Every generation doomed to repeat the failed Socialism experiment..

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: DLeRium
Well what the system really needs is a reduction in cost. McCain's solution of choice is great but at the same time the government is throwing out money. The end goal of this is to get people into the market and competition to drive prices lower. I think more reform is needed in this system before the costs really get driven down. When the costs are driven down, insurance will be more accessible for people.

Well, right. The entire problem is on the supply side, not the demand side, but Obama has ducked everything from the cost side other than Medicare Advantage programs and computerized technology.

Of course, most of the things that Democrats pile on increase costs.

 

[Bateluer]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
have you ever wondered how many of those with poor insurance are in piss poor health because of their lifestyle? Obesity, smoking, physical indolence, etc.? The best prevention for most people is not regular attention with a physician but regular attention at the vegetable isle and treadmill.

I've said the same thing repeatedly. We American's aren't exactly the healthiest people around. My dad loves to bitch to me about his outrageously high health insurance costs that don't cover anything. And yet, he's overweight, smokes a pack a day, and hasn't had a lick of exercise in 30 years. Incidentally, he's also still buying the same high blood pressure medicine originally prescribed in 2002. I don't think the odds of him living to 70 are all that good.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Deeko
I am so tired of morons comparing Obama to "true socialists". His plans are no more socialist than Clinton's, and we didn't turn commie under his watch. It's getting old. You're wrong. Give it up.

He plans to roll back many tax rates to higher than they were under Clinton.

Which isn't socialism.

And forgetting that this statement isn't entirely true (as high, not higher), those rates will still be historically quite low. In fact, they'll be considerably less than under Nixon, and less than half of what they were under Eisenhower (then with a Republican congress no less).
Text

 

[quest55720]

Originally posted by: Deeko

Originally posted by: quest55720

Originally posted by: Deeko

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Deeko
I am so tired of morons comparing Obama to "true socialists". His plans are no more socialist than Clinton's, and we didn't turn commie under his watch. It's getting old. You're wrong. Give it up.

He plans to roll back many tax rates to higher than they were under Clinton.

Last time I checked, his income tax rates are no higher than Clinton's were - 39% on the top tier. They're nowhere even close to the Carter levels. And everyone that screams about socialist health care, uh, his plans are much less socialist than his competitors in the primaries were.

It's just the Republicans last ditch effort to attach a negative buzzword to a candidate. McCain lost, trying to paint Obama as a commie is both a lie and destined to fail.

You guarantee he will veto a democratic UHC plan then? It will be the congress that will decide the direction of health care. The only thing the president can do is veto the bill or sign it. All I heard during the DNC convention was UHC UHC and more UHC. The democrats will pass a UHC and Obama will sign it because he is a socialist.

Whatever you say, kid.

So you are saying either a the democrats break its UHC promise. Or that Obama will have the stones to veto a UHC bill killing a promise of the democrats. You can deny it all you want but UHC will come unless McCain is there to veto that crap.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: quest55720

Originally posted by: Deeko

Originally posted by: quest55720

Originally posted by: Deeko

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Deeko
I am so tired of morons comparing Obama to "true socialists". His plans are no more socialist than Clinton's, and we didn't turn commie under his watch. It's getting old. You're wrong. Give it up.

He plans to roll back many tax rates to higher than they were under Clinton.

Last time I checked, his income tax rates are no higher than Clinton's were - 39% on the top tier. They're nowhere even close to the Carter levels. And everyone that screams about socialist health care, uh, his plans are much less socialist than his competitors in the primaries were.

It's just the Republicans last ditch effort to attach a negative buzzword to a candidate. McCain lost, trying to paint Obama as a commie is both a lie and destined to fail.

You guarantee he will veto a democratic UHC plan then? It will be the congress that will decide the direction of health care. The only thing the president can do is veto the bill or sign it. All I heard during the DNC convention was UHC UHC and more UHC. The democrats will pass a UHC and Obama will sign it because he is a socialist.

Whatever you say, kid.

So you are saying either a the democrats break its UHC promise. Or that Obama will have the stones to veto a UHC bill killing a promise of the democrats. You can deny it all you want but UHC will come unless McCain is there to veto that crap.

When UHC comes it will be a completely bipartisan effort. Anyone who thinks otherwise is just fooling themselves.

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: OneOfTheseDays
Democratic Socialism as implemented in Canada and England are widely considered to be successful.

Ask a Canadian if he'd want to trade his UHC for the private system we have here.

:Q

 

[quest55720]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: quest55720

Originally posted by: Deeko

Originally posted by: quest55720

Originally posted by: Deeko

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Deeko
I am so tired of morons comparing Obama to "true socialists". His plans are no more socialist than Clinton's, and we didn't turn commie under his watch. It's getting old. You're wrong. Give it up.

He plans to roll back many tax rates to higher than they were under Clinton.

