OT: Politics Thread - Do Not Open Unless You Want to Argue

[jerseyjigroe]

You used the word evil, not me.
I just think they should pay a fair tax and shouldn't be able to have an empty storefront in Bermuda as a way to avoid paying their share.

If a company doesn't want to pay and leave then so be it. But then if they want to sell their wares in the US then impose import tariffs on them.

Ok, but I think we disagree with what is actually fair. We actually have some the higher corporate taxes in the world.

You're cutting off your nose to spite your face. If these companies leave they are taking thousands of jobs with them. It's a losing situation.

Look at some of my earlier posts. We need to increase revenue by increasing the tax base, not by increasing taxes. You especially don't raise taxes during a recession and when there is high unemployment.

 

[dare2be]

i'm not entirely behind the war, but we are getting something out of it

yep, a raised debt ceiling

 

[Comeds]

i think that's because more people are aware of welfare and it's issues than of corporations avoiding taxes.. which is another problem in itself..

That's probably a lot of it, but I also think its because a great deal of corporate crimes and wrongdoings are not taken seriously, often met with a wink and a nudge.

 

[Nasty_Magician]

The best solution is to split up the country, and I'm only half joking when I say that. The country is far too regionalized, too many conflicts of interest and no sure way to please everyone. What is best for somebody in Boston or New York is far different than it would be for a farmer in Montana.

The author Chuck Klosterman had an interesting point about America, we would be completely incapable of a revolution if it was ever needed. An injustice to the people of New Orleans/Louisiana during hurricane Katrina had absolutely no impact on my life. Sure I felt bad but not as mad as I should. For a United States, it would be almost impossible for us to unify. Sad but true.

 

[Nasty_Magician]

Oh and the age for social security eligibility needs to be raised drastically.

 

[awaz]

But see, you've provided a perfect example of what I was talking about earlier. You're reaction to touching "grandma's medical care" is an immediate negative one, but it's many times over more expensive than the unemployment benefits of welfare you are talking about. As I also mentioned earlier, the political groups and media machine use buzz words that only exacerbate your fears of what this means. Like when we heard "death panels" a lot a couple years ago in a matter that was related to living wills. That's not a real debate, that's clouding the truth. That's using buzz words to attack a piece of legislation and make it something it's not rather than an actual debate on the contents and alternatives to that legislation.

We pay for really expensive procedures for 86-year olds that only prolong their life a few years or where the cost way outpaces the quality return they are getting. It's a cold way to think about things, but you have to at some point say we aren't going to pay for a $130,000 procedure for someone who has lived a full life. If they have private insurance, they can pay for it that way. No one is stopping them from doing that. But these costs are a huge drain and there have to be some measures of control.

Instead politicians target tort reform and medical malpractice lawsuits, which make up about 2% of health care costs. Again, it's easier to go after the money-grubbing lawyers than think about possibly denying poor grandma a procedure. But how much money does it save?

It's politically convenient. It plays into our steretypes. The media runs with that and nobody has really saved any or much money at the end of the day to help improve people's lives and alleviate the budget/deficit crisis.

i agree with almost everything you said.. the government aka the taxpayers, shouldn't pay for procedures like that on people that are nearing death. its that simple. like you said, its cold, but its simple

but the bold bit. i am a little curious what that number includes. i realize its probably an estimate, but does that include the fact that reforming malpractice lawsuits will drive down the costs of these procedures? doctors and hospitals have to have insane malpractice insurance because the doctor can get sued for nearly anything, even if they improve the person's quality of life. and because they have to have insane insurance to cover themselves, all the procedures cost an arm and a leg. your 2% could cover that, i'm just asking

 

[BostonAJ]

No one owes any one else anything. We all work for what we get.

The rich rarely truly earn their status. I think they owe something to the uneducated, the unskilled, and the mentally ill.

 

[elocomotive]

You especially don't raise taxes during a recession and when there is high unemployment.

You also drive up unemployment if you cut spending b/c jobs are lost.

You can argue it both ways. Both are theories and people who have studied macroeconomics their entire lives land on both sides of the fence on this one.

 

[awaz]

The rich rarely truly earn their status. I think they owe something to the uneducated, the unskilled, and the mentally ill.

oh? can you give me something more than that, or at least define what you mean by 'truly earning'?

just because there are millionaire 20-something year olds out there that have gotten everything from daddy doesn't mean 'the rich dont earn it'. some dont, i agree, that's why they have taxes on handing money over. should those be higher? maybe. but that doesn't mean you should just tax the rich more to help the poor. be more specific with who you target. dont target the rich for being rich, target the people that haven't earned it.

saying 'the rich rarely truly earn their status' is a pretty outrageous generalization.

