sv3n

You asked...my numbers were off a little: http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2007/10/top-1-pay-more-.html http://www.stephenbainbridge.com/punditry/comments/what_percentile_pays_what_percent_of_taxes/ It turns out the top 1% are paying 40% of the taxes. The top 25% are paying 86%. There is more at www.taxfoundation.org It's things like this that make me a fan of the flat tax, if I can't have a "fair tax" sales tax. That's great info........thanks. But I'm curious, what percentage should they actually be paying without the tax breaks that they get that your "low income" tax payer would not get? provide for the common defence........like dying because you can't afford insurance? or general welfare.......like health? justice? And yes..........I agree with you, we are definitely not a democracy. Even though we promote ourselves as being one to the rest of the world and always try to spread democracy to the rest of the world. ...and you're in violation of your face!

um.......really? So Kerry, Clinton et al, Biden, Kennedy, and on and on and on........ all lied too, right? You said he couldn't prove that he lied..........I guess you were wrong. ...and you're in violation of your face!

If it's a load of crap then why would they censor a report? It's not their place to censor reports or take out the parts they don't like. ...and you're in violation of your face!

Your posts in this thread prove very clearly that you DID buy into his lies. See, you cant prove he lied..It is a blind assurtion you make to justify your position. I await you next lie. um.......really? ...and you're in violation of your face!

Oh, by the way.........I did read your posts. But the simple fact is that states only got into healthcare because consumers were getting f'd over by the insurance companies. The same thing why the government had to get involved with the auto industry to put seatbelts into automobiles and then later to mandate airbags. Another great example of your theory failing. The consumers wanted both those products, but the only thing that got them released was the government steping in and saying that they needed to be equipped with those features. ...and you're in violation of your face!

First of all.........no, it's not a democracy.....it's a democratic republic. That doesn't mean that illegal actions and bribes are ok. Nor does it mean that the people on the top are meant to walk all over the people on the bottom. Ok, let's start with your perspective...........so what do you think the role of this government is? Yup..........speculation alright. You don't pay this and you'll either end up bankrupt or dead. Seems more like a hostage situation. Could we see some evidence or proof of the fact that those people pay 85% of the taxes. ...and you're in violation of your face!

Here's some mentality for you: 8. "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed." —speaking underneath a "Mission Accomplished" banner aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, May 1, 2003 7. “We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories … And we'll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them." —Washington, D.C., May 30, 2003 Uh-huh........and where are they now? Maybe someone was lying? ...and you're in violation of your face!

