[paraclete]

Hi Tom,

That's a bit pessimistic. No one can predict the future, least of all economists. The entire population is dependent on government to some extent. If the progressive taxation system is too much of a burden then perhaps a system where everyone contributes according to their ability to pay. I think it is called equity.


Tut

Tut that's called a progressive taxation system which turns out to be a regressive taxation system. It has been tried. The easy way is to tax consumption, that way the more you pay, the more you pay, want a tax holiday, don't spend any money.

[tomder55]

Really? LOL! Your posts/threads here betray that statement.

So you think ;but that's the fact .

[TUT317]

Tut that's called a progressive taxation system which turns out to be a regressive taxation system. It has been tried. The easy way is to tax consumption, that way the more you pay, the more you pay, want a tax holiday, don't spend any money.

Hi Clete,

Thanks for the clarification. I don't know much about economics.

Tut

[tomder55]

Originally Posted by TUT317
Hi Tom,

That's a bit pessimistic. No one can predict the future, least of all economists. The entire population is dependent on government to some extent. If the progressive taxation system is too much of a burden then perhaps a system where everyone contributes according to their ability to pay. I think it is called equity.
Tut

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need ?
Hmmm where have I heard that before ?
__________________

Your statement to me was philosophical Marxism... or maybe not. The roots of the modern nanny state goes back to Bismarckian national Socialism which in turn was a response to the threat of international socialism. What Bismark did not consider was that his was just a slower progression to the same end.

[TUT317]

Your statement to me was philosophical Marxism ....or maybe not. The roots of the modern nanny state goes back to Bismarckian national Socialism which in turn was a response to the threat of international socialism. What Bismark did not consider was that his was just a slower progression to the same end.

Hi Tom.

Probably, did start back with Marx. Sounds about right so I'll go along with your statement.

If you are suggesting that Marxism, national and international socialism was the thin end of the wedge then again you are probably right.

There is an argument for being pessimistic when you look at the thick end of the wedge at the moment. It shows that Marx was right about one thing. It is the capitalist mode of production that determines our consciousness.

Tut

[paraclete]

Tut you've got him started, there will be no stopping him now

[talaniman]

It seems that any form of government is only as good as those that administer it. I think what we have seen in America since its declaration of independence is a scramble to create a more perfect union that's constantly changing and evolving.

I think as more people become informed as to the way America works, or doesn't work, then they no longer will be just sheep following what some politician with an agenda, and the motive of money ( be it capitalism, or just greed, take your pick), and take better care in who represents them, rather than large monied interests. Then problems will be addressed and solved.

Maybe its time we stop letting the ones hoarding the money have all the power, and we all can share equally in the responsibility to form that more perfect union. Doesn't matter about opinions, it's the actual actions that count, and Americas problem has always been simple because it was laid out long ago, WE THE PEOPLE, and if it ain't working right, its WE THE PEOPLES fault.

We have the greatest tools in the world, debate, and vote, to work with. And that's what will determine what rights we have and what direction WE take our country. Some may not like it, but they will benefit from the will of the people being done, and I have to tell you the stirring of fear, is our greatest challenge, and the examinations of facts, is the way out of any mess we face.

That's the only way ANY government on the face of the earth will ever work efficiently, if all have an equal say in the way it functions. When we leave it to one person, one family, one idea, we follow as sheep, and some get what they want, and others don't. If we all vote foe what we want we all get some piece of the results, and as long as my piece is the same as yours, hey what more can you ask for?

My voter registration card is right next to the Visa card, and ID, and in America, that should be all you need to get a piece of the pie. At least that should be the goal, no matter how big the pie is, or how many pieces we have to cut it, everyone gets a piece, and that's fair, and equal.

That's where I want the country to be headed to, and away from the notion that the right to have money trumps my right to get a piece of the pie. That's the bottom line, I want my piece, and you shouldn't be greedy, and wait it for yourself, AFTER you gobble yours up.

YOUR right end, where mine begin.

[speechlesstx]

Good thing Gabby's getting better, the left can get back to doing what they do best - fear mongering. First, that pathetic waste of human skin Alan Grayson said Republicans want you to "die quickly." Now they intend to just push granny right over the cliff. Literally.