Last time I checked, his income tax rates are no higher than Clinton's were - 39% on the top tier. They're nowhere even close to the Carter levels. And everyone that screams about socialist health care, uh, his plans are much less socialist than his competitors in the primaries were.

It's just the Republicans last ditch effort to attach a negative buzzword to a candidate. McCain lost, trying to paint Obama as a commie is both a lie and destined to fail.

You guarantee he will veto a democratic UHC plan then? It will be the congress that will decide the direction of health care. The only thing the president can do is veto the bill or sign it. All I heard during the DNC convention was UHC UHC and more UHC. The democrats will pass a UHC and Obama will sign it because he is a socialist.

Whatever you say, kid.

So you are saying either a the democrats break its UHC promise. Or that Obama will have the stones to veto a UHC bill killing a promise of the democrats. You can deny it all you want but UHC will come unless McCain is there to veto that crap.

When UHC comes it will be a completely bipartisan effort. Anyone who thinks otherwise is just fooling themselves.

Nope but nice try the democratic congress will be all to happy to strip my choices in healthcare and double my taxes to pay for it. The whole theme of the DNC convention was UHC UHC and more UHC. The democrats made the UHC promise during the convention. They will shove UHC down my throat because there won't be enough republicans to filibuster it.

 

[Deeko]

Originally posted by: quest55720

Originally posted by: Deeko

Originally posted by: quest55720

Originally posted by: Deeko

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Deeko
I am so tired of morons comparing Obama to "true socialists". His plans are no more socialist than Clinton's, and we didn't turn commie under his watch. It's getting old. You're wrong. Give it up.

He plans to roll back many tax rates to higher than they were under Clinton.

Last time I checked, his income tax rates are no higher than Clinton's were - 39% on the top tier. They're nowhere even close to the Carter levels. And everyone that screams about socialist health care, uh, his plans are much less socialist than his competitors in the primaries were.

It's just the Republicans last ditch effort to attach a negative buzzword to a candidate. McCain lost, trying to paint Obama as a commie is both a lie and destined to fail.

You guarantee he will veto a democratic UHC plan then? It will be the congress that will decide the direction of health care. The only thing the president can do is veto the bill or sign it. All I heard during the DNC convention was UHC UHC and more UHC. The democrats will pass a UHC and Obama will sign it because he is a socialist.

Whatever you say, kid.

So you are saying either a the democrats break its UHC promise. Or that Obama will have the stones to veto a UHC bill killing a promise of the democrats. You can deny it all you want but UHC will come unless McCain is there to veto that crap.

You are calling Obama a socialist, and pointing at UHC. Obama's healthcare proposal is not UHC, not by a long shot. Who is to say the democrats won't propose something along the lines of what Obama himself is proposing? Certainly not you, you just want something to whine about.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Deeko
I am so tired of morons comparing Obama to "true socialists". His plans are no more socialist than Clinton's, and we didn't turn commie under his watch. It's getting old. You're wrong. Give it up.

He plans to roll back many tax rates to higher than they were under Clinton.

Which isn't socialism.

And forgetting that this statement isn't entirely true (as high, not higher), those rates will still be historically quite low. In fact, they'll be considerably less than under Nixon, and less than half of what they were under Eisenhower (then with a Republican congress no less).
Text

It is true. To give specific examples, Obama has talked about removing the FICA cap (a cap that existed under Clinton, and raising capital gains/dividends to as much as 28% (also higher than Clinton, and he's repeatedly fudged the exact number over the past year).

http://www.cnbc.com/id/23832520

BARTIROMO: How do you plan to change the tax code when it comes to capital gains? How high will that 15 percent rate go?

Sen. OBAMA: Well, you know, I haven't given a firm number. Here's my belief, that we can't go back to some of the, you know, confiscatory rates that existed in the past that distorted sound economics. And I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton, which was the 28 percent. I would--and my guess would be it would be significantly lower than that. I think that we can have a capital gains rate that is higher than 15 percent. If it--and if it, you know--when I talk to people like Warren Buffet or others and I ask them, you know, what's--how much of a difference is it going to be if it's 20 or 25 percent, they say, look, if it's within that range then it's not going to distort, I think, economic decision making. On the other hand, what it will also do is first of all help out the federal treasury, which is running a credit card up with the bank of China and other countries. What it will also do, I think, is allow us to make investments in basic scientific research, in infrastructure, in broadband lines, in green energy and will allow us to give us--give some relief to middle class and working class families who have been driving this economy as consumers but have been doing it through credit cards and home equity loans. They're not going to be able to do that. And if we want the economy to continue to go strong, then we've got to make sure that they're getting a little relief as well.



And that's not even mentioning NAFTA.