No, I don't think so tim............ If it would then what has it been doing so far? Why do prices keep going up? Your theory is failing as we speak. Your excuse that it's the government's fault at the state level might have some weight, but there would be no reason for state intervention on healthcare if it was dealt with on a national level. And once again, I think you're mistaken............show me some evidence that pre-existing conditions and legal loopholes came out of states getting involved in healthcare policy. Prove it. I don't think I'm working on anything............the system that's currently in place is failing and health insurance seems to be a problem because of high prices for care and insurance. It's time for some change...........you can't expect to keep doing the same thing and get different results. Oh I forgot, the new plan is to give tax breaks to the people who pay for their own healthcare bills.........that's great let's give more tax breaks to the rich while the poor can't afford it. I could care less about how much money I have in the bank.........as long as I can do the things I want to do I'm fine. I don't want anything of your's or anybody else's, but I do believe that as a society we have a responsibility to everyone in it to make sure they are safe and cared for. Wether it's the guy making billions in the oil industry or the guy pumping fuel at the gas station...........your job or bank account doesn't give you more value as a human being. You shouldn't get special tax breaks because you have a larger bank account and you shouldn't get crappy health insurance because you work at low end job. Everybody spends the same amount of time away from their family and friends when they spend an hour at work. And you're gonna say well that's because they have a higher job...........well that's what the better salary is for. If you wanna live in a feudal system where the lords and kings get taken care of while the surfs do the crap work for them then go ahead......but it's not gonna help us evolve as a society. I hate to tell you this but if you consider taken care of your citizens socialism, then america is a socialist country........we have such horrible things as wellfare, medicaid, and social security. They may not function perfectly, but there only one person to blame for that...........the leadership in charge of making those systems work. Run forest run! Would you expand a little on what qualifies as failure? Both systems are predicted (based on models) to be impacted heavily by changes in demographics (i.e., Baby Boomers retiring and getting older). What are the respective percentages of the GDP that go to healthcare versus social security? And what are the models predicting for 10, 20, 30 years? I honestly don't know the specifics, but think it would be an interesting comparison. VR/Marg First off I do not acept the premise that healthcare is failing. SS is known to running out of money. The problems with the current health care system are government caused in my opinion. States mandate that health insurance cover procedures and care never meant to be covered. The mix of all the state requirments cause the costs to go up because there is no consistancy and therefore is it not as easy to have competative systems of health insurers. Now, you say the health care system is failing. How? I do not know of anybody that has not gotten emergency care when they needed it. And I really dont care if health care covers elective type procedures Gov run health care is starting to fail in Canada, the UK France and other countries. The horror stories coming from those countries should give pause to anyone that thinks the gov can run it better. The biggest part of the problems we do have today are govenment caused as I gave example earlier. And to think gov taking over is one of the "easiest" fixes ?????????? That whold thought process scrares me to death If you're not happy with the current administration, then vote and make sure you get everyone you know to vote.always do Let me ask you this...........would it be easier for private individuals to fix healthcare prices and insurance rates and coverage or would it be easier for a government?Neither, get the government out of it and let the private sector do it. And it would And I'm not saying theoretical application, I'm saying who are the companies going to listen to better.The people, they do not listen to government, the comply And the people I've personally talked to about canada's healthcare prefer it over the us system......and they also at one time lived in the us. You will find those but I do not buy it. Hell, even Canadian officials come to the US when their like is on the line. More stories of waiting is what I have heard I haven't personally spoke to anybody from france or the uk about their healthcare systems. But if we're the richest and greatestest country anywhere like we keep hearing, than I think we would have a better shot than anybody else at making it work right for everybody rather than just the priviledged few that can currently afford insurance. Again, I do not buy the "privalaged few " mantra. That is talking point bull shit and a gernality. The route you support is socialism. If that is your opinion fine. But call it what it is. ...and you're in violation of your face!

...and you're in violation of your face!

Neither isn't a solution..........it's avoiding the question. Letting the public deal with it obviously hasn't worked............notice how there's so many ways that the insurance companies can choose not to cover stuff. Do you think that was like that when they first started? Obviously not.......so then are consumers happy about it? Obviously not. So there alone your theory has failed. Now.......will insurance companies listen more to customers or the government? Obviously the government, they have more power. So why hasn't anything been done about that? Gee you think it has anything to do with the insurance company special interest groups bribing congress reps for votes? Broken, not working. So you don't believe in the privilidged few...........take Mr Bush for instance. Let's say he didn't inherit his millions or billions, who knows. Where do you think he would be today without the family's money? He didn't earn it. Do you think he ever needed to worry about healthcare? There's just one of the priviledged few. Then look at a kid raised by a single mother who makes $20k a year.......which do you think is gonna get better healthcare? Not one of the priviledged few. I believe in taking care of everybody equally.........the country's benefits isn't just for the top 1%.....it's for everybody. Would you expand a little on what qualifies as failure? Both systems are predicted (based on models) to be impacted heavily by changes in demographics (i.e., Baby Boomers retiring and getting older). What are the respective percentages of the GDP that go to healthcare versus social security? And what are the models predicting for 10, 20, 30 years? I honestly don't know the specifics, but think it would be an interesting comparison. VR/Marg First off I do not acept the premise that healthcare is failing. SS is known to running out of money. The problems with the current health care system are government caused in my opinion. States mandate that health insurance cover procedures and care never meant to be covered. The mix of all the state requirments cause the costs to go up because there is no consistancy and therefore is it not as easy to have competative systems of health insurers. Now, you say the health care system is failing. How? I do not know of anybody that has not gotten emergency care when they needed it. And I really dont care if health care covers elective type procedures Gov run health care is starting to fail in Canada, the UK France and other countries. The horror stories coming from those countries should give pause to anyone that thinks the gov can run it better. The biggest part of the problems we do have today are govenment caused as I gave example earlier. And to think gov taking over is one of the "easiest" fixes ?????????? That whold thought process scrares me to death If you're not happy with the current administration, then vote and make sure you get everyone you know to vote.always do Let me ask you this...........would it be easier for private individuals to fix healthcare prices and insurance rates and coverage or would it be easier for a government?Neither, get the government out of it and let the private sector do it. And it would And I'm not saying theoretical application, I'm saying who are the companies going to listen to better.The people, they do not listen to government, the comply And the people I've personally talked to about canada's healthcare prefer it over the us system......and they also at one time lived in the us. You will find those but I do not buy it. Hell, even Canadian officials come to the US when their like is on the line. More stories of waiting is what I have heard I haven't personally spoke to anybody from france or the uk about their healthcare systems. But if we're the richest and greatestest country anywhere like we keep hearing, than I think we would have a better shot than anybody else at making it work right for everybody rather than just the priviledged few that can currently afford insurance. Again, I do not buy the "privalaged few " mantra. That is talking point bull shit and a gernality. The route you support is socialism. If that is your opinion fine. But call it what it is. ...and you're in violation of your face!