Looks like things are going to get nasty.

[excon]

the left can get back to doing what they do best - fear mongering.

Hello again, Steve:

When the right wingers were fear mongering about "death panels", it was cool with you.. But, when the left wing shouts they're throwing granny over the cliff, and it's TRUTHFUL, and done quite well by the way, you don't like it...

Let me ask you this... When Medicare is OVER, as the Ryan plan will do, what about throwing granny over the cliff is NOT true??

excon

[speechlesstx]

No you are!!!

You're just an ***.

[NeedKarma]

Hehe. Internet tough guy.

[speechlesstx]

Hello again, Steve:

When the right wingers were fear mongering about "death panels", it was cool with you.. But, when the left wing shouts they're throwing granny over the cliff, and it's TRUTHFUL, and done quite well by the way, you don't like it...

Let me ask you this... When Medicare is OVER, as the Ryan plan will do, what about throwing granny over the cliff is NOT true??

Excon

No one whined when we pointed out all the cuts in Medicare Obama was making...

Altogether, ObamaCare cuts $818 billion from Medicare Part A (hospital insurance) from 2014-2023, the first 10 years of its full implementation, and $3.2 trillion over the first 20 years, 2014-2033. Adding ObamaCare cuts for Medicare Part B (physicians fees and other services) brings the total cut to $1.05 trillion over the first 10 years and $4.95 trillion over the first 20 years.

These draconian cuts in Medicare payments to doctors, hospitals and other health-care providers that serve America's seniors were the basis for the Congressional Budget Office's official "score"—repeatedly cited by the president—that the health-reform legislation would actually reduce the federal deficit. But Mr. Obama never disclosed how that deficit reduction would actually be achieved.

There will be additional cuts under ObamaCare to Medicare Advantage, the private option to Medicare that close to one-fourth of all seniors have chosen for their coverage under the program because it gives them a better deal. Mr. Foster estimates that 50% of all seniors with Medicare Advantage will lose their plan because of these cuts. Mr. Obama's pledge that "If you like your health plan, you will be able to keep it" clearly does not apply to America's seniors.

Moreover, there will be additional cuts to Medicare adopted by bureaucrats at the Medicare Independent Payment Advisory Board. ObamaCare empowers this board to close Medicare financing gaps by adopting further Medicare cuts that would become effective without any congressional action. Mr. Foster reports that "The Secretary of HHS is required to implement the Board's recommendations unless the statutory process is overridden by new legislation

We can debate the plans all we want, but this thread is about how the left threw an absolute fit over how those mean ol' conservatives got Gabby shot because of their overheated rhetoric (which wasn't true), and HYPOCRITICALLY called for civility. This ad is as irresponsible and uncivil as it gets.

[speechlesstx]

Hehe. Internet tough guy.

Look in the mirror a$$hole.

[NeedKarma]

I guess we shouldn't mess with Texas. Yeehaw!

[excon]

This ad is as irresponsible and uncivil as it gets.

Hello again, Steve:

Oh, I agree. It's pretty damn uncivil. At the same time, it's pretty damn responsible. The TRUTH about the Ryan plan ought not be sugar coated. It's pretty damn UGLY.

excon

[speechlesstx]

I guess we shouldn't mess with Texas. Yeehaw!

Have all the fun you like on your own, you aren't worth a response any more. But thanks for making my point.

[speechlesstx]

Hello again, Steve:

Oh, I agree. It's pretty damn uncivil. At the same time, it's pretty damn responsible. The TRUTH about the Ryan plan ought not be sugar coated. It's pretty damn UGLY.

So, fear mongering is cool again, eh? Just trying to get the rules of the game.

[NeedKarma]

So, fear mongering is cool again, eh? Just trying to get the rules of the game.

Well let's play by the rules that you'd like: is fear mongering acceptable or not? If not will you call out those who do it?

[excon]

So, fear mongering is cool again, eh? Just trying to get the rules of the game.

Hello again, Steve:

I think I mentioned MY rules.. They go something like this: SCREW CIVILITY. I didn't mince words. If you're looking for somebody to blame for ENDING the truce, I'm your guy.

excon

[speechlesstx]

There never was a truce, those good progressives are all talk.