
I don't know, why do people in the middle east pay a higher percentage of their income on food then we do? One reason we may pay more is because insurance is the most regulated bussiness in the country. And I don't agree Americans are less healthy or that even if that were so you can attribute it to the health care system. Maybe it's all the cheap fast food we eat. Oh, and I was talking real world, its libs that live in fantasy land!
It's less regulated here than in other developed countries. That would suggest greater regulation would lead to both lower costs and better outcomes, wouldn't it?
What's less regulated, insurance or healthcare? And how so? Which countries are you comparing us to? Or are you just making stuff up or parroting left wing talking points from blogs?
That's another nickel. Gee almost a dollar today for 6 hours! I love being a conservative! Lol
I'm sure you're being paid more than a nickel per post, even though you're not quite honest enough to tell us how much.
Both health insurance and healthcare are less regulated here than in the Netherlands and Switzerland, to pick two examples. Both pay 1/3 to 1/2 less than we do collectively, cover everyone, and have substantially better health outcomes.
Let's try an answer without spin or insults, please.
Socialized healthcare is cheaper in most cases due to their being no profit margins. It does the basics more efficiently, but the trade off is that it does not do experimental or advanced stuff very much at all.
Yes, that's the case for socialized healthcare, but not for other systems like in the Netherlands or Switzerland where healthcare is not socialized but health insurance is mandatory. The latter still does a substantially better job of insuring everyone and at a higher level of care and significantly lower cost than the US's current system.
I challenge that notion! I doubt that even the basics are cheaper under socialized medicine.
We're waiting...or maybe your post sponsors don't pay for research?
Oh I see, you get to make any claim you want without backing it up and it's automatically fact because it's a liberal point of view and I'm now tasked with providing proof that you're wrong. It's not that simple. You are perhaps going by the WHO rankings and I would have to examine their methodology. But let's just try common sense. You libs always rail about the evil of corporate monopolies. So if there is less competition for a good or service then that good or service will cost more given the same demand, right? Well if government is the sole provider of healthcare, essentially a monopoly, how on earth are they going to provide this for LESS? And this doesn't even take into account waste, fraud, and abuse!
Yes, I'm going by specific metrics within the WHO data and methodology (not their overall rankings, but look at those, too). Please go ahead and examine it, and, again, try to refrain from insults and rants about liberals (although they are an inexpensive way to get your wordcount in for your sponsors, right?).
I'll start you off:
Well before I get into the weeds of WHO methodology, what about the common sense argument? What makes you think a government monopoly will be cheaper and better than competing businesses? Especially given that in spite of increased spending for decades on education and shrinking class sizes we still haven't seen better results. Yet charter schools where there is no tenure the results are better.
Other than the fact the data shows it is, there is the fact that no-one makes a profit--so you can take at least 2% off the top for that. I see no reason way medicine should be seen as a competitive for-profit market but fire-fighting is not. Both are basically life-saving procedures.
Lots and lots of real-world, empirical evidence trumps what you consider common sense.
Again: Why is it then that Americans are less healthy, but pay a far higher percentage of our national income on health care than every other developed country with either mandatory health insurance or socialized health care?
Because they are free to do with their bodies as they choose. They choose to smoke,eat,drink and party too much. They don't exercise and generally cause their own problems. No amount of free health care will change that especially because it isn't really free. The rich that Obama talks about will be paying for those that do the above.
More opinion and feelings over reality. We don't build policy on your feelings.
And Americans are only slightly more likely to have "lifestyle diseases" than the citizens of other developed countries. And yet they live longer, healthier lives, and pay substantially less than we do for health care.
It is a matter of record how much of GDP or PPP different countries pay for healthcare (regardless how much is by tax versus by insurance). The US pays more than any other nation. Given that they do not have world-beating results there must be some massive inefficiencies somewhere.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_t … diture-gdp
How does a glossed over generalization about the "Middle East" and food have to do with Americans and health care?
On a side note....I guarantee one will find the same companies and corporate heads who profit/ed from Dead Peasants insurance are the same who push against health care reform.....
These people are all on the side of the Lady of UnLove, and probably in some way pay her pennies to write typically ridiculous rants herein...
Hi again, M’lady. May I interject a few other observations?
