Community votes are collected from you and other visitors to Ask500People. Independent votes are collected from visitors to hundreds of other websites around the world.
Sign Up or Login
Sorry, this data is only available to users with an account.
Who decides how much and to whom, Obama? We can spread the wealth but it's called charity, Obama wants to make it an entitlement with taxes and he, being the supreme ruler will decide how much charity "YOU" give. 30%, 50%, is 70% enough or does he still need more, maybe 90% will work. Instead of creating jobs, he's expanding welfare. It's the end of capitalism as he has planned.
No, Obama rescued your economy, to be honest I did not think even he could pull it off. Now congress decides your taxation levels, not Obama. You might dislike the man for whatever reason, but you are just making stuff up.
If you look how your political system is set up I am surprised your country is not in a bigger mess then it actually is. Anyway "Socialist" Europe has surpassed the U.S. economically during Bush's term and "Communist" China will surpass both.
Obama is the President, if you knew politics you would know the a Prez is their parties leader. Not Reid or Pelosi, as the leader he tells the House and Senate what he wants. His party controls all 3 branches of government. Sorry you don't know what I do about the government, I know how it works but thanks to an all-knowing Canadian I may get a better education on American politics. Obama has sold America to the Chinese not Bush with his trillion dollar spending.
When Bush was in power we were dealing in millions and billions of dollars, now with Obama we have to understand and accept trillion dollar deficits because of his liberal politics and socialism.
Boy, talk about making things up, I'm tired of listening to your lies about every subject your an expert in.
The President IS his parties leader. Biden is the Vice Prez and President of the senate (not the leader), Harry Reid is the Senate majority leader and Nancy is the Speaker of the House not the House majority leader, that belongs to Steny Hoyer. The Chairman is NOT the leader of the party. It isn't hard but then we may be dealing with a Canadian with knowledge of a NEW American political system.
Your pretty much correct! Most would claim it's probably John McCann but the dems claimed it was Limbaugh. Unlike Clinton, Bush drop off the map so he wasn't in the running. Steel was elected to the RNC but that doesn't make him the leader. The minority leaders in the house and senate mean nothing.
As far as I am concerned it is steel who is the head of the Republican party. The minority leaders are just that the leader of their representatives in their house.
But I am sad that Limbaugh is the Republican spokesperson right now, it seems that he singlehandedly is defining the position of Republicans here, you guys need a smart articulate and thoughtful individual to speak for your party also for if and when you regained the majority in the future, to deal with the economy. But people like Limbaugh are not helping your party, nor does the legacy of Bush.
I'm sure all Republicans appreciate you electing their leader for them, Steel.
Rush is a talk show host, comic and entertainer. He has no power in the RNC except as a radio host, a very knowledgeable and popular one but only a host. Because of the number of listeners though party leaders listen more to him then most.
Rush has more power with his voice then many with party power, either party. The Dems are just upset with him and will spread lie after lie to try and diminish his voice because they have nothing to equal him. As I said before, most and the loudest have never really listened to him, they just believe the lies they hear from the loony left.
[1 point]277 days ago by ncattReplyEdited 277 days ago by ncatt
The chairman is the highest office of an organized group such as a board, committee, or deliberative assembly. The person holding the office is typically elected or appointed by the members of the group. The chairman presides over meetings of the assembled group and conducts its business in an orderly fashion. When the group is not in session, the chairman's duties often including acting as its head, its representative to the outside world and its spokesperson -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chairman
I did listen to him a couple of times, I found the man loud and crude, I certainly do not want to tune into his show. I do dislike people like that and there are 50 other channels to chose from that do not insult people.
Last time! Michael Steel is the chairman of the RNC but he's not the leader of the party. I won't repeat this again. If you can't hear me after 3 tries, you will never.
I agree with your point a bought the EU passing us with the value of the euro and China making great leaps economically. The US has had one of the strongest economies until recently. If you broke up the EU it would still kick the individual country?s asses. The problem with the US economy isn?t that we need to spend more money or socialize more of the privet sector. The problem is that some people apparently think that those that are bad at running business should be given large amounts of money. The fact is that we have no way of foreseeing how the current administrations actions are going to affect us in the next couple of years. The age old political game is to do what you need to do to get the votes and when it goes south blame it on the currant party in charge.
You are right, I was referring to the European Union and should have been more clear about that. Not as closely integrated as the United States yet. But people can cross the borders like you cross state lines, quite an amazing feat of co-operation after centuries of war, specially since the former soviet block countries are joining now.
The European Union (EU) is an economic and political union of 27 member states, located primarily in Europe. It was established by the Treaty of Maastricht on 1 November 1993, upon the foundations of the pre-existing European Economic Community. With a population of almost 500 million, the EU generates an estimated 30% share (US$18.4 trillion in 2008) of the nominal gross world product. -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union
Your economy was facing meltdown, if Paulsen hadn't started the bailouts (with the ok of Bush) there would not even have been an economy left for Obama to rescue. Bush has run every business he managed (and now country) into near bankruptcy. Other then the government no one in the U.S. had the capital needed to deal with the problems, would you have preferred foreign businesses owners (like China) to buy up the left overs?
Prez Bush made large amounts of money before he ran for office. You should check your facts before you tell your lies. Bush was the Gov. of Texas and made money with his family's oil business and his professional baseball team. Just so you don't screw this up he also graduated from Yale, Harvard Business School and was in the Air National Guard.
Sorry but he was cleared of any charges, that means there was no insider trading and his has been proved innocent. He had planed to sell his shares long be he did. Read you own reference.
The subsequent SEC investigation ended in 1992 with a memo stating "it appears that Bush did not engage in illegal insider trading," but noted that the memo "must in no way be construed as indicating that the party has been exonerated or that no action may ultimately result". Critics allege that this decision was strongly influenced by the makeup of the SEC at the time, which heavily favored Bush. As President, Bush has refused to authorize the SEC to release its full report on the Harken investigation. But like I clearly said, I will assume him innocent until proven guilty.
You also are not real knowledgable about the bailout. Bush was in favor of the $787 billion to loan the banks, expecting a payback, because of "timing" (the office of the president) he felt he had to do this for Obama and country. Obama was the one that ran the deficit up into the multi-trillions (which is another barrel of monkeys). China has trillions of dollars of our debt through Obama but wait until you see how he's wasting our money on million dollars turtle tunnels and airports with an average of 20 passengers a day and only to DC (for Murtha(D)-Pa) and over a million for a guardrail around a lake, the problem with that is the lake doesn't exist, it's dry.
Oh, I forgot to add remember Congress was controlled by the Dems including all the banking & sub committees. I'm sure you don't understand about the banking committees but you'll have time to learn.
[1 point]277 days ago by ncattReplyEdited 277 days ago by ncatt
The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, commonly referred to as a bailout of the U.S. financial system, is a law enacted in response to the global financial crisis of 2008 authorizing the United States Secretary of the Treasury to spend up to US$700 billion to purchase distressed assets, especially mortgage-backed securities, and make capital injections into banks. Both foreign and domestic banks are included in the bailout. The Federal Reserve also extended help to American Express, whose bank-holding application it recently approved. The Act was proposed by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson during the global financial crisis of 2008.
The original proposal was three pages, as submitted to the United States House of Representatives. The purpose of the plan was to purchase bad assets, reduce uncertainty regarding the worth of the remaining assets, and restore confidence in the credit markets. The text of the proposed law was expanded to 110 pages and was put forward as an amendment to H.R. 3997. The amendment was rejected via a vote of the House of Representatives on September 29, 2008, by a margin of 228-205. -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Economic_Stabilization_Act_of_2008
I wont argue the point that its for a good cause, in many cases, but the fact is that its still not right. I can think of hundreds of things that I should spend YOUR money on but that does not make it right for me to take your money and spend it as I see fit.
If you want to feed the hungry, give them your extra money. If you want to help fight aids, give them your extra money. That way there is a limit or a budget you have to prioritize, but once the government starts giving money it becomes an entitlement and cant be stopped even when there is no money to give. They borrow money from China to give to the "poor" who wont work because it will cause them to loose their free money.
Again the government takes taxes to pay for military, but that is ok? The military is MEANT to keep us safe and so is health care. Why should your politicians get better health care by the state then the people they are meant to protect?
Have you ever wondered why it is that the public funded health care costs about half per person in Canada, compared to the U.S. while people in Canada live longer?
And like I said earlier, if the free handouts are an incentive to not working, then why is it that The Netherlands has lower unemployment then the U.S.? Clearly there is something else that is more important to the fast majority of the people else they would be waiting for the handouts.
You can't compare apple and oranges. There are many factors involve, Entitlements, hidden taxes, illegals, foreign aid or spending, etc.
The politicians make and enact the laws of this country (including their own) so with corrupt politicians they can do anything they want. With one party rule and closed sessions funny things happen. Lobbyists also are factored in. They also become rich (and not paying taxes by some helps).
How am I comparing apples and oranges? Both health care and the military have this major purpose (keeping us safe from harm) in common.
