| Author | Post |
|---|
Bambi
Member
| Joined: | Tue Jul 14th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 424 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 31st, 2009 04:53 pm |
|
QCVillager wrote: we don't yet have Cradle to Grave, but that is the direction. everytime you turn around there seems to be more programs and more confiscation of monies to pay for those programs. very little of which by the way has any basis in Constitutional Law.
of course every program comes with a whole new bureaucracy. gov't is growing nearly unchecked and is involved in far too many aspects of our lives. personal responsibility is a forgotten concept to more people every day.
You see it differently than I do villager. I like the programs and I don't see it as confiscating my money. I gladly give to help others.
gov't is growing nearly unchecked and is involved in far too many aspects of our lives
I don't see it as government growing unchecked. I see it as Capitalism growing out of control, unchecked, which needs to be reined in by the People....us. Only our senators are joining them, not resisting them. It's the unchecked Corporations who are involved in too many aspects of our lives and who are "cheating" us out of what is ours.
I guess it just depends on how you look at things......
|
QCVillager
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 31st, 2009 04:49 pm |
|
we don't yet have Cradle to Grave, but that is the direction. everytime you turn around there seems to be more programs and more confiscation of monies to pay for those programs. very little of which by the way has any basis in Constitutional Law.
of course every program comes with a whole new bureaucracy. gov't is growing nearly unchecked and is involved in far too many aspects of our lives. personal responsibility is a forgotten concept to more people every day.
|
Bambi
Member
| Joined: | Tue Jul 14th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 424 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 31st, 2009 04:48 pm |
|
| moved to health care topic. Last edited on Fri Jul 31st, 2009 05:37 pm by Bambi
|
Bambi
Member
| Joined: | Tue Jul 14th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 424 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 31st, 2009 04:07 pm |
|
where do you suppose the Congress gets all that "extra" money they're now spending in order to provide for people from Cradle to Grave ? Hmmmm...
QCV. Can you please tell me how Congress is providing for us, the people, from Cradle to Grave? I just want to be clear on your position on all the social programs we now have in place that you think should be eliminated or are not warranted. Those you state provide for the American people from Cradle to Grave.
We already have a government run health plan. Socialized medicine as many want to call it. We supply the best health care there is thru the Veterans Administration. It's set up as a government run health care program. So is Medicare, only we do pay a very small amount to the government for our care. Expand on both programs and we have what we need....universal health care for all Americans. Are you suggesting we stop taking care of our Vets. or Seniors or the handicapped or others who can't afford health insurance because it is "socialized medicine" or cradle to grave care?
The Health Insurance Industry is on it's last legs, and they know it. The "Spreading of the American People's Wealth" has been occuring in their industry and others like them, amongst their own people. It's the American people versus Wealthy Corporations who have been spreading our hard earned money via our excessive premiums we pay to them, with their own CEO's. huge wealth packages. That's why they are putting out so much money to fight this threat by the American people, of a takeover of our welfare.
Capitalism is great, as long as it is regulated. Either by the Corporations themselves, or by government. That's why we have Corporation Commissions. There has to be checks and balances, on behalf of the American people, and that's up to our representatives to make sure oversight happens fairly. That is not currently happening imo. Lobbyist, thereby Corporations, have invaded the system, because capitalism has been running unfettered. Now it's time to take our Country back.
 Here's my big smile while I wrote this, so you don't attack me.lol.
|
2 cents
Member
| Joined: | Fri Nov 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 907 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 31st, 2009 04:35 am |
|
| FLAT TAX. NO DEDUCTIONS. Everyone is equal.
|
QCVillager
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 31st, 2009 04:10 am |
|
Blue wrote: Well said, NYBrian! When a government provides for the health, safety, and well-being of its citizens, everybody prospers and nobody is held hostage to an insurance company's bottom line. Maybe that's why the insurance lobby is spending over a million dollars a day to stop this massive effort.
Where do you suppose the insurance lobby gets all that "extra" money they're now spending to deny health insurance to the average American? Hmmmm....
where do you suppose the Congress gets all that "extra" money they're now spending in order to provide for people from Cradle to Grave ? Hmmmm...
The IRS released data today on the distribution of income taxes. It shows that the highest-earning taxpayers shoulder a considerable burden of the federal income tax.
According to the IRS, the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid over 40 percent of all federal income taxes in 2007. That is a higher share than the bottom 95 percent of taxpayers combined! They paid just over 39 percent.
