World Politics

Page 4 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jun 24, 2009
464
0
0
scribe said:
Naw. No need to delete threads. Issues can be discussed and debated with a measure of civility.
Yeah, that thought is very nice, especially since it's your thread, and you probably don't want your rights of free speech trampled upon. But this is still not the place for this kind of debate. This is a sports/ fitness/ technical forum. This is not a political forum. This country is polarized enough, to no one's benefit. When I come to this site it is to get away from all the controversy that is fueled by the ignorant masses being led around by their noses, by the media, that feeds off of nothing but sensationalism, be it true or not. And make no mistake, I am not putting my head in the ground. I keep fully informed, and have a complete understanding of World and US politics, just NOT here.
In conclusion, I'm disgusted with this thread and it will be my last post, and last visit to it. I am severely disappointed that the moderators did not exhibit more wisdom and discretion pertaining to this thread. It seems only curse words wake them up. But, one thing I take away from this thread is that, it will make me look at some of the members in a completely different light. too bad.:(
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
usedtobefast said:
i said if before, i will say it again. healthy citizens make good citizens.
healthcare is a right,not a privilege. i have worked hard my whole life in
a profession that very few people get rich in. still, it is honest work.many,many
hardworking people have little if any health-care coverage
. it is not right. it never will be.
Don't remember seeing that in the constitution so I think we will have to agree to disagree.


So take money from some (who?) to provide this for those who can't/won't provide it for themselves? Should hospitals give their beds away? How about doctors? Should they be forced to work for just their living expenses... after all they are rich, right? How about those evil large and small businesses that provide the ability for most in this country to provide for themselves? Let's just take their money, after all, they probably ripped off their customers anyway.

Where does this end? I mean, I could argue that everyone should have a right to a house. Everyone needs a roof over their head, right? What good is healthcare if you are exposed to the elements day and night? So I guess the Govt ought to take that over too.

At what point do folks take responsibility for themselves and their needs?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Cobber said:
That is simply not true. It might be true for some, but thousands of people are denied health insurance because of pre-existing medical conditions. Either that or the premiums are extremely high - thousands of dollars a month. Way more than a cell phone, cable TV and a car payment.
And they get healthcare by law.

There is already a safetynet in place for those who are needy and of little means.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I'm out (again)

I think I'll show myself out of this one.

I will just say this; I think employers have an absolute responsibility to their hard working, honest employees to provide as much as they can afford for compensation and benefits.

As an employer, it is becoming extremely difficult to be optimistic looking forward when more and more of my fellow citizens have absolutely no problem taking from me what I have worked my life for. I honestly don't know how we got to the point where it's ok with the masses to do that.
 
Jul 22, 2009
3,351
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
And they get healthcare by law.

There is already a safetynet in place for those who are needy and of little means.
yes. And it is making emergency rooms into basic health clinics. This is often pointed to as an argument for universal health coverage.
 
Jul 22, 2009
3,351
0
0
racerralph said:
Yeah, that thought is very nice, especially since it's your thread, and you probably don't want your rights of free speech trampled upon. But this is still not the place for this kind of debate. This is a sports/ fitness/ technical forum. This is not a political forum. This country is polarized enough, to no one's benefit. When I come to this site it is to get away from all the controversy that is fueled by the ignorant masses being led around by their noses, by the media, that feeds off of nothing but sensationalism, be it true or not. And make no mistake, I am not putting my head in the ground. I keep fully informed, and have a complete understanding of World and US politics, just NOT here.
In conclusion, I'm disgusted with this thread and it will be my last post, and last visit to it. I am severely disappointed that the moderators did not exhibit more wisdom and discretion pertaining to this thread. It seems only curse words wake them up. But, one thing I take away from this thread is that, it will make me look at some of the members in a completely different light. too bad.:(
I have been surprised by some people's POVs. In some cases, pleasantly surprised by agreeing with their views.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Scott SoCal said:
And you have no right to the labor of others. Period. I have no right to your labor either.