I am very much against the one party rule and very much in favor of open and transparent government. Politicians need money to put up the attack ads so they will naturally look favorably towards the donors, I dislike this system intensely. I have seen no viable solution to prevent this except maybe one or more viable opposition parties, combined with the open and transparent government. The Republicans at this point need to get organized and debate the issues based on facts, if they don't get their act together the Democrats will gain even more seats in 2010. Watch Obama politics, he gives a shot across the bow and if the opposition does not back of, he will come out with a direct hit with a clear indication of the other dirt he has on them. The only chance any opposition has right now is to acknowledge their wrongdoings (if any) and debate on the issues.
The 1st purpose of Government is to protect it citizens. That's the reason for the military.
The apples and oranges come from comparing just a small part of 2 different countries. How many Hurricanes do you get every year, tornado's, etc. Weather makes a difference, you have a border with the US we have a border with Mexico, We spend billions on aid all over the world. We have troops all over the world, as aid, as support and in the case of Korea maybe war. Where does Canada spend all the billions?
Is there a difference in our 2 countries that makes it impossible to compare just one small piece of the pie, health care, I think so.
Well we do know that health care is a very important part of longevity, so is diet, exercise, genes and a lack of conflict. Four of of those we can influence. Why should we concentrate on just one?
Taxes to pay for the military is OK. I do not see the connection between the military and health care. How does free health care keep us safe?
If the Canadian system is so great I think we would be fighting for that system. I think the higher costs are due to the malpractice insurance premiums medical professionals have to pay. The life expectancy of Canadians may be longer but that has nothing to do with the quality of health care in the US. There are many factors for those statistics. Lifestyle choices for instance. Drugs, obesity and gang violence are all factored into those numbers.
People confuse the purpose of government with the purpose of charity.
It is not the government's place to see to it that everyone has what they need. When the government gets involved in the charity business, it builds resentment between the social classes. The wealthy are forced to pay for the poor, and the poor believe they are entitled to the hand-outs. This benefits the government, because they now control the distribution of wealth, and may pick and choose who receives that money.
If charities were to take more responsibility for their local communities, and require the recipients to contribute something in exchange for the aid they receive, the wealthy would be more apt to donate. This changes the mindset of the wealthy from, "the government is taking my money" to one of "I am giving my money". Also, the recipients will lose their sense of entitlement, and become a member of the community, instead of a dependent of it.
All the while, power is shifted from a central government, back to the people.
You are right in that personal greed is what prevents this from working, I am all for helping those who deserve my help, but I am not interested in helping those who are lazy, however I do not want lazy people around me nor do I wish to see them dead either. Best option is to give them enough money to prevent them from bothering me while not dying either.
And when you earn less then you pay out, you will then be the one with your hand out. Funny thing is the more you have your hand out the more they hold out their hand. In the end we'll all be holding our hand out and no one will be there to pay out.
Except ... Government!
Thanks you "Comrade Sam" (former Uncle)
[1 point]278 days ago by ncattReplyEdited 278 days ago by ncatt
Strangely in Holland (where I am from) people get compared to the U.S a high unemployment benefit, 6 weeks holiday a year, socialized health care and their unemployment rate is much lower then in your country, any idea why that might be?
BEcause they aren't supporting Lockheed-Martin and other war profiteers? We give tax money away--to the rich. It didn't work in France and it won't work here, not in the long run.
Is it one of, if not THE, largest contract item on The Nehterland's budget?
$233.6 million to begin production of 24 aircraft--just ONE of the thousands of contracts to Lockeed, Boeing, et al.
Or how about Science Applications International Corporation, a "stealth company" with 9,000 government contracts totaling about 8 BILLION dollars...in fact, with over 44,000 people in it's Virginia offices, it is larger than the departments of Labor, Energy, and Housing and Urban Development combined.
Yet we can't afford to run the governmnet?
The BIGGEST thing the Bush Admin did was to outsource billions and billions of dollars, especially in the new (and booming--bigger than HOLLYWOOD!!) security industry. This effectively removes it from government oversight, thwarting the purposes of a true democracy, and allows them to line the pockets of their friends (not they they have any, not as you and I think of 'friend') and business buddies. While children routinely go to bed hungry.
Betcha The Netherlands doesn't spend anywhere near the hundreds of billions on that kinda crap that we do.
For FY2007 the US government spent $315B on DoD contracts. Just contracts. Add salary/wages/benefits/care for injured soldiers. Add cost of wars. Etc.
It is worse than most people realize. And how anyone can justify the amount spent on "defense" by the military-industrial complex in the US is beyond me.
Because the first thing the companies do is open up factories in every state so the politicians can claim they brought in so many jobs into the state. Seems to work for military spending, maybe they should do the same when it comes to (useful) infrastructure spending. But maybe not a bridge to nowhere.
You'll need to first qualify "we," in "...and we stop them..." I work for the U.S. government and I am far more concerned with how much money gets wasted than I am with anyone else in the world wanting to enslave me. That is even assuming that all the programs that you or people like you want to have funded, stay in place. Even if all those programs were necessary, massive amounts of money is spent without need.
I, on the other hand, am of the mindset that it is not necessary to spend as much as the rest of the world put together on defense spending. (And yes, I do consider $650B to be roughly the same as $820B, what we spend and what the rest of the world spends respectively, especially when we are such a small portion of the population.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures
It is better to have what you need, but it is better still to NOT have 500 when you only need 3 or 10 or even 100.
Or if you need 500, to have 500 that work as advertised, come in anywhere close to on-budget, and actually fill the gap that necessitated them in the first place. Example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARH-70
Unless you have specific knowledge that all this waste is doing something other than lining the pockets of defense corporations, your position is indefensible. Pun intended.
You cannot protect the country from everything, it is ridiculous to try, not to mention expensive to the point of bankruptcy. In the past 50 years we've spent $22T on defense budget. That doesn't include stuff on the side, hidden add-ons, extras for the wars, etc.
I understand the history of the situation, and I'm not saying it was all wasted, or even most of it as lots of technology has come about because of the research (though it could certainly have been done by other departments, which could be less secretive, which would allow for competition, which would reduce costs). What I am saying is that shaving 10% a year, even 5% would have given us a massive amount of cash to invest elsewhere, or to not add to the debt.
Without getting into the side-point of granting you that saved money wouldn't sit around or actually be saved, my actual point is that there is a lot of waste going on and a very significant majority of that funnels directly to and through the DoD. I think that needs to change.
..
[2 points]277 days ago by hobo9ReplyEdited 277 days ago by hobo9
But an example is in my town the Board of Education's budget was not approved to raise to the level they wanted, so what did they do? They cut all the extra activities after school, Girl & Boy scout meetings were canceled, after school baseball, clubs, etc. They didn't cut one job, pack of papar, book or crayon (Our BOE's budget is larger then the rest of the town's total services). They played politics with our children.
Our federal government is no different then my local government was, playing politics with our tax money.
Build an Air Force base in my district and I'll vote to put an army depot in yours, type of thing, (like Murta's airport in Pa - stimulus money at work) or the 3.4 million dollar turtle tunnel crossing in Fl., 11 million $ "Microsoft bridge", 10 million to renovate an abandoned train station (last used 30 years ago), 10,000 dead people getting stimulus checks and last in NY , a $578,000 grant it did not request for a homelessness problem it claims it does not have.
Well The Netherlands is a lot smaller then the U.S. so that would be a safe bet. But you are correct that in the U.S. there seems to be the believe that private industry always does things better then anything the state does. And there are times that this is true, but there are also cases when it can be shown that the government can do a better job. But until this is acknowledged by the majority of the population the debate will go nowhere and all that is left to do is ridicule the other side or make up facts.
Taxes are paid in a percentage, some pay nothing, some 10%, 20% or 30% or more. The ones most in favor of socialized health care are the ones paying little or nothing for it, a lower amount then average. If you had to pay twice as much as normal in taxes you might feel different about high taxes toward bad socialized medicine.
Sure it does seem terribly unfair, I think we should have a flat tax rate without loopholes. Would need an increase in the wages for those in the lower pay scale so they can actually afford to live and pay for the good we produce. But I have no problem with a flat tax system.
Flat taxes have been blocked repeatedly by the dems, WHY? Taxes are control, big government is control, socialized medicine will also be control over the people. Why do they push gun control? Yes, control. Our forefather's had excellent ideas to protect the country from the politicians but they have been eroded by the very government they were placed there to protect us from.
Governments throughout history have placed controls over the people to empower themselves. (one of Hitler's 1st acts was gun control on the people).
This comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
The worst part about replying to Ask001 is most of what he sez is wrong, I'll stop short of saying he's lying but his facts are wrong, time and time again. It make it twice as hard to have to correct his mistakes and then answer his question.
They can't support flat taxes unless they can demand the wage increase at the same time. But as inflation kicks in this might become the norm anyway.
Wow, here is a change of subject but I'll play. I support hunting for food, keeping animal (other then human) population under control and target shooting, I also support limiting the kinds of weapons people should be allowed and where, I also support licensing gun owners and registering guns. I think arms control is a good thing, I would not want a terrorist to get hold of anything like a machine gun for instance.