The top 1 percent, those earning over $410,000, consists of 1.4 million taxpayers, while the bottom 95 percent contains 134 million.
In 2000, before the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts that some claim disproportionately benefited the rich, the top 1 percent paid less than 38 percent of income taxes while the bottom 95 paid almost 44 percent. Since the tax cuts, the top 1 percent’s share increased over 2 percentage points while the bottom 95 percent’s share decreased 5 percentage points. Those that argue the tax cuts solely benefited the rich are mistaken.
President Obama plans to raise the top 2 marginal tax rates on those making over $250,000 a year, and Chairman Charlie Rangel (D-NY) wants to slap a 6 percent surtax on top of that to partially pay for a government take over the health care system. These tax hikes, in addition to damaging the already badly weakened economy, will further shift the burden of the income tax to the highest earners.
In contrast, the bottom 40% of taxpayers pays no income taxes on average. In fact, they get money from the tax code well above anything they paid in because of refundable credits. And President Obama’s Make Work Pay credit, passed as part of the stimulus, will increase the money redistribute to these non-taxpayers.
It’s a dangerous situation when a majority of voters can get services and benefits from the government for no cost because there is no incentive for them to limit the growth of government. President Obama’s and Chairman Rangel’s redistributive tax policies will further push the burden of income tax to high earners while giving more benefits to non-taxpayers. But as the IRS data show, the economy cannot afford anymore spreading the wealth around.
|
Chad Roche
Member
|
Posted: Wed Jul 8th, 2009 07:19 am |
|
Blue wrote: Well said, NYBrian! When a government provides for the health, safety, and well-being of its citizens, everybody prospers and nobody is held hostage to an insurance company's bottom line. Maybe that's why the insurance lobby is spending over a million dollars a day to stop this massive effort.
Where do you suppose the insurance lobby gets all that "extra" money they're now spending to deny health insurance to the average American? Hmmmm....
First,
I'm not saying the insurance business isn't in bed with the government, but the insurance industry isn't to blame--the government is. Why wouldn't the insurance company practice self-preservation?
Second,
Have you ever asked yourself what we did before HMO's and insurance? We had indemnity plans and we payed our doctors out of pocket. I'm a lover of analogies so I'm going to use one to explain the problem with our current system. Very simply Americans have gone from an insurance plan that only covers major catastrophes--just like car insurance--to an insurance system that covers EVERYTHING and we want more covered. If my USAA policy on my car covered oil changes, windshield wipers, window cleaner, cleaning the car, and deodorizing etc. the car then my plan would be astronomically expensive JUST LIKE OUR HEALTH INSURANCE IS!! We expect our health insurance to cover everything from a tylenol to open heart surgery which is absurd. I was working for myself a few years ago and had MAJOR health insurance only that cost about $150 a month for me, my wife, and my daughter. We paid our doctor our of pocket based on a rate negotiated by ME with my doctor!! This is what we should be working toward, not government run health care.
Third,
Blue you said that "when a government provides for the health, safety, and well-being of its citizens, everybody prospers and nobody is held hostage to an insurance company's bottom line." That is a flawed perception of our system of government that has been brought on BY our government provided education. There is nothing in our system of government that says they have the obligation to provide us with everything we need, the Constitution actually says the opposite (10th Amendment). Also, when these things are provided for not everyone is prosperous because someone has to pay for it; if what you say was the case then poverty and unemployment wouldn't exist in Europe which is far from the truth. When the government provides what you have said you are absolutely right, we are no longer held hostage to the insurance company--WE ARE NOW HELD HOSTAGE BY THE GOVERNMENT AND CORRUPT POLITICIANS!!!!! What is wrong with insurance companies making a profit? That is how they stay in business, if they were to be in business based on premiums alone our premiums would be 10X what they are today. Those companies being for profit, publically traded companies is what keeps them operating!
We don't need more government in health insurance we need less!!
|
Blue
Member
| Joined: | Tue Jul 7th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 9 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 8th, 2009 12:55 am |
|
Well said, NYBrian! When a government provides for the health, safety, and well-being of its citizens, everybody prospers and nobody is held hostage to an insurance company's bottom line. Maybe that's why the insurance lobby is spending over a million dollars a day to stop this massive effort.
