What do you think of a Socialist USA?

[opeysmama]

Here is an article with information about Obama's affiliation with the Chicago New Party and, importantly, the Chicago DSA (Democratic Socialist Party). So I wonder, is this the right type of background for America? Its an interesting piece, a long read...but very enlightening.

http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/10/07/obama-is-hiding-a-radical-past/

[FrenchRuby]

It sounds like a great thing to me, but then I live in Europe, where everyone is a social democrat, just a centre-left or a centre-right one. Doesn't do any harm at all here :)

[NellieRose]

Socialism is here in America and has been for quite some time...you can't continue to carry on calling this a Capitalist society with a free & open market when the US government has pumped $990,000,000,000 into the private sector....and that just dates back to March.

Take a look at the government as you know it...it's much more Socialist than you apparently think.

[kjbstevens]

I agree it's much more than people think and they are trying to expand it by allowing congress and the presidents to step beyond their bounds and put themselves into ruling our everyday lives instead of our country. The more they step in, the more freedom to live our lives they are going to take away because you have to give up a lot in order for these plans like healthcare and bailing out businesses costs. No one stands up to them anymore and just lets them keep expanding their powers to the point one day we might not be able to get them to step back to only what powers they were granted by our Constitution.

[opeysmama]

Socialism is here in America and has been for quite some time...you can't continue to carry on calling this a Capitalist society with a free & open market when the US government has pumped $990,000,000,000 into the private sector....and that just dates back to March.

Take a look at the government as you know it...it's much more Socialist than you apparently think.

I posted this topic in a very non-aggressive way, with a link to what I felt was an interesting article to shed some light on a connection that I find distasteful in relation to ties Obama has with socialist groups. I did it for discussion sake and I feel I did it in a manner that was non-inflamatory.

Nellierose with all due respect you don't know what I think. I know how much socialism is here. What I would like to see is the socialism reversed, and reversed in a huge way. So please don't assume you know what I "apperently think" because you do not. Please reserve your comments, as I will, to what you think, and not to what you assess others to think.

Again, I was posting this up asking for thoughts, not asking for someone to evaluate what I "apparently think." I know you are hostile toward me, which is totally fine by me. But for the sake of anyone else who might wish to comment who also feels the hostility, can we state our opinions and positions without the barbs?

[opeysmama]

I agree it's much more than people think and they are trying to expand it by allowing congress and the presidents to step beyond their bounds and put themselves into ruling our everyday lives instead of our country. The more they step in, the more freedom to live our lives they are going to take away because you have to give up a lot in order for these plans like healthcare and bailing out businesses costs. No one stands up to them anymore and just lets them keep expanding their powers to the point one day we might not be able to get them to step back to only what powers they were granted by our Constitution.


I agree. I don't believe government has any business running healthcare programs, we trusted them to run the social security program and look what a terrible mess it is today. The government should not be running these programs at all. Or bailing out business (even big ones, especially big ones!) I am so sick about the trend towards nationalization of the banks I can't stand it. The words keep hovering around all the politicians and its not what I think the American people want. For that matter I am even more distressed over the whole "global" trend. Global banks...we all know its a global economy, but its just out of control!

What ever happened to the government's true roll, keeping taxes low and defending our borders? I mean those are the bare bones. LOL...let the states legislate how they were supposed to, and let the American people run their business', work for a living, and prosper to their own ambitions and abilities. The welfare system is in my opinion supressive in nature. It doesn't allow people, or even encourage people, to ever get off it. That is a generalization of course, overall welfare becomes a life style. I don't think that's what the government should be in the business of doing, keeping people dependant.

Isn't it amazing how the world has changed over the course of 50 or 60 years, such a short time frame for such astounding change when you think of every country being intertwined in the economy(s). Even the smallest countries.

[txmusicmom]

I DON'T LIKE IT- it's already here and the slope is slippery.

Freedom works like this- you make stupid mistakes- i.e. risky loans- You lose. No one comes and rescues you.

We need to stand up to Congress- who obviously didn't respresent the people in this vote- the American people didn't want it- but we got it anyhow-

My Congressman voted for it- BOO on him........

I'd say we kick out and get some fresh folks in there.

TERM LIMITS FOR CONGRESS!

I totally agree we need to help those who need help-- but there are MANY folks down here that work the system-- they work it at the college level- some go to school - get their money- and don't even attend classes!!!!!!!!!! UGH!!!!!! Their books are paid for- I get to pay for my kids book myself. One place they get on campus housing cheap- and they are in a two year school- 6-8 years changing majors.

Help for those able to work should be limited.

Guess what- when you get a job- more often than not, you get health care. VOILA!
Not only for you but your whole family.

I understand that small business doesn't work that way. I 'd like to see better options for small business folks. Possibly they could get together as a group and get plans like many of us have.

America should still be the land of opportunity. That means you are free to pursue work, education, acquiring skills.

Does that mean you'll never have a set back? No-
Both my dh and I have been laid off during hard times. When I got laid off, I went back to school to get my masters- mainly because there were no jobs hiring and I was paid to teach labs. Big $600 a month- but I lived single on it.

My dh was laid off after our first 2 kids-- he made 1/2 his salary for 3 years- but he worked.( He could have drawn unemployment for close to the same amount of money) He started at Compaq on the assembly line- but he got a paycheck and insurance. There were a huge variety of folks working there- bank presidents, managers , etc. It was the way to have OPPORTUNITY to move up. He went back to school while working there and got his Bachelors degree. It was a total miracle that we didn't lose our house- we had the same bills. There was a year we didn't buy anything other than groceries and gas.

So I'm not for Socialism- I'm for Social Reform- Personal Responsibility - Hand up for those who need it-

( Hey maybe the good side of this downturn- is we will quit getting so many credit card offers in the mailbox?? You think?)

[tammy1999]

I DON'T LIKE IT- it's already here and the slope is slippery.

Freedom works like this- you make stupid mistakes- i.e. risky loans- You lose. No one comes and rescues you.

We need to stand up to Congress- who obviously didn't respresent the people in this vote- the American people didn't want it- but we got it anyhow-

My Congressman voted for it- BOO on him........

I'd say we kick out and get some fresh folks in there.

TERM LIMITS FOR CONGRESS!

I totally agree we need to help those who need help-- but there are MANY folks down here that work the system-- they work it at the college level- some go to school - get their money- and don't even attend classes!!!!!!!!!! UGH!!!!!! Their books are paid for- I get to pay for my kids book myself. One place they get on campus housing cheap- and they are in a two year school- 6-8 years changing majors.

Help for those able to work should be limited.

Guess what- when you get a job- more often than not, you get health care. VOILA!
Not only for you but your whole family.

I understand that small business doesn't work that way. I 'd like to see better options for small business folks. Possibly they could get together as a group and get plans like many of us have.

America should still be the land of opportunity. That means you are free to pursue work, education, acquiring skills.

Does that mean you'll never have a set back? No-
Both my dh and I have been laid off during hard times. When I got laid off, I went back to school to get my masters- mainly because there were no jobs hiring and I was paid to teach labs. Big $600 a month- but I lived single on it.

My dh was laid off after our first 2 kids-- he made 1/2 his salary for 3 years- but he worked.( He could have drawn unemployment for close to the same amount of money) He started at Compaq on the assembly line- but he got a paycheck and insurance. There were a huge variety of folks working there- bank presidents, managers , etc. It was the way to have OPPORTUNITY to move up. He went back to school while working there and got his Bachelors degree. It was a total miracle that we didn't lose our house- we had the same bills. There was a year we didn't buy anything other than groceries and gas.

So I'm not for Socialism- I'm for Social Reform- Personal Responsibility - Hand up for those who need it-

( Hey maybe the good side of this downturn- is we will quit getting so many credit card offers in the mailbox?? You think?)

If I could do a back flip right now I would do it!! You are so spot on!!!!!!! I am soooooooooooo tired of hearing this , gimme, gimme, gimme anything you got out there for free!! Take care of me, help me my house has water in it, give me food stamps, I want free health care. And the idea its sooooooo wrong for someone to do well in this country and that everyone should be on the same playing field. It just wants to make me puke!!!!!!!!

There is a reason why we are the greatest county in the world. It's because we are FREE!!!!!!!! Yes, I said FREE!!!!!!!!!!! And if we keep letting these socialistic viewed congressmen and women take over our governement before too long well all be living under the thumb of a dictator.

And the statement about all the money being pumped into businesses. Who the hell do you think pays 90% of the taxes in the country and has all the jobs for heaven's sakes? If the businesses fail, then there are no more taxes and no more jobs. And guess what all you socialists out there, NO MORE FREE STUFF!!!!!!

Oh, txmusicmom, it will be nice not to see my dog get credit card offers in the mail.

[vegaschristina]

Here is an article with information about Obama's affiliation with the Chicago New Party and, importantly, the Chicago DSA (Democratic Socialist Party). So I wonder, is this the right type of background for America? Its an interesting piece, a long read...but very enlightening.

http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/10/07/obama-is-hiding-a-radical-past/

Why is it that whenever Obama supporters have something negative to say about McCain, the proof we have to show you all is from a reputable source. Whenever McCain supporters want to show us the negatives about Obama, it's not a reputable source...it's someone's blog.

When the McCain article in Rolling Stone was linked, I said that it was either very scary or a great reason to sue for libel. I don't take everything I read at face value, but we have something for a source that isn't a blog?

[Tiffikat]

I might take a lot of flack for this but I don't believe that as a country we are as free as everyone likes to say. We don't have equal rights for all of our citizens (gay marriage anyone?) and honestly I don't feel that our country is as great as everyone says either. Our country needs a lot of work. I still love America, but isn't part of being American questioning the politics and fighting for true liberty? Look at the Patriot Act (I hate that name by the way because I don't feel the act is very patriotic at all).

[April Staker]

If I could do a back flip right now I would do it!! You are so spot on!!!!!!! I am soooooooooooo tired of hearing this , gimme, gimme, gimme anything you got out there for free!! Take care of me, help me my house has water in it, give me food stamps, I want free health care. And the idea its sooooooo wrong for someone to do well in this country and that everyone should be on the same playing field. It just wants to make me puke!!!!!!!!

There is a reason why we are the greatest county in the world. It's because we are FREE!!!!!!!! Yes, I said FREE!!!!!!!!!!! And if we keep letting these socialistic viewed congressmen and women take over our governement before too long well all be living under the thumb of a dictator.

And the statement about all the money being pumped into businesses. Who the hell do you think pays 90% of the taxes in the country and has all the jobs for heaven's sakes? If the businesses fail, then there are no more taxes and no more jobs. And guess what all you socialists out there, NO MORE FREE STUFF!!!!!!

Oh, txmusicmom, it will be nice not to see my dog get credit card offers in the mail.

You guys are my heroes! :) ITA!

We need reform. We don't need to cater to views and beliefs that are not in the majority. And loudest is not equal to most believed or supported. The majority, vast majority of America is Christian. Yet you'd think we weren't because of the loud voices shouting through the media that we need to remove God form everything. I think majority should rule. It may not be "equal" but it would be fair.

I wish the people in our government would rememebr their place in how the government works. I am so tired of them pulling illegal moves and having it go undisputed. Since when do courts make law? Uggh.