Your statement is not only absolutely true but it also reveals a glaring flaw in our system of taxation. Individual citizens can not avoid the burden of taxation by passing it on to someone else. After paying taxes, Americans are left with less for food, shelter, and other necessities. Wouldn’t be nice if they could pass their tax bills to their employers, for example, in the form of a wage adjustment? But they can’t.
Under our Constitution, corporations are recognized as entities with the rights protected by the First Amendment but without the privileges or immunities of citizens assured by the Fourteenth Amendment. They are “legal persons” who are not “citizens” of the United States yet they enjoy a unique status denied to normal people who are. They can pass the cost of taxes on their customers. As you can see in the examples Doug Hughes provided earlier, taxes are not a burden for corporations. They have access to more tax avoidance strategies and loopholes then real people. The obvious advantages of this arrangement accrue to the benefit of the owners and management.
But who are the owners and management who profit from this special status? When Edward Wolff, professor of economics at New York University and a research associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research, analyzed the total net worth of Americans in 2007, he discovered more than 1/3 of all privately held wealth was owned by the top 1% of households. The next 19% held about ½ of all wealth, leaving a measly 15% for the 80% of wage earners and the poverty-stricken at the bottom end. The importance of home ownership became remarkably more obvious when he examined the total net worth of Americans minus the value of their homes. Then, the top 1% of households accounted for 42.7% of the wealth, the next 19% for 50.3%, leaving a paltry 7.0% of all marketable financial wealth in the wallets of the least fortunate 80%. (1)
So here is a suggestion for settling what is fair by asking the wealthy to pay their proportional share of the nation’s overhead. Let’s examine the net worth of Americans. Add up what they own, subtract their debts and, subtract the cost of their primary residence. Then lets work for a tax code that collects 42.7% of all, not just federal, taxes from the top 1%. Let the next 19% of the wealthiest pay their share of 50.3% of all taxes. And the rest who just man the oars of the economy can pay their share of 7% of all taxes from their meager 7% share of the total wealth.
There is one other fascinating aspect of this picture. The majority of all the conservatives who clamor for tax reduction legislation are not among the top 1% or even the top 20% of the wealthiest in the nation. They are within the segment of society that stands to gain the least from lower tax rates. So, why are a sizable number of people pressing for reforms that will benefit those who are already far better off than themselves? Are they the champions or the lackeys of the wealthy?
My thanks to you, Lady in Red, for enduring these echoes from an empty jar.
(1)Edward N. Wolff, “Recent Trends in Household Wealth in the United States: Rising Debt and the Middle-Class Squeeze—an Update to 2007” http://www.levyinstitute.org/publications/?docid=1235
Wouldn't it be nice if no one paid taxes? I reject every one of your notions! First corporations not only pass their taxes onto their customers but all of their other costs as well because the very nature of a corporation is to return a profit to its owners. It's called capitalism and it embodies the freedom we all possess for us to engage in an exchange of goods and services. The fact that owners profit from their endeavor and the risk of their property is neither fair or unfair because without a profit incentive they wouldn't provide the things we want or need to survive! We all have the freedom to not engage in transactions with corporations, but we can't do the same with government when it comes to taxes.
Now your numbers of wealth distribution are all nice and all but again fairness isn't even a concern or shouldn't be. Fairness is a judgement depending on perspective. Do you think its fair to take from others just because they have more than you? That doesn't sound fair to me! Suppose government didn't exist, no countries, no borders, no private property, just us wandering in the woods. Suppose I worked all day gathering acorns to store for the coming winter while you slept layed in the sun and bathed in cool water. In the middle of winter when you have no food how much of my acorns are you entitled to?
You see Q, it's about personal responsibility about working for what you want because that's all you deserve and its not fair to punish others for their success. That's the difference between America and other countries. We're an aspirational society. We all have a chance to become rich if we work hard and take risks and never give up. We don't believe we're owed a living, at least those of us that believe in freedom do.
Now let's not ignore all the benefits that corporations provide like jobs that allow us the free time to have these debates when we should be out gathering acorns!
Good Evening, Lady.
I hope all is well in your neck of the woods.
Thanks for your prompt reply. You reject every one of my notions without addressing any of them. I think it’s called a “straw man argument” when you dodge my statements by creating an illusion that you’re responding but actually you only replace my facts with other superficial and irrelevant issues. It becomes difficult to have a meaningful discussion when the subject keeps shifting.