Where do you suppose the insurance lobby gets all that "extra" money they're now spending to deny health insurance to the average American? Hmmmm....
|
nybrian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jul 11th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 314 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 7th, 2009 09:12 pm |
|
Chad, thanks for your response. I guess my issue is with constistency---most people want limited government, and low taxes, but go crazy when something they feel entitled to is taken away. In many ways it's easier to be a Democrat---I think the government should be involved with the health, safety, and well-being of its citizens. So for me a government provided health care plan is just one more plank in a platform that no citizen should fall below. (This is a more general discussion, so I don't want to get into the details, but this is no 'free healthcare' program that is being developed. It is a government-run plan that will collect premiums, but cut out the profit margin of the big insurance companies).
So I admire you in your belief that that the Constitution is a limiting document that gives a list of 'allowed to do's'. Of course now I will try to catch you in an 'I got ya'. Should there be an FDA, FAA, FEMA, etc? Should the government be able to fine companies for nipples appearing on TV? Should there be an FHA to help people buy homes? Student loans? A merchant marines?
I guess what I am attempting to prove is that there are not many people who are completely pure. We all are willing to make an exception here or there for something we really believe in. I have no problem with the government OFFERING health care---I would have a problem with the government MANDATING that health care.
Last edited on Wed Jul 8th, 2009 04:22 am by nybrian
|
Chad Roche
Member
|
Posted: Tue Jul 7th, 2009 07:59 pm |
|
nybrian wrote: Just out of curiosity, why would nationalized healthcare contradict the Constitution? And since what Obama is proposing is not nationalized healthcare but the option to choose a government run health plan would you consider that illegal as well?
The Constitution is a limiting document it is a very specific set of rules that says (in a nutshell) "THIS IS ALL THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS ALLOWED TO DO" the 10th Amendment specifically says that if it isn't in here as a job of the federal government it falls to the states then the people. So, under the 10th Amendment the Fed has no right to enact a government run healthcare that would be the job of the states then the people themselves.
Switzerland is a great example of a compromise on this situation. They have it right in my opinion. I like their immigration policy too....
Don't fool yourself Brian, Obama is proposing nationalized healthcare and at the worst possible time. I feel bad for people who don't have health insurance, I really do, but nationalizing the coverage isn't the answer. Why should 90% of the people have to pay for 10%? Obama's plan may not say "Nationalized Healthcare" but that is what it is. Do you really think that people who are paying their taxes AND paying a health insurance premium of $400 a month with their employer are going to pay for two health insurance plans? If I'm paying the taxes then I have a right to opt out of my insurance and take the "free" stuff. This will create unfair competition by the government and force insurance rates up which will in turn lead to more people on the govn't plan etc, etc. Its a slippery slope. Obama isn't stupid, he knows exactly what he's doing and the slippery slope is the plan. And for the record, YES, every government plan is illegal according to the Constitution and none of them WORK!!!! VA, IHS, TRICARE, CHAMPUS, MEDICARE, MEDICAID, AHCCCS....they all spend so much money it is ridiculous for the quality of care that is given to the patients.
BUT the closest thing to eternal life on this planet is a government program. (I think Ronnie Reagan said that!!)
|
nybrian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jul 11th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 314 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 6th, 2009 04:26 pm |
|
| Just out of curiosity, why would nationalized healthcare contradict the Constitution? And since what Obama is proposing is not nationalized healthcare but the option to choose a government run health plan would you consider that illegal as well?
|
JStenglein
Member
| Joined: | Wed Nov 19th, 2008 |
| Location: | AJ |
| Posts: | 392 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 6th, 2009 10:16 am |
|
Well said, Chad. I agree with you on all of it. 
|
Chad Roche
Member
|
Posted: Sat Jul 4th, 2009 07:47 am |
|
pcresident wrote: nybrian wrote: Well, I'm a big D Democrat who is cynical about politics and labels. I enjoyed the video, although I don't take it as gospel---there are just as many arguements that can be made for our traditional "right-left" labels.
Here is what i say. Most Republicans are ok with an oligarchy with regard to torture and spying on Americans---a couple people in the White House made a decision that broke our laws, for the safety of Americans. And most would be happy to be a democracy, and usurp private property laws, if someone next door to them opened a homeless shelter or halfway house. Or to ban abortion. Or to get into the marriage business with respect to gays. Or to ban drugs.
And trust me, I know that Republicans can come up with as many areas where Democrats are inconsistent. I'm tired of it all. If America is destined for the path that Rome took it's as much the fault of Republicans, Democrats, and everyone else that is involved in this mess. Rather than work for America they just vote the way their party leaders require. Obama could come up with the cure for cancer and Republicans would vote against it. And Bush could have come up with it and Democrats would have done the same. If this country fails it's because of politicians doing whats good for themselves rather than the country, and there's enough blame to go around.