Now, just because Hitler did it does not make it automatically bad for instance as I pointed out elsewhere, Hitler was also a right wing politician and later dictator, but that does not make the right wing bad.
Yea..maybe the US does need to adopt the Canadian health care system.
According to a 2007 article, the Canadian medical profession is suffering from a brain drain. The article states, “One in nine trained-in-Canada doctors is practicing medicine in the United States. If Canadian-educated doctors who were born in the U.S. are excluded, the number is one in 12.”
A February 28, 2006 article in The New York Times stated, “Accepting money from patients for operations they would otherwise receive free of charge in a public hospital is technically prohibited in this country, even in cases where patients would wait months or even years before receiving treatment…Canada remains the only industrialized country that outlaws privately financed purchases of core medical services.”
57% of Canadians reported waiting 4 weeks or more to see a specialist; 24% of Canadians waited 4 hours or more in the emergency room.
A March 2, 2004 article in the Canadian Medical Association Journal stated, “Saskatchewan is under fire for having the longest waiting time in the country for a diagnostic MRI — a whopping 22 months.”
There are a lot of things involved in determining lifespan. Health care helps boost life expectancy but is not the sole contributor to the number. The US has a larger minority population than Canada, which pulls down the national average. The US has a lot more accidental deaths that involve younger people per capita such as teens killed in car wrecks and the like.
I may be alone here but I like the fact that I can see a doctor today if I want and could see a specialist in less than a week if needed.
The U.S. has a larger minority population? Assuming you are not racist but are referring to the poor that do not have health insurance, then you would be correct. Although poverty is also not the sole indication of a lower average age -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Poverty_Index
In the U.S if you have the money or the insurance then you can see the doctor today and the specialist this week. I have no doubt about that.
I have "needed" a doctor twice here and both times I did see one the same day, I did have to wait nearly an hour in the waiting room though since I did not make an appointment. I have never needed a specialist so I can't comment on personal experience but from what I have seen in two separate cases with repeated dislocated shoulders an operation to prevent further dislocated shoulders was scheduled after about 6 weeks of the last dislocated shoulder, apparently it needed to heal before the surgeon wanted to operate.
It's not the role of Government to "share the wealth". Government should "aid" not support the people, and "all the people". Those "with" should help by creating jobs for those "without", Government needs to back those creating the jobs and not try to create them themselves. Government cannot create jobs, only tax one person to give to another. Our politicians are the only ones getting rich now .... with "BIG" government. Doubt me! check their tax statements (if they even pay them, note: Tom Daschle, Tim Geithner, Nancy Killefer, Charles Rangel, Bill Richardson, etc. all with some kind of tax problem)
Now if people had an incentive to do what is best for the common good, then you would be correct. The incentive right now is to do what is best for me and to hell with every one else.)
Most that are able to, give to charity but when charity starts telling you how much more to give, most will put the checkbook away and hold onto their wallet. Government has taken the place of that kind of charity.
States are finding you can push some only so far and they leave. Examples are the highest taxpayers are fleeing New York, New Jersey, California for states like Florida and Texas. Business and wealthier Americans will start fleeing the US for other countries as Obama starts digging his claws in deeper. Hollywood has already started doing that and has for years.
Like you said, most are leaving in order to make more money (pay less tax) If I have a choice where to live between Europe and the U.S. I would pick Europe every time, both if I was poor or if I was rich. Even Canada is better then the U.S. however, if I was rich I would go to Australia or NZ rather then stay here in Canada for the winter...
But makes one wonder why so many rich (making more the 250k per year) people did vote for Obama does it not?
I know you want to change the subject but I was talking about the US and more specifically the States. Not Europe, Australia, New Zealand or even Canada.
They aren't leaving to make more money, just in protest of the states "OVER TAXING" them. It's not that they don't want to pay their fair share but with socialism it doesn't have to be fair so they (meaning government) take whatever they can get and then ask for more. Words mean things so please don't change the meaning of what I say to what you think I say.
If you are so in love with someplace else in the world why would you even care about the US and it politics, much less become an expert like you imply you are and live so close to us.
I was comparing the countries where tax payer funded health care works, health care costs are also lower in those countries. But why would companies if they thought that they would be better of in the U.S. open factories here in Canada? (Minimum wage here is higher, taxation is higher)
Even though it is a change of subject, the reason I became motivated in discussing U.S. politics with other people is when Bush invaded Iraq, it just continued on from there. One of the things I noticed is that the Republicans seem to attack the person rather then the arguments, even though there are good arguments to be made for health care for just those who can afford it. (There are also good argument to be made why we should combine resources and help every person.) I have never liked bullies or lies and I have seen a lot of them made by both parties during the last election.
Our taxes are higher, Federal, state, and local all add up and every state is different. Local is the same problem. almost 2/3rds of every dollar you earn is paid in taxes. With $20 p/hour you only keep about $7 or less. Government get the rest. These numbers are old so they are probably higher now and it also depends on your total income, all through taxes, most taxes are also hidden taxes, you never even know your paying them. Look at your phone bill, cable TV, taxes on gas, tires. You pay a tax on everything you buy. You pay a tax when you buy a car and a tax is paid when it's sold, that 1 car may pay taxes 3, 4 or more times. Buy a newspaper, lumber co pay taxes, paper company pays taxes, trucking company, ink company, newspaper company, tax, tax, tax. property taxes, vehicle tax, SS tax, permits it goes on & on. That newspapers cost is so inflated due to taxes but we don't see it, blame the greedy company for the hi prices, never government.
Bush never invaded Iraq, the military did with Congress's blessing (democratic controlled).
I hope you actually read what people type, most who disagree never actually read but just glance at the words. I wonder how many have listened to Rush Limbaugh before they condemn him, you'd be surprised. I listen to both sides left, right and radical. I may not agree with a single word and I may not listen start to finish but do hear what they say, then agree or not.
Your last sentence is the one I agree with most. Politicians promise to try to get elected, the words they use to do it doesn't matter to them. Obama got elected on words not actions, he got elected on charisma & charm not truth & knowledge, he got elected on party and race not facts or experience.
If your taxes are so much higher, how come Canada can afford tax funded health care, but the U.S. can't?
The democrats controlled congress when Bush's (after all he was the commander in chief) invaded Iraq ?
Every politician gets elected on words. What I find sad is that politics is degenerating to personal attacks rather then ability. Obama had a better education and personal disposition for the job, McCain had more experience in politics. Clearly the better person won over experience.
Of topic but I want to use it as an example... One thing I noticed here in Canada is that car insurance is more then double what I have seen in other countries (except the U.S.), but Canadian (or American) drivers are not worse then in those other countries. Before the elections politicians will promise to overhaul the system but this hardly ever happens. My guess (I have no proof for this) is that the companies fix the rates, I am for privately run car insurance, but I also do believe we pay to much. Assuming we are paying to much, then the options as I see them are, continue paying to much, legislate and enforce, or run a state owned insurance company in competition.
Bush & Iraq was a joke! Bush was in Washington while the military went into Iraq, if you read my words you should have been able to figure it out.
Because Obama went to better schools that makes a man smarter, or somehow the better person? Yea, your a democrat! The bigger lier was elected with help from dead people voting.
Government auto insurance? You have a answer for everything and that is government owns you, your a communist. Your off-the-wall, my head hurts trying to understand your reasons and ideas for everything.
You are again either making misleading statements or outright changing the facts. First, on $20/hr wage (with 40hrs/wk, that is $41,600 gross) you pay $8,027 in fed taxes (incl. soc. sec.). Even if the state taxes are the same (minus soc. sec.) of $4,845 then you still have net pay of $28,305 -- or 68%, not the roughly 35% you indicate. And state taxes are not the same amount as federal, so take home should be a bit more.
Even taking into account property tax and sales tax (which not every location/state has), I see no way to whittle down roughly 70% of gross pay by half. Unless you are only buying cigarettes, in NYC, no food, no rent.
Second of all, "Bush never invaded Iraq, the military did with Congress's blessing (democratic controlled)" is disingenuous at best.
A. The Congress would not have acted without Bush and his cabinet campaigning for the invasion. It's not as if they voted for it in a vacuum and he blindly followed their orders (and their bad intelligence).
B. "In October 2002 the U.S. Congress passed a "Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq". [The] resolution authorized the President to "use any means necessary" against Iraq"
Which means that it was still up to the president to decide what to do. Since you want to get technical, they only authorized the president to act. They did not invade Iraq. The army did, as you say, but who was the commander-in-chief at the time? Oh, right, Bush.
C. Finally, "democratic controlled." Let's dive into that, shall we. From January 2001 to January 2003 the Congress was split. Dems had a slight majority in the Senate, Reps had a slight majority in the House. Controlled by Democrats? No.
And guess who controls all spending bills, oh, right, the House.
I'm not sticking up for the Dems in Congress at the time. That entire branch of government was asleep at the wheel. However, don't change the facts to suit your opinion.