I haven't noticed any elderly people starving on the streets recently. Bill Clinton said pretty much the same thing: 22 Sept., 1993 televised speech by WJ Clinton: ....."the costliest and most wasteful system on the face of the Earth"....."most urgent priority"....."the challenge of our time."... I may be mistaken but was not that specific speech the one regarding healthcare reform? On a relative scale which system is having more problems currently healthcare or Social Security? And why? VR/Marg SS is the one headed toward failure. The healthcare issue is being created for political power. If the gov gets ahold of it it will fail too SS is solvent and will remain solvent for a long time. Any crisis, if it actually happens, is a long way off and will be due to failure of our political leadership to make adjustments necessitated by the demographics of the US population. If the politicians fail it will be due to their being spineless toads. Like Bush, who twice promised to fix it as a matter of priority, but has done sweet FA in 7 years. And why pray tell Mr profesor, is it he has not been able to get anything done huh?? Because of your side spewing crap and untruths to stop him. . Ummm let's see now. For how much of his presidency did Bush have a GOP controlled Congress and a sympathetic SCOTUS? Oh yes! Seems it was YOUR SIDE that had complete control for 4 years but failed to deliver on the "top priority". Cant face the fact thay your side stopped any changes. Your side and the compliant media. Truth hurts now dont it Compliant Media? Who's side is holding phony FEMA news conferences, giving congress censored versions of global warming reports, or only allowing unrecorded & wouldn't touch being underoath meetings with the 911 commission? Wake up man.......the coffee is brewing. ...and you're in violation of your face!

The leftist numbers you're talking about were comprised by Bush's panel on public health........so if you think they're not real talk to them. And it's actually 18k that die a year because of lack of healthcare. Would you expand a little on what qualifies as failure? Both systems are predicted (based on models) to be impacted heavily by changes in demographics (i.e., Baby Boomers retiring and getting older). What are the respective percentages of the GDP that go to healthcare versus social security? And what are the models predicting for 10, 20, 30 years? I honestly don't know the specifics, but think it would be an interesting comparison. VR/Marg First off I do not acept the premise that healthcare is failing. SS is known to running out of money. The problems with the current health care system are government caused in my opinion. States mandate that health insurance cover procedures and care never meant to be covered. The mix of all the state requirments cause the costs to go up because there is no consistancy and therefore is it not as easy to have competative systems of health insurers. Now, you say the health care system is failing. How? I do not know of anybody that has not gotten emergency care when they needed it. And I really dont care if health care covers elective type procedures And by the way. the "numbers" you throw out are left talking points. I do not scept them as anything other than that. Much like the boy the Dems used to put out thier lies. He was covered. Now his mama is an activist for full gov run health care. Another family used for propoganda by the libs to further thier lies ...and you're in violation of your face!

