Socialized Medicine
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+14378) 11 years ago
This is a very interesting video from 1978.

Top
supporter
Posted by Steve Craddock (+2743) 11 years ago
Hey Richard, can you find a video of Dr. Friedman expressing his opinion about Death Panels?

His prediction that government involvement in health care "will inevitably lead to socialized medicine" is the equivalent of the domino effect theory that lured the US into the Vietnam War. Time has proven such fears were overstated then, and they're very much overstated now - only now the fears are being stirred by people with far less credibility than Milton Friedman.
Top
Posted by polar bear (+509) 11 years ago
Except that NO ONE has proposed socialized medicine here! What health reform is about is NOT the definition of socialized medicine. Not even close. Educate yourself as to what the terminology means.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+14378) 11 years ago
Social programs that are based on taking money from one group and giving it to another don't work, regardless what deceptive terminology is used to disguise their true intentions.
Top
Posted by Heath H (+641) 11 years ago
Yes, polar bear,

If your mentality is steeped in acceptance of government as the solution to all of your struggles, and you see no problem with social entitlement programs, then I understand why you believe that

healthcare reform is about, "That NO ONE has proposed socialized medicine here! What health reform is about is NOT the definition of socialized medicine. Not even close."
Top
supporter
sponsor
Posted by souix (+301) 11 years ago
Richard,

I think that socialized medicine goes well with all of the other U. S. socialized programs, such as socialized banking, socialized farming and ranching, and many other socialized business programs.

"Federal subsidies to U.S. businesses now cost American taxpayers nearly $100 billion a year. If all corporate welfare programs were eliminated, Congress would have enough money to entirely eliminate the capital gains tax and the death tax. Alternatively, Congress could cut the personal and corporate income tax by 10 percent across the board."

The rest of the article may be viewed at the link below.

http://www.hoover.org/pub...46211.html


Disclaimer: Now I do not agree with doing away with the so called "death tax" as I cannot understand the difference between someone being *given* the money versus having to work for said money, but that is a whole different debate.

It is very disingenuous of you to pick one program out of the myriad of other government programs and say that it is socialistic.

I do not recall, before the healthcare debate that you were complaining that the government was "taking money from one group and giving it to another." e.g. taxpayers giving money back to corporate America so they could please Wall Street. It is only when you get the word from all the right wing talking heads, do you complain.

Another interesting article.

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration overpaid tens of billions of dollars for stocks and other assets in its massive bailout last year of Wall Street banks and financial institutions, a new study by a government watchdog says.
The Congressional Oversight Panel, in a report released Friday, said last year's overpayments amounted to a taxpayer-financed $78 billion subsidy of the firms.

http://www.nbcwashington...Study.html
Top
supporter
sponsor
Posted by souix (+301) 11 years ago
Heath/ Rick,

Government has been involved in corporate America forever. For you to pick one industry and say that it socialistic when it benefits the taxpayer is very ridiculous. The government has been on the giving end to the pharmaceuticals, the insurance industry, the physicians and many other aspects of the healthcare industry for eons.

Now that ordinary citizens are involved all of a sudden the "sky is falling" and the US is slipping into Socialism. So let's talk about the mentality of the government being the solution to all problems. I am sure if you are honest with yourself you have been helped immensely by the US government throughout your life.

[This message has been edited by souix (9/27/2009)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+8563) 11 years ago
Souix - it's useless arguing this with either of these people. Heath lives in a state which is about to secede, and thinks that unemployment insurance and the EITC are both entitlements, and Richard's livelihood only exists because the government forces mines to clean up after themselves. Honesty and self-reflection are not core competencies.
Top
Posted by polar bear (+509) 11 years ago
Excellent point about the 2 posters. I am also curious as to their levels of formal education.
Top
Posted by Lorin Dixson (+596) 11 years ago
I don't suppose things like this seem like socialism to some of you,the people who cry the loudest seem to think that money taken from the middle class and given to the wealthy is just captalism at it's best. I only included this example out of many because I am a west coast commercial fisherman and this is the true story of what has happened to Oregon ,California salmon stocks (the water is gone)


The Central Valley Project (CVP), a federal water system in California originally intended to help destitute farmers recover from the Great Depression, is now funneling close to $416 million worth of subsidized water to corporate fat cats at the expense of the rest of us. According to the Environmental Working Group, a research organization, the top ten percent of all farms are getting 67 percent of the water. The average subsidy is worth $350,000, and 27 farms in the state receive a subsidy of $1 million or more a year.