[hellosunshine]

1. Why would it be surprising that Obama is associated with some socialistic ideals? From his early career he worked hard to organize people to better their communities--succeeded in getting the government in Chicago to test for asbestos in their homes. The people there still consider him a hero who was inspiring and motivating to show them how to help themselves. He is inspriring and hopeful to me in that I believe we can be a much better society.

2. Obama supports an overhaul of our health system, which is a train wreck and any one who has had to depend on it with a chronic or serious illness knows that. 50 million people in this country do not have health insurance. Someone above said our health insurance is just fine except for small business--well, small business makes up 99% of our economy--5, 660, 600 small businesses. They employ over 50% of the work force. So, if it is a problem with small business, it is a major problem affecting our entire economy.

4. I am not okay with the average CEO making 441 times the average employee (used to be only about 4 times the average employee) I believe in sharing the wealth of this nation. We have a poverty rate of 35%--this is huge by comparison to many country. The middle class is shrinking and struggling to pay college costs, medical bills, mortgages, etc. We can improve.

5. Employers don't take care of employees like they used to--no retirement, no health insurance for millions. I think as a country we need to reevaluate these issues and look at alternatives that work well in many other first world countries.

6. There is no such thing as someone living here without socialized programs--our roads, police, fire protection, schools, universities, etc. are all government paid for. Do you not use those?

[txmusicmom]

Oh, txmusicmom, it will be nice not to see my dog get credit card offers in the mail.

hee hee :lol :lol

Donna

[txmusicmom]

with the average CEO making 441 times the average employee (used to be only about 4 times the average employee) I believe in sharing the wealth of this nation.

I know that they make a bunch of money- they are accountable to their boards and shareholders- it's their job to make their shareholders money- BUT I do want to get rid of all the power lunches- retreats, etc- ultimately WE pay for that. But to say you can only make so much-- that's a slipperly slope also

As far as sharing the wealth, sorry- can't go there. You see they could say I make more than *whoever * decides-- and take my money to help a person who refuses to work. I don't think so- I have a family and I hold down a full time job. We are definitely middle- class- I work from home- I could not work and whine.........but
I'm working to supply the needs of my family- my son is living at home to go to college- saves about $9000 a year-

Yes I have extra at the moment. I'm working on an emergency fund. If someone said- oh you have extra-- let me have some of it-I'd say no way ! The reason I have extra is we have cut spending our entire married life. I could spend the money on trips, college dorms, better cell phone, more scrapbook kits, :blush etc. But that's my choice- I choose to save.

We have a poverty rate of 35%--this is huge by comparison to many country. The middle class is shrinking and struggling to pay college costs, medical bills, mortgages, etc. We can improve.

Tough choices- we chose the community college route for our son who could have gone to a host of universities. He was then able to transfer to a local university and get a very nice transfer scholarship.
Our daughter goes next year- and bottom line- it's money.


6. There is no such thing as someone living here without socialized programs--our roads, police, fire protection, schools, universities, etc. are all government paid for. Do you not use those?

I have to say that roads, police etc are part of a society- not socialism...

I can tell you are a very caring person :) :) :):happyhug- we do need to do something.......but I don't think MORE socialism is the answer.

Which brings up another subject- LOOK at what the candidates give PERSONALLY-- it's easy to spend someone elses money- but exactly how much are they living what they preach??? :shrug

well time to go wash some dishes........... Happy scrapping~!

[hazelsmrf]

I just don't understand why you think that socialist countries have no freedom? I consider myself pretty free and Canada is much more socialist than the U.S., I don't consider the fact that everyone has healthcare or whatever to detract from you being able to do whatever you want.

[April Staker]

#2- My husband and I own one of those small businesses, for 14 years now. We would rather pay for health care ourselves than have it run by the government. The government does nothing efficiently. They waste money in every program they touch. I want my money used wisely. We went without health insurance until 4 years ago. And you know, we got better deals from the doctors because we paid in cash. They will take as much as 50% off a bill if you pay in cash. We only got insurance because we finally felt like we had enough extra money to pay for it and not regret it. And I would rather be without it again than have the government take it over. I believe people who are responsible for their own situations will do better and go farther than people who think other people should be helping them in every step they take through life.

#5- what about taking care of YOURSELF? Why is it the obligation of others to take care of you? I don't WANT anyone else taking care of me. I want to be able to take care of myself. It makes me feel GOOD. It makes me feel in control of my own situation. I am not depending on the government or anyone else to ensure I am ok and that my family is. And frankly, I LIKE that I don't have to worry and wonder if the comany fails what will happen to my retirement plan, or if the government goes to pot will I get my free groceries. I am responsible for myself and my family. And that is how it should be.

[sandersmr]

I have a scrapping friend in Canada that just got put on a waiting list for knee surgery - 9-12 months out!!!! I had mine scheduled in just a few weeks and that was more my schedule than the healthcare system's. Socialistic healthcare - no, thank you.

[hazelsmrf]

I have a scrapping friend in Canada that just got put on a waiting list for knee surgery - 9-12 months out!!!! I had mine scheduled in just a few weeks and that was more my schedule than the healthcare system's. Socialistic healthcare - no, thank you.

Well of course there are extremes, there are also people who might need knee surgery in the U.S. and would never be able to afford it at all and have to go without for much longer than 12 months. It's not ALL black and white.

[hazelsmrf]

You know my point is not that socialized healthcare is better than non socialized healthcare, I think that both the Canadian and American systems need some fixing, neither are completely what we need. BUT I am sick of hearing that it's some horrible horrible thing to have some things socialized and how your country is so much better because of it. I guess it's a difference of opinion but it's pretty offensive to me, my country is not some awful hellhole where everyone is miserable because we have socialized services.

[txmusicmom]

As Americans- that's just how we feel- If you like your system- GREAT! I'm thrilled for you- our way isn't the only way- it's just the way WE like ( or a lot of us like) By no means, do I intend to make you feel inferior or act like your country is some awful place! We're basically debating it AS Americans not against any other country! ( by the way- you have a gorgeous country!!!!!)

We're just talking about socialism for OUR country.

many of us don't want socialism in any form.

:)

[Glueless Media]

Why is it that whenever Obama supporters have something negative to say about McCain, the proof we have to show you all is from a reputable source. Whenever McCain supporters want to show us the negatives about Obama, it's not a reputable source...it's someone's blog.

When the McCain article in Rolling Stone was linked, I said that it was either very scary or a great reason to sue for libel. I don't take everything I read at face value, but we have something for a source that isn't a blog?


Good questions Christina, Could it possibly be that the Media is being a tad bit umm what was the word BIASED? Could it be that ANYTHING one party does hits the BIG MEDIA but anything another does is swept under, removed from the internet, requiring the oppostion to get it out there any way they can? (via blogs) Just a thought....:shrugMy thoughts...

[hazelsmrf]

And that's fine! It's the "We are better than you" attitude that I loathe. Better is a matter of opinion, it is just different.

[MommySpice]

I just don't understand why you think that socialist countries have no freedom? I consider myself pretty free and Canada is much more socialist than the U.S., I don't consider the fact that everyone has healthcare or whatever to detract from you being able to do whatever you want.

Actually, my cousin and his wife live in BC and would love to be able to move, but they can't because of health care. She's been waiting since before they got married for a procedure she needs...this going on 4 years now, and no sign of her getting it anytime soon.

ETA: not to say that Canada is one big prison or anything...I lived in BC for a bit myself, and I loved it. Just a counter example...like you said later, there are good and bad points to each.

[opeysmama]

Good questions Christina, Could it possibly be that the Media is being a tad bit umm what was the word BIASED? Could it be that ANYTHING one party does hits the BIG MEDIA but anything another does is swept under, removed from the internet, requiring the oppostion to get it out there any way they can? (via blogs) Just a thought....:shrugMy thoughts...

I agree with you Glueless. Let me also explain why I post the links I post.

I find it enlightening to read blogs because of the mainstream media bias. I also find it very interesting that many of the blogs I've linked up to are being seen as unreliable, because so many of them are pulling from sources like actual legal documents, and news articles. I personally like getting part of my information from people other than the big networks, because quite frankly, they aren't always honest.

I don't believe everything I read or everything people tell me. I reasearch it myself. I post up links for everyone to look at for themselves...and to try and promote peole to search OTHER sources than mainstream media.

So here is a question...why is any source of information that doesn't come from some major mainstream media rebuked? That should be the question. We need to remember there are people out there who don't work for mainstream media that have information, ideas, and thought provoking topics to discuss.

Certainly when it comes to Obama, I woudl hope that people are researching it in more depth than press statements, campaign web sites, and Obama's word, because he's proven himself to me to be dishonest. The whole ACORN fiasco shows that clearly. Its being exposed now too, so I'm hoping people are paying attention to it.

So that in a nut shell, just so I can answer to why I am posting links such as I am, is why I am posting links such as I am. Each person can elect to read the information or not read the information. Then they can decide for themselves.

[Tiffikat]

As Americans- that's just how we feel- If you like your system- GREAT! I'm thrilled for you- our way isn't the only way- it's just the way WE like ( or a lot of us like) By no means, do I intend to make you feel inferior or act like your country is some awful place! We're basically debating it AS Americans not against any other country! ( by the way- you have a gorgeous country!!!!!)

We're just talking about socialism for OUR country.

many of us don't want socialism in any form.

:)

As an American, I agree with Julie. My husband has family in Canada (Quebec) and I have many friends in Canada. I hear a lot more about people being unable to get operations they need here due to cost than I do in Canada. I am 100% for healthcare for all Americans. Yes the Canadian system has problems, but so do almost all healthcare systems. I think overall it is better than we have here. When you have to decide between buying groceries or gas or taking your child to the doctor or buying a prescription that indicates a big problem in my book. I'm not talking about people that aren't hardworking either.

[Tiffikat]

As far as sources come, I prefer to find an UNbiased source than one that is extremely biased one way or another. I feel that you simply cannot trust a source that has it's own political agenda. For that reason I take everything I read on blogs and most mainstream media sources with a grain of salt. If something concerns me then I do research and use factcheck.org.

[kjbstevens]

Well of course there are extremes, there are also people who might need knee surgery in the U.S. and would never be able to afford it at all and have to go without for much longer than 12 months. It's not ALL black and white.
Here they do the surgery when you need it and you pay in payment plans like if your surgery was a car or something. It's not a pre-pay system here like many places that the full amount has to be footed before they'll do it.

[Glueless Media]

I agree with you Glueless. Let me also explain why I post the links I post.

I find it enlightening to read blogs because of the mainstream media bias. I also find it very interesting that many of the blogs I've linked up to are being seen as unreliable, because so many of them are pulling from sources like actual legal documents, and news articles. I personally like getting part of my information from people other than the big networks, because quite frankly, they aren't always honest.

I don't believe everything I read or everything people tell me. I reasearch it myself. I post up links for everyone to look at for themselves...and to try and promote peole to search OTHER sources than mainstream media.

So here is a question...why is any source of information that doesn't come from some major mainstream media rebuked? That should be the question. We need to remember there are people out there who don't work for mainstream media that have information, ideas, and thought provoking topics to discuss.

Certainly when it comes to Obama, I woudl hope that people are researching it in more depth than press statements, campaign web sites, and Obama's word, because he's proven himself to me to be dishonest. The whole ACORN fiasco shows that clearly. Its being exposed now too, so I'm hoping people are paying attention to it.