 

[theeedude]

It's the so called free market conservatives who fubared this economy, in turn requiring a socialist intervention, even by their own actions. Wealth is already being redistributed to banks, and really once you use taxpayer money to bail out banks, you have no arguments left to deny a bailout to actual people suffering from this crisis. What are you gonna tell me it's more important to use taxpayer money to fill holes in bank balance sheets than to help people get health care, shelter or food? Get the F outta here.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Deeko
I am so tired of morons comparing Obama to "true socialists". His plans are no more socialist than Clinton's, and we didn't turn commie under his watch. It's getting old. You're wrong. Give it up.

He plans to roll back many tax rates to higher than they were under Clinton.

Which isn't socialism.

And forgetting that this statement isn't entirely true (as high, not higher), those rates will still be historically quite low. In fact, they'll be considerably less than under Nixon, and less than half of what they were under Eisenhower (then with a Republican congress no less).
Text

It is true. To give specific examples, Obama has talked about removing the FICA cap (a cap that existed under Clinton, and raising capital gains/dividends to as much as 28% (also higher than Clinton, and he's repeatedly fudged the exact number over the past year).

Up until 1997, Clinton also had a 28% top capital gains tax rate which applied to married couples earning over $255,xxx per year.

 

[quest55720]

Originally posted by: senseamp
It's the so called free market conservatives who fubared this economy, in turn requiring a socialist intervention, even by their own actions. Wealth is already being redistributed to banks, and really once you use taxpayer money to bail out banks, you have no arguments left to deny a bailout to actual people suffering from this crisis. What are you gonna tell me it's more important to use taxpayer money to fill holes in bank balance sheets than to help people get health care, shelter or food? Get the F outta here.

Or we could use the money to balance the budget. I was and still against the bail out and am against a trillion dollars of new social spending Obama wants.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Deeko
I am so tired of morons comparing Obama to "true socialists". His plans are no more socialist than Clinton's, and we didn't turn commie under his watch. It's getting old. You're wrong. Give it up.

He plans to roll back many tax rates to higher than they were under Clinton.

Which isn't socialism.

And forgetting that this statement isn't entirely true (as high, not higher), those rates will still be historically quite low. In fact, they'll be considerably less than under Nixon, and less than half of what they were under Eisenhower (then with a Republican congress no less).
Text

It is true. To give specific examples, Obama has talked about removing the FICA cap (a cap that existed under Clinton, and raising capital gains/dividends to as much as 28% (also higher than Clinton, and he's repeatedly fudged the exact number over the past year).

Up until 1997, Clinton also had a 28% top capital gains tax rate which applied to married couples earning over $255,xxx per year.

That's true. But given that Clinton's prized accomplishment is the 20% rate cut, and its the rate he set himself, I think that's a fairer number to use to define him, don't you?

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Deeko
I am so tired of morons comparing Obama to "true socialists". His plans are no more socialist than Clinton's, and we didn't turn commie under his watch. It's getting old. You're wrong. Give it up.

He plans to roll back many tax rates to higher than they were under Clinton.

Which isn't socialism.

And forgetting that this statement isn't entirely true (as high, not higher), those rates will still be historically quite low. In fact, they'll be considerably less than under Nixon, and less than half of what they were under Eisenhower (then with a Republican congress no less).
Text

It is true. To give specific examples, Obama has talked about removing the FICA cap (a cap that existed under Clinton, and raising capital gains/dividends to as much as 28% (also higher than Clinton, and he's repeatedly fudged the exact number over the past year).

Up until 1997, Clinton also had a 28% top capital gains tax rate which applied to married couples earning over $255,xxx per year.

That's true. But given that Clinton's prized accomplishment is the 20% rate cut, and its the rate he set himself, I think that's a fairer number to use to define him, don't you?

I wasn't commentating on whether it's fair or not. I was commentating on the rate being higher than Clinton. As for fair, I don't think it's fair that someone has lower tax rates on capital than my labor so I think it should be taxed the regular marginal tax rates. What makes "them" so special?

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: quest55720

Originally posted by: senseamp
It's the so called free market conservatives who fubared this economy, in turn requiring a socialist intervention, even by their own actions. Wealth is already being redistributed to banks, and really once you use taxpayer money to bail out banks, you have no arguments left to deny a bailout to actual people suffering from this crisis. What are you gonna tell me it's more important to use taxpayer money to fill holes in bank balance sheets than to help people get health care, shelter or food? Get the F outta here.

Or we could use the money to balance the budget. I was and still against the bail out and am against a trillion dollars of new social spending Obama wants.

Balance budget in time of economic freefall? That is a dumb idea, and I am a big balanced budget proponent in general. These are times when governments need to pick up the slack, make big investment in infrastrucutre, help people get through tough times, etc. You balane the budget in fat times, like Clinton, something Republicans didn't do. But if their solution is to run huge deficits in times of prosperity and try to balance the budget during tough times, they are more coocoo than cocoa puffs.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
I think it's ridiculous, and the people proposing it are typically ignorant hard liners who don't actually know what socialism is, or just like to use buzzwords regardless of whether or not they're correct.