You chide ask001 with, "I hope you actually read what people type..." So to you I say, I hope you actually read the facts from now on, because they do not verify your claims.
Now to correct you, the taxes are total taxes you pay on everything! Let me explain, you pay an income tax, SS tax, Medicare tax, property taxes, cable tax, gas tax, phone tax, tolls( yes tolls are taxes), sales taxes and the list goes on and on. these all come out the the $20 per hour pay, some before you get paid and some after. I did also say your location, total pay, local taxes all make a difference. 2/3 is just a guess-ta-met 2 people living side by side with the same income will pay different amounts in taxes. Hidden taxes you failed to mention but they make up a very large proportion of our expenses.
The President was not in Iraq he was in Washington DC or Texas or several other place but not Iraq (it was just said as a joke).
A. OK, your telling me the Dems in Congress marched to Bushes orders.
B. Congress OK'd it! end of complaint.
C. I'll stand corrected but it still needed the Senate vote to pass and it did will more Dem. senators voting for it then against.
I hope you noticed I read the facts and I responded. I read every message and try to understand fully before answering but being human I can make mistakes. I wasn't trying to get to technical with the facts because I posted it as humor, again Bush was NOT in Iraq to be able to invade it.
------
"Bush never invaded Iraq, the military did with Congress's blessing (democratic controlled)."
My mistake? I was only ½ right on the control.
[1 point]276 days ago by ncattReplyEdited 276 days ago by ncatt
Look the only ones getting taxed rich or poor are those that work and own homes. Why would any one that is making a effort want to see there hard earned money handed out to those that won’t work and demand that someone else give then money?
I think the point he was trying to make is the bottom 50% pay no taxes while the top 10% pay 90% of the taxes.
There will come a time when the top 10% will no longer find it worthwhile to continue working or paying Uncle Sam. I have a chart somewhere but if the top 10% leave, the country collapses. Some may welcome that, but not most Americans.
One of the benefits of living here is the possibility of accruing such wealth. So they want the benefits but do not want the responsibilities.
Plus, if the taxing were that onerous, they would fall out of the top 10%, and yet, there they are still up there with all their money. Must be a hard life.
While I appreciate the follow up information, I was not challenging your figures (though they were well off).
What I was saying was that while they may be paying more in taxes, they are still in the top 10% (or the top 30%, as it turns out). They are doing just fine.
This comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
Top 10% was 70% of all taxes, 25% was the 90% I don't find that way off. (then add state & local taxes)
"What I was saying was that while they may be paying more in taxes, they are still in the top 10%"
The figures can't tell you that, that they are still in the top 10 or 25% class. You are just making that up to suit your argument. How do you know "they are doing just fine"? You don't, you again just said that to back your argument again!
The top 25% was not 90% of taxes according to your own figures. Go graph it (as I did) and see how quickly it drops.
According to your figures:
Top 1% = 40% of taxes
The next 4% = 20% of taxes
The next 5% = 10% of taxes
The next 15% = 15% of taxes
To get to 90% of taxes requires to to follow that line, not just assume that 86% = 90%. So considering that it takes an additional 25% of the population to get another 11% of taxes, it is at least at the 30 or 35% mark to get to 90% of taxes.
You said - "the top 10% pay 90% of the taxes" - which is anywhere from 2.5 to 3.5 times off the mark. That is a considerable margin. Go pay $7.50 to $10.50 for each gallon of gas (roughly 2.5 - 3.5 the going price) and tell me it is not a significant difference.
Regarding people not dropping out of the top 10% because of taxes, the only way they drop out of that position is if others around them are avoiding taxes in some way (breaks, dependents, loopholes, evasion, etc.) So, sure, I cannot say for certain. Based on income tax which is the figure YOU gave, and no other information, then people in the same bracket pay the same rate and don't move relative to one another.
How do I know they are doing just fine? Because the BOTTOM income in the top fifth (that is to say the person or persons sitting at the 20% mark) make $100,000 per year.
Also, because I know that the line on the graph for income starts off almost flat and slowly rises until it starts shooting off on a hyperbolic trajectory. Meaning that the top 5% are not just a bit above $100,000.
And when I said "I was not challenging your figures," I was referring to my initial post. My initial post was saying, the rich in this country became rich in part because of the opportunities allowed here and while they are continuing to rake in the dough they don't want to pay it back. That's it. I did not challenge your figures.
You then responded with figures, and I responded to THAT response. Again I note, just above you chided ask001 by saying, "I hope you actually read what people type..." I hope you do the same. So in that paragraph some messages above, I said, "I was not challenging your figures." Past tense.
First my initial post was from memory, I hope you'll understand that and when I said 90% it was just meant to be a close figure like the 1% paying 40%.
Let me try to explain the top 1 % pay 40% of all taxes so lets say total taxes is 1 dollar they would pay 40¢, the second figure is 5% they pay 60% of all taxes that means anyone in the top 5% (it includes the top 1%) would pay 60¢, etc
The top 50% pay 97¢ on the dollar and the bottom 50% pay the other 03¢. The top 25% pay 86.27% not 85, 86 or 90% sorry I was using round figures. I did admit my memory was wrong and it was about 70% not 90% but it still a very high figure no matter how you want to marginalize it.
Now the top % you don't know who they are, you can guess all you want, but that's all it is, a guess. People can drop out of the top 1,5 or 10% by changing or losing a job, retiring, bankruptcy, death, stock market, etc. Just because Bill Gates was the richest man in America once doesn't mean he will be next year or was last year.
You are guessing at 30% or 35% it might be 28 or 29. We can't use those figures as fact, so that argument is not valid.
You'll be glad to know I read everything you typed, at times it was hard to understand where you were going or what comment you were refering to, but I tried to answer everything.
Now you could add state and local taxes to the top% payout and you would find their tax burden percentage even high (then maybe medicare and social security).
[1 point]276 days ago by ncattReplyEdited 276 days ago by ncatt
Of course! Because conservatives would NEVER make fools of themselves trying to cover mistakes made by their administration! Mission Accomplished guys! Seriously though, I have no problem with the dogging of the Obama administration for possible mistakes. What angers me is that SUDDENLY all these conservatives are nit-picking all of the governments mistakes when for 8 years they turned a blind eye to the destruction of our First Ammendment Rights, a massive rise in presidential power, and MASSIVE scandals in the "Family Values" party. Before you pick on others for their mistakes, accept your own.
This comment was deleted.
[0 points] 278 days ago by deleted user ReplyAnd although I am not disputing the point Walter E. Williams makes, there is a benefit for society as a whole when we do spread the wealth.
This comment was deleted.
[-3 points] 278 days ago by deleted user ReplyExcellent, so Obama's doing great then!
This comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
If Obama is still blaming Bush for all the problems we have today then he can't take credit for anything that is going well.
This comment was deleted.
[-2 points] 276 days ago by deleted user ReplySolar system? How many planets have you been to, JonMarc?
Who decides how much and to whom, Obama? We can spread the wealth but it's called charity, Obama wants to make it an entitlement with taxes and he, being the supreme ruler will decide how much charity "YOU" give. 30%, 50%, is 70% enough or does he still need more, maybe 90% will work. Instead of creating jobs, he's expanding welfare. It's the end of capitalism as he has planned.
This comment was deleted.
[-1 points] 278 days ago by deleted user ReplyOf course you agree, you wrote it!
lol, does it matter?
Nope, doesn't matter at all, just having some fun.
Oh and I don't think ncat is JM, but he is a winger ;)
This comment was deleted.
[-1 points] 277 days ago by deleted user ReplyNo, Obama rescued your economy, to be honest I did not think even he could pull it off. Now congress decides your taxation levels, not Obama. You might dislike the man for whatever reason, but you are just making stuff up.
If you look how your political system is set up I am surprised your country is not in a bigger mess then it actually is. Anyway "Socialist" Europe has surpassed the U.S. economically during Bush's term and "Communist" China will surpass both.
Obama is the President, if you knew politics you would know the a Prez is their parties leader. Not Reid or Pelosi, as the leader he tells the House and Senate what he wants. His party controls all 3 branches of government. Sorry you don't know what I do about the government, I know how it works but thanks to an all-knowing Canadian I may get a better education on American politics. Obama has sold America to the Chinese not Bush with his trillion dollar spending.
When Bush was in power we were dealing in millions and billions of dollars, now with Obama we have to understand and accept trillion dollar deficits because of his liberal politics and socialism.
Making stuff up can you explain, I thought not!
The president is not the leader of the party.
Tim Kaine is the Democrat Party Chairman
Joe Biden is the Senate Leader
Nancy Pelosi is the House Leader
It isn't hard.
Boy, talk about making things up, I'm tired of listening to your lies about every subject your an expert in.
The President IS his parties leader. Biden is the Vice Prez and President of the senate (not the leader), Harry Reid is the Senate majority leader and Nancy is the Speaker of the House not the House majority leader, that belongs to Steny Hoyer. The Chairman is NOT the leader of the party. It isn't hard but then we may be dealing with a Canadian with knowledge of a NEW American political system.