In the US, charitable giving goes up when tax rates go down. The more money people have in their pockets, the better it is for everyone, including those that need help. The Government in this country has demonstrated for most of the last 100 years that it can not be effective and efficient in nearly every endeavor it is involved in. That is just a fact.

Ever wonder why Marxism/communism/socialism fails everywhere it in the world it has ever been implemented?

Capitalism is not perfect by any stretch, but it is far superior to any other system. So yeah, look after you and yours first and if there is anything left over then share with whomever you wish. But do not compel me to give you or the Government my labor. The war that established the US as a soverign nation was fought for this reason more than any other.
One of the main reasons this is so is because we have a system where those who dislike government many times control the purse strings. If those programs were properly funded, you have much greater efficiency.

Again, show me a national government that functions as an industrial power that plays by those "hands off" rules. Just one. The ones that come closest, (Africa and South America are your best examples) have economies that are riddled with internal strife of the kind we have not seen in a couple of centuries, and you have poverty on a level that is incomprehensible to most people who have not seen it. That and they have NATIONAL GDP's the size of Arizona's.

Just once I would like to see a successful real world example of this philosophy. Heck, check out the late 1800's and early 1900's in our history to see how great it worked out. The problem is that in your system, an even greater majority of wealth is concentrated in even fewer hands. Most Libertarians fancy themselves as the ruling class, but under the system they profess would end up in the 98% of those without money. The statistics are just not in your favor.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Scott SoCal said:
That drive nice cars and have multiple cell phones and cable tv..... this is about priorities. That's all. If the priority were to do the right thing by your family everyone would have health insurance. If it were far more difficult for med/mal lawsuits to be brought and class action suits to Pharma companies the insurance rates would be cut in half. But guess who supports the Lib Dems in Washington (among others)? You guessed it. The trial lawyers.

Just follow the money and ask yourself this; Why would the Fed Govt want to take over the private healthcare system in the US (1/8 of GDP) instead of work to fix its' problems? Answer? If the dems can get control of your ability to get medical care you will keep them in power as long as medical care is important to you no matter how good or bad it is.

This is about perpetual power, nothing more and nothing less.
That have prior conditions that preclude them from getting any kind of insurance at all. A guy that works for one of my clients (been there 6 months or so) had a heart attack 4 years ago. His wife had breast cancer last year. He pays $1300 in COBRA now. It ends next April. He cannot get a call back from ANY insurance companies. NONE. The myth of the rich welfare mother is hyperbole used to obfuscate the debate. It may happen in some cases, but the great majority are no where close to your welfare mother example.

Also note that health care is not a real market. Lets say your kid starts to cough a lot, and lose weight. He gets pale and a bit weak. You take him to a doctor. The doctor calls you into a room without your kid. He tells you that your child has Leukemia. Here is what you DON'T have at that point:
1. The ability to shop around
2. The choice to just not buy the expensive stuff, and either do without or take the cheap option.

Health care IS NOT A MARKET OF THE KIND THAT WORKS IN CAPITALIST MODELS!

So, let the kid die? Too bad, sucks for him?

Or, in a country of significant size that has amassed wealth for the greatest percentage of the populace of any in history, is it too much to ask for a little to better the lives of those less fortunate?

Lastly, poverty is a NECESSITY in a Capitalist system. It just is. Not only will some not rise above because of a myriad of reasons that they do control. Some will not rise above because the pie just ain't big enough for them. Let me give you a little history lesson, when the wealth is amassed in to fewer and fewer hands, those without generally get angry enough to cut people's heads off. I would suggest in the Libertarian hell being proposed by Teabaggers would not turn out quite like you imagine.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Scott SoCal said:
Don't remember seeing that in the constitution so I think we will have to agree to disagree.


So take money from some (who?) to provide this for those who can't/won't provide it for themselves? Should hospitals give their beds away? How about doctors? Should they be forced to work for just their living expenses... after all they are rich, right? How about those evil large and small businesses that provide the ability for most in this country to provide for themselves? Let's just take their money, after all, they probably ripped off their customers anyway.