So that in a nut shell, just so I can answer to why I am posting links such as I am, is why I am posting links such as I am. Each person can elect to read the information or not read the information. Then they can decide for themselves.

Exactly what I have done. I also don't believe everything I read or everything people tell me. I have read every link that either side has provided. They always lead to more links, and more sources and get you to wondering WHY isn't this on the Big Networks? Why am I as an American Citizen not knowing any of this. Is it not important? Who said, who decided so? Who determined this? Who said hey Troopergate, Sarahs pregnant daughter or Sarahs yahoo email is more important than Obamas, ties to radical, ties to socialist, ties to islam, ties to terrorist, ties to Acorn,ties to Ayers, ties to Farrakhan? How does the poor person who can't afford the internet to research and to know if its not hitting the big Televised media? How do they form an opinion when so much is being kept from them? I also like to hear and see prospectives of middle America, not just the BIG MEDIA. I have truly been enlightened over these past few months and can tell you I have been disillusioned by this so called Democratic process we have of elections and voting and wonder why we don't have better candidates to choose from. Also fact check doesn't check every fact. I just want and deserve to hear it all not just what you want me to hear:)

[hazelsmrf]

Here they do the surgery when you need it and you pay in payment plans like if your surgery was a car or something. It's not a pre-pay system here like many places that the full amount has to be footed before they'll do it.

Maybe it's regional? When my husband broke his ankle (without insurance), the doctor wanted 500$ upfront to even see him. No payment plans or any other offer. He didn't have 500$ so he went back home and his ankle healed on it's own and even now about 12 years later, he still can't stand right on that ankle. Maybe if he had kept going to other doctors he would have found one that would see him without the money upfront, but maybe not.

[FrenchRuby]

Obama is linked to (an) Islamic terrorist?? Link please!

[Glueless Media]

Obama is linked to (an) Islamic terrorist?? Link please!

reread Ruby-please:) That is not what my post said!

[FrenchRuby]

Well a link to the report about Obama being linked to 'terrorist' of any flavour would be useful. Got one?

[hellosunshine]

April,

I'm not saying that I don't want to take of myself and my family. Fortunately, I work hard and my husband works hard and we are well taken care of, but I'm not so naive to think that we aren't one accident or one illness away from losing a job and possibly being in trouble with healthcare. I would hate to not have access to healthcare for my children or to lose my home because of it. I just feel that we are a society and we have obligations toward each other as does government towards its people.

As a small business owner, you must have seen your health care costs for employees go up dramatically in the past few years while benefits went down. Your employees also probably rely on a 401K retirement, which is made possible in part through the government.

I know I'm in the minority, but I see how other countries have succeeded better in providing healthcare to all their people and I think the U.S. can do so much better for Americans. One way or the other things have to change and they will.

Regarding knee surgery--I have a sister who, if she takes the needed time off from work to have knee surgery, she will lose her income (she's a college teacher). I've seen her go from limping, to a cane, to a wheelchair and she is just in her early fifties. Something is not right about the system and I do believe as a country we have to fix it. Our government wasn't always so inept.

[~ashleigh]

Here they do the surgery when you need it and you pay in payment plans like if your surgery was a car or something. It's not a pre-pay system here like many places that the full amount has to be footed before they'll do it.

And what if you still can't afford it? If things are financially tight, and you need knee surgery (like my dad did), how do you justify getting surgery over food for your kids? My dad chose the latter, and was in constant pain for many years. He may not have been right but who's to say?

My parents will likely never retire because they were self insured, and have incurred so much in medical debt (over and beyond their $800+ premiums), that they had little extra money to save. And we were a fairly healthy family.

Also, something that many people ignore in this argument, it the insurance companies exclusion of people with pre-existing conditions. How should this issue be reconciled?

[Tiffikat]

It must be regional because I have had friends have similar experiences here. We do payment plans for whatever our insurance doesn't cover but they always see us because we have some sort of insurance. If you do not have insurance in this area then you are likely to be turned away unless you can come up with money upfront.

Even with insurance my OB-GYN requires that a deposit that equals my deductible be paid up front before I give birth ($2500), we've been making payments of $400 a month on it which luckily we can do. If my deductible is met before I give birth they will refund the deposit otherwise it pays for things. I cannot imagine what would happen if you couldn't pay it because they literally will not see you and a lot of places are like that.

[Glueless Media]

Well a link to the report about Obama being linked to 'terrorist' of any flavour would be useful. Got one?

????? WHO oh who do you think Bill Ayers is?:lol LOL "I don't regret setting bombs...I feel we didn't do enough."?? I know I have heard all the arguments hes been cleared, yadyayada but why wasn't he honest about this?

I am not going to get into a riff with you Ruby. Its everywhere Google is your friend. I am saying you make up your mind just like I have made up mine. I am saying its out there..I am saying I had a right as do other AMERICANS for it to be fairly reported, is all:)

[txmusicmom]

????? WHO oh who do you think Bill Ayers is?:lol LOL "I don't regret setting bombs...I feel we didn't do enough."??l:)

We're not talking Al Queda-

Bill Ayers -here's an article from the left-

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2169

Very disturbing--- read down into the article-

"Notwithstanding his violent past, Ayers today does not describe himself as a terrorist. "Terrorists destroy randomly," he reasons, "while our actions bore ... the precise stamp of a cut diamond. Terrorists intimidate, while we aimed only to educate."

So what he did was OK--bc it wasn't random???

:shrug

[kjbstevens]

I've lived in a few different states and never prepaid on anything. Hospitals can not turn you down because of lack of insurance. That is half the problems with our hospital here is people use them for care and don't pay afterwards. Maybe your alls offices had that problem and started requiring some payments. Here they can't turn you down even with a large balance.

[Glueless Media]

I've lived in a few different states and never prepaid on anything. Hospitals can not turn you down because of lack of insurance. That is half the problems with our hospital here is people use them for care and don't pay afterwards. Maybe your alls offices had that problem and started requiring some payments. Here they can't turn you down even with a large balance.

THis is the way it is here in our area. If you are hurt Emergency care must care for you, insurance or not.

[FrenchRuby]

????? WHO oh who do you think Bill Ayers is?:lol LOL "I don't regret setting bombs...I feel we didn't do enough."?? I know I have heard all the arguments hes been cleared, yadyayada but why wasn't he honest about this?

I am not going to get into a riff with you Ruby. Its everywhere Google is your friend. I am saying you make up your mind just like I have made up mine. I am saying its out there..I am saying I had a right as do other AMERICANS for it to be fairly reported, is all:)

I wasn't trying to gey anybody into a riff. I had not heard of this person. He sounds like a bad lot indeed.

However, I'm not sure you can pin Obama for the actions of someone else. Can you really blame the sins of a co-worker on him? And since he's never been prosecuted (Ayers), can you even make a judgement about his actions (I'm not condoning them if the allegations are true, and I see that he admits them)? The University of Illinois clearly don't feel they can. Does that make everyone who works there a terrorist 'link' too?

[Scorpiosue1102]

#5- what about taking care of YOURSELF? Why is it the obligation of others to take care of you? I don't WANT anyone else taking care of me. I want to be able to take care of myself. It makes me feel GOOD. It makes me feel in control of my own situation. I am not depending on the government or anyone else to ensure I am ok and that my family is. And frankly, I LIKE that I don't have to worry and wonder if the comany fails what will happen to my retirement plan, or if the government goes to pot will I get my free groceries. I am responsible for myself and my family. And that is how it should be.


But you have to understand that not everyone fits that criteria. When I was 9 my dad left my mom to be with his new girlfriend. She hadn't worked in 10 years and was left with all the bills. She had no skills except being a housewife. Of course she wanted to take care of herself, but it's not always that easy and cannot be generalized so easily. I remember many a dinner where we had hot dogs in the fireplace so that we didn't have to turn on the stove or had Kraft Macaroni and cheese for dinner. My mom was very proud and didn't want to ask for handouts when she clearly could not afford to live in her house. If it wasn't for help from my grandparents we'd be out on the streets. If it wasn't for the School District letting us get on the bus for free who knows what we would have done. Sometimes people DO need help.

I really don't understand why socialism is such a dirty word. Same as with the word "Muslim". It is unfortunate that Muslim radicals have given a bad connotation to the religion.

[FrenchRuby]

I really don't understand why socialism is such a dirty word. Same as with the word "Muslim". It is unfortunate that Muslim radicals have given a bad connotation to the religion.

I totally agree with both sentiments. I am a paid up member of the Liberal Democrat party in the UK. Liberal appears to be a dirty word in the USA for some reason, I've even had it hurled at me as a lame insult. But liberal doesn't mean anything derogatory, and neither does socialism. The belief in society. What's wrong with that?

And as for the Muslim thing, that really grates on me. If people were up in arms about a candidate having had a Jewish parent or been eduated in a Jewish school, the very people who are 'scared' of Obama's muslim connections would be crying foul. It's not acceptable to condemn a person for their faith or that of their forebears. I thought the whole freaking POINT of the USA was freedom of religion?

[Kim2002]

Okay, well, I'm still an undecided voter researching all options......having said that, I am definitely concerned about various associations with both parties. My reasoning is that if this was my child and he was hanging out with a bad crowd, I know that other kids and the school teachers would possibly view him as being just like those other bad kids. The whole "guilt by association" thing really does have some ring of truth. My kid may be the best kid in the world, but if he hangs out with others known to have a bad rap, then it gives him the appearance of a bad rap too. I think the same is true of politicians. They need to be wary of who they do business with as it definitely reflects on them (whether it's a good association or bad).

ETA: As to the original post about socialism in the USA.....I do think we have already opened that can of worms. The government controls a lot already. However, I don't want the government doing any more than it currently is. Every time he government gets involved, it ends up costing the taxpayers more money. I don't want the government involved in my health care options or anything else for that matter.

[kjbstevens]

Socialism isn't a dirty word. It is a form of gov't where the gov't comes in and starts controlling aspects of our everyday lives and gives them more control than what our gov't has been granted. Our gov't already screws up enough of what they touch for personal tastes. Just a difference of opinions is all.

[FrenchRuby]

A difference of opinion which is apparently due to a complete misunderstanding of what socialism is. :)

[kjbstevens]

No I have a very good understanding of nationalization and worker ownerships thanks to my college work and can tell you that I do not believe that giving more powers to our federal gov't is a good idea. Our leaders have been been in scandel and scandel and are so wasteful that the people will end up with much less than what other systems or hybrids could provide. We'd have to give up a lot of our political and economic freedoms we have. We need to fix what we have instead of just throwing it out and doing something else. It can be fixed, it's just going to take a lot of effort our leaders don't seem to want to deal with unfortunely on both sides. Our leaders don't have a lot of the ambition other countries have. They'd rather sit and blabber about the other side being annoying, stupid, or having bad decisions.

[FrenchRuby]

Socialism isn't Marxism. Your college classes were woefully out of date if nationalism and worker ownership (not a bad thing actually, but I daresay not presented in a positive light in college) are the fundamental characteristics you identify socialism by. That's more the definition of state communism.

