No, he's a socialist because he wants to nationalize a priviate sector into a government produced and controlled sector. Free speech is a right, not a privlege. That doesn't mean the government provides my speech.
That's not even an argument. How do you compare free speech with health care? A government cannot provide your speech, but it can provide you care. That's just non sensical. And uhc does not equal socialism : european countries are not socialist.
Every shareholder believes that corporations should be accountable for their actions. Edwards takes it to the next level and says corporations should be accountable to the government for their actions. They should be capped in the way they compensate employers, etc...
The problem is that some actions lead by some corporation hurt/damage government property : the exxon valdez for instance. And most corporation (along with their shareholders) will not have the well-being of the citizens among their first priorities : for example a corporation polluting the water supplies of region. What should be done? Let the shareholders decide what is best or have the government make sure the corporation is actually accountable for its actions? Shareholders really haven't proved to give a fuck in recent history about the lambda citizen.
No, he feels that the rich and middle class should contribute more, and that only through distribution of wealth can we create equality. Instead of closing the gap by bringing the poor up, his method is closing the gap by bringing the rich down.
I call bs. First of all because the gap is not closing but is largely growing and the rich are getting richer while the middle class is getting nowhere. Second of all if you tax a % of an income the higher the income the higher the tax. That's fair. What is not fair is making a 1000$ income family pay the same 100$ tax that a 1 000 000$ income family is paying. Btw, how is that bringing the rich down?
To break down borders and realise that we are one species and then the true patriotism comes from pride and love of the human race, not from the tribes of which we currently are divided, open your eyes your mind will see! - ME
That's not even an argument. How do you compare free speech with health care? A government cannot provide your speech, but it can provide you care. That's just non sensical. And uhc does not equal socialism : european countries are not socialist.
No, what is nonsensical is to believe that because something is deemed a right it is also deemed something one is entitled to have provided by the government. And UHC does equal socialism by definition if the government is planning, funding and administrating the system. Sorry about that.
The problem is that some actions lead by some corporation hurt/damage government property : the exxon valdez for instance. And most corporation (along with their shareholders) will not have the well-being of the citizens among their first priorities : for example a corporation polluting the water supplies of region. What should be done? Let the shareholders decide what is best or have the government make sure the corporation is actually accountable for its actions? Shareholders really haven't proved to give a fuck in recent history about the lambda citizen.
Oh, please. There are always exceptions to every rule. Exceptions don't disprove rules.
I call bs. First of all because the gap is not closing but is largely growing and the rich are getting richer while the middle class is getting nowhere. Second of all if you tax a % of an income the higher the income the higher the tax. That's fair. What is not fair is making a 1000$ income family pay the same 100$ tax that a 1 000 000$ income family is paying. Btw, how is that bringing the rich down?
Robbing from Peter to pay Paul means Peter now has less than he had and Paul now has more than he had. The gap is now narrowed. How do you not understand?
And your example generally doesn't happen. Someone making a really low income will pay nothing. Someone making a moderate income will pay something. Someone making a large income is in a higher tax bracket. So your "that's fair" example is more accurate. I dont' really understand where you got the notion that someone making $1,000 and someone making $1,000,000 are both paying the same $100 tax.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
No, what is nonsensical is to believe that because something is deemed a right it is also deemed something one is entitled to have provided by the government. And UHC does equal socialism by definition if the government is planning, funding and administrating the system. Sorry about that.
Every other first world country on earth has proved you wrong. We can keep going around and around on this with your primary argument being "no it isn't" but without any kind of evidence to support your argument, you're just plain wrong.
Robbing from Peter to pay Paul means Peter now has less than he had and Paul now has more than he had. The gap is now narrowed. How do you not understand?
And your example generally doesn't happen. Someone making a really low income will pay nothing. Someone making a moderate income will pay something. Someone making a large income is in a higher tax bracket. So your "that's fair" example is more accurate. I dont' really understand where you got the notion that someone making $1,000 and someone making $1,000,000 are both paying the same $100 tax.
Warren Buffet, the third richest man in America pays 17% tax, I make considerably less than that and pay 32% tax
even he has come out to say that isn't fair. In my view, everyone should pay the same % of tax across the board.
He who has the gold rules, hell they make the rules. Why wouldn't they tip it towards their advantage? Last I checked no one below the poverty line got anyone elected
I understand the concept of UHC but I do not believe its practical in America. the red tape, loss in quality, lack of choices, government BS, etc etc. have you been to the DMV? I would support something along the lines of free healthcare for children and seniors. I think we can handle and afford that without raising our taxes. but I do agree with you on one thing......we live in a great country where we are all allowed an opinion and for the most part, majority does win.
I can't argue with you about the population stetching the system thin. I live in California where Schwartzenegger is proposing uhc on a state level.
Repubs are of course scared to death because if he can get it going in California, an overpopulated state with an overbloated budget, other states will follow suit.
I can't argue with you about the population stetching the system thin. I live in California where Schwartzenegger is proposing uhc on a state level.
Repubs are of course scared to death because if he can get it going in California, an overpopulated state with an overbloated budget, other states will follow suit.