Where does this end? I mean, I could argue that everyone should have a right to a house. Everyone needs a roof over their head, right? What good is healthcare if you are exposed to the elements day and night? So I guess the Govt ought to take that over too.

At what point do folks take responsibility for themselves and their needs?
Don't remember the constitution leaving the determination of what is and is not constitutional in the hands of the populace. In fact if you are a "Strict Constitutionalist" you will have to admit that the CONSTITUTION says that the Supreme Court says what is and is not constitutional. I chuckle mightily when I hear someone say "It isn't constitutional!" Really, says you? Because the way I read it, the Founders didn't leave that power to you or the states. Period.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Scott SoCal said:
And they get healthcare by law.

There is already a safetynet in place for those who are needy and of little means.
And it is FAR too small to affect the enormity of the REAL problem.

Many seem to forget. Poor people who cannot pay still go to the hospital. Guess who pays for them. That's right, those of us who do have insurance. That is a tax by a corporation. Since when are they entitled to YOUR work and money to pay for those who cannot afford.

Here is a guess, and call me crazy, but I am betting that the government can reduce the cost to those of us who already pay for those who don't have.


Scott, I respect your opinions. If I have come off angrily, it is because I just don't think the anger and fear I see by those showing up and yelling at town hall meetings are informed with all of the facts. I also know this, and you can check this if you want, contrary to what you may hear about Canada and the UK. If you had a politician running who could do away with socialized medicine in those countries who ran against one who would keep the system, the race wouldn't be close. The people with the real power (not you or I, but the insurance companies), they know that once we get it, most of those teabaggers in 8 years would shoot you if you tried to take it away.

Past that, I hear what you are saying. I just respectfully disagree.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
scribe said:
I have been surprised by some people's POVs. In some cases, pleasantly surprised by agreeing with their views.
Dude, even a stopped clock is right twice per day...:D
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Thoughtforfood said:
And it is FAR too small to affect the enormity of the REAL problem.

Many seem to forget. Poor people who cannot pay still go to the hospital. Guess who pays for them. That's right, those of us who do have insurance. That is a tax by a corporation. Since when are they entitled to YOUR work and money to pay for those who cannot afford.

Here is a guess, and call me crazy, but I am betting that the government can reduce the cost to those of us who already pay for those who don't have.


Scott, I respect your opinions. If I have come off angrily, it is because I just don't think the anger and fear I see by those showing up and yelling at town hall meetings are informed with all of the facts. I also know this, and you can check this if you want, contrary to what you may hear about Canada and the UK. If you had a politician running who could do away with socialized medicine in those countries who ran against one who would keep the system, the race wouldn't be close. The people with the real power (not you or I, but the insurance companies), they know that once we get it, most of those teabaggers in 8 years would shoot you if you tried to take it away.

Past that, I hear what you are saying. I just respectfully disagree.
Concretly proving my point. This is and never was about the people and doing the right thing. This is 100% ABOUT GOVT CORRUPTION AND CONTORL.

TFF, I think highly of you and many others I disagree with, but you better wake up and soon. I am in the world of "insurance companies" and, in this case, you simply have no idea what you are talking about.
 
Jul 9, 2009
6,625
0
0
Thoughtforfood said:
Dude, even a stopped clock is right twice per day...:D
It is very weird, I find myself for the first time agreeing with Scribe while disagreeing with everything that Scottie has to say, and thinking that TFF is the most well reasoned voice on the subject. Maybe those guys are right this thread is a bad idea.
Seriously though there can be no worse way to administer health care than through competitive for profit corporations. The average person pays the money (I have a feeling most Americans on this forum fall into that category at best) for all the Health Co's CEO's new yachts while health care in the country is the most expensive but far far from the best in the western world.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Well, to each his own I guess.