Fixing the problem is more critical now than ever. The Bureau of Reclamation is in the process of going through contract negotiations that could lock in bargain basement water prices for rich corporate agriculture interests.

Water is a finite resource but for decades we have managed it as though we have an unlimited supply. Current federal policies increase misuse of water by undervaluing it as a resource. We must act now to bring water use into balance with water supply. By implementing common sense reforms, the administration can begin making irrigators and other agricultural interests pay closer to fair market value for water.

At the inception of the Central Valley Project, the Bureau of Reclamation signed long-term contracts with California farmers locking in rates as low as $3.50 per acre foot for the following 40 years. Several attempts at price reforms were made from the 1960's through the 1980's, but while these reforms were successful at changing the costs on renegotiated contracts, the new contracts still only charged users approximately $25 per acre foot. In contrast, residential users in San Francisco pay $650 per acre foot and Houston users pay $975 for the same amount.

The original intent of big federal water projects was to encourage settlement of the west. Today, they are just wide open federal spigots sending money down the drain to corporate agribusiness.

This is a crucial time in the history of the Central Valley Project, the management of western water, and the federal government's ability to manage its budgets effectively. The Bureau of Reclamation has the unique opportunity to adjust the way water is managed in the West and to potentially save taxpayers billions of dollars in coming years.

These contract negotiations are occurring during a time when issues of water supply are approaching the forefront of the national debate, and the nation's federal government is facing a budget deficit of more than $400 billion.

There are really only two choices. The administration can keep the expensive status quo by rubber stamping the current contracts, guaranteeing hundreds of millions of dollars of handouts to some of the richest corporations in California, or they can show their commitment to responsible spending and end a long federal history of giving water away to big agribusinesses for irresponsible use.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+14378) 11 years ago
"Richard's livelihood only exists because the government forces mines to clean up after themselves. Honesty and self-reflection are not core competencies."

That is a small part of the services I provide. There are many people with jobs because of government regulation. It doesn't seem particularly "honest" of you to impugn me or my work.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+14378) 11 years ago
"Excellent point about the 2 posters. I am also curious as to their levels of formal education."

I have a Bachelor of Science degree from Kansas State University.

The attempt to equate a reduction in corporate tax rates as "corporate welfare" is pretty amusing. Bailing out corporations is wrong and shouldn't have occurred. If they fail, they fail.

[This message has been edited by Richard Bonine, Jr (9/27/2009)]
Top
Posted by Heath H (+641) 11 years ago
it's useless arguing this with either of these people. Heath lives in a state which is about to secede,

Please.

and thinks that unemployment insurance and the EITC are both entitlements,

Unemployment benefits are dispersed by states and the federal government from funds extortedappropriated from businesses. The system is nothing more than social insurance with forced premiums paid by employers.

For those unemployed who happen to live in Texas, unemployment benefits can last up to 59 weeks. For those unemployed who live in Montana, benefits expire after 74 weeks. Eligiblity depends on how long you worked and how much you made prior to becoming unemployed. Not every filer receives the maximum number of weeks available. 59 weeks? 74 weeks? You don't call that an entitlement?

EITC, from the IRS.gov website;

Q1. What is the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC)?

A1. The earned income credit (EITC) is a tax credit for certain people who work and have low wages. A tax credit usually means more money in your pocket. It reduces the amount of tax you owe. The EITC may also give you a refund.


That's not an entitlement.
Right.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5037) 11 years ago
Payroll taxes aren't taxes, right Heath?
Top
supporter
sponsor
Posted by souix (+301) 11 years ago
Heath,

Instead of castigating the working poor you should be hounding the businesses that do not pay a living wage and make it necessary for these types of programs.

CEO perks alone grew in 2008 to an average of $336,248-or nine times the median salary of a full-time worker. And women still make .79 on the dollar compared to men.

http://www.nwlc.org/pdf/T...ap2009.pdf

Now, I think I will go to the Shipley thread, as he makes more sense than you.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+14378) 11 years ago
"Instead of castigating the working poor you should be hounding the businesses that do not pay a living wage and make it necessary for these types of programs."