So what do you think about it on a state level?
hard to say really. I think certain states will have a far better system then others, which doesnt sound too fair. for example Cali's might suck while Montana's might be outstanding. tough call.
however, I'd be more than happy to trade my 32% for Warren Buffets 17%? That'd probably be a good start.
you guys kill me with this example. buffet gets taxed much higher then you on his salary. you are both taxed the same on investments. dont demand more because he is a smarter investor then you.
you guys kill me with this example. buffet gets taxed much higher then you on his salary. you are both taxed the same on investments. dont demand more because he is a smarter investor then you.
what is it with you people? Again, I'm not demanding anything. It's just lively discussion dude. And even if I were demanding it it's my right to do so (as it is your right to demand that I stop demanding)
And again, you don't know me so you don't really know how good of an investor I am.
btw the percentages I posted were from an article he wrote. In the article, he says it's an unfair division. I'll try and find the link
what is it with you people? Again, I'm not demanding anything. It's just lively discussion dude. And even if I were demanding it it's my right to do so (as it is your right to demand that I stop demanding)
And again, you don't know me so you don't really know how good of an investor I am.
btw the percentages I posted were from an article he wrote. In the article, he says it's an unfair division. I'll try and find the link
sorry man but you have the wrong definition of freedom. its not your right to demand anything from me. and its not my right to demand you stop. with freedom comes responsibility. demanding things from people is not responsible.
and it doesnt matter what buffet said. yes the guy is a genius investor. but just because he says capital gains should be taxed at a higher rate doesnt make it right.
sorry man but you have the wrong definition of freedom. its not your right to demand anything from me. and its not my right to demand you stop. with freedom comes responsibility. demanding things from people is not responsible.
we disagree on this, let's leave it at that and move on.
and it doesnt matter what buffet said. yes the guy is a genius investor. but just because he says capital gains should be taxed at a higher rate doesnt make it right.
funny it mattered two posts ago when you challenged me on it.
that'd be checkmate. Any further discussion is you shuffling your king around the board.
let's go to another thread and argue about somthing else.
Comments
The problem is that some actions lead by some corporation hurt/damage government property : the exxon valdez for instance. And most corporation (along with their shareholders) will not have the well-being of the citizens among their first priorities : for example a corporation polluting the water supplies of region. What should be done? Let the shareholders decide what is best or have the government make sure the corporation is actually accountable for its actions? Shareholders really haven't proved to give a fuck in recent history about the lambda citizen.
I call bs. First of all because the gap is not closing but is largely growing and the rich are getting richer while the middle class is getting nowhere. Second of all if you tax a % of an income the higher the income the higher the tax. That's fair. What is not fair is making a 1000$ income family pay the same 100$ tax that a 1 000 000$ income family is paying. Btw, how is that bringing the rich down?
To break down borders and realise that we are one species and then the true patriotism comes from pride and love of the human race, not from the tribes of which we currently are divided, open your eyes your mind will see! - ME
"Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore
"i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
~ed, 8/7
No, what is nonsensical is to believe that because something is deemed a right it is also deemed something one is entitled to have provided by the government. And UHC does equal socialism by definition if the government is planning, funding and administrating the system. Sorry about that.
Oh, please. There are always exceptions to every rule. Exceptions don't disprove rules.
Robbing from Peter to pay Paul means Peter now has less than he had and Paul now has more than he had. The gap is now narrowed. How do you not understand?
And your example generally doesn't happen. Someone making a really low income will pay nothing. Someone making a moderate income will pay something. Someone making a large income is in a higher tax bracket. So your "that's fair" example is more accurate. I dont' really understand where you got the notion that someone making $1,000 and someone making $1,000,000 are both paying the same $100 tax.
Every other first world country on earth has proved you wrong. We can keep going around and around on this with your primary argument being "no it isn't" but without any kind of evidence to support your argument, you're just plain wrong.
have you been in a coma the last 7 years?
Warren Buffet, the third richest man in America pays 17% tax, I make considerably less than that and pay 32% tax
even he has come out to say that isn't fair. In my view, everyone should pay the same % of tax across the board.
He who has the gold rules, hell they make the rules. Why wouldn't they tip it towards their advantage? Last I checked no one below the poverty line got anyone elected
I can't argue with you about the population stetching the system thin. I live in California where Schwartzenegger is proposing uhc on a state level.
Repubs are of course scared to death because if he can get it going in California, an overpopulated state with an overbloated budget, other states will follow suit.
So what do you think about it on a state level?
hard to say really. I think certain states will have a far better system then others, which doesnt sound too fair. for example Cali's might suck while Montana's might be outstanding. tough call.
I know this is only a footnote to your argument, but do you realize how badly this screws the poor?
If I make $8 million and have to pay 50% in taxes (to pick a round number), I've still got $4 million left. That's plenty to live on.
But if I make $30,000, and have to pay 50% in taxes ... all of a sudden I've gone from middle class to poor.
for the least they could possibly do
Right on. Its elementary cliche, i know, but its profoundly true in this case: "fair doesn't always mean equal".
absolutely right, I guess I didn't think it out to the end
I highly doubt a rich person would agree with you.
however, I'd be more than happy to trade my 32% for Warren Buffets 17%? That'd probably be a good start.
you guys kill me with this example. buffet gets taxed much higher then you on his salary. you are both taxed the same on investments. dont demand more because he is a smarter investor then you.
what is it with you people? Again, I'm not demanding anything. It's just lively discussion dude. And even if I were demanding it it's my right to do so (as it is your right to demand that I stop demanding)
And again, you don't know me so you don't really know how good of an investor I am.
btw the percentages I posted were from an article he wrote. In the article, he says it's an unfair division. I'll try and find the link
http://www.ctj.org/blog/2007/06/buffett-rich-pay-too-little.html
sorry man but you have the wrong definition of freedom. its not your right to demand anything from me. and its not my right to demand you stop. with freedom comes responsibility. demanding things from people is not responsible.
and it doesnt matter what buffet said. yes the guy is a genius investor. but just because he says capital gains should be taxed at a higher rate doesnt make it right.
we disagree on this, let's leave it at that and move on.
funny it mattered two posts ago when you challenged me on it.
that'd be checkmate. Any further discussion is you shuffling your king around the board.
let's go to another thread and argue about somthing else.
thats a very witty response but does nothing to prove your point.