OldSchool wrote:
Wishful thinking from a brain-dead liberal. Ain't gonna happen, pal.
Yeah and Fox said Obama wouldn't be reelected. It was gonna be Romney in a landslide.
Dave wrote:
Do you really believe these billionaires are for higher taxes for themselves? Do you not realize that they have teams of experts figuring out how to minimize taxes. Even the great hero Buffett's entire corporate structure is design to avoid taxes.
Further, do you really think taxes are the most serious issue facing this nation?
WOW
No, i think the greatest problems facing the US is climate change and income inequality. Increasing taxes on the richest Americans would be a step in the right direction. When I had my first job the top marginal tax rate was 90% and rich people still worked and the country did just fine. Now it is 35% and suggesting it be 39% makes me a communist or something. Almost all the gains of the economy have gone to the 1%. As my grade school nun always said, to those much has been given much is expected. PS a carbon tax and public transportion would do a lot about climate change. It would at least be a start.
Dave wrote:
Wow, somebody who believes the CBO - they've never been correct yet - and what is the date of this report, how much has it changed?
Common sense would lead anyone with a lick of understanding to realize adding IRS agents and Navigators to the health care system while lowering the incentive for real health care providers is not likely to provide lower health care costs - unless more people die younger because fo the lack of care.
But back in the other post about single payer, all the tea bags who had not read the document to the end pasted it as proof the ACA would cost us 710Billion we cannot afford. It was a great reference then, when they unwittingly posted it to show Obamacare would take us down the path to wreck and ruin, but when further reading shows it SAVES money and lowers the deficit, suddenly it can no longer be trusted? This is what drives me crazy about republicans-when they get information that is contrary to there views, they simply deny the information and continue on their mistaken views.
OBAMACARE saves money and LOWERS the deficit
Although the cost of Obamacare is estimated at 710 Billion dollars, the overall impact of Obamacare is to save money, making up for that expense and more.
Here is the paragraph from the Congressional Budget Office that states the 710 Billion cost is made up for in savings inherent to Obamacare.
"Those amounts do not reflect the total budgetary impact of the ACA. That legislation includes many other provisions that, on net, will reduce budget deficits. Taking the coverage provisions and other provisions together, CBO and JCT have estimated that the ACA will reduce deficits over the next 10 years and in the subsequent decade."
Dave wrote:
Where did you get the idea that issuing vouchers for Medicare would eliminate it?
Vouchers would give a certain amount of money to purchase insurance. If it was or became more expensive to cover an individual, that person would have to pay more to cover the difference. If that was coupled with the repeal of Obamacare and the end of insurance companies having to take all comers without regard to their pre-existing conditions insurance would be very expensive or unoptainable, especially for elderly people who have a lot of pre-existing conditions. Also, most of our lifetime healthcare expenses occur in our last year of life. With the repeal of Obamacare, a topic near and dear to repub thinking, the lifetime caps outlawed by ACA could kick in right when people needed insurance the most.
working class stiff wrote:
I don't see the an issue with the 10% paying 90%.....they have amassed 90% of the wealth.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/03/06/this-viral-video-is-right-we-need-to-worry-about-wealth-inequality/
:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
oldroy wrote:
You will see that public transport you speak of soon enough, but it may not be available in Madison. I'm not sure it will be needed there once Agenda 21 goes into effect but it will work so much better in Denmark than here. Well all kinds of small and mid-sized cities in the US have gone with Agenda 21 in cutting the need for anything other than bicycles or trains. Do you have any idea how people will travel from east to west coasts once Agenda 21 takes over? I can tell you that they won't. Of course, I have cheated and read more about Agenda 21 and less about the kind of crap you provided here about that tiny country.
You will see that public transport you speak of so... (
show quote)
Never heard of Agenda 21, but I will research it, and thanks for bringing it up. I love this site, because always learning somthing new. Thanks, Oldroy
BigMike wrote:
Dear one, you are very naïve. Things that work for the Danes would not necessarily work here. Some maybe, but this nation is humongous compared with Denmark, and guess what...we've defended them from communism for 60 years. Its easier to do wonderful little social experiments when America has your back. The Danes are a very homogenous nation. I doubt they have refugees pouring in, or illegal immigration on the scale we do here. There are hundreds, perhaps thousands of factors that go into the equation. And consider this: Happy relative to what? And your snide comment about "baggers" just proves you are contemptuous of others who don't share your point of view. If it weren't them it would be someone else. If all the Tea Party sympathizers went somewhere else there wouldn't be money for all the social programs that are the only thing preventing the parasites from rioting in the streets.
Dear one, you are very naïve. Things that work for... (
show quote)
I see baggers and their republican overlords as holding the US back-wanting further tax cuts for the wealthy, although we have income disparity like a banana repubic, wanting to turn medicare into a voucher and undermine the economic security our seniors enjoy, wanting a chained CPI for social security at a time when companies are cutting out pensions and social security is all some seniors have. Social security needs to STRENGTHENED, not reduced.
Yes, Denmark is different from the US, but a lot of the Danish happiness comes from feeling economically secure, and the republicans have been trying to undermine that security of the average joe to give more and more to the 1%. I see the republicans as undermining the economic security of the 95%, and further eroding the average persons security and happiness. If people did not have to worry so much about money, they could have more time for friends, for volunteering, for all the "were all in this together" motivation that is a big key to human happiness.
