|
Post by deputy on Jun 9, 2009 8:44:30 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by RobMoore on Jun 9, 2009 19:46:57 GMT -4
To each according to their need, from each according to their ability
|
|
|
Post by dej on Jun 10, 2009 2:45:30 GMT -4
The same document also outlines some of the measures that will need to be taken to achieve the writer's ultimate goal. They include
"A heavy progressive or graduated income tax."
"Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly."
"Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State."
"Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State"
|
|
|
Post by deputy on Jun 10, 2009 12:57:43 GMT -4
with STATE capital of the STATE by the STATE
Sounding like NAZI Germany a little eah? GET YOUR PAPERS IN ORDER.
|
|
|
Post by dej on Jun 11, 2009 2:02:12 GMT -4
The writers quoted, Marx & Engels, were German, but predate the Nazis.
|
|
|
Post by speedergurl68 on Jun 11, 2009 5:00:19 GMT -4
Two Words - - - Animal Farm.
|
|
|
Post by dej on Jun 11, 2009 19:58:22 GMT -4
Two Words - - - Animal Farm. My reading prefences rarely include fiction, but that was one work I did enjoy. Unfortunately it just doesn't seem as fictional now as it did when I first read it.
|
|
|
Post by speedergurl68 on Jun 11, 2009 20:01:25 GMT -4
Precisely.
|
|
|
Post by thesuperzman on Jul 10, 2009 12:42:24 GMT -4
It's very interesting that the philosophy is 'not me' until you need something or take advantage of a benefit from the Government. Beyond that, the short-term economic view is taken without consideration to the long-term ramifications.
The fact is there is a very real problem with heath care in this Country. over 50M people don't have health care and I guarantee not 1 of those 50M has spoken against it on this forum. It's easy (though much of the time wrong) to chalk up unemployment benefits being used by the lazy. However, health care is different. Pre-existing conditions, loss of jobs, lack of offering by your employer, and low salaries can all contribute to individuals and families not being able to be covered by insurance. They are hard working people.
We live in a capitalist country, but we have always had social programs. Have they expanded over time? Yes. But so has our population and access. Never as much as with health care.
Beyond that, the costs of health care are rapidly expanding, if the insurance companies aren't put in a position to be more competitive - our debt, the health of our citizens and our nation, and are healthcare system will fail. It will even be more about the have and have nots.
Animal Farm - all animals are created equal, but pigs are more equal. That's where we are heading - if we don't pass health care reform. We are all 'equal citizens' but access will be bought by money. Sorry, that's not something I can support - even if I might possibly qualify for the 'haves' side of the equation.
European nations and Canada have very social health care programs and very progressive tax rates - but there are still rich people, still poor people, and many of them wouldn't trade their system for ours.
I'm not saying the current solution is the right solution (or wrong solution). But this the total denial that something has to be done or NOT WITH MY MONEY is wrong. Like it or not, unless you are independently wealthy..there is someone that had more money that has already paid more in taxes to allow you to do something you wouldn't have been able to do - whether it's go to college, ensure gov't backed loans were available (or savings guaranteed), or affordable housing, food, etc. Most of us have taken advantage of these programs to improve our lives.
I am sure I will be told why I am naive. Rather, I'd like to hear alternate solutions of how to deal with the health care crisis.
|
|
|
Post by linda712 on Jul 10, 2009 13:26:47 GMT -4
superzman -- Excellent. Well stated. I was trying to say this exact thing but your words sum up my thoughts perfectly.
P.S. Congratulations on the soon-to-be purchased home on the Shore. Enjoy!
|
|
|
Post by thesuperzman on Jul 10, 2009 15:29:03 GMT -4
correction - "all animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal than othes". Just got pig on my brain
|
|
|
Post by linda712 on Jul 10, 2009 15:35:37 GMT -4
....yeah....i can understand that.....
|
|
|
Post by funnel101 on Jul 10, 2009 17:18:18 GMT -4
correction - "all animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal than othes". Just got pig on my brain *hands you a cleaning wipe*
|
|
|
Post by dej on Jul 11, 2009 1:14:42 GMT -4
Superzman, it's not total denial. It's more like, before we raise taxes, lets look more closely at how the money is being used now. While tax dollars do support many worthwhile programs, I suspect that some money could be spent more wisely. I agree putting insurance companies in a more competitve position could help with costs. But tort reform will do that better than forcing them to compete with the government. It's hard to compete with an enitity that just prints more money when it needs some. You are also correct when you say many people have used government programs. I've taken advantage of a couple good ones myself. My college was paid largely by the GI Bill and my first home was bought with a VA loan. I'm pretty sure the income taxes I have paid by getting a better job, and the property taxes I have paid by by getting a better home as a result of that job, have amply repaid the Federal government for their help in starting my career. The state government benefits even more, since the costs were carried by the Feds and state just reaps the higher taxes I pay for a better job & home. I'm not against all government taxes & spending. I just want to have a little confidence that my tax dollars are truly going where they are needed, which is not always where Congress spends them. Until I have some of that confidence, I'll remain skeptical about the need to take more of my money.
|
|
|
Post by bchevy on Jul 11, 2009 6:45:29 GMT -4
And now the state is cutting again. 700M deficit just days into the fiscal year. He says cuts will be hard BUT services wont be cut.
I say you can't have it both ways.
AND
it's time for massive government LAYOFFS, payroll is like 80% of most gov't budgets. I work for a county Gov't and see 1st hand the fraud, waste, and abuse. Whenever they ask for cost savings ideas I send them by book, not a list but a book of ways to save.
I did this a year and a half ago when furloughs and crap was threatened, guess what? I see no change at my level at all in the way we do business, it's still spend, spend, spend, hire, hire, hire.
|
|
|
Post by falgar25 on Jul 11, 2009 15:08:14 GMT -4
European nations and Canada have very social health care programs and very progressive tax rates - but there are still rich people, still poor people, and many of them wouldn't trade their system for ours. I'm not saying the current solution is the right solution (or wrong solution). But this the total denial that something has to be done or NOT WITH MY MONEY is wrong. As much as I would like to agree with you, and I do believe something needs to be done differently, this irks me! If the system is so much better in European nations and Canada, feel free to move there to where you believe things are done right! "Very progressive tax rates" = For everyone working an 8 hour day, some people get to take home 7 hours worth of pay while others get the privilege of taking home only 5 hours worth of pay. And what is that two hour difference called??? The "fair share" of those higher earners. When everyone is taxed the same (= regressive) or when there is a national sales/consumption tax, THEN I won't feel as bad having more of what I earn taken from me before I even receive it. The way I see it, the NOT-WITH-MY-MONEY label applies to both sides. Sure, those who make more than others have a terribly selfish desire to keep what they earn. But at the same time, those who earn less frequently argue that taking the same amount or the same percentage from everyone isn't right. Instead, those with less income point to the higher earners and say, "don't take my money to pay for the programs I need, make them pay more, make them pay their 'fair share'!" Two point bottom line: 1. If your conscience is feeling guilty and you feel you need to give more, by all means do it. HOWEVER, make sure it is YOUR pocket you are reaching into and not mine! 2. The more I am taxed, the more of my income I am forced to turn over, the more I am told how selfish I am being, the less I am likely to be generous with my donations. But hey, maybe that's just me.
|
|