Have a good life you guys but be careful what you wish for.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Cobber said:
+1... excellent post TFF. :eek:

As I said above, it all boils down to what people think should be "guaranteed" in a civilized society. Many libertarians, with their everyone for themselves philosophy, essentially describe their ideal government as something akin to Somalia's - no government! In any society that is not complete anarchy, we are going to have to pay taxes to pay for some form of government. So, what should we get in return? What is essential to maintain a healthy, working population? I would argue, at a bare minimum, a legal system, a social security system (which includes healthcare), and infrastructure (roads etc) and a national defense (note I did not say international offense!). Every industrialized country in the world supplies these things to to their citizens in exchange for taxes except for one.... the US. Most do so for less money (per capita) than we do not. A lot of people in this country get filthy rich and pay lower tax rates than people that can barely scrape by. Warren Buffet paid 16% tax last year, his secretary paid 30%. Is that fair? Especially given the fact that Buffet needs people like his secretary (and doctors, nurses, police, restaurantnt workers, gas station attendants, etc, etc, etc) to life comfortably in this country.
You mean like this IRS data?

Table 5.--Returns with Positive Adjusted Gross Income (AGI): Number of Returns, Shares of AGI and Total Income Tax, AGI Floor on Percentiles in Current and Constant Dollars, and Average Tax Rates, by Selected Descending Cumulative Percentiles of Returns Based on Income Size Using the Definition of AGI for Each Year, Tax Years 1986-2005
[All figures are estimates based on samples]
Descending cumulative percentiles
Item, tax year Total Top Top Top Top Top
1 percent 5 percent 10 percent 25 percent 50 percent
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Number of returns: [1]
1986 102,087,623 1,020,876 5,104,381 10,208,762 25,521,906 51,043,811
1987 106,154,761 1,061,548 5,307,738 10,615,476 26,538,690 53,077,380
1988 108,872,859 1,088,729 5,443,643 10,887,286 27,218,214 54,436,429
1989 111,312,721 1,113,127 5,565,636 11,131,272 27,828,181 55,656,361
1990 112,812,262 1,128,123 5,640,613 11,281,226 28,203,066 56,406,132
1991 113,804,104 1,138,041 5,690,205 11,380,410 28,451,026 56,902,052
1992 112,652,759 1,126,528 5,632,638 11,265,276 28,163,190 56,326,380
1993 113,681,387 1,136,814 5,684,069 11,368,139 28,420,347 56,840,694
1994 114,989,920 1,149,899 5,749,496 11,498,992 28,747,480 57,494,960
1995 117,274,186 1,172,742 5,863,709 11,727,419 29,318,546 58,637,093
1996 119,441,767 1,194,418 5,972,088 11,944,177 29,860,442 59,720,884
1997 121,503,284 1,215,033 6,075,164 12,150,328 30,375,821 60,751,642
1998 123,775,831 1,237,758 6,188,792 12,377,583 30,943,958 61,887,915
1999 126,008,974 1,260,090 6,300,449 12,600,897 31,502,244 63,004,487
2000 128,227,143 1,282,271 6,411,357 12,822,714 32,056,786 64,113,572
2001 128,817,051 1,288,171 6,440,853 12,881,705 32,204,263 64,408,526
2002 128,323,986 1,283,240 6,416,199 12,832,399 32,080,997 64,161,993
2003 128,609,786 1,286,098 6,430,489 12,860,979 32,152,447 64,304,893
2004 130,371,156 1,303,712 6,518,558 13,037,116 32,592,789 65,185,578
2005 132,611,637 1,326,116 6,630,582 13,261,164 33,152,909 66,305,819
Adjusted gross income floor on percentiles (current dollars):

The top 1% of wage earners pay 39.38% of all collected income tax.
The top 5% pay 59.67% of all collected income tax.
The top 10% pay over 70%
The top 25% pay 85.99%

How much more do you want? These are not tax rates, this is TOTAL tax collected. If the top 1% pay nearly 40% of ALL TAXES COLLECTED what do you suppose their effective rate of taxation is? 65%, 70%? WTF???
 
Mar 11, 2009
664
0
0
usedtobefast said:
i like this thread as it is mostly polite and i can hear what others think. better
to know, than not know. none of us are made of stone.
I agree with you for the most part but, many people are completely oblivious to the real world and live in their own fantasy land and don't perceive other peoples or societies problems as their own. And, then there are other people who simply don't care about other people as we have seen in this thread.

