Lucky... 0 #76 November 20, 2006 QuoteQuoteAgain, I don't make a lot of money, if I did I would buy insurance. I refuse to urn over most of my expendible income to some slimy ins co so I can then make co-payments. In this society, I don't really plan on living a long time, so perhaps you are right when you call it a priority. Now that we're on priorities, let's talk about the priorities of this nation to protect the fiscal well-being of corporations rather than the health of its citizens, the ones that make these corporations strong. I honestly think you'd be happier living in a Communist country, with your outlook on life. I can enjoy your extreme response, but actually Socialism is where the world will end up. It's been estblished that the extremes (Comm and capit) don't work. Look at the USSR (former), they are quasi-Socialist with a free market. The US will have to do that too when the US dollar can no longer support the interest on the debt. So no, I don't like Communism. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #77 November 20, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteNot at all, American liberals are close to Socialism in their ideology. How is it hard to believe that a liberal wants compulsory military service? Considering the socialist leaning of the typical American liberal have to do with feeding at the public trough, which is primarily funded by the upper income earners AND NOT with contributing to the overall welfare of society, I'd say implementing a national compulsory service requirement is practically impossible. We're talking about telling 18 years olds to give up two years of their lives. Can you imagine the civil rights issues that would ensue? Case in point, compulsory service IS rejected by the conservatives for teh use of their privs. Thank you for doing so. What are you talking about? QuoteSo what do the elements you pointed out have to do with compulsory service? Are you saying the rich are too busy paying the bills to have time to serve? Problem is, the rich aren;t doing either, so if they would do at least one they would have an argument. What are you talking about? QuoteQuoteWe're talking about telling 18 years olds to give up two years of their lives. Can you imagine the civil rights issues that would ensue? If it is a law or added to teh Const, who cares? If it is the law then they can cry all they want. I think we all see a trend here of which side is really the patriotic one. What are you talking about? I don't think I make any claims regarding the Conservatives take on this. You seemed to infer a lot. I really don't see any reason to defend positions you made up for me. Give a response other than, What are you talking about? And I'll respond. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #78 November 20, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteOur country is quickly losing its self help ability and taking on an entitlement personality. Come again. What steps are we taking to become this way? I see us going the other way, so how are we losing this so-called, self-help ability? You're a perfect example. You believe you are entiled to public health care but you don't want to pay premiums. Somebody pays for heath care (such that it is) You just don't want it to be you. Our country is full of entitlement programs ... they're not hard to miss. QuoteYou're a perfect example. You believe you are entiled to public health care but you don't want to pay premiums. So what? My vote means shit, so it is the people in charge that have a voice that matters. QuoteOur country is full of entitlement programs ... they're not hard to miss. Rank us with the rest of the industrialized world and then say that Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #79 November 20, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteNot at all, American liberals are close to Socialism in their ideology. How is it hard to believe that a liberal wants compulsory military service? Considering the socialist leaning of the typical American liberal have to do with feeding at the public trough, which is primarily funded by the upper income earners AND NOT with contributing to the overall welfare of society, I'd say implementing a national compulsory service requirement is practically impossible. We're talking about telling 18 years olds to give up two years of their lives. Can you imagine the civil rights issues that would ensue? Case in point, compulsory service IS rejected by the conservatives for teh use of their privs. Thank you for doing so. What are you talking about? QuoteSo what do the elements you pointed out have to do with compulsory service? Are you saying the rich are too busy paying the bills to have time to serve? Problem is, the rich aren;t doing either, so if they would do at least one they would have an argument. What are you talking about? QuoteQuoteWe're talking about telling 18 years olds to give up two years of their lives. Can you imagine the civil rights issues that would ensue? If it is a law or added to teh Const, who cares? If it is the law then they can cry all they want. I think we all see a trend here of which side is really the patriotic one. What are you talking about? I don't think I make any claims regarding the Conservatives take on this. You seemed to infer a lot. I really don't see any reason to defend positions you made up for me. Give a response other than, What are you talking about? And I'll respond. How did you conclude that I made any claims about the POV of Conservatives in the posts above? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #80 November 20, 2006 Quote Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Our country is full of entitlement programs ... they're not hard to miss. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rank us with the rest of the industrialized world and then say that Another difference bewteen you and me. You feel if compared to others worse than you -- you're not so bad. steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #81 November 20, 2006 Quote Again, I don't make a lot of money, if I did I would buy insurance. I refuse to urn over most of my expendible income to some slimy ins co so I can then make co-payments. In this society, I don't really plan on living a long time, so perhaps you are right when you call it a priority. Now that we're on priorities, let's talk about the priorities of this nation to protect the fiscal well-being of corporations rather than the health of its citizens, the ones that make these corporations strong. Lucky has a point here. Prior to 9/11, I had my own company doing work in the city. After 9/11, the work I do went to India. It took 2 years for that market to start to turn around. I paid a HUGE amount of money in taxes, etc., from my business. When I was flat out broke for two years, I couldn't even collect unemployment because I was a "business owner". Yes, I know, I took a risk. And it didn't work out. Both my wife and I went without insurance (and many other things) for two years.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #82 November 20, 2006 Quote I'm for people doing what they need to do without looking for another entitlement. In practical terms, that can be very hard, especially if you have a family with whom you hope to eat dinner with at night.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #83 November 20, 2006 QuoteSocialism - The people control everything Or so the people are told. By the government. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrewEckhardt 0 #84 November 20, 2006 Quote Lucky has a point here. Prior to 9/11, I had my own company doing work in the city. After 9/11, the work I do went to India. It took 2 years for that market to start to turn around. I paid a HUGE amount of money in taxes, etc., from my business. When I was flat out broke for two years, I couldn't even collect unemployment because I was a "business owner" Depends on the state. In most places business owners are not exempt from unemployment as long as they jump through the appropriate administrative hoops (form an S-corp or LLC, opt to be taxed as an S-corp, file quartery and annual corporate tax returns, and hire yourself as an employee with automatic witholding) and pay the trivial unemployment insurance premiums (probably $310 - there's a $7K wage cap, 6.2% federal rate, and you get a credit of up to 5.4% for state taxes that you won't approach if you haven't laid anybody off before). Not doing this may also mean paying thousands more than you needed to in FICA & medicare taxes. When you hire yourself as an employee, the IRS only requires you to pay yourself the same "reasonable" wages that you'd pay some one else to do the work - if it takes 2 years of experience to do the work you don't have to pay yourself for a position requiring the decade + of experience you have. You can take the rest as a profit distribution which is only subject to income taxes, just as if you were a passive partner in the business. When you didn't have the time or inclination to figure all this out yourself, you can hire an accountant to do it for a lot less than it probably costs in taxes and lost unemployment benefits if things go wrong with the economy or your business. In Colorado the numbers were about $300 for business startup and $100 a quarter; unemployment benefits totaled about $1600 a month with total amount ($10K?) and time caps (1 year if you didn't hit the $ limit?). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #85 November 20, 2006 QuoteQuoteAgain, I don't make a lot of money, if I did I would buy insurance. I refuse to urn over most of my expendible income to some slimy ins co so I can then make co-payments. In this society, I don't really plan on living a long time, so perhaps you are right when you call it a priority. Now that we're on priorities, let's talk about the priorities of this nation to protect the fiscal well-being of corporations rather than the health of its citizens, the ones that make these corporations strong. I honestly think you'd be happier living in a Communist country, with your outlook on life. Do you consider Sweden communist? The Netherlands?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #86 November 20, 2006 QuoteIt's been estblished that the extremes (Comm and capit) don't work I see the US working pretty well. QuoteHigh taxes don't affect me; get it, poor people don't care about taxes that much, rich folks do. You claim to be out of college....If so, then why are you "poor"? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #87 November 20, 2006 QuoteQuote I'm for people doing what they need to do without looking for another entitlement. In practical terms, that can be very hard, especially if you have a family with whom you hope to eat dinner with at night. Dang, what was I thinking. I had 4 kids under 10 years when I lived in Alaska. I guess I should have expected someobody to take care of me instead of being resourceful enough to work several jobs. steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #88 November 20, 2006 QuoteQuoteIt's been estblished that the extremes (Comm and capit) don't work I see the US working pretty well. QuoteHigh taxes don't affect me; get it, poor people don't care about taxes that much, rich folks do. You claim to be out of college....If so, then why are you "poor"? Too much time on the Internet? - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