Thanks for the education.
So the Republican party is leaderless now?
Your pretty much correct! Most would claim it's probably John McCann but the dems claimed it was Limbaugh. Unlike Clinton, Bush drop off the map so he wasn't in the running. Steel was elected to the RNC but that doesn't make him the leader. The minority leaders in the house and senate mean nothing.
As far as I am concerned it is steel who is the head of the Republican party. The minority leaders are just that the leader of their representatives in their house.
But I am sad that Limbaugh is the Republican spokesperson right now, it seems that he singlehandedly is defining the position of Republicans here, you guys need a smart articulate and thoughtful individual to speak for your party also for if and when you regained the majority in the future, to deal with the economy. But people like Limbaugh are not helping your party, nor does the legacy of Bush.
I'm sure all Republicans appreciate you electing their leader for them, Steel.
Rush is a talk show host, comic and entertainer. He has no power in the RNC except as a radio host, a very knowledgeable and popular one but only a host. Because of the number of listeners though party leaders listen more to him then most.
Rush has more power with his voice then many with party power, either party. The Dems are just upset with him and will spread lie after lie to try and diminish his voice because they have nothing to equal him. As I said before, most and the loudest have never really listened to him, they just believe the lies they hear from the loony left.
This comment was deleted.
[-1 points] 277 days ago by deleted user ReplyI thought Michael Steele was the elected chairman of the Republican party -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States)
Don't know about the democrats, but I am not upset with Rush, I never listen to him, the few bits I have seen of him I find distasteful.
Michael Steel was elected chairman but that doesn't make him the leader of the party! I keep having to repeat myself with you.
You never listen to Rush but you don't like him, liberal, typical ......
The chairman is the highest office of an organized group such as a board, committee, or deliberative assembly. The person holding the office is typically elected or appointed by the members of the group. The chairman presides over meetings of the assembled group and conducts its business in an orderly fashion. When the group is not in session, the chairman's duties often including acting as its head, its representative to the outside world and its spokesperson -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chairman
I did listen to him a couple of times, I found the man loud and crude, I certainly do not want to tune into his show. I do dislike people like that and there are 50 other channels to chose from that do not insult people.
Last time! Michael Steel is the chairman of the RNC but he's not the leader of the party. I won't repeat this again. If you can't hear me after 3 tries, you will never.
This comment was deleted.
[-1 points] 277 days ago by deleted user ReplyI agree with your point a bought the EU passing us with the value of the euro and China making great leaps economically. The US has had one of the strongest economies until recently. If you broke up the EU it would still kick the individual country?s asses. The problem with the US economy isn?t that we need to spend more money or socialize more of the privet sector. The problem is that some people apparently think that those that are bad at running business should be given large amounts of money. The fact is that we have no way of foreseeing how the current administrations actions are going to affect us in the next couple of years. The age old political game is to do what you need to do to get the votes and when it goes south blame it on the currant party in charge.
No, the European economy has surpassed that of the U.S. not the exchange rate.
But you still refer to the whole EU not one signal country. Doesn’t seam far to lump a hole continent economy up against one countries economy.
You are right, I was referring to the European Union and should have been more clear about that. Not as closely integrated as the United States yet. But people can cross the borders like you cross state lines, quite an amazing feat of co-operation after centuries of war, specially since the former soviet block countries are joining now.
The European Union (EU) is an economic and political union of 27 member states, located primarily in Europe. It was established by the Treaty of Maastricht on 1 November 1993, upon the foundations of the pre-existing European Economic Community. With a population of almost 500 million, the EU generates an estimated 30% share (US$18.4 trillion in 2008) of the nominal gross world product. -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union
This comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
Obama hasn't rescued anything. The economy isn't getting any better yet. Just because he says it does not make it true.
Your economy was facing meltdown, if Paulsen hadn't started the bailouts (with the ok of Bush) there would not even have been an economy left for Obama to rescue. Bush has run every business he managed (and now country) into near bankruptcy. Other then the government no one in the U.S. had the capital needed to deal with the problems, would you have preferred foreign businesses owners (like China) to buy up the left overs?
I think you meant "ruin" not "run".
Prez Bush made large amounts of money before he ran for office. You should check your facts before you tell your lies. Bush was the Gov. of Texas and made money with his family's oil business and his professional baseball team. Just so you don't screw this up he also graduated from Yale, Harvard Business School and was in the Air National Guard.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbusto_Energy
April 1989 he bought part ownership in a baseball team for $800,000 in 1998 he sold his share for 15 million.
Yes he did, he was a good investor, but a bad manager. I will ignore the insider trading allegations for now as every one is considered innocent until proven guilty. -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_life_of_George_W._Bush#Texas_Rangers_and_allegations_of_insider_trading
Sorry but he was cleared of any charges, that means there was no insider trading and his has been proved innocent. He had planed to sell his shares long be he did. Read you own reference.
The subsequent SEC investigation ended in 1992 with a memo stating "it appears that Bush did not engage in illegal insider trading," but noted that the memo "must in no way be construed as indicating that the party has been exonerated or that no action may ultimately result". Critics allege that this decision was strongly influenced by the makeup of the SEC at the time, which heavily favored Bush. As President, Bush has refused to authorize the SEC to release its full report on the Harken investigation. But like I clearly said, I will assume him innocent until proven guilty.
Good, I'm glad you agree with me, He's not guilty so he must be innocent.
End of Story!
He is PRESUMED innocent until proven guilty. End of story.
You also are not real knowledgable about the bailout. Bush was in favor of the $787 billion to loan the banks, expecting a payback, because of "timing" (the office of the president) he felt he had to do this for Obama and country. Obama was the one that ran the deficit up into the multi-trillions (which is another barrel of monkeys). China has trillions of dollars of our debt through Obama but wait until you see how he's wasting our money on million dollars turtle tunnels and airports with an average of 20 passengers a day and only to DC (for Murtha(D)-Pa) and over a million for a guardrail around a lake, the problem with that is the lake doesn't exist, it's dry.
Oh, I forgot to add remember Congress was controlled by the Dems including all the banking & sub committees. I'm sure you don't understand about the banking committees but you'll have time to learn.
The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, commonly referred to as a bailout of the U.S. financial system, is a law enacted in response to the global financial crisis of 2008 authorizing the United States Secretary of the Treasury to spend up to US$700 billion to purchase distressed assets, especially mortgage-backed securities, and make capital injections into banks. Both foreign and domestic banks are included in the bailout. The Federal Reserve also extended help to American Express, whose bank-holding application it recently approved. The Act was proposed by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson during the global financial crisis of 2008.
The original proposal was three pages, as submitted to the United States House of Representatives. The purpose of the plan was to purchase bad assets, reduce uncertainty regarding the worth of the remaining assets, and restore confidence in the credit markets. The text of the proposed law was expanded to 110 pages and was put forward as an amendment to H.R. 3997. The amendment was rejected via a vote of the House of Representatives on September 29, 2008, by a margin of 228-205. -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Economic_Stabilization_Act_of_2008
This comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
Excellent response. Thanks for making my point ncatt.
This comment was deleted.
[-2 points] 277 days ago by deleted user ReplyIts not just Obama...its the whole Dem party.
I wont argue the point that its for a good cause, in many cases, but the fact is that its still not right. I can think of hundreds of things that I should spend YOUR money on but that does not make it right for me to take your money and spend it as I see fit.
If you want to feed the hungry, give them your extra money. If you want to help fight aids, give them your extra money. That way there is a limit or a budget you have to prioritize, but once the government starts giving money it becomes an entitlement and cant be stopped even when there is no money to give. They borrow money from China to give to the "poor" who wont work because it will cause them to loose their free money.
Again the government takes taxes to pay for military, but that is ok? The military is MEANT to keep us safe and so is health care. Why should your politicians get better health care by the state then the people they are meant to protect?
Have you ever wondered why it is that the public funded health care costs about half per person in Canada, compared to the U.S. while people in Canada live longer?
And like I said earlier, if the free handouts are an incentive to not working, then why is it that The Netherlands has lower unemployment then the U.S.? Clearly there is something else that is more important to the fast majority of the people else they would be waiting for the handouts.
You can't compare apple and oranges. There are many factors involve, Entitlements, hidden taxes, illegals, foreign aid or spending, etc.
The politicians make and enact the laws of this country (including their own) so with corrupt politicians they can do anything they want. With one party rule and closed sessions funny things happen. Lobbyists also are factored in. They also become rich (and not paying taxes by some helps).
How am I comparing apples and oranges? Both health care and the military have this major purpose (keeping us safe from harm) in common.
I am very much against the one party rule and very much in favor of open and transparent government. Politicians need money to put up the attack ads so they will naturally look favorably towards the donors, I dislike this system intensely. I have seen no viable solution to prevent this except maybe one or more viable opposition parties, combined with the open and transparent government. The Republicans at this point need to get organized and debate the issues based on facts, if they don't get their act together the Democrats will gain even more seats in 2010. Watch Obama politics, he gives a shot across the bow and if the opposition does not back of, he will come out with a direct hit with a clear indication of the other dirt he has on them. The only chance any opposition has right now is to acknowledge their wrongdoings (if any) and debate on the issues.