I am a progressive who is a reformed and enlightened former selfish and greedy conservative(I was never a right-wing fringe lunatic to be clear). You just can't reason with conservatives because they just aren't reality based. Something personally devastating is the only thing that will change their belief system and for them to see reality.

Sorry to be so pessimistic but things in this country will have to get much worse before they will get better. However, I would love to be proved wrong. But I don't see that happening any time soon.
 
Jul 9, 2009
6,625
0
0
How much more do you want? These are not tax rates, this is TOTAL tax collected. If the top 1% pay nearly 40% of ALL TAXES COLLECTED
Yes they do. On 35% of the national net worth. This is called lying with statistics. In fact the top 5% represent 70% of the national net worth so they really don't even pay their share.
That "flat tax" that people used to talk about (the rich people) well what have we heard about that lately?
 
titan_90 said:
I agree with you for the most part but, many people are completely oblivious to the real world and live in their own fantasy land and don't perceive other peoples or societies problems as their own. And, then there are other people who simply don't care about other people as we have seen in this thread.

I am a progressive who is a reformed and enlightened former selfish and greedy conservative(I was never a right-wing fringe lunatic to be clear). You just can't reason with conservatives because they just aren't reality based. Something personally devastating is the only thing that will change their belief system and for them to see reality.

Sorry to be so pessimistic but things in this country will have to get much worse before they will get better. However, I would love to be proved wrong. But I don't see that happening any time soon.
Often not neven a personal tragedy will move them.

American conservatives find it inconceivable (even odd) that the "collective" should prevail over the individual in an enlightened soiciety, which isn't merely at the level of a pack of stray dogs.

And this is the problem with this modern capitalist society which they have created, namely that there is nothing noble in it and that it teaches people to consider only that which is of (economic) interest to their own base needs. And there is no more dignity in that than in how stray dogs behave over a scrap of meat. It teaches that only the strong should be rewarded, that the weak are thus a burden on society and that indeed only those who constantly strive for success, which for them basically means financial success, by a hard working protestant ethic are the only ones with any worth. To hell with the others!

But they forget that many a mega-rich person has had many priviledges growing up, if not has inhereted outright his wealth, that most people will never have, hard working or not. For them the world and society is divided up into two irresolvable halves (thesis and antithesis): the strong who are always virtuous in their hard working causes and the weak, who are lazy people that should thus be sacrificed at the altar of American capitalism, where only the fortunate and strong individuals should reap all the benifits in a society which has no social-democratic sense, in contrast with Europe, where at least a modicum of social-democratic sense still exists.

And ultimately we are not asking that the rich should not be so, that they should not look first after their families as any poor parents would do, but that government stops giving massive corporate tax breaks to the rich, while nearly 50 million Americans have no form of healthcare because they can't afford it.

No society will ever eliminate poverty nor laziness, however the cynical anti-social society which American capitalism has formed and convinced everybody through its propaganda (even among many of the less well-off), that otherwise would be anti-American is simply indecorous for a nation that is the richest in the world and self-claims to be a model of democratic virtue which should be exported, even by force if necessary.

Lastly all to often the American conservatives package life into work and profit, or else profit and work. That if one doesn't strive to be always "hard working," he is pathetic and unproductive. Final sentence. What a meager and decrepid concept of life. However they forget that in reality, in the real world, most people are neither extremely lazy, nor hard working, but do what they must just to survive. Are they to be considered less human for doing so? Should they be excluded from the basic coverages of life which collective taxation can provide, such as heathcare, to be able to live at least a dignified life (even in their less productive, less aggressive or less whatever way of living)? So why don't they (the coservatives) just bring back human sacrifices or that famous ancient Roman proverb, by which they effectively still live: mors tua vita mea ("your death is my life").

So once again human nature is difficult, if not impossible, to change. I think you are wise to be pesimistic. But if there is any reason for optimism, is that some in the world (relatively few though they may be, especially in these deplorable times) still aspire to a higher existence than that of stray dogs. And here I am actually being complimentary to stray dogs, for humanity should be capable of so much more but in reality hasn't the will nor the stomach for as many posters have made clear.
 