Here is a more modern definition of the ideology of socialism:

"by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create, for each of us, the means to realise our true potential, and, for all of us, a community in which power, wealth, and opportunity are in the hands of the many, not the few"

Not the ideology of the Socialist Worker's Party, the Communist Party of Great Britain or even left-wing aparatchiks. This was the opening paragraph of the British Labour Party stated aims in 1995. The Party had newly elected Tony Blair as it's leader, who went on to win the next General Election by a landslide in 1997, and the party has been in power ever since.

Is Britain a nationalised state after 11 years of Labour government? No. Britain is very much a market economy. Britain's citizens are freer in many ways than their USA counterparts. Britain's economy is strong (leaving aside the recent credit crunch which did not originate in the UK) and they have almost no nationalised industry. They do have an Universal Health Care system, free at the point of need. They do have almost full employment.

That is modern socialism. Socialism in it's contemporary form. It's not a system I particularly agree with (I have never voted Labour). But since your (your = USA's) 'closest friend' is a socialist country, I struggle to see what's so bad about socialism in your eyes. Perhaps it's different if you live it rather than just read about it.
Fear of the unknown/different again? It seems to be a recurrent theme in this election.

[JCSimon]

I've lived in a few different states and never prepaid on anything. Hospitals can not turn you down because of lack of insurance. That is half the problems with our hospital here is people use them for care and don't pay afterwards. Maybe your alls offices had that problem and started requiring some payments. Here they can't turn you down even with a large balance.

Here, a hospital can't turn you down if you need *emergency* care for a life-threatening illness or injury. They can, and do, turn people without insurance away for less. Even if they treat you for a life-threatening condition, they can hound and hound for payment and can, and do, take people to court.

When my brother-in-law was run down by a driver they never found, he was in between jobs and without insurance. They treated him for severe head injuries and several broken bones, to the tune of over $200K....and released him from the hospital before he was in any condition to be released. They tried to set up a payment plan and, because the hospital said it wouldn't be paid off fast enough, were taken to court. They lost their house and their children's college accounts.

No, it's not at all fair the way it's done now.

[kjbstevens]

Well here is the problem with the US. The people running our country that would be setting up this health system are the same people that have been working on the Hurricane Katrina response, Iraq War, the bailout, social rights, all of that the last few years. Would you really want those same people in charge of your children's medical care? I don't have the faith of some to say yes to that because they've never really shown me a good reason for it lately with any good decision making.

No it's not fair that they did that to him and no one is saying we don't need major reform.

[lunafaerie]

I think people need to do some research on what democratic socialism is, and what nations and what leaders are currently considered democratic socialist. I think it would be interesting to people. I can tell you it's not China, Cuba, or Venezuela.

The other thing I wanted to say is that freedom is an idea, it's a state of mind. We make what we will of our perceived freedoms. I think our Australian friends explained this much better than I in the compulsory voting thread, so I'll leave it at that and will probably stay out of this thread from here on out, hehehe.

[kjbstevens]

Here is a story from Time (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1843168,00.html) that I thought was interesting. It compares what we are going through to France's system. It is a little ruder than I would expect from Time magazine though. I will warn you that. It definately leaning towards the biased side of journalism that really doesn't really say what I think about them, but guess some do if it helps understand a way more conservative view than me.

[FrenchRuby]

Very funny story, and I have a sneaking suspiscion that I am reading in an entirely different way than you are. Maybe democratic socialism is the natural order after all, and since the USA is so close to it anyway why not go the whole hog?

At least you get wine with lunch. :)

[kjbstevens]

Yeah I guess if you throw enough good Riesling in then I wouldn't care as much. LOL
Seriously though I really don't think our lawmakers don't have the right decision frame of minds to do it right. I like the idea behind it, just not the way they'd find a way to do to it. They've really been giving themselves more power the past 10 years to pushing a scary point. The people are losing their ground and say they used to have.

[Gina.Maria]

I might take a lot of flack for this but I don't believe that as a country we are as free as everyone likes to say. We don't have equal rights for all of our citizens (gay marriage anyone?) and honestly I don't feel that our country is as great as everyone says either. Our country needs a lot of work. I still love America, but isn't part of being American questioning the politics and fighting for true liberty? Look at the Patriot Act (I hate that name by the way because I don't feel the act is very patriotic at all).

It's true. We Americans are not as free as we'd like to believe. And it took moving to a foreign country to truly see the U.S.A. as it really is. Live outside our borders in a free country and you gain a new (maybe better?) perspective.

Why is it that whenever Obama supporters have something negative to say about McCain, the proof we have to show you all is from a reputable source. Whenever McCain supporters want to show us the negatives about Obama, it's not a reputable source...it's someone's blog.

When the McCain article in Rolling Stone was linked, I said that it was either very scary or a great reason to sue for libel. I don't take everything I read at face value, but we have something for a source that isn't a blog?

I've mentioned this in other threads but it gets ignored or the response is that they don't like what they read/hear in MSM so they'll continue posting the blogger's opinions as fact.

You guys are my heroes! :) ITA!

We need reform. We don't need to cater to views and beliefs that are not in the majority. And loudest is not equal to most believed or supported. The majority, vast majority of America is Christian. Yet you'd think we weren't because of the loud voices shouting through the media that we need to remove God form everything. I think majority should rule. It may not be "equal" but it would be fair.

I wish the people in our government would rememebr their place in how the government works. I am so tired of them pulling illegal moves and having it go undisputed. Since when do courts make law? Uggh.

First. Christian does not mean Republican. I am a Christian Democrat and I believe - very strongly - that Jesus would be a Socialist if he cared about the governments of man.

Second. Our majority did speak, quite loudly, and they elected Al Gore as the 43rd President of the United States. The Republicans pulled a great many illegal moves to make it go away and even used the Supreme Court to stop the recount.

1. Why would it be surprising that Obama is associated with some socialistic ideals? From his early career he worked hard to organize people to better their communities--succeeded in getting the government in Chicago to test for asbestos in their homes. The people there still consider him a hero who was inspiring and motivating to show them how to help themselves. He is inspriring and hopeful to me in that I believe we can be a much better society.

2. Obama supports an overhaul of our health system, which is a train wreck and any one who has had to depend on it with a chronic or serious illness knows that. 50 million people in this country do not have health insurance. Someone above said our health insurance is just fine except for small business--well, small business makes up 99% of our economy--5, 660, 600 small businesses. They employ over 50% of the work force. So, if it is a problem with small business, it is a major problem affecting our entire economy.

4. I am not okay with the average CEO making 441 times the average employee (used to be only about 4 times the average employee) I believe in sharing the wealth of this nation. We have a poverty rate of 35%--this is huge by comparison to many country. The middle class is shrinking and struggling to pay college costs, medical bills, mortgages, etc. We can improve.

5. Employers don't take care of employees like they used to--no retirement, no health insurance for millions. I think as a country we need to reevaluate these issues and look at alternatives that work well in many other first world countries.

6. There is no such thing as someone living here without socialized programs--our roads, police, fire protection, schools, universities, etc. are all government paid for. Do you not use those?

Very good. Well-thought-out, excellently argued and logical. I agree with most of what you've said.

Good questions Christina, Could it possibly be that the Media is being a tad bit umm what was the word BIASED? Could it be that ANYTHING one party does hits the BIG MEDIA but anything another does is swept under, removed from the internet, requiring the oppostion to get it out there any way they can? (via blogs) Just a thought....:shrugMy thoughts...

Actually, the media have been really quite equitable. The problem is that Conservatives have a real problem with seeing anything positive about Obama in the news.


Here is a story from Time (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1843168,00.html) that I thought was interesting. It compares what we are going through to France's system. It is a little ruder than I would expect from Time magazine though. I will warn you that. It definately leaning towards the biased side of journalism that really doesn't really say what I think about them, but guess some do if it helps understand a way more conservative view than me.

Actually, rather than suggest Socialism as the source of evil some see it as, I think the article is a tongue-in-cheek way to show how much better life can be with a little socialism. To quote FrenchRuby, "At least you get wine with your lunch." ;)

[Microferk ~ Miki Ferkul]

Well shoot- if there's daily wine then "Vive le socialisme!" http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v325/Mferkul/smilies/winesmiley3.gif

[April Staker]

April,

I'm not saying that I don't want to take of myself and my family. Fortunately, I work hard and my husband works hard and we are well taken care of, but I'm not so naive to think that we aren't one accident or one illness away from losing a job and possibly being in trouble with healthcare. I would hate to not have access to healthcare for my children or to lose my home because of it. I just feel that we are a society and we have obligations toward each other as does government towards its people.

As a small business owner, you must have seen your health care costs for employees go up dramatically in the past few years while benefits went down. Your employees also probably rely on a 401K retirement, which is made possible in part through the government.

I know I'm in the minority, but I see how other countries have succeeded better in providing healthcare to all their people and I think the U.S. can do so much better for Americans. One way or the other things have to change and they will.


Actually, our business is a small corp. And we don't have employees needing retirement benefits. Just us, taking care of ourselves. Our employees are teenagers. And they usually aren't with us for more than one season. So no 401k for us or them. We have the old fashioned saving plan where you stick it away yourself and do your best with it. :)

And I didn't mean to imply you didn't take care of your own. I mostly think of my cousins (and by that 4 of them in one family) who live off of my taxes while I can't afford insurance for my own family. I could have afforded it if my taxes weren't so cotton pickin' high. And I want the FREEDOM to choose my healthcare, my doctor, etc. I don't want to be told where and when I can go and to whom. It is my right to choose. And I don't want that taken away.

My dh has lived in a very socialistic country and he would never want to be in a system where the medical care is run by the governement. I have also been to places on a foreign aid misison where they had governement health care. I spent two weeks helping at hospitals that had no beds for kids in burn units, needed medicine so bdly but the gov't couldn't/wouldn't get it for them. The people had serious needs and they had no choice but to rely on the government and the government was failing them.

Honestly, how can my government make a good decision to give me quality health care when they can't even handle the other things they are already supposed to be in charge of. And then they run around adding billions to my tax burden and I get nothing in the end. I do not want their fingers on anything that I can take care of. Obviously I can't build roads, or have a police force or a militia. Those are things a governement should be in charge of because it needs to be done in a broad spectrum way. But my healthcare, my right to make choices for my family. Never, no how, no way. I don't want them in charge of things i should be in charge of.

I don't belive it is my responsibility to foot the bill for anyone else. I have the right to choose to donate my time or money. But it shouldn't be forced. I believe that God granted us the ability to make choices for ourselves and I think that every time we assume that we know how to do something better for someone we are taking away a God given right and that is treading somewhere I don't believe I want to tread. (Not to say people should be comepletely free, but there should be consequences, such as murder, etc. That is obviously morally wrong as well.)

Just don't touch my right to free agency and choice in any aspect of my life.

[April Staker]

But you have to understand that not everyone fits that criteria. When I was 9 my dad left my mom to be with his new girlfriend. She hadn't worked in 10 years and was left with all the bills. She had no skills except being a housewife. Of course she wanted to take care of herself, but it's not always that easy and cannot be generalized so easily. I remember many a dinner where we had hot dogs in the fireplace so that we didn't have to turn on the stove or had Kraft Macaroni and cheese for dinner. My mom was very proud and didn't want to ask for handouts when she clearly could not afford to live in her house. If it wasn't for help from my grandparents we'd be out on the streets. If it wasn't for the School District letting us get on the bus for free who knows what we would have done. Sometimes people DO need help.