I commented about the burden of taxes on individuals and corporations, who benefits from corporate tax avoidance strategies and loopholes, and the unique ability of businesses to pass the burden of taxes on to customers. It really isn’t important that you agree with my conclusions. A counter-argument should not digress but should address the facts I submitted:
1. Individual citizens can not avoid the burden of taxation by passing it on to someone else. True or false?
2. Corporations can pass the cost of taxes on to their customers. True or false?
3. Corporations have access to more tax avoidance strategies and loopholes then real people. True or false?
4. The obvious advantages of this arrangement increase profits that accrue to the benefit of the owners and management. True or False?
5. The majority of corporate owners and managers are among the top 20% of US households who possess 93% of all marketable financial wealth. True or false?
6. The majority of all those who clamor for tax reduction legislation are not among the top 1% or even the top 20% of the wealthiest in the nation. True or False?
If you find one of my statements to be untrue then please set me straight. I stated facts I believe to be true and I hope you will correct me if they are not. I err more often then I like to admit. However, there is no need to lecture me, a former business owner and a devout capitalsist, about capitalism or the nature of a corporation. None of your remarks seem to relate to what I said.
By the way, no one cares if you agree with my conclusions. It’s possible to agree on the facts and then draw different conclusions. That's just the way it is.
I do hope you are having a wonderful evening. I am.
All of the answers are true, and? You want real tax reform? Flat tax across the board, no tax breaks because you have kids or a house. No tax breaks because you have a business etc. Flat tax or quit talking about people paying their fair share, the only people doing that are the rich.
Actually I did address everyone of your "arguments". You published a bunch of irelevant facts to support your view that the rich should pay more because the current amount they pay isn't "fair".
As I tried to explain the role of government and taxes is NOT to create economic "fairness" but to fund government to do that which the people have consented they do as documented in the constitution. Perhaps what I wrote was too much for you to read, or perhaps the liberal brain us wired to recognize opposing views.
You still haven't answered a very basic question, LadyLove:
Why is it then that Americans are less healthy, but pay a far higher percentage of our national income on health care without covering everyone than every other developed country with either mandatory health insurance or socialized health care that does?
(This doesn't have to do with recognizing opposing viewpoints; it has to do with confronting reality, something conservatives have more and more difficulty with these days.)
As I said you're repeating false statistics, and you're making the assumption that good health is a function of how many people have health insurance when it has more to do with how young a population is. I have insurance but I almost never use it, but if I didn't have insurance I wouldn't go to the doctor less and having it doesn't make me go more.
Spin, spin, spin, spin... What we get from the right is personal anecdotes, feelings, and specious reasoning. Empirical evidence is routinely ignored.
Taking every cent of money or assets from the 51% wouldn't match a 1% increase in the top group. Because, y'know, 51% of Americans basically don't have any money left over once they have paid for rent and food.
The republicans have no answers and if they want to save tax money,BRING THE TROOPS HOME NOW.But they cant because who holds the keys to the Republicans, the Military industrial complex,,,and corporations. If you are going to talk the talk,,walk the walk. No they rather take some indigents medicare.
Ron Paul's been saying this for 5 years now.
...not sure if I've heard any prominent Democrats say this in the last year or so...
The D's aren't the peace party anymore (neither are the R's).
The only anti-war candidate is Ron Paul.
No, they can't because they are not the Commander in Chief. Did you miss that? It happened in 2008, the election where Obama was elected to be the commander in chief?
Instead of raising taxes, what is needed is a revision of the tax code so that the rich cannot hide their $ in investments and escape with paying less income tax than their secretaries. This in itself would raise more revenue than the raising of tax levels.
Think of the money that would be saved from a flat (type ) no loophole tax system along with the lay off of at least 50% of the IRS.
Hi there, Ms. Dee.
This is a really good suggestion for paring the national deficit. Now try to find support for such a plan in the current Republican controlled congress. Remember these loopholes and off shore tax shelters were designed by corporate America and enacted by Republicans in the Congress.
Do you want the debt to be controlled? Do you want social services to keep on functioning? Do you want the richest citizens to pay their share? If the answer to the questions is "yes" then you will encourage President Obama to go ahead with his economic plans. It's no good saying that the United States is a great country for those who want freedom to pursue happiness if you are not willing to work for the rights of all citizens to enjoy that freedom. With freedom comes responsibility. President Obama is acting responsibly to see that there is enough money in the national coffers to keep this freedom loving country strong.