In a capitalist system, businesses exist primarily to make a profit for those who have put capital at risk. Businesses do not exist just to give people a place to work. In some measure the working poor exist because of government programs. There is no incentive for them to increase their skill-set so they are worth more to a business because of the income they generate for the business.

I would highly recommend that you watch the video below. The half-hour required would be time well spent.

Top
Posted by Heath H (+641) 11 years ago
souix,

Anything I say will not make sense to you. Your logic and your judgement are clouded by your entitlement mentality.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+8563) 11 years ago
Richard's time would be well spent reading this as well: http://www.amazon.com/Nic...0805063897

souix, heath's a self-made man who doesn't need any help from the government to get through his day. Other than the roads it built, the markets it created, the financial system it maintains, etc, etc, etc.

Essentially, their attitudes can be summed up as "I got mine, so f*ck you - now please excuse me, I'm late for church."

I mean, these are the sort of people who freak out over the "death tax", because it's somehow more moral to tax the income of someone who actually worked for that money, as opposed to someone who had that money simply given to them.

Same idea applies to capital-gains taxes as well. They seem to have some delusion that they belong to the rentier class, instead of being regular schmucks like the rest of us.

[This message has been edited by Bridgier (9/28/2009)]
Top
supporter
sponsor
Posted by souix (+301) 11 years ago
Bridger,

I think Heath H is a pseudonym for Rick K. and the self-made-man is just wishful thinking on his part. Why would Heath H as successful person from Texas *waste* his time arguing with people from Miles City?

.and you are so right on the death welfare and the capital gains welfare that the conservatives are always promoting.what a joke!
Top
Posted by Heath H (+641) 11 years ago
I think Heath H is a pseudonym for Rick K. and the self-made-man is just wishful thinking on his part.

That is funny! You are wrong, though.

Why would Heath H as successful person from Texas *waste* his time arguing with people from Miles City?

You don't know me. What you know about me you have learned from what I have posted here. Given that information, your idea of my success is predicated on the amount of tax that I pay. I haven't given you any other information about my personal life, so be honest now, souix. How do you equate the amount of tax dollars I pay each year with whatever success I have achieved?


If you equate income with success you are probably predisposed to envy those who make more than you. Fits right in with your entitlement mentality. Explains a lot about you, souix.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+8563) 11 years ago
our idea of my success is predicated on the amount of tax that I pay

Where does souix say anything like this? You're making things up now.
Top
Posted by Heath H (+641) 11 years ago
Essentially, their attitudes can be summed up as "I got mine, so f*ck you - now please excuse me, I'm late for church."

That's not my attitude. Let's try yours;

Since you got your's, let me have some of it. Even if I don't need it, let me take it from you and give it to someone else who I think needs it. Also, since your father has worked all of his life and has paid taxes on everything he earned, it's only right for government to tax his accumulated wealth AGAIN when he dies.

[This message has been edited by Heath H (9/28/2009)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+8563) 11 years ago
Actually... I've got plenty. And they're not taxing your father's wealth... they're taxing yours. But nice of you to avoid the question: why is it better to tax money that you actually worked for, as opposed to money that fell out of the sky? Rentier.
Top
Posted by Heath H (+641) 11 years ago
Were you labeling yourself, "Rentier," or was that directed at me? If the latter, you missed your mark.

why is it better to tax money that you actually worked for, as opposed to money that fell out of the sky?

I am not avoiding your question, I answered your question. The, "money," (real estate, property, etc.) did not fall out of the sky. It was earned and it was taxed. The government skimmed their portion already. So, it is not better, as you say, to tax money you actually worked for, when that money and the money inherited have been equally taxed.
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4461) 11 years ago
Victim

Take back the night, Heath

[This message has been edited by Buck Showalter (9/28/2009)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+14378) 11 years ago
"Essentially, their attitudes can be summed up as "I got mine, so f*ck you - now please excuse me, I'm late for church.""