I'm starting to think that political parties should be banned. People should state what they believe in and then people should vote for the best person. And then you serve one term and you're out. And no stupid rules about bringing items to the floor---every bill gets a vote, yes or no, rather than the usual nonsense about killing bills so people don't actually have to put their name on a no vote.
Thanks for letting me rant---I used to love politics, but now I hate it.
Here, here, Brian! I, too, am a big D democrat and feel the same way. I think partisanship has gotten way out of control. We need to stop voting "against" each other, and "FOR" the good of the country.
I kinda agree partisanship has gone nuts; don't fool yourself, it is being done intentionally....the only problem is you are making a statement based on a faulty premise. What is the good of the country? Is it the job of the government to provide for the greater good of the country? NO.
We need to vote for the people who will stand for the RULE OF LAW...not what feels right or seems good. That is what is good for the country, the supreme law of this country is the Constitution and that is FINAL, anything that contradicts the Constitution is ILLEGAL; including Nationalized Healthcare.
Here's the bottom line: we need to stop electing lawyers, they approach the law (ANY LAW) looking for loopholes and they approach the law as something that isn't finite and THAT is the real problem in our country.
|
Chad Roche
Member
|
Posted: Sat Jul 4th, 2009 07:42 am |
|
nybrian wrote: Well, I'm a big D Democrat who is cynical about politics and labels. I enjoyed the video, although I don't take it as gospel---there are just as many arguements that can be made for our traditional "right-left" labels. The issue with this statement is that everything in that video IS the truth!??! How can you argue with it? It had absolutely nothing to do with partisanship.
Here is what i say. Most Republicans are ok with an oligarchy (not me) with regard to torture and spying on Americans---a couple people in the White House made a decision that broke our laws, for the safety of Americans (I believe that if we give up our liberty and freedom in the name of national security we don't deserve the freedom to begin with) And most would be happy to be a democracy, and usurp private property laws, if someone next door to them opened a homeless shelter or halfway house. Or to ban abortion. Or to get into the marriage business with respect to gays. Or to ban drugs. You are making some very stereotypical charges here. First, I am a REPUBLICAN and I would never support the usurption of private property rights. In fact, I think that if Michael Jackson's family wants to bury him at Neverland, it is private property, who's to say they can't? The problem with abortion laws, gay marriage, and drug bans IS democracy!!! I'm 100% against abortion and think it should be illegal in every situation--no matter what. A child's heart begins to beat around 3 1/2 to 4 weeks in utero and at a minimum we should be able to concede that no abortions beyond that point should be legal because that is murder. Marriage is a state issue, I am a Christian and a Conservative and I wouldn't support a Federal amendment to the Constitution banning gay marriage. If a state wants to have it...go for it. If we had the Fair Tax THIS WOULDN'T BE AN ISSUE!!!! Pot should be legal, enough said there.
And trust me, I know that Republicans can come up with as many areas where Democrats are inconsistent. I'm tired of it all. If America is destined for the path that Rome took it's as much the fault of Republicans, Democrats, and everyone else that is involved in this mess. Rather than work for America they just vote the way their party leaders require. Obama could come up with the cure for cancer and Republicans would vote against it. And Bush could have come up with it and Democrats would have done the same. If this country fails it's because of politicians doing whats good for themselves rather than the country, and there's enough blame to go around. Who do we have to blame for getting us to this point?? OURSELVES.
I'm starting to think that political parties should be banned. People should state what they believe in and then people should vote for the best person. And then you serve one term and you're out. And no stupid rules about bringing items to the floor---every bill gets a vote, yes or no, rather than the usual nonsense about killing bills so people don't actually have to put their name on a no vote. Well...I don't agree with that because the Constitution provides for the method of a bill becoming law. What we should make laws against is lobbying, we should make laws for term limits. We should vote for the person we agree with not just the party--I vote that way, it just so happens that I usually only agree with Republicans!! I think that every Representitive who voted on ANY bill (no matter how they voted) should be impeached on the basis of "TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION" if they are voting on bills without reading them they aren't representing ANYONE but themselves--the only thing stopping that from happening is the apathy and complacency of 80% of the people in this country. I blame US for letting this get so out of control.