Would you expand a little on what qualifies as failure? Both systems are predicted (based on models) to be impacted heavily by changes in demographics (i.e., Baby Boomers retiring and getting older). What are the respective percentages of the GDP that go to healthcare versus social security? And what are the models predicting for 10, 20, 30 years? I honestly don't know the specifics, but think it would be an interesting comparison. VR/Marg First off I do not acept the premise that healthcare is failing. SS is known to running out of money. The problems with the current health care system are government caused in my opinion. States mandate that health insurance cover procedures and care never meant to be covered. The mix of all the state requirments cause the costs to go up because there is no consistancy and therefore is it not as easy to have competative systems of health insurers. Now, you say the health care system is failing. How? I do not know of anybody that has not gotten emergency care when they needed it. And I really dont care if health care covers elective type procedures Gov run health care is starting to fail in Canada, the UK France and other countries. The horror stories coming from those countries should give pause to anyone that thinks the gov can run it better. The biggest part of the problems we do have today are govenment caused as I gave example earlier. And to think gov taking over is one of the "easiest" fixes ?????????? That whold thought process scrares me to death If you're not happy with the current administration, then vote and make sure you get everyone you know to vote. Let me ask you this...........would it be easier for private individuals to fix healthcare prices and insurance rates and coverage or would it be easier for a government? And I'm not saying theoretical application, I'm saying who are the companies going to listen to better. And the people I've personally talked to about canada's healthcare prefer it over the us system......and they also at one time lived in the us. I haven't personally spoke to anybody from france or the uk about their healthcare systems. But if we're the richest and greatestest country anywhere like we keep hearing, than I think we would have a better shot than anybody else at making it work right for everybody rather than just the priviledged few that can currently afford insurance. ...and you're in violation of your face!

Let's play a little game. We'll accept your premise of taking everything away from the man who has scrimped, saved, invested, and built a successful business. Let's say that the man is worth 1 million. He has 9 employees with your attitude, and by the will of the 'small' people, he is forced to divide his assets equally. Wow, you have $100,000 in your pocket. What are you going to do with it? Live fat for a couple of years? Start your own business? Oh, wait. You just hired three employees and each one of them gets $25,000. They got what they came for. Why should they put forth any effort to make your dream come true? Let's call this plan the socialist trickle down economics. That's a great way to get off topic and ridiculous, but let's stay on topic. Nobody is saying the rich should give up their millions and split it up amongst the employees. What they are saying is that rather than allowing the top execs to make millions while their "worker ants" try to scrape by on $20-$30k a year, that everybody gets their "fair" salary and pays the same taxes. And before you go off on some tangent about "fair" meaning everybody gets the exact same pay let me clarify that. If the rate of inflation is not matching the rate of salary increases then that's a problem. That means that the "big boys" at the top of these companies are uping prices faster than they are uping the salaries...................that's an issue that needs to be addressed. This problem starts a lot of different problems...............both parents now have to work to support a family rather than just one. Now nobody is home taking care of the kids, so who's teaching the kids values. A family should be able to raise their own children rather than have somebody else do it so they can work. It has nothing to do with socialism, nor is it some trickle down affect. Any move to have more control by government is socialist by its very nature. No amount of rhetoric can change that. Are there functions the gov must run? Absolutely. Health care is not one of them A government taking care of it's population, seems like a good move to me. You want happy and healthy citizens to keep a society progressing. Accountability would be a government responsibility issue. Those things aren't going to fix themselves. ...and you're in violation of your face!

If 17k people are dying a year because of lack of health insurance that's failure. If health insurance companies are allowed to weasel their way out of covering life saving procedures, that's failure. A lot of people aren't in debt, trouble, or dead due to not having health insurance..........but rather due to the fact that they are or were underinsured. There's two parts to fixing that problem though.........reasonable healthcare prices and reasonable insurance rates for complete coverage. One fix for that would be a government run healthcare plan.........it's the easiest way to keep prices low and make sure everything is covered. Just take a look at oil prices, this theory that by letting companies compete it will keep the prices down isn't working. Also, I'm not saying that government run healthcare isn't the only option........but it would be the quickest and easiest. Would you expand a little on what qualifies as failure? Both systems are predicted (based on models) to be impacted heavily by changes in demographics (i.e., Baby Boomers retiring and getting older). What are the respective percentages of the GDP that go to healthcare versus social security? And what are the models predicting for 10, 20, 30 years? I honestly don't know the specifics, but think it would be an interesting comparison. VR/Marg First off I do not acept the premise that healthcare is failing. SS is known to running out of money. The problems with the current health care system are government caused in my opinion. States mandate that health insurance cover procedures and care never meant to be covered. The mix of all the state requirments cause the costs to go up because there is no consistancy and therefore is it not as easy to have competative systems of health insurers. Now, you say the health care system is failing. How? I do not know of anybody that has not gotten emergency care when they needed it. And I really dont care if health care covers elective type procedures ...and you're in violation of your face!