If those republican bozos were out of the way, and goverment served the people instead of the 1%, the US would be better and Americans would be happier.
Dave wrote:
You could learn a lot from being able to distinguish between facts and opinions. America is a far more diverse country than Denmark, and is far larger and more complex. The idea that "happiness" is somehow measured in such a way that it can be boiled down to comparison of one country to another in a meaningful way is simple-minded - and honestly AnnMarie - you can be better than that.
Actually, there is a happiness project (Rent the movie Happy to learn about it.) Scientific study of happiness and the Dane came up on top. Not simple minded, scientific study. It is a great movie, you would enjoy it.
Mr Shako wrote:
Did she really write that??
Sure did, Mr Shako. Soros gets more credit that the Koch Brothers.
oldroy wrote:
Facts and opinions? I read and read and even read the Forbes thing about sustainability and all I saw there were the opinions of a man who admits he is willing to go with Agenda 21. He used the word collective in various forms too many times. He dreams of a utopia, probably communist, and just doesn't see much about the difference in size, geography, etc between the US and Denmark.
I loved the part about use of bicycles to get everywhere. Wouldn't it be nice if all our city people could use that method to get to work and school? My sons work for the same company and drive 40 miles one way to get there and back home. Riding a bicycle that distance would really be fun, I think. However, the United States is over 3000 miles across and it has cities that cover about as many square miles as Denmark does and I have to wonder about Denmark when Copenhagen is always talked about as the way people live all over the nation.
I wonder if the people who prepared that pile of progressive crap really think that there is a method to compare Denmark with the US. I bet they don't even ever stop to consider the diversity in our people in so many ways. Do they have large herds of Muslms in Denmark? I think not. Do they have large groups of black people or Indians or anything like that? I bet if we threw out all our "diverse" populations we could do much better than we do now. However, progs love to talk about our racial and national diversity, don't they?
Facts and opinions? I read and read and even read... (
show quote)
Yep we do like diversity. Makes things more colorful and interesting
Been to Copenhagen and enjoyed it. Except in cities, biking is not easy. I live in Madison, a very bike friendly place, but that is not for everyone. We could do much better with public transport, however. Our governer turned down fast train system that would have made it easy to commute to Milwaukee Trains in Europe are clean, fast and run often. We could learn from other countries. I think we could do more to support families, to decrease
Income disparity. We have a Geni score like a banana republic. Again, I saw a lot to like in Denmark, and the Danes are happier than the US.
Dave wrote:
I find each and every time the Koch brothers are mentioned by leftist it is meant to replace any intelligent analysis and discussion.
Do you really think the Koch brothers' efforts are that much more successful than all of the liberal billionaires contributing to Democrats and funding leftist organizations? Are Soros, Katzenberg, Foster, Pritzker, et al that much less effective than these two libertarian guys?
Again, contributing to the side that will raise your OWN taxes for the good of the country is patriotic Contributing to the side that LOWERS your taxes is Naked self interest
Dave wrote:
The Walton's do not decide what SNAP or other taxpayer funded programs are, the politicians do. If Walmart had higher costs their key competitive advantage would disappear, causing them to reduce their labor force. Other companies would pick up Walmart's lost business - the net result - nothing.
Of course, you could have the government increase minimum wages. That would increase some Walmart employee pay (not every employee is at minimum) but would have other unintended consequences. If you are unaware of what those consequences would be, I suggest you look into the several studies done by the economist, Walter E Williams.
The Walton's do not decide what SNAP or other taxp... (
show quote)
No but the Waltons benefit from low wages, and contribute to politicians that will not raise the minimum wage. If Walmart had to pay living wages they would raise prices, sure, and perhaps some of the mom and pop stores they put out of business would survive. Other stores would also have to pay higher wages so they would be in the same fix as Walmart, so Walmart would not go out of business, or have to lay people off. Maybe even some of the folks who never shop at Walmart for moral reasons would even shop there once they paid a living wage to their worker.
The Walmart employees would buy stuff with there higher wages, and add to the economy. The taxpayers would be saved the SNAP expense and they would be albe to buy stuff instead of paying for Snap. Raising minimum wage would be good all the way around.
Dave wrote:
Wow, so you really think people without earned income die of starvation and exposure and such in America. The streets a laden with dead bodies.
Let's take this one step at a time.
A person recieving WIC, food stamps, medicaid, section 8 housing, free phone - has no income. When you see reports of income, these transfer payments are not treated as income - they do not appear in the calculations.
Further, a person who earns meager wages also recieves many of these government benefits, and maybe more - like earned income tax credits (resulting in negative income tax). Those too are not considered income.
When they utilize any and all of these transfer payment benefits they are consuming.
Perhaps the economic concept of generation of and consumption of goods and services are foreign to you.
Wow, so you really think people without earned inc... (
show quote)
Dave, do you not think that the taxpayers helping to support Walmart or fast food worker via SNAP payments is a transfer of taxpayer money to Walmart via the higher profits they make by paying such low wages? Why should we taxpayers support the Waltons, one of the richest families in America?