Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!
Are Key Democrats Becoming Socialists?
imbalanced
Registered User
Registered User
Today, Hillary discussed her ideas of "shared prosperity" over the "on your own society" known as capitalism. Now I remember back in 2000 when she was calling for the abolition of the electoral college in replacement for a truly democratic popular vote platform (simultaneously rooting for Al Gore and pleasing the citizens of New York with new electoral power). I only bring that up because I hear her say things that I don't think she truly thinks through or means, so I am giving her the benefit of the doubt.
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/070529/clinton_economy.html?.v=1
But let's say she's being 100 percent serious. I have to ask myself, "Would Bill Clinton sign his name to this 10 years ago?" and my answer is more and more a resounding no. He is, by and large, one of the most successful economical presidents in the history of this nation.
She's not alone in this conquest, and we only need look one person over at Barack Obama, whose claim to fame is his motivation for universal healthcare. Keep in mind, universal healthcare isn't "free." It costs somebody something, but he lets it be known that higher income families and businesses should put in their fair share to help out the common man. I'd argue that anyone paying over 40 percent of their income is already doing enough by anyone's standards, but I digress.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070529/ap_on_el_pr/obama_health;_ylt=AphMGdhJcoxyyyr6xI8gBT3MWM0F
Those things into consideration, there are many democrats that do not share these core beliefs. My grandfather would be rolling in his grave if he heard some of the rhetoric coming out of some of the democrats lately. I just can't see myself ever supporting this idea of my space is your space so let's all join hands nonsense. I come from the school of thought that if everyone was even, then everyone would be poor.
I guess I'll only ask the registered Democrats on this one, as I flirt with the left side only on certain issues, but do you think more and more of the party could be deemed "socialist," and if so, is that a good or a bad thing?
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/070529/clinton_economy.html?.v=1
But let's say she's being 100 percent serious. I have to ask myself, "Would Bill Clinton sign his name to this 10 years ago?" and my answer is more and more a resounding no. He is, by and large, one of the most successful economical presidents in the history of this nation.
She's not alone in this conquest, and we only need look one person over at Barack Obama, whose claim to fame is his motivation for universal healthcare. Keep in mind, universal healthcare isn't "free." It costs somebody something, but he lets it be known that higher income families and businesses should put in their fair share to help out the common man. I'd argue that anyone paying over 40 percent of their income is already doing enough by anyone's standards, but I digress.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070529/ap_on_el_pr/obama_health;_ylt=AphMGdhJcoxyyyr6xI8gBT3MWM0F
Those things into consideration, there are many democrats that do not share these core beliefs. My grandfather would be rolling in his grave if he heard some of the rhetoric coming out of some of the democrats lately. I just can't see myself ever supporting this idea of my space is your space so let's all join hands nonsense. I come from the school of thought that if everyone was even, then everyone would be poor.
I guess I'll only ask the registered Democrats on this one, as I flirt with the left side only on certain issues, but do you think more and more of the party could be deemed "socialist," and if so, is that a good or a bad thing?
imbalanced on
Wii Code: 1040-1320-0724-3613
:This discussion has been closed.
Posts
Are we talking income tax, or total tax? Because I pay over 30% of my income in taxes, and I'm far from high-income. Also, I'm ignoring the payroll taxes my employer pays on my behalf, which effectively comes out out my paycheck.
Maddie: "I am not!"
Riley: "You're a marsupial!"
Maddie: "I am a placental mammal!"
Well coming from a doctor family background, I have seen first hand what happens when the government meddles in the affairs of medicine. Most under privileged people that are eligible for current government funding for health care end up paying the doctors about half of what they owe, if even a third. Even worse, mammograms were being pushed for "at cost" values to the point where firms would stop doing mammograms altogether because they would lose money on them in the long run.
This is all from people that are currently covered. I can only imagine what would happen when "universal healthcare" actually came into being. Doctors would stop doing certain procedures because they would be failing to break even, then the government would have to bring in substandard government appointed doctors, and then everyone would be unhappy with the system.
Most doctors only bring home (and this is before taxes) approximately 40 percent of the work they do. Then taxes take off another 40 percent of that income. If you start messing with that initial 40% income any more, a lot of doctors are just going to skip into another profession that makes more money and isn't in constant danger of malpractice suits.
EDIT: I keep using 40% as a generic percentage on everything. Unless I can find a real statistic, I'm going to stop using it. I'm just referring to what my father has told me about his fun as a radiologist and nuclear physician.
Wii Code: 1040-1320-0724-3613
Don't fucking kowtow to the religious right, you spineless bitches. Fuck them, fuck 'em hard, fuck 'em long, just fuck 'em.
Right?
That's only if your employer would actually pay you more money if they had a lower payroll tax. I know my employer wouldn't.
But aren't we a government for the people? I know that's philosophical and all that, but I don't doubt that these words are little more than campaign rhetoric. They sound good if you don't pay any particular attention to their implications. They imply that the government works for you - the way it's supposed to in America - rather than for itself, like some fascist regimes we may all point at.
I know most of the doctors I know in this country are living in hovels, barely making enough to survive.
I'll keep that in mind. I personally pay about 35% and that will be rising this year, and I won't be rich aaaaany time soon.
Wii Code: 1040-1320-0724-3613
Hey, America might be expensive, but we have some of the best medical practices in the world. That's not by accident, that's by incentive.