idrankwhat 0 #89 November 20, 2006 Quote It would certainly cut down on optional wars. Nothing like knowing your son might be drafted (and killed) by a war you voted for to make a senator reconsider his vote. What you mentioned above is, I think, what he is essentially trying to point out. He knows this won't pass but it does bring up the "put up or shut up" point with regard to pre-emptive wars. Right now no one in the US that is not tied to the military is sacrificing anything for this war. Sure, we're picking up the tab but it's being put on the credit card and no one's sending us the statement every month. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #90 November 20, 2006 Quote When you didn't have the time or inclination to figure all this out yourself, you can hire an accountant to do it for a lot less than it probably costs in taxes and lost unemployment benefits if things go wrong with the economy or your business. I have two accountants. Guess I'm overpaying somehwhere...We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #91 November 20, 2006 Quote I had 4 kids under 10 years when I lived in Alaska. I guess I should have expected someobody to take care of me instead of being resourceful enough to work several jobs. How often did you get to eat dinner with them?We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #92 November 20, 2006 QuoteHow often did you get to eat dinner with them? Which would you prefer: 1. Support your family even though you don't get as much quality time with them. 2. Live on assistance from the Gov, but have plenty of time for your family? I choose #1. By showing children that you have to be responsible and productive you are doing more for them than letting them think that it is OK for the Gov to take care of you. Buffett did the same by not giving his kids all of his money. Of course, one could argue that a Billion is enough. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #93 November 20, 2006 Quote Which would you prefer: 1. Support your family even though you don't get as much quality time with them. 2. Live on assistance from the Gov, but have plenty of time for your family? I choose #1. By showing children that you have to be responsible and productive you are doing more for them than letting them think that it is OK for the Gov to take care of you. I don't disagree with you. That's what I've done, also (and continue to do, as needed). It was more of a rhetorical question, pushing the thesis that capitalism may not be a long term stable system. Let me repeat myself, I don't know of a better system, but I'm not at all convinced capitalism is a long term stable system as practiced today.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #94 November 20, 2006 QuoteI'm curious as to why you seem to believe medical coverage is a right? In the most affluent society in the world, it's no more or less a right as police and fire protection, military protection, public school education and publicly-funded and maintained roads and highways which we take for granted as part of the social compact: citizens pay taxes, in exchange for which the government provides certain services. Every other industrialized nation on the planet offers its citizens some manner of guaranteed health care, except the US. To me, that speaks volumes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
narcimund 0 #95 November 20, 2006 QuoteWould you support a return to the draft? I'm amazed at the so-called conservatives who passionately yell about individual rights but are all for giving away 2 years of other peoples' lives. Conscription is essentially a tax -- at 100% of earnings. A draft increases one's total lifetime contribution to the government. And not by a small amount, either. How can small-government, anti-tax conservatives possibly support this without short-circuiting their logic circuits entirely? First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #96 November 20, 2006 QuoteQuoteWould you support a return to the draft? I'm amazed at the so-called conservatives who passionately yell about individual rights but are all for giving away 2 years of other peoples' lives. Conscription is essentially a tax -- at 100% of earnings. A draft increases one's total lifetime contribution to the government. And not by a small amount, either. How can small-government, anti-tax conservatives possibly support this without short-circuiting their logic circuits entirely? I'd answer but invariably you would resort to insults, and name calling, so why bother. - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
narcimund 0 #97 November 20, 2006 QuoteI'd answer but invariably you would resort to insults, and name calling, so why bother. Citation? First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #98 November 21, 2006 QuoteQuoteHow often did you get to eat dinner with them? Which would you prefer: 1. Support your family even though you don't get as much quality time with them. 2. Live on assistance from the Gov, but have plenty of time for your family? I choose #1. By showing children that you have to be responsible and productive you are doing more for them than letting them think that it is OK for the Gov to take care of you. . Bingo! Just what my dad taught me. steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #99 November 21, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuote It would certainly cut down on optional wars. Nothing like knowing your son might be drafted (and killed) by a war you voted for to make a senator reconsider his vote. How'd that work in Korea and Viet Nam? In VietNam the well connected found ways of getting around it, like finding their kids a billet in the NG. My point exactly. It had little effect on the rich and powerful steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #100 November 21, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote It would certainly cut down on optional wars. Nothing like knowing your son might be drafted (and killed) by a war you voted for to make a senator reconsider his vote. How'd that work in Korea and Viet Nam? In VietNam the well connected found ways of getting around it, like finding their kids a billet in the NG. My point exactly. It had little effect on the rich and powerful Why use whether the rich and powerful would be affected, as a measure of it's benefit to society? - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