The 1st purpose of Government is to protect it citizens. That's the reason for the military.
The apples and oranges come from comparing just a small part of 2 different countries. How many Hurricanes do you get every year, tornado's, etc. Weather makes a difference, you have a border with the US we have a border with Mexico, We spend billions on aid all over the world. We have troops all over the world, as aid, as support and in the case of Korea maybe war. Where does Canada spend all the billions?
Is there a difference in our 2 countries that makes it impossible to compare just one small piece of the pie, health care, I think so.
Well we do know that health care is a very important part of longevity, so is diet, exercise, genes and a lack of conflict. Four of of those we can influence. Why should we concentrate on just one?
This comment was deleted.
[0 points] 277 days ago by deleted user ReplyTaxes to pay for the military is OK. I do not see the connection between the military and health care. How does free health care keep us safe?
If the Canadian system is so great I think we would be fighting for that system. I think the higher costs are due to the malpractice insurance premiums medical professionals have to pay. The life expectancy of Canadians may be longer but that has nothing to do with the quality of health care in the US. There are many factors for those statistics. Lifestyle choices for instance. Drugs, obesity and gang violence are all factored into those numbers.
Yawn.
This comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
good comeback!
He just repeated what I said earlier, offering nothing new.
This comment was deleted.
[-1 points] 277 days ago by deleted user ReplyPeople confuse the purpose of government with the purpose of charity.
It is not the government's place to see to it that everyone has what they need. When the government gets involved in the charity business, it builds resentment between the social classes. The wealthy are forced to pay for the poor, and the poor believe they are entitled to the hand-outs. This benefits the government, because they now control the distribution of wealth, and may pick and choose who receives that money.
If charities were to take more responsibility for their local communities, and require the recipients to contribute something in exchange for the aid they receive, the wealthy would be more apt to donate. This changes the mindset of the wealthy from, "the government is taking my money" to one of "I am giving my money". Also, the recipients will lose their sense of entitlement, and become a member of the community, instead of a dependent of it.
All the while, power is shifted from a central government, back to the people.
Personal greed is what keeps this from working.
You are right in that personal greed is what prevents this from working, I am all for helping those who deserve my help, but I am not interested in helping those who are lazy, however I do not want lazy people around me nor do I wish to see them dead either. Best option is to give them enough money to prevent them from bothering me while not dying either.
And when you earn less then you pay out, you will then be the one with your hand out. Funny thing is the more you have your hand out the more they hold out their hand. In the end we'll all be holding our hand out and no one will be there to pay out.
Except ... Government!
Thanks you "Comrade Sam" (former Uncle)
Strangely in Holland (where I am from) people get compared to the U.S a high unemployment benefit, 6 weeks holiday a year, socialized health care and their unemployment rate is much lower then in your country, any idea why that might be?
BEcause they aren't supporting Lockheed-Martin and other war profiteers? We give tax money away--to the rich. It didn't work in France and it won't work here, not in the long run.
Actually Holland (Is should be calling it the Netherlands) does give tax money to those companies as well.
Is it one of, if not THE, largest contract item on The Nehterland's budget?
$233.6 million to begin production of 24 aircraft--just ONE of the thousands of contracts to Lockeed, Boeing, et al.
Or how about Science Applications International Corporation, a "stealth company" with 9,000 government contracts totaling about 8 BILLION dollars...in fact, with over 44,000 people in it's Virginia offices, it is larger than the departments of Labor, Energy, and Housing and Urban Development combined.
Yet we can't afford to run the governmnet?
The BIGGEST thing the Bush Admin did was to outsource billions and billions of dollars, especially in the new (and booming--bigger than HOLLYWOOD!!) security industry. This effectively removes it from government oversight, thwarting the purposes of a true democracy, and allows them to line the pockets of their friends (not they they have any, not as you and I think of 'friend') and business buddies. While children routinely go to bed hungry.
Betcha The Netherlands doesn't spend anywhere near the hundreds of billions on that kinda crap that we do.
For FY2007 the US government spent $315B on DoD contracts. Just contracts. Add salary/wages/benefits/care for injured soldiers. Add cost of wars. Etc.
It is worse than most people realize. And how anyone can justify the amount spent on "defense" by the military-industrial complex in the US is beyond me.
Because the first thing the companies do is open up factories in every state so the politicians can claim they brought in so many jobs into the state. Seems to work for military spending, maybe they should do the same when it comes to (useful) infrastructure spending. But maybe not a bridge to nowhere.
This comment was deleted.
[-3 points] 277 days ago by deleted user ReplyYou'll need to first qualify "we," in "...and we stop them..." I work for the U.S. government and I am far more concerned with how much money gets wasted than I am with anyone else in the world wanting to enslave me. That is even assuming that all the programs that you or people like you want to have funded, stay in place. Even if all those programs were necessary, massive amounts of money is spent without need.
I, on the other hand, am of the mindset that it is not necessary to spend as much as the rest of the world put together on defense spending. (And yes, I do consider $650B to be roughly the same as $820B, what we spend and what the rest of the world spends respectively, especially when we are such a small portion of the population.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures
It is better to have what you need, but it is better still to NOT have 500 when you only need 3 or 10 or even 100.
Or if you need 500, to have 500 that work as advertised, come in anywhere close to on-budget, and actually fill the gap that necessitated them in the first place. Example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARH-70
Unless you have specific knowledge that all this waste is doing something other than lining the pockets of defense corporations, your position is indefensible. Pun intended.
You cannot protect the country from everything, it is ridiculous to try, not to mention expensive to the point of bankruptcy. In the past 50 years we've spent $22T on defense budget. That doesn't include stuff on the side, hidden add-ons, extras for the wars, etc.
I understand the history of the situation, and I'm not saying it was all wasted, or even most of it as lots of technology has come about because of the research (though it could certainly have been done by other departments, which could be less secretive, which would allow for competition, which would reduce costs). What I am saying is that shaving 10% a year, even 5% would have given us a massive amount of cash to invest elsewhere, or to not add to the debt.
Without getting into the side-point of granting you that saved money wouldn't sit around or actually be saved, my actual point is that there is a lot of waste going on and a very significant majority of that funnels directly to and through the DoD. I think that needs to change.
..
I agree with most all of what you say.
But an example is in my town the Board of Education's budget was not approved to raise to the level they wanted, so what did they do? They cut all the extra activities after school, Girl & Boy scout meetings were canceled, after school baseball, clubs, etc. They didn't cut one job, pack of papar, book or crayon (Our BOE's budget is larger then the rest of the town's total services). They played politics with our children.
Our federal government is no different then my local government was, playing politics with our tax money.
Build an Air Force base in my district and I'll vote to put an army depot in yours, type of thing, (like Murta's airport in Pa - stimulus money at work) or the 3.4 million dollar turtle tunnel crossing in Fl., 11 million $ "Microsoft bridge", 10 million to renovate an abandoned train station (last used 30 years ago), 10,000 dead people getting stimulus checks and last in NY , a $578,000 grant it did not request for a homelessness problem it claims it does not have.
Government waste is the fault of both parties, the only thing we can do about it is to vote them out. Good rallying point for term limits.
This comment was deleted.
[-1 points] 276 days ago by deleted user ReplyI'd love to agree with more vigor, but I don't want to risk getting my hopes up.
..
Well The Netherlands is a lot smaller then the U.S. so that would be a safe bet. But you are correct that in the U.S. there seems to be the believe that private industry always does things better then anything the state does. And there are times that this is true, but there are also cases when it can be shown that the government can do a better job. But until this is acknowledged by the majority of the population the debate will go nowhere and all that is left to do is ridicule the other side or make up facts.
This comment was deleted.
[-2 points] 277 days ago by deleted user ReplyIf your from Holland...why do you have a Canadian flag by your name?
I live in Canada now.
Well if you enjoyed the socialization in Holland and all the benefits you were receiving, why did you not stay there?
Love and we have socialized health care here as well.
I would just think as great as you make Holland sound you could have talked your love into moving there....
Why? marriage is all about give and take, just like politics ;)
This comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
So you just want to be a leech on the ones paying your health care through taxes. Thank You for clarifying that!
I pay tax here as well, and thank you for the personal attack.
Taxes are paid in a percentage, some pay nothing, some 10%, 20% or 30% or more. The ones most in favor of socialized health care are the ones paying little or nothing for it, a lower amount then average. If you had to pay twice as much as normal in taxes you might feel different about high taxes toward bad socialized medicine.
Sure it does seem terribly unfair, I think we should have a flat tax rate without loopholes. Would need an increase in the wages for those in the lower pay scale so they can actually afford to live and pay for the good we produce. But I have no problem with a flat tax system.
