Sorry but that's so inaccurate as to be one big LIE.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Romney Looks Like the Next Pres
- Thread starter jem
- Start date
ok show me just one instance where obama supported private property rights.Quote from bigarrow:
Here's a defination of socialism:
Date: 1837
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
Obama has not advocated any of those. He does not fit the defination of a socialist.
Your argument is stupid and naive. I'm sure others will tell you the same. Maybe in a longer more gentile way so not to hurt your feelings.Quote from atticus:
Perhaps if you were profitable the idea of capital gains wouldn't seem so foreign.
And if you re-read my post you will notice I said, for my friends who would like to pay less taxes. So, there goes your reading comprehension skills, too.
Quote from atticus:
You're not forced to pay into it. All US citizens are entitled. A private trader living off of capital gains would not be contributing, at all.
All persons 65 years of age or older who have been legal residents of the United States for at least 5 years are eligible for Medicare.
if mayne, IF. Straight up, I don't know all the rules but I'm almost certain that anyone drawing a salary or like hourly wages is FORCED to pay in. The overwhelming majority of working people are compensated this way. I'm also pretty sure prop traders and self employed individuals aren't forced to pay in.. the point is IF you are, then you should take the bennies and that isn't being hypocritical even if you are against the system.
as an aside.. what a retarded system. Someone could retire here from another country (or come illegally and be granted amnesty) and live off of savings for 5 years, or work under the table, and then be entitled to medicare without paying in a cent? No wonder it's AFU.
Quote from PiggyBank:
if mayne, IF. Straight up, I don't know all the rules but I'm almost certain that anyone drawing a salary or like hourly wages is FORCED to pay in. The overwhelming majority of working people are compensated this way. I'm also pretty sure prop traders and self employed individuals aren't forced to pay in.. the point is IF you are, then you should take the bennies and that isn't being hypocritical even if you are against the system.
as an aside.. what a retarded system. Someone could retire here from another country (or come illegally and be granted amnesty) and live off of savings for 5 years, or work under the table, and then be entitled to medicare without paying in a cent? No wonder it's AFU.
My statement implies that people earning on W2s are paying through FICA and/or other means. 1.45% (2.9% if self-employed, corp) of gross, IIRC.
Assume that you earn an average salary of $120k for 35 years. You pay $60k into the system over your lifetime for virtually unlimited health benefits. Sure, you have a co-pay for the supplemental, but it's a pittance. Stenosis and a stent or two? You've exceeded your contribution on the first procedure. A week in ICU and you've doubled your LIFETIME contribution in benefits received.
Go try and get comprehensive health insurance (not hospitalization) at age 58 with a pre-existing condition. Let's see what you'll pay... well, don't bother as you're uninsurable.
Right but somehow you are too stupid to figure out that doesn't work.Quote from atticus:
My statement implies that people earning on W2s are paying through FICA and/or other means. 1.45% (2.9% if self-employed, corp) of gross, IIRC.
Assume that you earn an average salary of $120k for 35 years. You pay $60k into the system over your lifetime for virtually unlimited health benefits. Sure, you have a co-pay for the supplemental, but it's a pittance.
Those unlimited benefits not paid for (by the recipient )were covered by whom the "tooth fairy"?
Quote from PHOENIX TRADING:
Right but somehow you are too stupid to figure out that doesn't work.
Those unlimited benefits not paid for (by the recipient )were covered by whom the "tooth fairy"?
Hey numbnuts, you seem to be unfamiliar with the entire concept of the insurance business and actuarial science. We'll see what happens when your fat ass has a coronary at 65. Let's see if you refuse care. Let's hope you do. God knows YOU are not paying into the system and therein lies the problem with Medicare.
Quote from bigarrow:
1) Piggybank we have a different definition of socialism. Rules and regulations and taxes are not in my or the dictionary's definition of socialism or socialistic policies and programs.
2) The post office is an example of a socialistic program, but that isn't bad, it's a good thing our government had the vision and initiative to start the post office and the national highway system among others. 3) Government isn't bad, too much government and mismanaged government is, that is the challenge, not to eliminate government but to make it run more efficiently for the good of the country and it's citizens.
1) No we don't, you just gave a definition and the programs I listed, fit. No one said rules or regs are socialist. being forced to buy insurance from a private company is no different than being forced to buy it from the state. Besides you guys all want a single payer system right? either way that is socialism, it really is. SS may be a tax but it only exists to fund an entitlement PROGRAM, administered at the federal level. An involuntary social service is socialism.
2) The post office may be a social program but there is a key difference, it IS authorized in the Constitution while these other programs are NOT. Again these things should be decided at the state level, not federal. Also just because it is authorized doesn't mean that we need it, at least in its present form.
3) No one is saying govt is bad, I know and I think everyone on the right knows that we need govt. THIS govt is bad. It isn't just due to obama, it has been in the making for a long time. The whole point of the rules as they were established initially were to keep the govt in check. Well according to those rules the fed govt is WAY out of check and needs to be put back in place.. obama just ain't the guy to do that, in fact he is the total opposite.
Quote from PiggyBank:
3) No one is saying govt is bad
I am. If you're going to implement universal healthcare then it should be feasible, BUT there is no private insurance option for the aged. Say you're well-off and you underwrite simply by net-worth (few million in retirement). You and/or your wife get C and need SPA immunophoresis and a year of Gleevec. You'll burn through a couple mil the first year.
There is no alternative to U-healthcare for Seniors.
U-healthcare for the 20-65 crowd is feasible, because the vast majority of catastrophic illness occurs in the aged population covered by Medicare. You're forcing Medicare (contribution or not), so a mandatory system not funded by FICA can work. The GOP was in favor during the Reagan-era. The downside to U-healthcare is that we cannot afford NOT to have a system in place for the aged. The young pay for the old, but combine the two programs. No FICA or payroll tax and some sort of private supplemental for those who didn't meet a contribution threshold (based upon a family unit).
Well implemented; you can pay for Medicare with a universal system. Call it what you want, but we cannot function as a society w/o a system for the aged, and we can't pay for it w/o a U-system.
Romney Looks Like the Next Pres
Some of you, who think you are ultra conservative, better just hope it is not going to be "Obama 2016".
At the rate this communist is going, he may just try to pull a Putin.
Look at brother Bill Clinton.
He still thinks he is the president.
Don't put anything past Obama.
(Sorry for being on topic.)
Some of you, who think you are ultra conservative, better just hope it is not going to be "Obama 2016".
At the rate this communist is going, he may just try to pull a Putin.
Look at brother Bill Clinton.
He still thinks he is the president.
Don't put anything past Obama.
(Sorry for being on topic.)