Although your rants are really amusing, and have no doubt provided much entertainment, this subject matter has been well researched. As a former student of comparative social research, yes that includes health care and how it is provided in countries other than the US and UK, I've learn't many things. Primarily, if I wanted to argue what I may think is a valid point, I'd try to qualify that argument with recent, scientific research. (from a credible source, believe it or not that excludes Fox news) That's always a problem within the social sciences, because it's not an exact science.
The WHO is but one source, there are many others. However, you may have to approach a university library for reliable, as reliable gets, empirical evidence. To question methodology is fine, but how so? Perhaps you need to expand on this? Do you have in depth knowledge of both qualitative and quantative methods? Where are the holes in their research?
You'll also need a rather in depth knowledge of recent social policy in the countries of comparison. Stats of course and a reasonable understanding of that countries current and historical social and economic policies.
You see, the thing is, I don't do any of the above and that's why I accept that my knowledge is limited. So, I listen instead.
Yes, that's why I haven't taken the argument further because you really gave to drill into the raw data and understand how WHO for example, qualified and defined health. There are many factors to consider when measuring the health of a population like the size, the age, the relative income etc. Then you have to assess the relative wealth and costs. Its a huge undertaking and the last time it was done by the WHO was.in 2000 when it scored the USA health system as 37 of 190 countries.
Then there are other factors like medical research much of which is carried out here, paid for here and shared with the world. Are those "costs" included in the calculations?
One need only look at the recent relevation of DOJ spending on food at several gatherings of 500,000 dollars, to understand a government manopoly can not possibly do anything for less.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/06/ … SU20100623
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q … eRRjkvz5mw
The poor Lady has to be spoon fed.... No matter, she won't read or rationally respond anyway..
It is hard to talk sense with the deluded...
Yes, I gave her a document before that she promptly ignored. And then 12 hours later, she indignantly asks for proof.
Well, I console myself with the fact that she's being paid to post here. Who knows what her actual thoughts are on this topic, assuming she has any.
The google doc is even worse claiming an association between deaths and a lack of insurance on a single 20 year old study.
Bottom line is you can not tie the health of the population to the health care system or to a lack of insurance. The best you can do is say these may be factors in contributing to the health of Americans. As for the costs per person, I'd like to see how it was calculated.
So you've proved nothing except your inability to think on your own.
Bottom line is you can not tie the health of the population to the health care system or to a lack of insurance. The best you can do is say these may be factors in contributing to the health of Americans
Thats's not even spin, it's not even logical.
I can always count on you for "enlightenment". Why don't you first try to define "health"? Then you might understand the discussion.
The first article makes my point which you all have chosen to ignore:
"Critics of reports that show Europeans or Australians are healthier than Americans point to the U.S. lifestyle as a bigger factor than healthcare. Americans have higher rates of obesity than other developed countries, for instance."
Actually, Lady, one can tie all these things together...
You can try to deny studies, but all you'd have to fall back on are your failed talking points...(ranting points rather)..
by Grace Marguerite Williams 5 years ago
presidency thus far? Do you believe that President Obama is doing a good job as president? If not, who do YOU wished you have voted for instead of President Obama? Why?
by Xenonlit 6 years ago
The Republicans will not get away with this "Better off than four years ago" business. They already said that they will do anything to bring down the government and the first Black president. Apparently, they were prepared to destroy our nation in the process.For the most recent ...
by lady_love158 7 years ago
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/201 … party.htmlAs well they should! In spite of that dumb a** Reid saying they are going away, they aren't! They will be a force to be recend with as anyone can see in these budget negotiations and in the republican candidates for president!
by Ralph Deeds 9 years ago
by Josak 5 years ago
One of the greatest criticisms leveled at socialist and perceived socialist nations is their high taxes, usually reinforced with the example of France and it's high tax rates under a newly elected socialist government.Let's examine that claim factually, a quick analysis will prove it false.For...
by Harvey Stelman 8 years ago
This is the third time I am asking this. The second time more people said, yes. With all polls showing his approval rate dropping fast,that must mean more Hubber's have turned sour on him also.What do you have to say, and why do you approve/disapprove?
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|