I really don't understand why socialism is such a dirty word. Same as with the word "Muslim". It is unfortunate that Muslim radicals have given a bad connotation to the religion.

No, not all situations are the same. I think THAT is a situation where help is warranted. She did not make the choice to be in that situation. The situation was forced on her. That is different, and I think help should be offered. But people like my cousins who know that as long as they don't get married they are "entitled" to all of this free money, no that is a conscious decision to milk the system. And is an entirely different class. Those are the people that need to be kicked out on the rear ends and told to get a job. Your mom needed help so that she could get into a better position. I guess that is the difference. Are you there to make your living? Or are you there because you have no where else to turn and you are hoping to create a new and better life? If it is temporary help I see it very differently. If it is a career of getting help, no that is just plain lazy. And I shouldn't have to pay for that.

[April Staker]

First. Christian does not mean Republican. I am a Christian Democrat and I believe - very strongly - that Jesus would be a Socialist if he cared about the governments of man.

Second. Our majority did speak, quite loudly, and they elected Al Gore as the 43rd President of the United States. The Republicans pulled a great many illegal moves to make it go away and even used the Supreme Court to stop the recount.

I gotta say, you are ASSUMING I am Republican. :) I haven't voted Republican for some time because I think the party is actually too far left for me.

I don't think Jesus would be any of the forms of government we have. :) And he would believe in a "Untied Order" where everyone shares. However, that system would never work unless people are already full of charity. Which lacks in this world. The difference here is that Christ would not seek POWER. The more our government controls the more power they have. Christ would not make it mandatory to share. We would WANT to share because our hearts would be full of compassion for our brothers/sisters.

The more I depend on the government the more power they have over me. Christ would never be that way.

[Scorpiosue1102]

If it is temporary help I see it very differently. If it is a career of getting help, no that is just plain lazy. And I shouldn't have to pay for that.

That I totally agree with you. Aid should be for helping your get on your feet and not one big hand out.

[kjbstevens]

The difference here is that Christ would not seek POWER. The more our government controls the more power they have. Christ would not make it mandatory to share. We would WANT to share because our hearts would be full of compassion for our brothers/sisters.
I'm not into the whole religion thing but think this is borderline what I was trying to get to the heart of with the socialist thing. If we give them the power over us then our own lives are being undermined. I believe in power to the people and not the gov't so I want smaller gov't. Maybe that is the best way to explain it which is why I don't get the left or the evangelicals on the right side. Obama's plans are good in intentions but believe they are taking away power from the people and giving more to the gov't and taking away our choices. It's a slippery slope to give the gov't control on more things when they can't take care of what they are already in. Even if the plan does work and he gives out this insurance and all who is to say our doctors and stuff will accept them. The good, unpacked doctors offices around here do not accept Medicaid or gov't funded insurance, only private or out of pocket. If you chose it there is a chance you'd be wandering around like the poor vets trying to find a VA that will accept them. They will give you the care for free if they can fit you in. Just good luck getting in. They can pick and choose what they accept. If his fine is lower than what it costs for an employer to provide insurance for their coverage then why would they pay the insurance when they could save a few bucks and just pay the fine? They might end up dropping people to save money and by paying the fine it would be okay. I've read his plan over and none of this stuff is addressed how it is anything different than the VA and the mess it is in for everyday care. Sure it would pay for hospital stuff but there is no need to go there for everything just because they accept it. I don't think McCain's plan really does much unless he pushes a lot of reform with it, but I just don't see either of them as address what is really wrong with the system and driving up the costs.

[txmusicmom]

First. Christian does not mean Republican. I am a Christian Democrat and I believe - very strongly - that Jesus would be a Socialist if he cared about the governments of man.

Interesting thought, I guess that's why God always had a theocracy with Israel. Jesus certainly did care about people. But He told us to be cheerful givers. We give out of love for our fellowman not because a government decides the rules. He didn't tell Rome to take care of it- He told his followers.

Second. Our majority did speak, quite loudly, and they elected Al Gore as the 43rd President of the United States. The Republicans pulled a great many illegal moves to make it go away and even used the Supreme Court to stop the recount.

:shrug
I
Actually, the media have been really quite equitable. The problem is that Conservatives have a real problem with seeing anything positive about Obama in the news.

Gina- oh so not true -- at least for me. I remember the last election. I happen to watch Charlie Gibson- have for years even though I totally disagree with him policitically --- early in the evening they were just giddy with delight. Then as the evening went on........Shock and Horror as the results came in- it was written all over their face.

I have NO problem having positive things about Obama- I really like that he wanted to keep personal families out of the drama. I respect him for that.

If it was so equitable - why are we just now hearing about Bill Ayers on the MSM? It's been in the *other media * for quite a while ?
There is so much that Obama hasn't been questioned about. Not saying they we would like/not like what he has to say- but the hard questions haven't been even asked.



I do appreciate the perspective that being outside the US has afforded you. Y.ou are so right. I certainly do know Christian Democrats.
Most of the ones I know are so because of social issues.

I'm just a small government kind of gal.

Everyone have a great weekend- won't it be great when this is OVER??

LOL

[Gina.Maria]

I'm not into the whole religion thing but think this is borderline what I was trying to get to the heart of with the socialist thing. If we give them the power over us then our own lives are being undermined. I believe in power to the people and not the gov't so I want smaller gov't. Maybe that is the best way to explain it which is why I don't get the left or the evangelicals on the right side. Obama's plans are good in intentions but believe they are taking away power from the people and giving more to the gov't and taking away our choices. It's a slippery slope to give the gov't control on more things when they can't take care of what they are already in. Even if the plan does work and he gives out this insurance and all who is to say our doctors and stuff will accept them. The good, unpacked doctors offices around here do not accept Medicaid or gov't funded insurance, only private or out of pocket. If you chose it there is a chance you'd be wandering around like the poor vets trying to find a VA that will accept them. They will give you the care for free if they can fit you in. Just good luck getting in. They can pick and choose what they accept. If his fine is lower than what it costs for an employer to provide insurance for their coverage then why would they pay the insurance when they could save a few bucks and just pay the fine? They might end up dropping people to save money and by paying the fine it would be okay. I've read his plan over and none of this stuff is addressed how it is anything different than the VA and the mess it is in for everyday care. Sure it would pay for hospital stuff but there is no need to go there for everything just because they accept it. I don't think McCain's plan really does much unless he pushes a lot of reform with it, but I just don't see either of them as address what is really wrong with the system and driving up the costs.

Please take some time to really read Obama's plan for Healthcare. It's not a plan that uses the UK's NHS as a model, nor is it a plan that mandates a Medicaid-type insurance for everyone (which, in truth, would mean that those doctors who don't currently accept it would be shooting themselves in the foot if they continued that policy if that's all everyone had ;)). While I think his plan is incomplete and needs to address doctor education, tort reform, reduction of waste and cost containment, it's a good start toward ensuring that everyone has access to adequate health care. If you read it, you may understand that, aside from an injection of funding for coverage for the poor, nothing much will change for most already insured. Again, I think it's a start and the direction it heads is a positive one that doesn't eliminate our choice in care.

And, to April. I was very clear in saying that Christ did not care about Man's governments. I never suggested that he might seek power on Earth. But, considering that we are not a charitable lot, how would you propose we live a Christ-like life in this world that we inhabit? Give to the rich and hope that they feel charitable?

[Hollie]

I really don't understand why socialism is such a dirty word. Same as with the word "Muslim". It is unfortunate that Muslim radicals have given a bad connotation to the religion.

*any* word can be a dirty word if it is spoken out of hatred, malice, or disdain. Muslim, liberal, Christian, Conservative, Socialist, Pro-life, Pro-choice--they can all be made out as "evils" or dirty words, depending on who is saying them, and the context in which they are used. And each of those words is not, in and of itself, a dirty word. It's a shame that people stoop so low as to do such things and make others out to be so horrible by trying to attach a negative stigma to a word. Now, granted--some of these words got negative stigmas b/c of outspoken people that are associated with them. But it's unfair to assume that, just because someone identifies with one of these groups, they have some kind of evil agenda. I often remind myself of the phrase, "seek first to understand, then to be understood." I think we could all do this a little more.

[ccouch]

Second. Our majority did speak, quite loudly, and they elected Al Gore as the 43rd President of the United States. The Republicans pulled a great many illegal moves to make it go away and even used the Supreme Court to stop the recount.

I've gotta disagree with you there, but no matter. I'm just thankful that fruitcake didn't make his way back into the White House.

Give to the rich and hope that they feel charitable?

By "giving" to the rich, are you referring to allowing the wealthy to keep a decent percentage of their earnings? Currently, I believe, the most wealthy pay out 35% of their income. Obama wants to raise this by 11%. That would mean the top wage earners in our country would be paying out almost HALF of their income in taxes.

[mama_pajama]

I'm just a small government kind of gal.


Me too!!!! Wouldn't it be awesome if the Republicans would actually do something to make the government smaller? Or hand over powers to the states? Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be a priority for them. If they're going to continue to spend billions of dollars, I'd rather see it go to people here who need it instead of into Iraq.

[mama_pajama]

By "giving" to the rich, are you referring to allowing the wealthy to keep a decent percentage of their earnings? Currently, I believe, the most wealthy pay out 35% of their income. Obama wants to raise this by 11%. That would mean the top wage earners in our country would be paying out almost HALF of their income in taxes.

I'm not an accountant, but I do know that they don't pay 35% after all deductions, write-offs, loopholes, etc.

[~ashleigh]

*any* word can be a dirty word if it is spoken out of hatred, malice, or disdain. Muslim, liberal, Christian, Conservative, Socialist, Pro-life, Pro-choice--they can all be made out as "evils" or dirty words, depending on who is saying them, and the context in which they are used. And each of those words is not, in and of itself, a dirty word. It's a shame that people stoop so low as to do such things and make others out to be so horrible by trying to attach a negative stigma to a word. Now, granted--some of these words got negative stigmas b/c of outspoken people that are associated with them. But it's unfair to assume that, just because someone identifies with one of these groups, they have some kind of evil agenda. I often remind myself of the phrase, "seek first to understand, then to be understood." I think we could all do this a little more.

very good advice :)

[tammy1999]

Me too!!!! Wouldn't it be awesome if the Republicans would actually do something to make the government smaller? Or hand over powers to the states? Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be a priority for them. If they're going to continue to spend billions of dollars, I'd rather see it go to people here who need it instead of into Iraq.

On girl I am with you on that!! I've always wondered why the states didn't handle 99% of the governing in this country. Each state is different and need different needs. I have gone over in my mind and think that the Federal government should handle our military and so far, haven't thought much of what else they should. Schools and other programs should be handeled by their states. Yea!

[tammy1999]

I'm not an accountant, but I do know that they don't pay 35% after all deductions, write-offs, loopholes, etc.

Actually, people making over 100,000 pay 90% of the taxes in this country. And that includes small businesses because your income you make on your business shows up as your personal income. The top 1% is paying more than ten times the federal income taxes than the bottom 50%. And I could go on. Yes, there are wrigt-offs, thats why I own rentals, but I pay much more in taxes because of that extra income. But, we can't live without the extra income.

[mama_pajama]

Actually, people making over 100,000 pay 90% of the taxes in this country. And that includes small businesses because your income you make on your business shows up as your personal income. The top 1% is paying more than ten times the federal income taxes than the bottom 50%. And I could go on. Yes, there are wrigt-offs, thats why I own rentals, but I pay much more in taxes because of that extra income. But, we can't live without the extra income.