Flat taxes have been blocked repeatedly by the dems, WHY? Taxes are control, big government is control, socialized medicine will also be control over the people. Why do they push gun control? Yes, control. Our forefather's had excellent ideas to protect the country from the politicians but they have been eroded by the very government they were placed there to protect us from.
Governments throughout history have placed controls over the people to empower themselves. (one of Hitler's 1st acts was gun control on the people).
This comment was deleted.
[-5 points] 277 days ago by deleted user ReplyThis comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
The worst part about replying to Ask001 is most of what he sez is wrong, I'll stop short of saying he's lying but his facts are wrong, time and time again. It make it twice as hard to have to correct his mistakes and then answer his question.
They can't support flat taxes unless they can demand the wage increase at the same time. But as inflation kicks in this might become the norm anyway.
Wow, here is a change of subject but I'll play. I support hunting for food, keeping animal (other then human) population under control and target shooting, I also support limiting the kinds of weapons people should be allowed and where, I also support licensing gun owners and registering guns. I think arms control is a good thing, I would not want a terrorist to get hold of anything like a machine gun for instance.
Now, just because Hitler did it does not make it automatically bad for instance as I pointed out elsewhere, Hitler was also a right wing politician and later dictator, but that does not make the right wing bad.
This comment was deleted.
[-5 points] 277 days ago by deleted user ReplyThis comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
Wrong again, Hitler was left (gun control) and promising everything to the people.
We have government to protect us from foreign governments.
But our forefathers wanted us to always be able to protect ourselves from our government, the 2nd amendment.
Yea..maybe the US does need to adopt the Canadian health care system.
According to a 2007 article, the Canadian medical profession is suffering from a brain drain. The article states, “One in nine trained-in-Canada doctors is practicing medicine in the United States. If Canadian-educated doctors who were born in the U.S. are excluded, the number is one in 12.”
A February 28, 2006 article in The New York Times stated, “Accepting money from patients for operations they would otherwise receive free of charge in a public hospital is technically prohibited in this country, even in cases where patients would wait months or even years before receiving treatment…Canada remains the only industrialized country that outlaws privately financed purchases of core medical services.”
57% of Canadians reported waiting 4 weeks or more to see a specialist; 24% of Canadians waited 4 hours or more in the emergency room.
A March 2, 2004 article in the Canadian Medical Association Journal stated, “Saskatchewan is under fire for having the longest waiting time in the country for a diagnostic MRI — a whopping 22 months.”
Sounds like a winner!
Canadians live longer then Americans and spend less then half on health care, sounds like win - win to me.
There are a lot of things involved in determining lifespan. Health care helps boost life expectancy but is not the sole contributor to the number. The US has a larger minority population than Canada, which pulls down the national average. The US has a lot more accidental deaths that involve younger people per capita such as teens killed in car wrecks and the like.
I may be alone here but I like the fact that I can see a doctor today if I want and could see a specialist in less than a week if needed.
The U.S. has a larger minority population? Assuming you are not racist but are referring to the poor that do not have health insurance, then you would be correct. Although poverty is also not the sole indication of a lower average age -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Poverty_Index
In the U.S if you have the money or the insurance then you can see the doctor today and the specialist this week. I have no doubt about that.
I have "needed" a doctor twice here and both times I did see one the same day, I did have to wait nearly an hour in the waiting room though since I did not make an appointment. I have never needed a specialist so I can't comment on personal experience but from what I have seen in two separate cases with repeated dislocated shoulders an operation to prevent further dislocated shoulders was scheduled after about 6 weeks of the last dislocated shoulder, apparently it needed to heal before the surgeon wanted to operate.
Thank you, Ayn Rand.
It's not the role of Government to "share the wealth". Government should "aid" not support the people, and "all the people". Those "with" should help by creating jobs for those "without", Government needs to back those creating the jobs and not try to create them themselves. Government cannot create jobs, only tax one person to give to another. Our politicians are the only ones getting rich now .... with "BIG" government. Doubt me! check their tax statements (if they even pay them, note: Tom Daschle, Tim Geithner, Nancy Killefer, Charles Rangel, Bill Richardson, etc. all with some kind of tax problem)
Now if people had an incentive to do what is best for the common good, then you would be correct. The incentive right now is to do what is best for me and to hell with every one else.)
Most that are able to, give to charity but when charity starts telling you how much more to give, most will put the checkbook away and hold onto their wallet. Government has taken the place of that kind of charity.
States are finding you can push some only so far and they leave. Examples are the highest taxpayers are fleeing New York, New Jersey, California for states like Florida and Texas. Business and wealthier Americans will start fleeing the US for other countries as Obama starts digging his claws in deeper. Hollywood has already started doing that and has for years.
Like you said, most are leaving in order to make more money (pay less tax) If I have a choice where to live between Europe and the U.S. I would pick Europe every time, both if I was poor or if I was rich. Even Canada is better then the U.S. however, if I was rich I would go to Australia or NZ rather then stay here in Canada for the winter...
But makes one wonder why so many rich (making more the 250k per year) people did vote for Obama does it not?
I know you want to change the subject but I was talking about the US and more specifically the States. Not Europe, Australia, New Zealand or even Canada.
They aren't leaving to make more money, just in protest of the states "OVER TAXING" them. It's not that they don't want to pay their fair share but with socialism it doesn't have to be fair so they (meaning government) take whatever they can get and then ask for more. Words mean things so please don't change the meaning of what I say to what you think I say.
If you are so in love with someplace else in the world why would you even care about the US and it politics, much less become an expert like you imply you are and live so close to us.
I was comparing the countries where tax payer funded health care works, health care costs are also lower in those countries. But why would companies if they thought that they would be better of in the U.S. open factories here in Canada? (Minimum wage here is higher, taxation is higher)
Even though it is a change of subject, the reason I became motivated in discussing U.S. politics with other people is when Bush invaded Iraq, it just continued on from there. One of the things I noticed is that the Republicans seem to attack the person rather then the arguments, even though there are good arguments to be made for health care for just those who can afford it. (There are also good argument to be made why we should combine resources and help every person.) I have never liked bullies or lies and I have seen a lot of them made by both parties during the last election.
Our taxes are higher, Federal, state, and local all add up and every state is different. Local is the same problem. almost 2/3rds of every dollar you earn is paid in taxes. With $20 p/hour you only keep about $7 or less. Government get the rest. These numbers are old so they are probably higher now and it also depends on your total income, all through taxes, most taxes are also hidden taxes, you never even know your paying them. Look at your phone bill, cable TV, taxes on gas, tires. You pay a tax on everything you buy. You pay a tax when you buy a car and a tax is paid when it's sold, that 1 car may pay taxes 3, 4 or more times. Buy a newspaper, lumber co pay taxes, paper company pays taxes, trucking company, ink company, newspaper company, tax, tax, tax. property taxes, vehicle tax, SS tax, permits it goes on & on. That newspapers cost is so inflated due to taxes but we don't see it, blame the greedy company for the hi prices, never government.
Bush never invaded Iraq, the military did with Congress's blessing (democratic controlled).
I hope you actually read what people type, most who disagree never actually read but just glance at the words. I wonder how many have listened to Rush Limbaugh before they condemn him, you'd be surprised. I listen to both sides left, right and radical. I may not agree with a single word and I may not listen start to finish but do hear what they say, then agree or not.
Your last sentence is the one I agree with most. Politicians promise to try to get elected, the words they use to do it doesn't matter to them. Obama got elected on words not actions, he got elected on charisma & charm not truth & knowledge, he got elected on party and race not facts or experience.
If your taxes are so much higher, how come Canada can afford tax funded health care, but the U.S. can't?
The democrats controlled congress when Bush's (after all he was the commander in chief) invaded Iraq ?
Every politician gets elected on words. What I find sad is that politics is degenerating to personal attacks rather then ability. Obama had a better education and personal disposition for the job, McCain had more experience in politics. Clearly the better person won over experience.
Of topic but I want to use it as an example... One thing I noticed here in Canada is that car insurance is more then double what I have seen in other countries (except the U.S.), but Canadian (or American) drivers are not worse then in those other countries. Before the elections politicians will promise to overhaul the system but this hardly ever happens. My guess (I have no proof for this) is that the companies fix the rates, I am for privately run car insurance, but I also do believe we pay to much. Assuming we are paying to much, then the options as I see them are, continue paying to much, legislate and enforce, or run a state owned insurance company in competition.
Bush & Iraq was a joke! Bush was in Washington while the military went into Iraq, if you read my words you should have been able to figure it out.
Because Obama went to better schools that makes a man smarter, or somehow the better person? Yea, your a democrat! The bigger lier was elected with help from dead people voting.
Government auto insurance? You have a answer for everything and that is government owns you, your a communist. Your off-the-wall, my head hurts trying to understand your reasons and ideas for everything.
This comment was deleted.
[-4 points] 277 days ago by deleted user ReplyBut you keep coming back, fuckface! Funny how that works.
You are again either making misleading statements or outright changing the facts. First, on $20/hr wage (with 40hrs/wk, that is $41,600 gross) you pay $8,027 in fed taxes (incl. soc. sec.). Even if the state taxes are the same (minus soc. sec.) of $4,845 then you still have net pay of $28,305 -- or 68%, not the roughly 35% you indicate. And state taxes are not the same amount as federal, so take home should be a bit more.