Also, if Obama is a socialist, then McCain is too. I haven't heard McCain say he is for a flat tax.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Engineer
I wasn't commentating on whether it's fair or not. I was commentating on the rate being higher than Clinton. As for fair, I don't think it's fair that someone has lower tax rates on capital than my labor so I think it should be taxed the regular marginal tax rates. What makes "them" so special?

For dividends, that money has already been taxed. For cap gains, well, you want people investing in your country, right?

Very few nations have capital gains rates over 20%.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
I think it's ridiculous, and the people proposing it are typically ignorant hard liners who don't actually know what socialism is, or just like to use buzzwords regardless of whether or not they're correct.

Also, if Obama is a socialist, then McCain is too. I haven't heard McCain say he is for a flat tax.

McCain voted against the borrowed Bush tax cuts, that he now wants to keep in place. He gave the reason that they gave too much to the rich. Whatever is politically convenient...

 

[digiram]

We're already facing doom. You want to continue this???

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Socialism=Governments control of the free market.

The USA has NEVER been as socialistic as it has become under Bush and while it's still a tad less socialist than England, France and Germany, it's MORE socialist than Eastern Europe.

 

[Throckmorton]

You could say the same thing about capitalism. When was the last time real market capitalism succeeded?

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
You could say the same thing about capitalism. When was the last time real market capitalism succeeded?

Only time it has been tried was under Pinochet.

 

[Timorous]

I know the thread has moved on from this but I just wanted to point something out.

I live in the UK and I would not trade the NHS for the American health system.

The NHS has its flaws but I have never had to worry about being ill. If I get sick I just go to the doctors and get treatment. If I need any medication I pay for the prescription which is £5.50

The idea of having medical insurance in the hands of a for profit corporation would terrify me. As it is I have never worried about being ill. I do not have to worry about not being covered if I lose my job. I do not have to worry about getting a condition, then losing my job and being unable to get a new insurance policy because of a pre-existing condition.

I pay 11% of my taxable income towards National Insurance. This currently works out to a bit less than £20/week (which is around $32 I believe). This to me is worth every penny because of the peace of mind it provides during ill health.

I do not see why the USA which already has fantastic medical facilities would suddenly provide worse health care if they went with a UHC solution. If the staff are paid the same then I can see the benefit being that all people can get cheaper preventative care rather than waiting until they need to visit the E.R.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Timorous
I know the thread has moved on from this but I just wanted to point something out.

I live in the UK and I would not trade the NHS for the American health system.

The NHS has its flaws but I have never had to worry about being ill. If I get sick I just go to the doctors and get treatment. If I need any medication I pay for the prescription which is £5.50

The idea of having medical insurance in the hands of a for profit corporation would terrify me. As it is I have never worried about being ill. I do not have to worry about not being covered if I lose my job. I do not have to worry about getting a condition, then losing my job and being unable to get a new insurance policy because of a pre-existing condition.

I pay 11% of my taxable income towards National Insurance. This currently works out to a bit less than £20/week (which is around $32 I believe). This to me is worth every penny because of the peace of mind it provides during ill health.

I do not see why the USA which already has fantastic medical facilities would suddenly provide worse health care if they went with a UHC solution. If the staff are paid the same then I can see the benefit being that all people can get cheaper preventative care rather than waiting until they need to visit the E.R.

Cheers from a fellow Brit, currently in Afghanistan.

I pretty much agree with you on everything you said.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Timorous
I know the thread has moved on from this but I just wanted to point something out.

I live in the UK and I would not trade the NHS for the American health system.

The NHS has its flaws but I have never had to worry about being ill. If I get sick I just go to the doctors and get treatment. If I need any medication I pay for the prescription which is £5.50

The idea of having medical insurance in the hands of a for profit corporation would terrify me. As it is I have never worried about being ill. I do not have to worry about not being covered if I lose my job. I do not have to worry about getting a condition, then losing my job and being unable to get a new insurance policy because of a pre-existing condition.

I pay 11% of my taxable income towards National Insurance. This currently works out to a bit less than £20/week (which is around $32 I believe). This to me is worth every penny because of the peace of mind it provides during ill health.

I do not see why the USA which already has fantastic medical facilities would suddenly provide worse health care if they went with a UHC solution. If the staff are paid the same then I can see the benefit being that all people can get cheaper preventative care rather than waiting until they need to visit the E.R.

Cheers from a fellow Brit, currently in Afghanistan.

I pretty much agree with you on everything you said.

Ditto for most Canadians. The US system is just as flawed or more flawed than the flawed Canadian public system. We'll likely go with a French or German style of system, but not the US system.