Right, but people in the 35% tax bracket aren't really paying 35% of their income into taxes after all is said and done.

[LDesjardin]

Right, but people in the 35% tax bracket aren't really paying 35% of their income into taxes after all is said and done.

What is your evidence for this?

[mama_pajama]

What is your evidence for this?

My evidence? After doing our taxes every year, we don't pay nearly the percentage we're supposed to based on our tax bracket. I don't know the specifics, my husband does our taxes, but we get all kinds of credits and deductions. And that's without accountants to find more deductions and loopholes for us.

Plus, like I said before, I'm no accountant, but this looked pretty straightforward to me. From this website http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm


To take an example, suppose your taxable income (after deductions and exemptions) was exactly $100,000 in 2003 and your status was Married filing separately; then your tax would be calculated like this:

($ 7,000 - 0 ) x .10 : $ 700
(28,400 - 7,000 ) x .15 :3,210
(57,325 - 28,400 ) x .25 :7,231
(87,350 - 57,325 ) x .28 :8,407
(100,000 - 87,350 ) x .33 :4,175

Total: $ 23,723T

his puts you in the 33% tax bracket; but as a percentage of your income, your tax is about 23.7%.

[txmusicmom]

Me too!!!! Wouldn't it be awesome if the Republicans would actually do something to make the government smaller? Or hand over powers to the states? Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be a priority for them. If they're going to continue to spend billions of dollars, I'd rather see it go to people here who need it instead of into Iraq.

Amen sister-- I have no clue what got in Bush's brain. ( I'm not bashing him- I really have supported him). He has spent so much money........I'm not referring to the war- but EVERYTHING else......

I agree- Power to the states..........:yahoo

Can someone clue me in - why are we still giving any country money.....when we need it here at home??

[hellosunshine]

On taxes--Warren Buffet-the richest man in the world--wants our tax system overhauled because he says his secretary pays a larger percentage of taxes than he does. He (and I) agree that something is wrong with such a system.

[hellosunshine]

More evidence of unfair taxes-- Warren Buffet's tax rate is 17.7%. His secretary's is around 30%. He bet a million dollars that no Forbes 400 member paid a higher percentage in taxes than their administrative task--no one took him up on it. His interview with Tom Brokaw and other articles are all over the Internet. This case should be good evidence that the rich don't pay their share--even the rich admit it and in some cases are trying to change it.

[hellosunshine]

What is your evidence for this?


I wanted to put a chart in here of the incomes and percentage of income tax rate paid, but the chart went wild. The actual tax rate for the top 1% is around 22% and it goes it down from there.

The full article is here
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html (http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html)

The article goes on to say that when you get to the very top earners, the rate actually drops lower than 22%.

[Natalie]

On taxes--Warren Buffet-the richest man in the world--wants our tax system overhauled because he says his secretary pays a larger percentage of taxes than he does. He (and I) agree that something is wrong with such a system.

I wonder what Mr. Buffet would owe if he just filed a 1040EZ?

[Gina.Maria]

By "giving" to the rich, are you referring to allowing the wealthy to keep a decent percentage of their earnings? Currently, I believe, the most wealthy pay out 35% of their income. Obama wants to raise this by 11%. That would mean the top wage earners in our country would be paying out almost HALF of their income in taxes.

You mistakenly take that 11% increase to mean that you add 11 to 35 and come up with 46%. The mathematical truth of an increase of 11% is a percentage jump of 3.61 points or a total of 38.61% (it gets rounded up to 39% - the same tax rate in existence before Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy). What you're also missing is the fact that taxes are calculated on an Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) which is how the wealthy (and businesses) lower their tax liability to a percentage lower than my own. Many here like to repeat McCain's assertion that the US has the highest corporate tax rate in the world, but the reality is that, after all of their deductions, exemptions and credits, they(corporations, not individuals) collectively have an average tax rate of 11% - one of the lowest in the world. Increasing the maximum tax rate for these entities only attempts to bring their taxation in line with that of individuals.

And, apparently, Warren Buffet agrees with me. ;)

On taxes--Warren Buffet-the richest man in the world--wants our tax system overhauled because he says his secretary pays a larger percentage of taxes than he does. He (and I) agree that something is wrong with such a system.


More evidence of unfair taxes-- Warren Buffet's tax rate is 17.7%. His secretary's is around 30%. He bet a million dollars that no Forbes 400 member paid a higher percentage in taxes than their administrative task--no one took him up on it. His interview with Tom Brokaw and other articles are all over the Internet. This case should be good evidence that the rich don't pay their share--even the rich admit it and in some cases are trying to change it.

[ccouch]

You mistakenly take that 11% increase to mean that you add 11 to 35 and come up with 46%. The mathematical truth of an increase of 11% is a percentage jump of 3.61 points or a total of 38.61% (it gets rounded up to 39% - the same tax rate in existence before Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy). What you're also missing is the fact that taxes are calculated on an Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) which is how the wealthy (and businesses) lower their tax liability to a percentage lower than my own. Many here like to repeat McCain's assertion that the US has the highest corporate tax rate in the world, but the reality is that, after all of their deductions, exemptions and credits, they(corporations, not individuals) collectively have an average tax rate of 11% - one of the lowest in the world. Increasing the maximum tax rate for these entities only attempts to bring their taxation in line with that of individuals.

And, apparently, Warren Buffet agrees with me. ;)



Gina, thanks for your response. You're right - - I think I calculated that percentage increase incorrectly.

Speaking as someone whose husband is self-employed, I can tell you that those deductions that you speak of are crucial for us. On paper, my husband shows that he makes something much more than we actually see. His deductions are legitimate, and not high dollar write-offs for executive retreats. ;)

Honestly, it looks like I need to do some more research into the AGI and tax percentages that have been shared here. I'd like to be better informed on that. For election time, this isn't a deal breaker for me one way or the other. I still vote conservatively :)

[kjbstevens]

Yeah articles have been saying for days and weeks now that the plans aren't going to pass or he'd totally kill the economy taxing business more anyways. I'd posted this elsewhere but see it fits pretty well here. It is just their ideas. It does NOT mean they are actually going to do it or that they would ever get passed for either of them. This stuff is all just campaign promises and ideas. It doesn't guarentee that is how things will pass or if they'll ever even try to pass them so a lot of these things will probably never be more than talk for both candidates that we fuss about. No matter who gets elected don't expect anything sweeping really.
http://biz.yahoo.com/usnews/081009/09_as_the_economy_sinks_so_do_odds_of_a_tax_cut.ht ml?.&.pf=taxes

[tammy1999]

Here is something to remember about taxes.

In 2010 the Bush's tax cut program will stop and Obama has said he will not renew it. This will make everyone's taxes go up. Obama says he will only tax those who make over $240,000? In all actuallity he will be taxing everyone, if he doesn't renew the tax plan. McCain is for leaving the tax cuts the same. Not raising anyone's taxes. Is this the best time to raise taxes at all?

This also effects estate taxes. Unless, of course, you die in 2010 and the estate taxes will be 0%. The rate in 2007 for anyone inheriting over $10,450 is 35%!!!!!!!!!! This tax has just distroyed the small farming communities that have passed down their farms from generation to generation. This is also a reason why large companies, Anheuser Busch for one, have had to leave the country or sell out. Now a foreign company owns 40% of AB because the family coundn't pay the inheritence taxes. Broke my heart to know they had to do that.

I kind of wonder about Buffet's statement on his tax rate. First of all, he lives on Capital Gains and the tax rate on that is 0% right now. So that means, he is not paying any taxes on his dividends and sale of stocks, etc. Now he might receive a so called salary from something, but I would think his Captial Gains is his actual income. Just my thoughts on that.

His secretary, I would presume, is the very opposite and receives an income and pays normal income taxes, which would make her tax rate higher. And wow, when you think about it, she must have a huge salary for that type of tax rate.

Anyway, I'm have to repeat this, people that make over $100,000 in this country pay over 90% of the taxes in this country and that includes businesses. So I would truely say they are paying their fair share of taxes.

Yes, our tax codes, over 66,000 pages long, is flawed to its highest. But until we take the power away from congress to decide who and who doesn't pay taxes, we will always be at their mercy. Thats why I love the Fair Tax plan. Congress will no longer be alowed to change the laws to suit them.

I HATE DOING MY TAXES!!!!!!!!!!

[Miss Chris]

I HATE DOING MY TAXES!!!!!!!!!!

Tammy, politically our views are polar opposites, but this is one thing we can certainly agree upon!! :) :) :)

[tammy1999]

Tammy, politically our views are polar opposites, but this is one thing we can certainly agree upon!! :) :) :)

Girl, I wish you could see all that stuff we have to keep for 7 years and forever in case of an audit. Thank goodness that hasn't happened. But our garage is full of that stuff. And we have a very small business and a couple of rentals. My husband and I aren't very likeable until we get them in the mail. :madness

[hellosunshine]

The point with Warren Buffett is that he does get his money through investments whose returans are taxed only at the 15% tax rate. He admitted he doesn't have any kind of tax shelter. He paid what the government required. On his income of $46 million he paid 17.7% in taxes. (This is well-documented.)

I don't think one can look at the tax system except by what percentage each income bracket pays, not by what percentage of the overall taxes each group pays because the top brackets do have almost all of the wealth.

What has happened over the past 8 years with Bush/Cheney economics is that the distribution of wealth in this country has changed dramatically with more and more of the wealth going into the top brackets. At the same time, the top brackets pay less income tax than before. What this means is that people in the lower brackets have less and less to spend. Trickle down economics just hasn't worked. Our wealth distribution represents a third-world country and the middle class is paying the price.

[tammy1999]

The point with Warren Buffett is that he does get his money through investments whose returans are taxed only at the 15% tax rate. He admitted he doesn't have any kind of tax shelter. He paid what the government required. On his income of $46 million he paid 17.7% in taxes. (This is well-documented.)

I don't think one can look at the tax system except by what percentage each income bracket pays, not by what percentage of the overall taxes each group pays because the top brackets do have almost all of the wealth.

What has happened over the past 8 years with Bush/Cheney economics is that the distribution of wealth in this country has changed dramatically with more and more of the wealth going into the top brackets. At the same time, the top brackets pay less income tax than before. What this means is that people in the lower brackets have less and less to spend. Trickle down economics just hasn't worked. Our wealth distribution represents a third-world country and the middle class is paying the price.

I'm sorry to disagree but the top percent of the money earners in this country pay the most taxes. You can look for that at the IRS website.

"The latest data show that a big portion of the federal income tax burden is shoul­dered by a small group of the very richest Americans. The wealthiest 1 percent of the population earn 19 per­cent of the income but pay 37 percent of the income tax. The top 10 percent pay 68 percent of the tab. Meanwhile, the bottom 50 percent—those below the median income level—now earn 13 percent of the income but pay just 3 percent of the taxes. These are proportions of the income tax alone and don’t include payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare." This came from the Treasury Department.

Believe me, I am right down there with the lower middle class, but I just don't like hearing over and over that the rich don't pay their fair share. When actually they pay more.