Not my attitude at all. More like I started with nothing and got to where I am today through my own initiative and hard work. If I can achieve some modest success, I honestly fail to understand why others can't do the same. It makes no sense to me to settle for minimum wage and then complain about your lot in life. You can change your circumstances.

I readily admit that I don't understand the entitlement mentality or why anyone would willingly become enslave by a government program when you can earn your own way. One of my goals in life is to accumulate enough resources that I can pay my own way and share with those in my circle of influence that are in need.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+8563) 11 years ago
You're missing my point. Why should money IN YOUR POSSESSION be taxed less if you didn't earn it?

And I wish I was a rentier - but I know I'm not.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr (+14378) 11 years ago
"Why should money IN YOUR POSSESSION be taxed less if you didn't earn it?"

I don't believe I have stated that it should be taxed less. On the other hand, why should the government who also did nothing to earn money in my possession get a huge cut just because someone in the family died? IMO taxes ought to be on sales, not on income.
Top
Posted by Heath H (+641) 11 years ago
I see your point clearly, Bridgier. There is no answer to your circular argument. One must concede that the money up for taxation in the event of an inheritance, where one who has accumulated said wealth has the option to dispose of it any way he/she sees fit upon the death of said individual, has been taxed prior to the conveyance and inheritance. Not only should it be taxed less, but it shouldn't be taxed at all. It has already been taxed.
Top
Posted by Heath H (+641) 11 years ago
Bravo, Richard. Well said.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+8563) 11 years ago
Sorry - my point on taxes was directed at heath. You could argue that without a government supported system of property rights and judiciary, no one without a personal standing army would be able to pass ANY real wealth between generations.. but that's just my entitlement mentality.

Okay, I'll try to unravel the logic for heath.

You did not EARN any of the money that you inherit. It is GIVEN to you by someone else. YOU have not payed any taxes on this money, it was payed by SOMEONE ELSE. When YOU earn money, the government taxes it at a certain rate. When you are GIVEN money, it taxes that money at a certain rate. Why should money that YOU have earned be taxed at a greater rate then money that has been GIVEN to you? Now, we can argue over what the just taxation rate for both cases should be, but to turn about and say "but that money's already been taxed" is a little bit of a red herring - of course it has. It's being taxed whenever its ownership changes hands.

[This message has been edited by Bridgier (9/28/2009)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4461) 11 years ago
Richard, I suppose your family didn't have to ask the government for handouts because they come from a strong community. Do you think every family of 10, 11, 12, 30? lives in a community where others are so willing to help?

Hint - they don't
Top
Posted by Heath H (+641) 11 years ago
Ok, back to your question;

why is it better to tax money that you actually worked for, as opposed to money that fell out of the sky?

It is not better. Both taxes exist without being better or worse. So, get to your point.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+8563) 11 years ago
My point was, certain segments of the population think the estate tax is a far greater crime against the sanctity of money than payroll tax. Some of your arguments above would indicate that you feel thusly. Thus...
Top
supporter
Posted by Buck Showalter (+4461) 11 years ago
One of you sounds a lot more like Ship than the other
Top
supporter
sponsor
Posted by souix (+301) 11 years ago
By Heath and Richard's logic if I paid the yardman for mowing and tilling my yard, then he would not have to pay taxes on this income because I have already paid the taxes on this money. The same goes for the grocery store, the gas station, the car dealer.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+8563) 11 years ago
Well, the yardman's probably an illegal anyways, so you shouldn't get too worked up over paying him anyways.
Top
Posted by Heath H (+641) 11 years ago
souix,

That's not my logic, it is yours.

Apples and oranges, AGAIN.
Top
supporter
sponsor
Posted by souix (+301) 11 years ago
Bridger,
I checked his papers...they were okay...said he couldn't get paid a decent wage in Texas.

Heath,
Yep that is my logic...unfortunately you do not have any.logic that is! Apples and Oranges???
Top
Posted by Heath H (+641) 11 years ago
souix,

You are confusing estate tax with inheritance tax.

Let me try it Bridgier's way.

If YOU are an individual who has accumulated wealth over YOUR lifetime and YOU have PAID TAXES while engaging in the process of that accumulation, do you think it appropriate that your ESTATE will be taxed AGAIN upon your death, PRIOR TO the ESTATE being dispersed to your heirs?



Of course, when your HEIRS receive their INHERITANCE, said inheritance will be taxed as income. Depending on which state you live in (as an heir), you may also be taxed federally AND by your state, but the amount of tax you pay (as an heir) depends on your relationship to the estate.



_____________________________

Bridgier,

I sympathize with and understand how some believe the estate tax exists as, "A far greater crime against the sanctity of money than payroll tax," but personally, I don't consider money sacred. The estate tax is an advantageous grab by the Fed and a tax on assets that have already been taxed. Period.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+8563) 11 years ago
The all-knowing wikipedia seems to imply that, at the federal level, there is no distinction between a federal inheritance and estate tax: http://en.wikipedia.org/w...ted_States
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5037) 11 years ago
You're both r-o-n-g. Rong.


It's the DEATH TAX

Booga Booga Booga
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+8563) 11 years ago
Why do they hate freedom so much?
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5037) 11 years ago
Not sure what the big deal is.

The exclusion amounts on the DEATH TAX are fairly high, ($3.5 million in 2009) so it doesn't affect very many people.

Also, it's pretty easy to avoid if your assets exceed the exclusions. Just sayin'

You should probably kill grampa/grandma in 2010, as there is no DEATH TAX in 2010 and 2010 only.

[This message has been edited by Bob L. (9/29/2009)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+8563) 11 years ago
But that money is being taxed twice - it's ruined now. Might as well burn it.
Top
Posted by Heath H (+641) 11 years ago
The all-knowing wikipedia seems to imply that, at the federal level, there is no distinction between a federal inheritance and estate tax: http://en.wikipedia.org/w...ted_States


Bridgier,

Estate tax and Inheritance tax are not one and the same.
Top
supporter
sponsor
Posted by souix (+301) 11 years ago
Heath,

Not all of this income has been taxed. Certain assets, real estate, stocks, the value of a business, etc. are all untaxed until the estate tax. If these assets had been disbursed before the individual's death then s/he would be required to pay a tax on said assets.

Moreover, some of these assets have even received income via the Federal Government. e.g. depreciation

Secondly, if I receive income versus an inheritance, then I would be expected to pay income tax on this inherence.

The proponents of doing away with the inheritance tax are just trying to circumvent the American tax code.

.only the little people pay taxes attitude that Leona Helmsley espoused.
Top
supporter
Posted by Wendy Wilson (+6165) 11 years ago
Of course, when your HEIRS receive their INHERITANCE, said inheritance will be taxed as income. Depending on which state you live in (as an heir), you may also be taxed federally AND by your state, but the amount of tax you pay (as an heir) depends on your relationship to the estate.

While I am not an expert on estate tax I have studied income tax law for over 10 years. Actually as an heir, you generally don't pay income tax on any inherited property. You only pay tax on any income that property produced after you inherited it. For example, if grandma dies and leaves you a house worth 250,000 you don't include 250,000 of additional income on your income tax return. Now if you sell the house six months later for 300,000 you must include that 50,000 profit as income (capital gain, actually).

My understanding of federal estate tax is that the corpus of the decedent's estate is taxed, after certain deductions. The tax is to the estate, not the heirs. This is done on Form 706. Heath, there is no federal inheritance tax as you've described as far as I'm aware. Do you have a form number you could point to? Now, if the estate has income after the owner dies but before the property is dispersed to the heirs, the estate may have to file a tax return (Form 1041) reporting that income.

[This message has been edited by Wendy Wilson (9/29/2009)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+8563) 11 years ago
Heath - you're right. The estate tax is levied by the feds. Inheritance taxes, if they exist, are levied by the states. Which is a distinction without merit from what you were saying above.

And now that I think about it, I was conflating the two needlessly (thank you Wendy) as well. Estate taxes are paid by the estate, inheritence taxes are paid by the heirs. In the US, the Feds don't tax inheritence, but they do tax the estate.

[This message has been edited by Bridgier (9/29/2009)]
Top
Posted by Heath H (+641) 11 years ago
I am usually, "Right," Bridgier. In more ways than one.
Top
Posted by Ty Livingston (+41) 11 years ago
Back to the begining of this string:

I believe the Party of Fear and Greed, The Republicans are scared to death of changes to health care because they, the 1% who buy the government, will no longer be able to hold the masses as slaves through cruel health insurance rules and availability. Once we can get health care at a reasonable price and can tranfer policies, they no longer have a strangle hold on the american worker.

Please discuss:

[This message has been edited by Ty Livingston (9/29/2009)]
Top
Posted by Heath H (+641) 11 years ago
Funny that you see Republican and Democrat disparity with regard to fear and greed. It's all one big fear and greed party inside the beltway.

Republicans have a, "strangle hold," on the American worker?

Bill Clinton signed GATT into law.
Bill Clinton signed NAFTA into law.

Was Bill Clinton a Republican?

There are hundreds, if not thousands of American truck drivers who will argue against the benefits of those trade agreements.

I am not going to pretend that Republicans live to support and promote the American worker, but the Republicans don't have exclusivity with regard to labor legislation that deprives American workers of opportunity, advancement, and prosperity.
Top
supporter
sponsor
Posted by souix (+301) 11 years ago
Heath,

"Following diplomatic negotiations dating back to 1991 between the three nations, the leaders met in San Antonio, Texas, on December 17, 1992, to sign NAFTA. U.S. President George H.W. Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and Mexican President Carlos Salinas, each responsible for spearheading and promoting the agreement, ceremonially signed it. The agreement then needed to be ratified by each nation's legislative or parliamentary branch."

"In the U.S., Bush, who had worked to "fast track" the signing prior to the end of his term, ran out of time and had to pass the required ratification and signing into law to incoming president Bill Clinton. Prior to sending it to the House of Representatives, Clinton introduced clauses intended to protect American workers and allay the concerns of many House members. It also required U.S. partners to adhere to environmental practices and regulations similar to its own. The ability to enforce these clauses, especially with Mexico, was considered questionable, and with much consternation and emotional discussion the House of Representatives approved NAFTA on November 17, 1993, by a vote of 234 to 200. Remarkably, the agreement's supporters included 132 Republicans and only 102 Democrats."

"The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (typically abbreviated GATT) was the outcome of the failure of negotiating governments to create the International Trade Organization (ITO). GATT was formed in 1947."

http://en.wikipedia.org/w..._Agreement

Oh I forgot *everything* is Bill Clinton's fault, encluding 9-11.
Top
Posted by Sharon Clarke (+74) 11 years ago
One must concede that the money up for taxation in the event of an inheritance, where one who has accumulated said wealth has the option to dispose of it any way he/she sees fit upon the death of said individual, has been taxed prior to the conveyance and inheritance. Not only should it be taxed less, but it shouldn't be taxed at all. It has already been taxed.

I couldn't agree more Heath!
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+8563) 11 years ago
Was Bill Clinton a Republican?

Essentially. As much good as it did him in the end.
Top
Posted by Ty Livingston (+41) 11 years ago
Bill wasn't a republican he kept his job. If he were arepublican he would have lost his job like three speakers of the house pointing hippocritical fingers at him.
Top
Posted by Heath H (+641) 11 years ago
souix,

Why must you rely on Wiki for all of your information? I like Wiki, but you should look further.

It was Clinton who signed NAFTA into law on December 8, 1993.

http://www.history.com/th...le&id=5584

Not the best article, but a reference nonetheless.

NAFTA was, as the article states, a Republican initiative. Read my entire post and you will see that I am not claiming Republicans or Democrats have a better track record regarding American workers. I was addressing Ty's nitwit posting, not trying to start an argument about which president signed what.

But,

Monica Lewinski's boyfriendClinton signed NAFTA into law, dear.
Top
Posted by Heath H (+641) 11 years ago
hippocritical, wha?

Wendy, help me out here. Is he referring to a hippopotamus in need of immediate trauma care?
Top
supporter
sponsor
Posted by souix (+301) 11 years ago
LOL.you are castigating me for using Wikipedia yet you back yours up with this day in history.

Obviously you did not read my post.Clinton signed into law what GH Bush negotiated *after* he put in some protections for US business.

BTW I though Ty's post was spot on!

And "am not going to pretend that Republicans live to support and promote the American worker, but the Republicans don't have exclusivity with regard to labor legislation that deprives American workers of opportunity, advancement, and prosperity,"

.but Democrats have a much better record.
Top
supporter
sponsor
Posted by souix (+301) 11 years ago
Sharon,

Once again, the beneficiaries have not paid tax on the estate. To use your argument. any person/business that received after tax dollars could avoid paying taxes, because the money has already been taxed.

Additionally, some estates (those invested in real estate, securities, and other income) have never been taxed. These assets get taxed when they exchange hands.
Top
Posted by Heath H (+641) 11 years ago
Regarding NAFTA, yes, you are right. I tend not to read your posts, generally. Since you brought it up, I did go back and read your post. I see that you had it right.

For once.

[This message has been edited by Heath H (9/29/2009)]
Top
Posted by Heath H (+641) 11 years ago
Once again, the beneficiaries have not paid tax on the estate. To use your argument. any person/business that received after tax dollars could avoid paying taxes, because the money has already been taxed.

Additionally, some estates (those invested in real estate, securities, and other income) have never been taxed. These assets get taxed when they exchange hands.


You need to go back and do some reading, yourself.
Top
Posted by Ty Livingston (+41) 11 years ago
Heath. . .shame you didn't have a real answer, just silly ridicule. Showing your true colors???


Souix- Thanks so much. I learned alot with that one post. Now I can see even more the republican'ts blame on Democrats is just lies, lies, lies.....
Top
Posted by Sharon Clarke (+74) 11 years ago
Sioux,

All I did was agree with a statement that Heath made....simple as that.

You can think whatever you like, and have whatever view, opinion or make whatever choices you wish and I can choose not to pay attention to them if I wish.
Top
Posted by Heath H (+641) 11 years ago
Oh yes, lies, lies, lies. Don't forget misinformation, bait and switch, cover up, deception, double-talk, doublespeak, and misdirection. All of these things a Democrat would NEVER engage in. Ever

For the record, Ty, I believe ridicule is NEVER silly. Ever.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+8563) 11 years ago
Yawn. Whatever. What's the conservative solution for healthcare? Tort reform (2% of the cost spent on healthcare in the US) and scapegoating illegals. The status quo isn't sustainable. What's YOUR solution heath?
Top
Posted by Ty Livingston (+41) 11 years ago
Well Heath, obviously you don't think ridicule is silly, you actually use it as a means of communication. Very sad.
Now, do you actually have an answer for the hundreds of thousands of people who are being ruined financially and emotionally every year because they are too poor to be ill?? Or do you have something silly for them as well???
Top
Posted by Ty Livingston (+41) 11 years ago
and heath, they all lie. The differnce is a republican lies to line his own pockets or that of his friends. A democrat lies to get what's needed for the people he represents from those too greedy to do what is right. From what I see daily on nearly every news source I truly believe this.

[This message has been edited by Ty Livingston (9/29/2009)]

[This message has been edited by Ty Livingston (9/29/2009)]
Top
Posted by Heath H (+641) 11 years ago
My solution? First and foremost, we should declare open season on all lawyers. Once all the lawyers are dead, we should stop paying our insurance premiums in collective protest. Then, go back to the barter system with hospitals and doctors. Pigs and cows for antibiotics and such. They can't sell what no one will buy. Just don't forget, kill all the lawyers. We must kill all the lawyers.
Top
Posted by Heath H (+641) 11 years ago
and heath, they all lie. The differnce is a republican lies to line his own pockets or that of his friends. A democrat lies to get what's needed for the people he represents from those too greedy to do what is right. From what I see daily on nearly every news source I truly believe this.

HAAAAAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAHA! AAAAAAAHHH- HAAA HAAAAAA!

Thanks, Ty! Sage poignancy, truly.
Top
supporter
Posted by Gunnar Emilsson (+15514) 11 years ago
I like George McGovern's idea for a health care...."Extend medicare to cover all U.S. Citizens"....a nice simple bill. Then a roll call vote....and we can vote out all the bastards who vote against it.

Health care debate....over.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+8563) 11 years ago
Pretty much what I thought heath.

Ty, it's not going to do you any good to discuss this with heath. he doesn't care. As has been mentioned previously, he's got his. all you've got is an entitlement mentality. And a conscience as well, but heath considers that more of a bug than a feature. Because heath is a douchebag.

[This message has been edited by Bridgier (9/29/2009)]
Top
Posted by Ty Livingston (+41) 11 years ago
Jeez heath, I did't think you'd just give up like that or was the freakish suggestion you made actually an idea. Sad man, sad. Those without ideas mock what they don't understand.
Top
supporter
Posted by Wendy Wilson (+6165) 11 years ago
Just don't forget, kill all the lawyers. We must kill all the lawyers.

This would work great! Then we could all show up at Heath's house and steal all his stuff and use the proceeds to pay for our health care. Brilliant!
Top
Posted by Ty Livingston (+41) 11 years ago
Sounds like heath has the Entitlement Mentality. He got lucky and maybe has a few dollars and feels that ENTITLES him to something. So much for responsibility, and love of country. I wonder how many millions of dollars of public resources it took to get him his. Maybe he should move to Dubai with the rest of the irreponsibly greedy. That way we can keep an eye on them and they can stay out of our way.
Top
Posted by Heath H (+641) 11 years ago
Ty, the width and breadth of your knowledge is truly inspiring!
Top
Posted by Ty Livingston (+41) 11 years ago
Bridgier-
Your right about Heath, it's like talking to his name sake. People will start thinking your crazy talking to inanimate objects.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+8563) 11 years ago
Ty, heath doesn't understand any of those concepts you mentioned. he worked hard for his money, and therefore he is morally better than an unlearned such as yourself.
Top
Posted by Ty Livingston (+41) 11 years ago
Bridgier- I wonder if heath is familiar with the Hutterite practice of Shunning. Maybe it's time we stop reponding to Him??? Just a thought....

[This message has been edited by Ty Livingston (9/29/2009)]
Top
Posted by Heath H (+641) 11 years ago
Bridgier,

Thank you for your perceptively keen insight, although I never laid claim to moral superiority. I do remember pointing out how morally corrupt wealth redistribution based social entitlement programs have created legions of dependant supplicants in America, but hey, if it means you get yours in the end, why toil diligently for your bread and cheese? Right?

With regard to grammar, punctuation, and spelling, only Wendy can claim superiority over those matters. So, that leaves me AND Ty out in the cold with the rest of the unlearned. Thanks for taking up for him, though. Very, "big brother," of you.

I do work hard, but the money I make is not as important to me as it is to you.
Top
supporter
sponsor
Posted by souix (+301) 11 years ago
Sharon,
"You can think whatever you like, and have whatever view, opinion or make whatever choices you wish and I can choose not to pay attention to them if I wish."

...Then don't...it makes no difference to me. Like you, I can write whatever I choose.
Top
supporter
sponsor
Posted by souix (+301) 11 years ago
Heath,

When have the *beneficiaries* paid tax on the estate?
Top
Posted by Heath H (+641) 11 years ago
souix,

You are, without a doubt, a milescity.com thread savant. I don't want to discuss estate tax versus inheritance tax with you. You are out of my league.
Top
supporter
sponsor
Posted by souix (+301) 11 years ago
Thanks, Heath admitting it is the first step.
Top
supporter
Posted by Wendy Wilson (+6165) 11 years ago
He works hard for the money
So hard for it, honey
He works hard for the money
So you'd better treat him right!
Top
Posted by Heath H (+641) 11 years ago
Wendy,

You are just bitter because my comments about lawyers relates to your law background.
Top
supporter
Posted by Wendy Wilson (+6165) 11 years ago
Q: How many lawyers does it take to shingle a roof?

A: Depends on how thin you slice 'em!
Top
supporter
Posted by Wendy Wilson (+6165) 11 years ago
I found this information about state inheritance tax.

An inheritance tax is an assessment made on the portion of an estate received by an individual. It differs from an estate tax which is a tax levied on an entire estate before it is distributed to individuals. It is strictly a state tax. Eleven states still collect an inheritance tax. They are: Connecticut, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Nebraska, New Jersey, Oregon, Pennsylvania and Tennessee. In all states, transfers of assets to a spouse are exempt from the tax. In some states, transfers to children and close relatives are also exempt.


http://www.retirementlivi...taxes.html
Top