Congress clears historic health care bill

Originally posted by inimalist
This also is totally ignorant of the global markets where national debt is traded between states FOR PROFIT. debt is a commodity now, which ties nation's economies together, making it less likely that this debt would ever forcibly be collected.

I just read something in Newsweek about that. Crazy. The idea that on a national scale all money is really debt is probably the most counter-intuitive realization since relativity.

Originally posted by inimalist
is our debt still worse than yours? I thought we had done something about that, but I might be thinking the trade defecit...

And like, obviously I agree with your point, America has more money than God and currently dictates global fiscal policy to all but, what, 3 nations/blocks? Globalization is almost like MAD in that way, debt for developed nations is kind of a joke. Has it hurt the American economy? Well, I can't say it has helped, but health care is going to be used as a scapegoat for the real economic problems that exist in America, and clearly no administration is going to address how the corporate system of international capitalism creates joblessness or what have you. That aside, debt will allow America to develop needed infrastructure to address issues that aren't economic in nature, and given that China and other world powers can't collect on the debt if America can't pay (their economies are so entangled that they wouldn't want to either), its kind of in everyones best interest.

From any rational standpoint, the American economy needs some restructuring, and probably is too consumption based for its own good. obviously I'm not going to be too upset when the richest can't wipe their asses with 20 dollar bills.

Ha, reminds me of climate change. It's going to be a huge problem if we don't start preparing for it but there's no chance of it killing us all tomorrow.

Originally posted by inimalist
god, its evolved to list form...

It's pretty amazing.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Be honest with us and yourself. There is only one true solution to social problems from a purely conservative/libertarian/objectivist standpoint and that's autogenocide. No mainstream conservative is willing or intellectually honest enough to admit it but they all know it's true. Is that something you support?

Perhaps from an objectivist standpoint. However I'm fairly certain that libertarians and conservatives have an awareness that deciding to kill the poor will damage their own standing, at least until we develop super robots.

Originally posted by Moscow
How is that the dumbest thing you've ever heard? A look back at successive administrative policies towards these programs after FDR confirms it.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Perhaps from an objectivist standpoint. However I'm fairly certain that libertarians and conservatives have an awareness that deciding to kill the poor will damage their own standing, at least until we develop super robots.

Originally posted by Moscow

Because they kicked the can down the road when they created these entitlement programs, and then they continued to put their hands in the cookie jar and leave behind IOUs

This is what I said,

Originally posted by King Kandy

Your claim is that we aren't doing as good as Euro countries because we have too many entitlements. Since those countries offer more entitlements, that argument is incredibly nonsensical and does not support your point at all.

and this is what you say.

With Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid I am quite aware that other countries have more entitlements than we do. I
said that we kicked the can down the road with these programs, and we continued to bilk them instead of actively funding them, and we left behind IOUs. The Baby Boomers have more bodies than their succeeding generations, which means there won't be a greater workload to fund these entitlements. It's a $50-70 trillion deficit.

Your response is nonsensical. I am not quite sure why you are attacking me.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
It's not killing the poor. It's refusing to stop them from dying and hastening and profiting from their deaths by contracting social services to for-profit corporations who are motivated to deny the services they are contracted to provide. The Republicans call it privitzation, the Democrats call it reform. Both act like it's a new idea. The fascists called it third-way economics and instituted it specifically to give the illusion of providing services to society's "undesirables" while really neglecting them to death.

Originally posted by Moscow
This is what I said,

and this is what you say.

With Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid I am quite aware that other countries have more entitlements than we do. I
[B]said that we kicked the can down the road with these programs, and we continued to bilk them instead of actively funding them, and we left behind IOUs. The Baby Boomers have more bodies than their succeeding generations, which means there won't be a greater workload to fund these entitlements. It's a $50-70 trillion deficit.

Your response is nonsensical. I am not quite sure why you are attacking me. [/B]

Originally posted by King Kandy
Speaking of which did you hear about how Texas privatized prisons have been lobbying the government into sending Haitian illegals there permanently without access to lawyers, since it's illegal to send them back to Haiti? That's the kind of shit that happens when you privatize things that are the government's job. One Haitian got sent to prison for being kidnapped because he didn't come legally and is going to be in prison as long as they can keep him.

Originally posted by King Kandy
OK, I thought what you were trying to say is that we needed to cut entitlement benefits, which would have not really answered the question.

No worries, I'm sorry for the misunderstanding.

There's lots of arguing and big text, going on.

Flat tax - if it's high enough with some level of exemptions for the poor, it would create a large increase for the "rich" and a decrease for the "poor" and little change to the "middle class." The idea that a flat tax is silly, is silly. The idea that it would decrease the taxes on the rich, is silly. It would increase the taxes on the rich, if it's high enough.

There's way too many flavors of the "flat tax" to make any sort of legitimate criticism for or against it. You first must specify which version you hate, then explain why you hate it.

Originally posted by dadudemon
There's lots of arguing and big text, going on.

Flat tax - if it's high enough with some level of exemptions for the poor, it would create a large increase for the "rich" and a decrease for the "poor" and little change to the "middle class."

But at this point why both calling it a flat tax at all? You're taxing everyone differently based on their income.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
But at this point why both calling it a flat tax at all? You're taxing everyone differently based on their income.

Well, it is a flat tax, as opposed to a progressive tax, because the tax rate is the same regardless of income (excluding the exemption). So the term is right, one will however have to specify what they are talking about, just as with progressive tax, just that that's the standard in the US, I believe, so you just talk about raising or lowering taxes, without specifying that it is progressive tax you are talking about, which is also why people who propose a flat tax system have to specify that as it is not the standard.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
But at this point why both calling it a flat tax at all? You're taxing everyone differently based on their income.

A flat tax with an exemption is what it is.

That's just one of many different forms.

Some suggest a straight up, flat tax, by a percentage, regardless. No one is equal. But, as inimalist pointed out, that's rather stupid because out of the $1000 that the poor family of four brings home each month, $150 would cut directly into that families ability to simply survive. Whereas, the single person that brings home $1,000,000 a mont, has to pay a HUGE amount of $15,000 a month, but that $15,000 doesn't even come close to cutting into his or her ability to obtain shelter and food.

Enter the flat tax compromise for the poor.

It's really hard to do a flat tax.

However, if the flat tax is around long enough, the people will adjust and the family of four will either die, increase their wages, or option C: stay the same.

I was reading about a "negative" flat tax system. I don't quite understand that, but it's supposed to bridge the gap and get rid of health care. Could someone educate me more on that type of system?

The way that works as far as I understand is that rather than setting an exemption you have a minimum starting point and everything under that point you get some tax money, basically as welfare back.

I don't understand how it would get rid of health care, but it would grant some sort of welfare to poorer people, so I guess they could afford more private health care, however I don't see how it solves the real problem.

I drew a little picture the way I understand it:

Originally posted by dadudemon
A flat tax with an exemption is what it is.

That's just one of many different forms.

Some suggest a straight up, flat tax, by a percentage, regardless. No one is equal. But, as inimalist pointed out, that's rather stupid because out of the $1000 that the poor family of four brings home each month, $150 would cut directly into that families ability to simply survive. Whereas, the single person that brings home $1,000,000 a mont, has to pay a HUGE amount of $15,000 a month, but that $15,000 doesn't even come close to cutting into his or her ability to obtain shelter and food.

Enter the flat tax compromise for the poor.

It's really hard to do a flat tax.

However, if the flat tax is around long enough, the people will adjust and the family of four will either die, increase their wages, or option C: stay the same.

I was reading about a "negative" flat tax system. I don't quite understand that, but it's supposed to bridge the gap and get rid of health care. Could someone educate me more on that type of system?

They should just get rid of income tax and replace it with a government that doesn't need so much money.

YouTube video

Defeat the Debt

ushomefree: could you reply to anything I've said about debt?

Originally posted by ushomefree
Defeat the Debt

Can't you speak for yourself?

Originally posted by inimalist
ushomefree: could you reply to anything I've said about debt?

What did you say man? I'm not ignoring you or anything. What's up?