Wii Code: 1040-1320-0724-3613
On average, you're still full of it. The average income tax paid by wealthy folks is somewhere in the low 20% range. If they have an employer, they pay about 12% off the top in payroll taxes. If they're self employed, double that. We can pretend that they don't pay state income tax, because I'm being charitable.
Here are some numbers if you'd like to sound more informed.
edit: Also, you weren't talking "on average", you were saying that the tax burden on every income bracket except the bottom is 20%, which is demonstrably wrong.
Maddie: "I am not!"
Riley: "You're a marsupial!"
Maddie: "I am a placental mammal!"
Being neither for or against socialized medicine because I haven't dont enough valid research up to this point, I'm going to toss out that the idea of socialized medicine as it applies to mental health (my chosen field) scares the the hell out of me. America on the whole simply has a problem recognizing the importance of mental health, and this is already reflected in the way insurance companies go about paying me. I can only imagine how the government would approach the subject.
All governments are governments for the people, from dictatorships to democracies.
I see you point but would you consider militaristic despots such as Robert Mugabe govternments for the people?
PokeCode: 3952 3495 1748
Not true. See: fascism. One of the more meta implications of fascism is that the government comes before the people. Ostensibly, it's a government to rule the people, which is a bit different than being for the people.
I dunno guy, I read something about this documentary coming up called "Sicko" and basically your country has a horrible health care.
Sure, you -- being the richest country in the world and host of some of the best universities the world has ever seen -- bring forth some damn good professionals and you attract them from all over the world too, but to say that that is because of the political system is quite a quirky thing to say.
If you want to define every government program as socialist then I think you'll find that virtually 100% of U.S. politicians are socialists.
I support a strong commitment of resources to social safety nets and education because it improves people's lives, makes them freer to pursue opportunities, makes the country stronger and prevents regressive nativist, isolationist, anti-globalization political backlashes.
Yes. I'm not going to start a debate on the whole freedom - security thing and all of that because it would be an entirely other thread (and somewhat similiar to Loren's), but he does act 'for the people' in his mind, because if it weren't for his iron fisted apartheid-esque rule the country would surely fall into chaos and be taken over by western colonialist powers and abloo bloo bloo.
A-fucking-greed. It makes me sick to my stomach that greedy Corporations are the only reason this hasn't happened yet.
Joline Lovejoy: Gifted Priest/Pistoleer - Chains of Corvis IKRPG
Sicko wasn't about us having poor health care. It was about us having EXPENSIVE health care that not everyone can afford, which is only because 1) the quality demanded by health care in the US, 2) the costs of malpractice suits, 3) the costs associated with certain insurances not paying full amounts for procedures.
I'm not even going to mention the fact that universal health care costs would pay for the few while taking from the many. Most people that can get free health care ABUSE it by not taking care of their own bodies, whether that be through poor diet or general recklessness (aka smoking).
Wii Code: 1040-1320-0724-3613
Effective tax rates 1979-2001
And that's why we live longer than everyone else! Oh wait, we don't. By a long shot, in fact.
Please elaborate on the definition of "best medical practices" that doesn't include actual increased life expectancy or decreased infant mortality rates. I'm in the mood for some entertaining disingenuity gymnastics.
Actual Play: Mage: the Awakening - At the Edge of All Things (updated 5/28!)
Health care doesn't generally affect increased life expectancy. That can be done by exercise, diet, not smoking, etc. Those cultures are different than America, and therefore are like comparing apples and oranges. Check out the cancer mortality rates or something that hospitals actually CAN FIX, and you'll see we are much higher than other countries.
And I wouldn't say great healthcare is inaccessible to the majority. My first job out of college gave me full PPO coverage of health, dental, eye. I can't pull out my eyeball and get a replacement, but that coverage will more than supplement any material need I might have at a doctor's office.
EDIT: I keep switching between "healthcare" and "health care." From now on I'm using it as one word, because I'm lazy.
Wii Code: 1040-1320-0724-3613
Most of that is done in private universities anyway, isn't it? I honestly don't know for sure, I just think that, since most journal articles on the subjects of new treatments and stuff come out of private medical schools, that's where most of the research is happening.
Actually it would likely lead to an improved job market in the US and increase the number of corporations and companies willing to work and base themselves here because they won't be required to provide health insurance to their employees and can invest that money (even after taxes for the universal healthcare system) elsewhere. Healthcare/legacy costs for retired employees costs more per car in Detroit than the steel being used in it. Take that away and they would have a good deal more revenue to do with as they please. Either by improving plants, lowering car costs, or going on a 'very important meeting' in Bali.
Er...what? Would you like to take another stab at having this sentence make sense?
Please back this up with numbers, otherwise it just looks like you're slandering a whole bunch of people without any particular good reason.
Actual Play: Mage: the Awakening - At the Edge of All Things (updated 5/28!)
Yeah, the main reason we don't have socialized medicine right now is thanks to insurance companies lobbying against it and Newt Gingrich. Mainly the latter.
...then why would anyone, anywhere pay for it? Why didn't your doctor relatives shoot themselves in the face in despair at their own pointlessness?
Actual Play: Mage: the Awakening - At the Edge of All Things (updated 5/28!)
It's making me laugh, please continue.
As for socialized healthcare, that's nothing really new coming from the dems. They tried pushing that through awhile ago but without success. When looking at the poll numbers recently, I was somewhat suprised that a decent sized majority of the US supports socialized healthcare, at least in some form. Getting them to agree on that form and push it through probably won't be easy though, unless it has some sweetheart deals like Bush's latest additions.