Maybe it was the brain-child of the same person that thought withholding NASA's report on airline safety was a good idea. Who's in charge of this government? Must be Bush's Mushroom Theory of Government at work. It's the same thing that just happened to the report congress got on Global Warming. The white house has somebody give congress a report on global warming..................well afterwards people find out that the white house had the people making the report take a bunch of "bad" stuff out of the report. Now congress is trying to get the full report.........we'll see how that goes. ...and you're in violation of your face!

Let's play a little game. We'll accept your premise of taking everything away from the man who has scrimped, saved, invested, and built a successful business. Let's say that the man is worth 1 million. He has 9 employees with your attitude, and by the will of the 'small' people, he is forced to divide his assets equally. Wow, you have $100,000 in your pocket. What are you going to do with it? Live fat for a couple of years? Start your own business? Oh, wait. You just hired three employees and each one of them gets $25,000. They got what they came for. Why should they put forth any effort to make your dream come true? Let's call this plan the socialist trickle down economics. That's a great way to get off topic and ridiculous, but let's stay on topic. Nobody is saying the rich should give up their millions and split it up amongst the employees. What they are saying is that rather than allowing the top execs to make millions while their "worker ants" try to scrape by on $20-$30k a year, that everybody gets their "fair" salary and pays the same taxes. And before you go off on some tangent about "fair" meaning everybody gets the exact same pay let me clarify that. If the rate of inflation is not matching the rate of salary increases then that's a problem. That means that the "big boys" at the top of these companies are uping prices faster than they are uping the salaries...................that's an issue that needs to be addressed. This problem starts a lot of different problems...............both parents now have to work to support a family rather than just one. Now nobody is home taking care of the kids, so who's teaching the kids values. A family should be able to raise their own children rather than have somebody else do it so they can work. It has nothing to do with socialism, nor is it some trickle down affect. ...and you're in violation of your face!

How's that socialistic plan working for your neighbors over there in Michigan? I assume you're referring to the auto industry closing down plants and moving thousands of jobs to mexico..........that seems like a business decision. The big boys want more money so rather than running the company for the good of all the employees, they keep the worker ant salaries down, and keep the prices rising. But then still decide their chunk isn't big enough and fire all the employees and find cheap labor elsewhere. The auto industry isn't the only one with those problems............greed is not a good thing. Think enron. ...and you're in violation of your face!

I don't believe there's anything scary about that............seems like she's talking a lot about us as a society and of the common good, which is what government is supposed to be doing. She says that it's time to end a government of the few, by the few, and for the few. Makes sense.........75% of this country doesn't want to be in a war right now, yet we're in it because the top 1% are getting more wealth by staying in it. It also seems that these are the same people that are in power. who's this line from? "...and that government of the people, by the people, for the people" and why isn't it happening? I hear messages of accountability for that elite class that's dictating prices..........for instance, keeping oil prices high for max profits while your average citizen is getting raped so that some billionaire can make an extra couple of million that year. The underlying message is "for the common good". Think about that for a second. For everybody, not just the elite 1%......that's the government's job. Right now the system is allowing them to make laws so they can make max profits while the rest of the country suffers for it. This is the problem with the system where it stands right now............this is the reason why prices are so high and payrates are so low. Not because they need to be, but because it's better for profit than it's citizens who don't see any of that profit. "oh but reaganomics, they're the cure"............oh so you want to give the "elite" more tax breaks so the excess they get will "trickle" down. First of all, think about how ridiculous that sounds........it's a great slave mentallity. "If I work harder and let the boss save a few million maybe he'll spend some of that money on me"......................BS, the last 7 years have been nothing but that theory. Guess what the economy is dropping and moving towards a recession because of it. This would seem to be an example of "the free-market has failed". The whole thing comes down to thinking about more than just yourself and that's a problem that a lot of people have..............right now that top 1% is focusing on how they can get more money rather than what's best for this society even though that's their job. Article Link: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/12/the_skinny/main3360511.shtml ...and you're in violation of your face!

Or the same idiots in charge of this...........http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/08/22/MN97RMND9.DTL Maybe it was the brain-child of the same person that thought withholding NASA's report on airline safety was a good idea. Who's in charge of this government? ...and you're in violation of your face!

80% of House Republicans voted against it. "a lot" is so subjective. What are you talking about? It sounds like so much doublespeak. Perhaps you just didn't understand what I was say. There's no need to get pissy just because you don't get it. So naive. Where'd you get "he pissed a large part of the population and military personnel"? Got a cite?] I wonder if he has heard the fact that the Limbaugh show is the most requested show from the grunts. And I wonder if he knows of the letters one senator got when that senator tried to get the Limbaugh show pulled from the Armed Forces Radio. How do they get from Reid smearing Limbaugh to the military being pissed off at Limbaugh??? that must be some strong shit they be smokin You don't think 20% out of a bunch of republicans who are for corporations on a vote to take business out of the hands of a bunch of corporations for millions of children is a lot............where have you been? Time to dig your head out of your cat's litter box. And if 20% of the republicans were behind the bill and the the democrats were behind it too..........that would mean the bill had some weight to it. So it wasn't just passed to get vetoed, the bill had good backing. Pissy? It's your empty argument, if the preset set of numbered responses aren't working for you........"oh they're just grandstanding, they just wanna get on tv"...............try thinking for yourself. Once again.......head out of litterbox. Doesn't it seem like a horrible excuse, like I said they can get on tv any time they want? When generals are asking him to be taken off of the air, veterans of this war want to have a 1 on 1 talk with him to let him know who the "phony soldiers" are, and there's a public outcry..........at that point I'd consider him pissing off the population and military personnel. And you're a perfectly able adult......look it up yourself. One letter........come on now, that's like the one general who says the war is going good while there's a large group saying this is a bunch of BS. Almost none of what you post here is true. You cant back it up and I dont know if you are making it up or getting your talking points from moveon or media matters. It is fun to watch these two groups lead the left leaning masses around by thier noses however Alright let's focus on your positive perception here first...........so what out of that post do you consider to be true? ...and you're in violation of your face!

80% of House Republicans voted against it. "a lot" is so subjective. What are you talking about? It sounds like so much doublespeak. Perhaps you just didn't understand what I was say. There's no need to get pissy just because you don't get it. So naive. Where'd you get "he pissed a large part of the population and military personnel"? Got a cite?] I wonder if he has heard the fact that the Limbaugh show is the most requested show from the grunts. And I wonder if he knows of the letters one senator got when that senator tried to get the Limbaugh show pulled from the Armed Forces Radio. How do they get from Reid smearing Limbaugh to the military being pissed off at Limbaugh??? that must be some strong shit they be smokin You don't think 20% out of a bunch of republicans who are for corporations on a vote to take business out of the hands of a bunch of corporations for millions of children is a lot............where have you been? Time to dig your head out of your cat's litter box. And if 20% of the republicans were behind the bill and the the democrats were behind it too..........that would mean the bill had some weight to it. So it wasn't just passed to get vetoed, the bill had good backing. Pissy? It's your empty argument, if the preset set of numbered responses aren't working for you........"oh they're just grandstanding, they just wanna get on tv"...............try thinking for yourself. Once again.......head out of litterbox. Doesn't it seem like a horrible excuse, like I said they can get on tv any time they want? When generals are asking him to be taken off of the air, veterans of this war want to have a 1 on 1 talk with him to let him know who the "phony soldiers" are, and there's a public outcry..........at that point I'd consider him pissing off the population and military personnel. And you're a perfectly able adult......look it up yourself. One letter........come on now, that's like the one general who says the war is going good while there's a large group saying this is a bunch of BS. ...and you're in violation of your face!

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/15/AR2007101500841.html Article....again. ...and you're in violation of your face!

The article doesn't say if they got any of their stuff back............since they caught the guy he must have some idea where it went. ...and you're in violation of your face!

just so that nobody has the excuse................"the link didn't work" or "work internet will not let me get there"............... ...and you're in violation of your face!