Mar 18, 2009
1,834
0
0
Ok...so I am a conservative...I have been labelel an evil person by quite a few of you...who don't even know me...let me set the record straight...

I used to live in a town...too crowded so me and my family moved way out into the country. Not even there a year and the "government" says they are taking a huge swath of land through my property so that high tension power lines can be put in. This has done two things...it has uglied my property...it has dropped my home value by god knows what...and there are very real health issues related to being within 100 feet of these power lines. They said they did this by imminent domain...for the greater good of society. Interesting.

I don't make a lot of money...I didn't get into my career to become rich...but I did have to put myself through graduate school. During that time I went to school, and worked a job on the side to prepare for my family. During that time I had no insurance...my wife needed surgery. I am still paying off that bill because it is the right thing to do...I will be paying it off for quite a while!

I am a church going American. I give the church 10% of our income. I also have 5% of my income automatically taken from my pay that goes to the charity of my choice.

I am raising 2 children who are growing up educated and productive in our society.

Now some of you think I am evil...how much more should I have to give? I don't give enough? What is enough? I don't need anyone telling me or acting as my moral compass!! You people have not even a clue as to my background and what I have done in life...

And for the nimrod liberal who wants to kick my ***...I live in NC...just let me know. And for the record...you are the one who acted like the ***.

Anyone on this board or in life can disagree with my or anyones opinions. However, when you attack me personally with name calling or whatever it crosses the line. I have not attacked anyone here personally...just given my position. I don't care if you agree with it or not...you are not me and never will be.

By the way Washington DC needs an enima...calling the Pres a liar was wrong..now a congressman saying republicans are nuckle dragging neandrithals? Yea...sounds like some on this thread.
 
Jul 22, 2009
3,351
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Well, to each his own I guess.

Have a good life you guys but be careful what you wish for.
Slow down there. This isn't a doomsday scenario. The agenda of this administration is to restructure the way that health care is currently regulated by the government. There is no threat of the system collapsing under what is being proposed.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Scott SoCal said:
Concretly proving my point. This is and never was about the people and doing the right thing. This is 100% ABOUT GOVT CORRUPTION AND CONTORL.

TFF, I think highly of you and many others I disagree with, but you better wake up and soon. I am in the world of "insurance companies" and, in this case, you simply have no idea what you are talking about.
So lets do a jump ball and see:

To anyone reading this who lives in a country with socialized medicine, what would happen if a politician ran on a platform based on the idea of ending that system and returning to a market based system?

I understand a lot about what I am suggesting. The fact that you are in insurance tells me that you have a lot more on your dog in this fight than do I. It does not alter the fact that health care is not a true market, and that major reforms are needed.

I guess it is at this point that I should tell you that I am not in favor of a public option at this point. I am for allowing some other ideas like allowing coops, expanded Medicare and Medicade, forcing insurance companies to minimize pre-existing conditions exemptions, and enforcing anti-trust laws. I am also for reasonable limits on jury settlements for medical malpractice.

What I will not support is the rhetoric that paints our current president as some freak socialist bent on turning our country into the land of the subjugated. Socialistic principles have been used in our economy for over 100 years (and at times, even more strongly than anything we have today), and we have prospered greatly. People are showing up at town hall meetings screaming and crying about things they clearly do not understand. We have people showing up at protests with loaded weapons and signs suggesting our president needs to die. He is being compared to Hitler regularly by the right, something that is both disgusting and laughable at the same time. No, I understand full well what is happening. People with loads of money see their pile being threatened because they amassed it by dishonest means, but they intend to keep it regardless. It is the fatal flaw with Libertarian philosophy. Its proponents do not recognize that those with the money and power make the rules to suit their needs, and then claim to be living within the rules. Problem is, those rules stifle the ability for others to come after them regardless of effort and skill. It is just the way it is.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
S General 11
Similar threads
2019 Rugby World Cup

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts