Did Geezus know calculus or compound interest before he saved your soul from the Jews and evil Roman government? I like my pennies in my pocket where I can see them!
First, try to be civil and leave religion and faith out of the discussion. Second, hope you don't desire a border wall cos that would likely empty those pennies and all the dollars out of your pocket. The GOP gives tax cuts while the democrats typically increase them, giving the fake impression that GOP is leaving more pennies in your pocket. The reality is that neither is curbing govt spending and thus the only difference is when you will pay for it. The Democrats want you to pay now, while the GOP want to give you a loan and have you and your children pay for it at a higher price later. (I prefer the former cos the pain is immediate and direct, and will quickly bring focus to the bad spending) The truth that politicians (on both sides) never want you to focus on is that the real problem is the waste in govt, and, until people start voting them out of office for being wasteful, you will keep getting skinned. Like they say, there are more than one way to skin a cat - but whichever way you do it, the cat wont like it!
Democrats don't increase tax rates for the middle class. They care about getting more tax revenue from 10 yacht fleet owners.
So, just going quickly through these one by one: 1) Everyone sees the world through their own eyes and their own experiences. This is not unique to me. 2) Nope, all this takes is making a decision and sticking to it. Willpower. And you don’t have to be Superman either. Avoiding bad habits is in the realm of human capability. 3) I wouldn’t dispute that US healthcare is expensive, probably more expensive than other countries. But, we need to look at why this is. I would say: a) very advanced technology, that other countries don’t have; and this technology isn’t like a can of soda – there’s not going to be a lot of competition to drive costs down b) the USA has a large, heterogeneous population, unlike say, Norway or other Scandinavian countries. It is a basic fact that some ethnicities suffer from illnesses (sickle cell anemia, for example) that others do not c) insurance creates its own problems, and is very good at masking the cost from you. That’s probably one of the many problems with insurance. 4) Ah, the good old “winners and losers” argument. Yes, in a capitalistic, free market system there will be “winners and losers.” You say “few are successful at the expense of the many” – I would dispute the “expense of many” part. You are looking at the economy and money from a “zero sum” perspective. That is, you seem to believe that there is only so much money (or “pie”) out there. This clearly is not true. First of all, your local bank effectively “prints money” when it takes your savings and lends it to others. Thus the money supply expands. Second, look at the I-phone. No one had the money for an I-phone before it was invented. When it became available, people “found” the money for it. So, people with new and good ideas create new opportunities. If people lack the brainpower or drive for this, that’s on them. Third, there are some (maybe a lot of) “losers” who chose their situation. I mentioned my friend the entrepreneur. Some might view him as a “loser” because he does not have the trappings of material success. But he would say he is a winner because he can keep his costs low, and he is not slaving/grinding away at some 40+ hour week office job. He chooses lower income because it gives him more free time and independence. He doesn’t have health insurance; he pays for doctor visits out of his own pocket. He lives a healthy lifestyle so he doesn’t need any dramatic or significant health services. This further belies the validity of your premise. I am going into detail on this point because I believe it is a fundamental but fatally flawed premise of your outlook, and those who share it. 5) I hate to say it, but this one gets my goat: “The argument follows the basic logic of most societal welfare service i.e. direct vs indirect cost (e.g. do you pay an unemployment compensation or wait to deal with the possible criminal activity that usually follows unemployment and poverty)” – there’s a solution for those who commit crime because they can’t or won’t get a job. That’s what handguns are all about. I really dislike the idea that we have to have welfare to stop crime. What you are essentially saying is that we have to bribe the criminals not to commit crime. How is this not like a protection racket? I’m pretty sure those are illegal. 6) Tort reform 7) This is some crazy logic – “When it is optional, we had about 75% of people insured, with some uninsured by choice. If mandated, the burden on people already paying would likely be less than 10% increase….” So essentially, if I agree to being taxed some more, I’ll get hit in the head with a hammer less than before. Uh ok…….. 8) “I would rather pay a part of another's premium than the very high ER bill.” Well, that’s fine for you. I would rather not pay for other people’s dysfunctions. Again, we need to stop just accepting everybody at the ER. You don’t have proof of ability to pay? Sorry. 9) Huh, you seem to have skipped No. 9 10) This is the basic problem with our democracy. You have just enough people who want massive social programs for them to be enacted, and then you have just enough people who hate taxation so that these programs don’t get funded. They aren’t the same people (well, they might be on occasion, but mostly they’re not). That’s why the idea of the Republic was so fundamental: most issues would be addressed at the state and local level. Now, we federalize almost everything, with largely disastrous or at least inefficient results. Someone asked Benjamin Franklin what the USA was, or the form of government it represented. He said: “A Republic, if you can keep it.” He recognized the danger of federalizing everything. I fear we have lost it, as every slight inconvenience seems to demand a federal program these days, with consequent increase in taxes or debt.
The cost of taxes on the top earners and corporations are eventually passed to down middle and lower brackets.
Not really especially if you use that additional revenue to ease the burdern of the middle and poor class who's disposable income has a higher velocity of money than the top earners. The top wealth earners today have the most accumulated wealth in human history. They don't need tax cuts. Corporations expand their production of products and services which is what creates jobs based in market demand. The middle class spends a larger percentage of their income on domestic product.
One can appreciate and accommodate the different perspective of others, giving rise to solutions that address a broader group. You do not appreciate why others might struggle with something that seems easy to you. The reality is they do and that you cant appreciate why wont change it. Main sources of high cost are admin overhead, insurance companies, cost of education, pharmaceuticals, and 'defensive' medical practice, It is a not a zero sum game on an absolute scale but it is zero sum game on the relative scale. This is evident in the income distribution of the country The system simply re-calibrates itself to the new scale. Empirical evidence shows that while wages increase purchasing power is reducing at a faster rate e.g. most people earn more than their parents but have lower relative standard of living. For example, cost of 4-yr college education has gone from 20% to 50% of median income. Unconstrained capitalism leads to high income inequality and in the extreme becomes a neo-feudal system (where the means of production are controlled by a few). Pure self defense has never been successful in stopping crime. Even in the wild wild west, you still had law enforcementm, and a lot of innocent people were still robbed and killed. I know of a country with high gun presence (consequence of civil war) where the criminals just shoot-up the target house with assault rifles or firebomb the place before looting - no handguns will save you. At the end of the day, you should be looking at the cheapest and most efficient means to solve your problems. Welfare alone is not going to eliminate crime (definitely not for career criminal and sociopaths) but simply provides an efficient way to discourage those who are driven to crime by poverty. jail them and spend more money keeping them in prison? The alternative is that you pay a larger share of their larger ER bill - pick your poison Not workable cos you would have people who can pay dying cos they couldnt provide proof of it in the moment. Why pursue ideas that have no evidence of being successful while ignoring other that are? posting at midnight would do that Even at the state level, you would have the same groups of people in most states and the problem wouldnt go away. Also population mobility is much higher today than at founding, making state localized solutions more challenging. At the end of the day, be it at federal or state level, you want politicians carryout the wish of the people, but currently the people are too ignorant and/or politically blinded to make sound choices.
Govt should not use taxes as direct tool for addressing income inequality cos that is only siphoned back by the upper class via lower wages. You cant focus on forward path while ignoring the back channel that would negate it. What would really help the middle and lower class is improved skills, education and mobility, making the upper class and corporations have to compete more for them and thus pay higher wages.
Seemed appropriately inappropriate to bring up Christians when it comes to homeschooling and Oklahoma. Given that many of them choose home schooling to weed out pesky references to evolution. I was just being ambiguously snarky
The first paragraph is conspiracy theory stuff. The second paragraph makes sense and I agree with it. I'll have to reply to your other post (above) later.