Thanks for letting me rant---I used to love politics, but now I hate it. I have always hated politics but I love this country and everything it stands for and has accomplished in the last 233 years and I can't stand behind a president who says he wants to remake America. So, if Ii want to make a change in this country and get us back to our roots I have to stand up and make something happen instead of sitting around complaining about it.
|
pcresident
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jan 22nd, 2009 |
| Location: | San Tan Valley |
| Posts: | 178 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 3rd, 2009 06:06 pm |
|
nybrian wrote: Well, I'm a big D Democrat who is cynical about politics and labels. I enjoyed the video, although I don't take it as gospel---there are just as many arguements that can be made for our traditional "right-left" labels.
Here is what i say. Most Republicans are ok with an oligarchy with regard to torture and spying on Americans---a couple people in the White House made a decision that broke our laws, for the safety of Americans. And most would be happy to be a democracy, and usurp private property laws, if someone next door to them opened a homeless shelter or halfway house. Or to ban abortion. Or to get into the marriage business with respect to gays. Or to ban drugs.
And trust me, I know that Republicans can come up with as many areas where Democrats are inconsistent. I'm tired of it all. If America is destined for the path that Rome took it's as much the fault of Republicans, Democrats, and everyone else that is involved in this mess. Rather than work for America they just vote the way their party leaders require. Obama could come up with the cure for cancer and Republicans would vote against it. And Bush could have come up with it and Democrats would have done the same. If this country fails it's because of politicians doing whats good for themselves rather than the country, and there's enough blame to go around.
I'm starting to think that political parties should be banned. People should state what they believe in and then people should vote for the best person. And then you serve one term and you're out. And no stupid rules about bringing items to the floor---every bill gets a vote, yes or no, rather than the usual nonsense about killing bills so people don't actually have to put their name on a no vote.
Thanks for letting me rant---I used to love politics, but now I hate it.
Here, here, Brian! I, too, am a big D democrat and feel the same way. I think partisanship has gotten way out of control. We need to stop voting "against" each other, and "FOR" the good of the country.
|
nybrian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Jul 11th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 314 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 3rd, 2009 04:35 pm |
|
Well, I'm a big D Democrat who is cynical about politics and labels. I enjoyed the video, although I don't take it as gospel---there are just as many arguements that can be made for our traditional "right-left" labels.
Here is what i say. Most Republicans are ok with an oligarchy with regard to torture and spying on Americans---a couple people in the White House made a decision that broke our laws, for the safety of Americans. And most would be happy to be a democracy, and usurp private property laws, if someone next door to them opened a homeless shelter or halfway house. Or to ban abortion. Or to get into the marriage business with respect to gays. Or to ban drugs.
And trust me, I know that Republicans can come up with as many areas where Democrats are inconsistent. I'm tired of it all. If America is destined for the path that Rome took it's as much the fault of Republicans, Democrats, and everyone else that is involved in this mess. Rather than work for America they just vote the way their party leaders require. Obama could come up with the cure for cancer and Republicans would vote against it. And Bush could have come up with it and Democrats would have done the same. If this country fails it's because of politicians doing whats good for themselves rather than the country, and there's enough blame to go around.
I'm starting to think that political parties should be banned. People should state what they believe in and then people should vote for the best person. And then you serve one term and you're out. And no stupid rules about bringing items to the floor---every bill gets a vote, yes or no, rather than the usual nonsense about killing bills so people don't actually have to put their name on a no vote.
Thanks for letting me rant---I used to love politics, but now I hate it.
|
flygad1
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 3rd, 2009 12:35 pm |
|
In the school district I grew up in in Illinois,it was mandatory that in the 8th grade a US Constitution test be passed much like a AIMS test for US History only.
I found this to be a huge benefit in my understanding of US citizenship and Civics etc.
EF
|
Chad Roche
Member
|
Posted: Thu Jul 2nd, 2009 08:58 am |
|
I'm a Republican (big "R") who believes that the republican (little "r") form of government put in place by our founders is being shoved out the back door due to ignorance (see below). We should have ALL students watch this video (some teachers too!): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7M-7LkvcVw
JD Hayworth highlighted a civics survey/poll conducted by the Heritage Foundation asking about 1200 high school students the ten questions on the CITIZENSHIP test given to immigrants. The sad truth: only 3% of the students got the 6 out of 10 questions correct which is a passing score!!! How should this be handled? I have my ideas..but want to hear yours!
|
Current time is 07:11 am | |
|
|
|