[MommySpice]

This is from the article that Hello Sunshine posted on the other page:

The top-earning 25 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $64,702) earned 68.2 percent of the nation's income, but they paid more than four out of every five dollars collected by the federal income tax (86.3 percent). The top 1 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $388,806) earned approximately 22.1 percent of the nation's income (as defined by AGI), yet paid 39.9 percent of all federal income taxes. That means the top 1 percent of tax returns paid about the same amount of federal individual income taxes as the bottom 95 percent of tax returns.

I could seriously be misunderstanding something...but that certainly doesn't seem fair to me...

[tammy1999]

This is from the article that Hello Sunshine posted on the other page:



I could seriously be misunderstanding something...but that certainly doesn't seem fair to me...

Thank you ma'am. Thats what I've been trying to post and yes, it isn't fair when the majority of those salaries are based on small business in this country. These small businesses employ 52% of the workers in this country. They keep getting taxed more, people will loose jobs and benefits.

[hazelsmrf]

Yes the top earners pay more DOLLARS than the bottom earners. But then, 30% of one million dollars is much much more than 30% of 25 thousand dollars. It still leaves them more money proportionately than the lower classes if they have tax shelters etc, which I think is the point she was trying to make.

[MommySpice]

I don't make a million dollars...far from it. I'm on a beginning teacher salary and while my husband doesn't teach, he does work for the district and makes about the same....but even we have TSAs. They aren't just for "rich people". Right now my husband puts $50 a month in his, I put $50 a month in mine...not much, but as we can put more in we will. Its a part of living within our means and preparing for our future. Could we use that $100 for some of our other bills, etc? Sure we could. Unfortunately, there's nothing out there that compares exactly what all people have because we all have different priorities. What is the same is that we are all citizens of the United States so we all need to contribute to our country. Right now, 1% of the people are contributing the same amount as another 95%. Like I said before...it doesn't seem fair to me...

[FrenchRuby]

Seems to me that if more of the wealth was owned by more of the people, the 1% paying 95% wouldn't be happening. When you get such enormous disparity in incomes you are bound to get anomalies in share of taxation.

[MommySpice]

Seems to me that if more of the wealth was owned by more of the people, the 1% paying 95% wouldn't be happening. When you get such enormous disparity in incomes you are bound to get anomalies in share of taxation.

I've traveled to plenty of countries and seen very wealthy areas as well as homeless. I haven't been to every country on the planet yet, but more than a lot of people...even more "socialist" countries have disparity. I can't think of one where disparity doesn't exist. Not saying its right...but no form of government has been able to "solve" it. To me, that's where the churches should be coming in...but then, I am a Christian and that's a part of my belief system. Others probably feel differently.

[FrenchRuby]

Of course there is always wage inequality, because there is talent inequality, hard work inequality, opportunity inequality and luck inequality. However, I am talking about the endemic ENGINEERED problem of inequality in psuedo-capitalist economies, and the US in particular.

Here's an interesting piece, from earlier this year. It's focus is on ethnic divisions in pay and opportunity equality, but it makes some interesting general points too, like:

- The top 1 percent of the population (300,000 Americans) now receives as much income as the lower one-half of the population (150 million Americans).

- Since the late 1970s, the real after tax income of those at the top of the income scale has grown by 200 percent, while it has grown by 15 percent for those in the middle and 9 percent for those at the bottom.

- America has one of the highest levels of income inequality in the industrialized world.

- In terms of wealth, America is the most unequal country in the industrialized world.

These are the outcomes of POLICY DECISIONS, not luck or the natural order.

http://www.mediamouse.org/features/022908racia.php

ETA for those who would prefer to read the preliminary report itself rather than a media story about it, you can download it in PDF format here (http://www.eisenhowerfoundation.org/kerner.php).

[hazelsmrf]

Right now, 1% of the people are contributing the same amount as another 95%. Like I said before...it doesn't seem fair to me...

Ok, you really can't expect someone on unemployment or working at mcdonalds to shoulder the same tax burden as a CEO of a company that makes millions of dollars a year! Of course the rich pay more $$$ in taxes, but proportionately they don't really have a bigger tax burden.

[MommySpice]

Actually, I don't *really* expect them to contribute the same amount...but I also don't think that its "more fair" to tax people even more when they are already paying the majority of the taxes. Every citizen should contribute, but there are some who seem to think that only the wealthy should.

ETA...there aren't really any easy solutions. People throw around the word "fair"...what is really "fair" is that every citizen pays the same percentage. People don't like that idea though.

[lunafaerie]

Of course there is always wage inequality, because there is talent inequality, hard work inequality, opportunity inequality and luck inequality. However, I am talking about the endemic ENGINEERED problem of inequality in psuedo-capitalist economies, and the US in particular.

Here's an interesting piece, from earlier this year. It's focus is on ethnic divisions in pay and opportunity equality, but it makes some interesting general points too, like:

- The top 1 percent of the population (300,000 Americans) now receives as much income as the lower one-half of the population (150 million Americans).

- Since the late 1970s, the real after tax income of those at the top of the income scale has grown by 200 percent, while it has grown by 15 percent for those in the middle and 9 percent for those at the bottom.

- America has one of the highest levels of income inequality in the industrialized world.

- In terms of wealth, America is the most unequal country in the industrialized world.

These are the outcomes of POLICY DECISIONS, not luck or the natural order.

http://www.mediamouse.org/features/022908racia.php

ETA for those who would prefer to read the preliminary report itself rather than a media story about it, you can download it in PDF format here (http://www.eisenhowerfoundation.org/kerner.php).

Thanks for posting this!

[hellosunshine]

To clarify--1% of the people own 20% of the wealth in this country. This percentage does not equal the percentage of taxable income they have--they probably have a much higher percentage of taxable income. Using Warren Buffett as an example again--his wealth is $58 billion dollars. This would be included in the 20% of all the country's wealth.

However, his taxes are paid on a smaller amount--$46,000,000 at 17.7% equals $8,142,000. I can't imagine how many middle class people it would take to equal that amount. That is why the wealthy here pay a high percentage of the taxes--they have a huge percentage of taxable income. Again, you have to look at the percentage of income paid in taxes to judge whether the system is fair or not. The top levels pay about 22% of their income in taxes--this equates to over 90% of the total taxes paid. You can see how wealthy they are!

Hope this helps to clarify the numbers.

[strangejen]

SUPPORT THE FAIR TAX!!!

(because it makes most of these issues moot.) :)

[kjbstevens]

LOL I'm with Jen.

[4noisyboys]

:lol You guys lost me when you starting posting numbers and percentages. There is nothing I hate more than doing taxes.

[mirandalea]

Actually, I don't *really* expect them to contribute the same amount...but I also don't think that its "more fair" to tax people even more when they are already paying the majority of the taxes. Every citizen should contribute, but there are some who seem to think that only the wealthy should.

ETA...there aren't really any easy solutions. People throw around the word "fair"...what is really "fair" is that every citizen pays the same percentage. People don't like that idea though.

Even if we had a "flat tax" where every single person paid the same percentage, the disparity of wealth in America is such that a small percentage of the top earners would pay the majority of the country's income tax. That's just the way the math works. It goes back to that whole thing about the average CEO making 441 times the average employee.

If 90 people make $10 dollars a year and pay 10% income tax, that's $90. If the other 10 people make $4410 a year and pay 10% income tax, that's $441. So the top 10% of people are paying 83% of the total income tax.

[MommySpice]

I know. That has been my point. :) We can't say that they aren't paying their fair share...many, if not most are. (yes, there are those who evade taxes...but I think those come at all income levels)

[mirandalea]

But that was the point of the original post about Warren Buffet. They aren't paying the same percentage as everyone else. Just because 17.7% of his income is a huge dollar amount, it still isn't fair for the secretary to have to pay nearly twice his percentage.

[MommySpice]

I have seen no links to facts about Warren Buffet's taxes...or his secretary's. If his secretary really is taxed at 30%, then she is pretty darn "rich" herself (income in the 6 figures). Right now, if Warren Buffet is really only paying 17%, it's because most of his money is not from income, and raising income taxes for the rich isn't going to get him anyway. The facts I quoted were from the article linked by the poster I was replying to. Like several people have said...the way to solve this is the Fair Tax.

[Gina.Maria]

Actually, I don't *really* expect them to contribute the same amount...but I also don't think that its "more fair" to tax people even more when they are already paying the majority of the taxes. Every citizen should contribute, but there are some who seem to think that only the wealthy should.

ETA...there aren't really any easy solutions. People throw around the word "fair"...what is really "fair" is that every citizen pays the same percentage. People don't like that idea though.

I find it hilarious that the working poor are fighting for the rights of the wealthy in a country where the wealthy got there by exploiting the working poor. Let's get real, here. If we increase the highest tax bracket by 11% to the previous level of 39%, they'll still not be paying a higher percentage than those in the next lower tax level. The reality is that the very wealthy are very adept at avoiding taxes and only pay what they must to avoid criminal penalty. Few people earning above $250,000 per year are unable to deduct or exempt enough to reduce their Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) to below that number so, effectively, that dollar amount is irrelevant. It's really not going to hit anyone until they're making significantly more than $250,000. If my AGI was over $250,000 I would absolutely have no problem with shouldering a bigger portion of the burden.

Even if we had a "flat tax" where every single person paid the same percentage, the disparity of wealth in America is such that a small percentage of the top earners would pay the majority of the country's income tax. That's just the way the math works. It goes back to that whole thing about the average CEO making 441 times the average employee.

If 90 people make $10 dollars a year and pay 10% income tax, that's $90. If the other 10 people make $4410 a year and pay 10% income tax, that's $441. So the top 10% of people are paying 83% of the total income tax.

Thank you for injecting a bit of sanity into this discussion. I'd like to point out, as well, that it's harder for the $10 wage earner to afford to live after contributing his 10% than it is for the $4410 wage earner in your example.

I have seen no links to facts about Warren Buffet's taxes...or his secretary's. If his secretary really is taxed at 30%, then she is pretty darn "rich" herself (income in the 6 figures). Right now, if Warren Buffet is really only paying 17%, it's because most of his money is not from income, and raising income taxes for the rich isn't going to get him anyway. The facts I quoted were from the article linked by the poster I was replying to. Like several people have said...the way to solve this is the Fair Tax.

Okay, so now she's rich enough to be able to afford her share of taxes now? (Sorry for the snark - I'm tired and a little punchy this morning) His annual earnings are from interest, dividends and wages, as well as capital gains. At his level, most of this is taxable but also eligible for deductions and credits. If his net tax percentage is under 20%, then it illustrates how our current tax code is designed to benefit the very wealthy.

What so many are not mentioning in this discussion is that much of our nation's taxation is at the local level in the form of sales tax, property tax, licensing tax, "sin" tax, etc. The largest portion of the burden for this taxation is shouldered by the rest of us. Anyone filing a short form or EZ form has no recourse for deducting state taxes paid from their federal income tax return so they receive no credit for paying out these extra dollars and the money stays in the federal coffers. The wealthy employ accountants and financial advisors who would be fired if they missed such easy deductions. They're definitely getting those deductions.

[4PeasInMyPod]

But that was the point of the original post about Warren Buffet. They aren't paying the same percentage as everyone else. Just because 17.7% of his income is a huge dollar amount, it still isn't fair for the secretary to have to pay nearly twice his percentage.


Exactly!