Even taking into account property tax and sales tax (which not every location/state has), I see no way to whittle down roughly 70% of gross pay by half. Unless you are only buying cigarettes, in NYC, no food, no rent.
Second of all, "Bush never invaded Iraq, the military did with Congress's blessing (democratic controlled)" is disingenuous at best.
A. The Congress would not have acted without Bush and his cabinet campaigning for the invasion. It's not as if they voted for it in a vacuum and he blindly followed their orders (and their bad intelligence).
B. "In October 2002 the U.S. Congress passed a "Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq". [The] resolution authorized the President to "use any means necessary" against Iraq"
Which means that it was still up to the president to decide what to do. Since you want to get technical, they only authorized the president to act. They did not invade Iraq. The army did, as you say, but who was the commander-in-chief at the time? Oh, right, Bush.
C. Finally, "democratic controlled." Let's dive into that, shall we. From January 2001 to January 2003 the Congress was split. Dems had a slight majority in the Senate, Reps had a slight majority in the House. Controlled by Democrats? No.
And guess who controls all spending bills, oh, right, the House.
I'm not sticking up for the Dems in Congress at the time. That entire branch of government was asleep at the wheel. However, don't change the facts to suit your opinion.
You chide ask001 with, "I hope you actually read what people type..." So to you I say, I hope you actually read the facts from now on, because they do not verify your claims.
..
Now to correct you, the taxes are total taxes you pay on everything! Let me explain, you pay an income tax, SS tax, Medicare tax, property taxes, cable tax, gas tax, phone tax, tolls( yes tolls are taxes), sales taxes and the list goes on and on. these all come out the the $20 per hour pay, some before you get paid and some after. I did also say your location, total pay, local taxes all make a difference. 2/3 is just a guess-ta-met 2 people living side by side with the same income will pay different amounts in taxes. Hidden taxes you failed to mention but they make up a very large proportion of our expenses.
The President was not in Iraq he was in Washington DC or Texas or several other place but not Iraq (it was just said as a joke).
A. OK, your telling me the Dems in Congress marched to Bushes orders.
B. Congress OK'd it! end of complaint.
C. I'll stand corrected but it still needed the Senate vote to pass and it did will more Dem. senators voting for it then against.
I hope you noticed I read the facts and I responded. I read every message and try to understand fully before answering but being human I can make mistakes. I wasn't trying to get to technical with the facts because I posted it as humor, again Bush was NOT in Iraq to be able to invade it.
------
"Bush never invaded Iraq, the military did with Congress's blessing (democratic controlled)."
My mistake? I was only ½ right on the control.
This comment was deleted.
[-2 points] 276 days ago by deleted user ReplyThis comment was deleted.
[-2 points] 277 days ago by deleted user ReplyLook the only ones getting taxed rich or poor are those that work and own homes. Why would any one that is making a effort want to see there hard earned money handed out to those that won’t work and demand that someone else give then money?
Would you want to tax those who do not work or have homes instead?
I think the point he was trying to make is the bottom 50% pay no taxes while the top 10% pay 90% of the taxes.
There will come a time when the top 10% will no longer find it worthwhile to continue working or paying Uncle Sam. I have a chart somewhere but if the top 10% leave, the country collapses. Some may welcome that, but not most Americans.
One of the benefits of living here is the possibility of accruing such wealth. So they want the benefits but do not want the responsibilities.
Plus, if the taxing were that onerous, they would fall out of the top 10%, and yet, there they are still up there with all their money. Must be a hard life.
Sorry, I did it from memory but here it is a government report of who pays taxes and what percent.
column #
1)Percentiles Ranked by AGI
2)AGI Threshold on Percentiles
3)Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid
Top 1% - $388,806 - 39.89
Top 5% - $153,542 - 60.14
Top 10% - $108,904 - 70.79
Top 25% - $64,702 - 86.27
Top 50% - $31,987 - 97.01
Bottom 50% - <$31,987 - 2.99
Note: AGI is Adjusted Gross Income
Source: Internal Revenue Service
This is 2006
notice the top 1% pay 40% and the top 5% pay 60% of all income taxes
the bottom 50% pay less then 3%
Remember: this is just federal income taxes, no state & local
While I appreciate the follow up information, I was not challenging your figures (though they were well off).
What I was saying was that while they may be paying more in taxes, they are still in the top 10% (or the top 30%, as it turns out). They are doing just fine.
..
This comment has been moderated down. (Show Comment)
Top 10% was 70% of all taxes, 25% was the 90% I don't find that way off. (then add state & local taxes)
"What I was saying was that while they may be paying more in taxes, they are still in the top 10%"
The figures can't tell you that, that they are still in the top 10 or 25% class. You are just making that up to suit your argument. How do you know "they are doing just fine"? You don't, you again just said that to back your argument again!
"I was not challenging your figures"
Ah, But you were! That's why I responded.
The top 25% was not 90% of taxes according to your own figures. Go graph it (as I did) and see how quickly it drops.
According to your figures:
Top 1% = 40% of taxes
The next 4% = 20% of taxes
The next 5% = 10% of taxes
The next 15% = 15% of taxes
To get to 90% of taxes requires to to follow that line, not just assume that 86% = 90%. So considering that it takes an additional 25% of the population to get another 11% of taxes, it is at least at the 30 or 35% mark to get to 90% of taxes.
You said - "the top 10% pay 90% of the taxes" - which is anywhere from 2.5 to 3.5 times off the mark. That is a considerable margin. Go pay $7.50 to $10.50 for each gallon of gas (roughly 2.5 - 3.5 the going price) and tell me it is not a significant difference.
Regarding people not dropping out of the top 10% because of taxes, the only way they drop out of that position is if others around them are avoiding taxes in some way (breaks, dependents, loopholes, evasion, etc.) So, sure, I cannot say for certain. Based on income tax which is the figure YOU gave, and no other information, then people in the same bracket pay the same rate and don't move relative to one another.
How do I know they are doing just fine? Because the BOTTOM income in the top fifth (that is to say the person or persons sitting at the 20% mark) make $100,000 per year.
Also, because I know that the line on the graph for income starts off almost flat and slowly rises until it starts shooting off on a hyperbolic trajectory. Meaning that the top 5% are not just a bit above $100,000.
And when I said "I was not challenging your figures," I was referring to my initial post. My initial post was saying, the rich in this country became rich in part because of the opportunities allowed here and while they are continuing to rake in the dough they don't want to pay it back. That's it. I did not challenge your figures.
You then responded with figures, and I responded to THAT response. Again I note, just above you chided ask001 by saying, "I hope you actually read what people type..." I hope you do the same. So in that paragraph some messages above, I said, "I was not challenging your figures." Past tense.
..
First my initial post was from memory, I hope you'll understand that and when I said 90% it was just meant to be a close figure like the 1% paying 40%.
Let me try to explain the top 1 % pay 40% of all taxes so lets say total taxes is 1 dollar they would pay 40¢, the second figure is 5% they pay 60% of all taxes that means anyone in the top 5% (it includes the top 1%) would pay 60¢, etc
The top 50% pay 97¢ on the dollar and the bottom 50% pay the other 03¢. The top 25% pay 86.27% not 85, 86 or 90% sorry I was using round figures. I did admit my memory was wrong and it was about 70% not 90% but it still a very high figure no matter how you want to marginalize it.
Now the top % you don't know who they are, you can guess all you want, but that's all it is, a guess. People can drop out of the top 1,5 or 10% by changing or losing a job, retiring, bankruptcy, death, stock market, etc. Just because Bill Gates was the richest man in America once doesn't mean he will be next year or was last year.
You are guessing at 30% or 35% it might be 28 or 29. We can't use those figures as fact, so that argument is not valid.
You'll be glad to know I read everything you typed, at times it was hard to understand where you were going or what comment you were refering to, but I tried to answer everything.
Now you could add state and local taxes to the top% payout and you would find their tax burden percentage even high (then maybe medicare and social security).
Oh Johnny, I hardly knew ye...NOT!
This comment was deleted.
[3 points] 278 days ago by deleted user ReplyHow many of those "new" people are just more accounts from you?
Quite a few.
How would ewe know who were new and who were the "older" folks? ;-)
She has secrets. ;-)
Coming from one of the former "Queens of Mean" that's quite funny JonMarc.
This comment was deleted.
[-2 points] 277 days ago by deleted user ReplyOf course! Because conservatives would NEVER make fools of themselves trying to cover mistakes made by their administration! Mission Accomplished guys! Seriously though, I have no problem with the dogging of the Obama administration for possible mistakes. What angers me is that SUDDENLY all these conservatives are nit-picking all of the governments mistakes when for 8 years they turned a blind eye to the destruction of our First Ammendment Rights, a massive rise in presidential power, and MASSIVE scandals in the "Family Values" party. Before you pick on others for their mistakes, accept your own.