[tammy1999]

It all boils down to people hate people that make more money than them and its ok to penalize them for doing well for themselves. Pure class warfare. Those foul, filthy, dirty rich peoiple. How dare they make more money than me? These people are the ones giving you jobs, salaries and benefits.

Go ahead and tax people that make over $250,000 and remember that includes alot of businesses. Then whats going to happen then? More jobs will be lost and the economy will suffer more.

And what has raising taxes done for this country anyway? Nothing, not a damn thing. Because what happens next, let's raise taxes more. Nothing is being paid off and restored.

And like I said before, when the Bush tax program stops in a couple of years, all of you will be paying higher taxes.

[Tiffikat]

I have to say I saw a lot of the same arguments that Tammy is making raised when they wanted to raise minimum wage in my state. They did raise minimum wage and none of the things that everyone said would happen with businesses, jobs, and the economy happened due to the raise.

FWIW though I am all for fair tax.

[strangejen]

*chanting*

FAIR TAX FAIR TAX FAIR TAX

http://www.fairtax.org/

[FrenchRuby]

It's an interesting concept, but I can see so many problems with it from a cursory skim. Not convinced.

[hazelsmrf]

I must admit I can't seem to understand the fair tax. Example, I have X amount of savings in my account. Those are AFTER tax dollars. Then the fair tax comes into play, and I have to pay taxes again on that same money? Or how does it not encourage the people that live near the border to go do their groceries in Canada to not pay 23% tax on every purchase?

[strangejen]

I can see so many problems with it from a cursory skim. Not convinced.

that's why you have to read the book. LOL. I personally think they should put the book online for free if the authors are such proponents of getting it passed, but I guess they need money, too.

[kjbstevens]

Well Fair Tax elminates a lot of the stupid random taxes we have on everything so the prices of everything will be far lowered. This is only one side of it, not the whole, but everyone will have the ability to buy more because everything has 22% of what it's cost is now removed by chiseling away at things that add up and tax people without them realizing it. We pay a lot of extra money on our groceries and products we buy now because companies add them onto the cost of items. If they are taxed more then the prices of our everyday items soars because they have to make up the reduced profits. It seeks to eliminate that helping our everyday stuff become more affordable. Instead of giving people money to buy stuff because prices go up this reduces the prices to start with so more people can provide for themselves.

[tammy1999]

that's why you have to read the book. LOL. I personally think they should put the book online for free if the authors are such proponents of getting it passed, but I guess they need money, too.

Me too. I wish there was a way to read it online. It's not a hard read and I truely think if more people would give it a chance, you would get a more people to agree.

We should start emailing Neal Boortz everyday and suggest that. He can put it on his website. His other book that goes along with the Fair Tax book, explaines it even more.

[strangejen]

I have X amount of savings in my account. Those are AFTER tax dollars. Then the fair tax comes into play, and I have to pay taxes again on that same money?

The book says that for like the first year or whatever there'll be a transition period, and that all inventory before Dec. 31st doesn't have to be taxed, because that inventory was already taxed. (The book also explains that there's already at least a 23% tax burden built into every purchase we make anyway because of compliance by the businesses that make our goods.) I'm not sure exactly how it would be fair with savings account money. :) BUT the good news would be you'd be bringing home ALL of your paycheck rather than the huge deductions that are currently taken out.

Or how does it not encourage the people that live near the border to go do their groceries in Canada to not pay 23% tax on every purchase?

The book says that because of the tax compliance burden currently already within our goods, once the Fair Tax is phased in, prices won't be any higher than they already are. And all receipts will clearly say, for example, from a $100 purchase that $77 was the actual groceries and $23 was taxes. However the cost will be built in to the prices, so you won't come to the check-out line with a $10 purchase and have to pay $12 on it. How many of you know exactly how much you actually pay in taxes right now? This way you can actually keep track.

AND, it will make the whole capital gains tax, inheritance taxes, etc a moot point. People making huge money that either isn't reported or they currently find ways around paying taxes will end up putting much more into the tax system because it's a consumption tax and nothing is exempt. Everyone who currently gets paid "under the table" would be paying the same consumption tax rate as everyone else. This means that any tourists who are HERE visiting will be contributing. :) (Back to your question . . . if prices aren't any higher here, the only motivation to cross the border for shopping would be on principle. :) )

ALSO, the Fair Tax would doze the playing field for politics -- politicians can't use class warfare anymore to get votes. No more getting you all riled up about how much taxes rich people pay, raising certain taxes, lowering certain taxes for certain people . . . they'll actually have to work within a budget (look, you can have the 23% consumption tax, nothing more -- make it work) and be more accountable for the budget since we all know clearly how much we're putting in.

Hope that helps . . . the book is seriously eye-opening. And you can't count on a goober like me to relate these thoughts in a very good way. :)

[strangejen]

It's not a hard read and I truely think if more people would give it a chance, you would get a more people to agree.

It was actually a very amusing, very quick read!!! And I came into the whole thing VERY skeptical . . . that lasted about two chapters!!!

[tammy1999]

I have to say I saw a lot of the same arguments that Tammy is making raised when they wanted to raise minimum wage in my state. They did raise minimum wage and none of the things that everyone said would happen with businesses, jobs, and the economy happened due to the raise.

FWIW though I am all for fair tax.

In some cases, there were jobs lost, but when less than 5% of the countries work force is at minimum wage, its not going to effect that many. I have a friend who owns a convience store. She had to let go of a couple of her few employees because Missouri raised the wage higher than what the Feds said to raise it to.

But raisining taxes for the majority of businesses in this country where it effects most of the working force will make a difference.

[tammy1999]

The book says that for like the first year or whatever there'll be a transition period, and that all inventory before Dec. 31st doesn't have to be taxed, because that inventory was already taxed. (The book also explains that there's already at least a 23% tax burden built into every purchase we make anyway because of compliance by the businesses that make our goods.) I'm not sure exactly how it would be fair with savings account money. :) BUT the good news would be you'd be bringing home ALL of your paycheck rather than the huge deductions that are currently taken out.



The book says that because of the tax compliance burden currently already within our goods, once the Fair Tax is phased in, prices won't be any higher than they already are. And all receipts will clearly say, for example, from a $100 purchase that $77 was the actual groceries and $23 was taxes. However the cost will be built in to the prices, so you won't come to the check-out line with a $10 purchase and have to pay $12 on it. How many of you know exactly how much you actually pay in taxes right now? This way you can actually keep track.

AND, it will make the whole capital gains tax, inheritance taxes, etc a moot point. People making huge money that either isn't reported or they currently find ways around paying taxes will end up putting much more into the tax system because it's a consumption tax and nothing is exempt. Everyone who currently gets paid "under the table" would be paying the same consumption tax rate as everyone else. This means that any tourists who are HERE visiting will be contributing. :) (Back to your question . . . if prices aren't any higher here, the only motivation to cross the border for shopping would be on principle. :) )

ALSO, the Fair Tax would doze the playing field for politics -- politicians can't use class warfare anymore to get votes. No more getting you all riled up about how much taxes rich people pay, raising certain taxes, lowering certain taxes for certain people . . . they'll actually have to work within a budget (look, you can have the 23% consumption tax, nothing more -- make it work) and be more accountable for the budget since we all know clearly how much we're putting in.

Hope that helps . . . the book is seriously eye-opening. And you can't count on a goober like me to relate these thoughts in a very good way. :)

Well, your explination is spot on and you did a wonderful job. It's so hard for me to type what I want to say. It's in the old brain up there, but sometimes the idea doesn't make it down to the fingers.

And also, congress won't have the power to change tax laws, because there won't be anymore. So yes, they can't use that for votes either.

And the best part is........NO MORE FILING TAXES!!!!!!!!!!!! :clap

[Tiffikat]

I hate filing taxes. :lol

[strangejen]

well, and the VERY best part would be that the government would no longer have the right to access your private financial information and hold sway over you because of it!!!

The book was also fascinating when it talked about just how much of business decisions and motivations revolve around the tax implications. Imagine if business owners only had to worry about growing their business and serving their customers, rather than tax compliance and looking over their shoulders for the IRS?!!!

Not to mention all the corporations that currently have their operations overseas because tax code compliance in the U.S. are so harsh. And all the money in overseas accounts and tax shelters? The book suggests all that would come running home to the U.S.

Also . . . our current tax code is so complicated that even the experts don't understand it. The authors talked about how the same information was submitted to something like 8 different accountants for filing and not ONE of them came up with the same answer! That's crazy, yo.

[strangejen]

And also, congress won't have the power to change tax laws, because there won't be anymore. So yes, they can't use that for votes either.


Not to mention special favors and helping certain groups out because of lobbyists! That would be my favorite part, other than "April 15th just being another beautiful spring day." LOL.

[Chreamps]

Okay, now I've got to read the book (LOL)!

[Gina.Maria]

Foreign tourists would NOT be leaving tax dollars here because they'd get the taxes returned to them as they crossed back over our borders - just as we get a VAT refund after touring Europe. I'm pretty sure our government doesn't have the right to tax citizens of other countries.

[strangejen]

just as we get a VAT refund after touring Europe

hmm . . . the book didn't address that. LOL. I'm lost there!!!

[strangejen]

wait . . . found this on the website:

The FairTax broadens the taxpayer base by taxing spending instead of income, thereby capturing the underground economy, illegal immigrants, and even 30 to 40 million foreign tourists a year. Economists predict the FairTax will rapidly grow the economy, untax the poor, and eliminate an inexplicable tax policy that makes debt more favorable than savings and offshore investments more favored than the "Made in America" label.

Don't know how that works. LOL

[Gina.Maria]

VAT is the tax Europeans pay on all goods and services - it's 19%. If you visit Europe and keep your receipts, you can have your VAT returned at a booth in the airport. It's like that "duty-free" stuff you can buy at the airport. You avoid having to do the paperwork to get the refund but you have to be a non-citizen and on your way out of the country to get it without paying taxes. I don't know if it's because of international agreements, international law, trade agreements or treaties, but visitors can't be forced to pay those taxes.

[hazelsmrf]

It sounds good on paper, but I'm not sure in practice the prices will stay the same as you imagine. The businesses won't have to roll the taxes into their prices but who is to say that they won't keep their prices the same anyways, thus costing YOU more money out of pocket? In Canada the current regime had lowered one of our sales taxes (GST) from 7 to 5% (at least I think it was 7 percent before, it may have been a bit lower). Anyways, did this 2% decrease in taxes end up in the tax payers wallet? No, it mostly ended up in businesses wallets. Because the prices ended up being raised to compensate. That 100$ *tax included* whatever item, still cost 100$ the next day, only now the company was making more money on it. coffee shops raised the prices on their coffees a few cents so the prices would still come out a nice even number like 1.99, etc. So in the end, it was a nice gesture, but it did NOT save tax payers 2% on all purchases.

[Gina.Maria]

Yeah, and I read some of their FAQs - I'm not comfortable with the idea that states "should" just prefer to go along with it and "might" just decide to eliminate property taxes, too. State taxes aren't addressed by this - they just assume states will fall in line. There's nothing about vehicle license tax, and all the extra taxes that states enact. I'm concerned this would end up costing a great deal more than the 30% national sales tax.

[kinderkim]

Hmm, interesting theory. Jen, you've convinced me to read the book :)

The concerns also make me want to read and take a closer look.

It would be great not to have to deal with the current tax system!