 

[CatScrap]

I have a little bit of a left field response to what should be done in this situation. The best thing to do, IMO, has nothing to do with increasing taxes, cutting funding to social programs, or increasing the debt ceiling.

Instead, the federal government needs a good old fashioned audit. It needs to be downsized in spots, and have wasteful spending cut out.

I work in the scrap metal recycling business, and I purchase many items from the government for scrap. Realistically I would say 80% of the "scrap" I purchase is brand new and unopened items. The waste in the government is spectacular. One item I purchase are aluminum camo netting support poles. I pay approximately $12.00 per bag on average for these and have to remove plastic protective wrap from them after breaking open the brand new boxes before I package them up to be melted down. Most still have the government invoice on them, listing them as $489/bag. This year alone I have purchased closed to 45,000 bags. Do the math, right there is a government waste of over $21 million. This isn't even the largest waste that the government makes.

I purchased another lot of scrap bolts that were specialty bolts for the government. All were plastic wrapped and sealed in boxes. I purchased 4,056 lbs. of these bolts, and it took approximately 120 bolts to make a pound, for a total of around 485,000 bolts. Now, these were stainless and i paid the government just over $2,800 for these. The government paid $89/bolt for a total of over $43 million.

In the long run, the answer is not to tax the people, rich or poor, it's not to decrease spending on necessary social programs, and it's not to devalue our currency by increasing our national debt. We need to hold our government responsible and start demanding that the waste stop and that the government run efficiently.

 

[Comeds]

Ok, but I think we disagree with what is actually fair. We actually have some the higher corporate taxes in the world.

You're cutting off your nose to spite your face. If these companies leave they are taking thousands of jobs with them. It's a losing situation.

Look at some of my earlier posts. We need to increase revenue by increasing the tax base, not by increasing taxes. You especially don't raise taxes during a recession and when there is high unemployment.

We do have one of the highest corporate tax rates however most of our companies pay a lot less due to a ton of loopholes.

How many of these corporations have shipped lots of job overseas in the past 25 years with their corporate tax breaks and if so are they even deserving of any kind of break?

Its semantics but I do not necessarily consider closing some loopholes as raising taxes.

 

[huskers1217]

The rich rarely truly earn their status. I think they owe something to the uneducated, the unskilled, and the mentally ill.

if everyone has enough money it becomes less scarce; therefore less valuable. The rich will never let the poor people advance because it isn't in their best interest. There is a reason poor schools are less funded and less able to educate children.

 

[Comeds]

I have a little bit of a left field response to what should be done in this situation. The best thing to do, IMO, has nothing to do with increasing taxes, cutting funding to social programs, or increasing the debt ceiling.

Instead, the federal government needs a good old fashioned audit. It needs to be downsized in spots, and have wasteful spending cut out.

I work in the scrap metal recycling business, and I purchase many items from the government for scrap. Realistically I would say 80% of the "scrap" I purchase is brand new and unopened items. The waste in the government is spectacular. One item I purchase are aluminum camo netting support poles. I pay approximately $12.00 per bag on average for these and have to remove plastic protective wrap from them after breaking open the brand new boxes before I package them up to be melted down. Most still have the government invoice on them, listing them as $489/bag. This year alone I have purchased closed to 45,000 bags. Do the math, right there is a government waste of over $21 million. This isn't even the largest waste that the government makes.

I purchased another lot of scrap bolts that were specialty bolts for the government. All were plastic wrapped and sealed in boxes. I purchased 4,056 lbs. of these bolts, and it took approximately 120 bolts to make a pound, for a total of around 485,000 bolts. Now, these were stainless and i paid the government just over $2,800 for these. The government paid $89/bolt for a total of over $43 million.

In the long run, the answer is not to tax the people, rich or poor, it's not to decrease spending on necessary social programs, and it's not to devalue our currency by increasing our national debt. We need to hold our government responsible and start demanding that the waste stop and that the government run efficiently.

Wow, just wow.

 

[elocomotive]

but the bold bit. i am a little curious what that number includes. i realize its probably an estimate, but does that include the fact that reforming malpractice lawsuits will drive down the costs of these procedures? doctors and hospitals have to have insane malpractice insurance because the doctor can get sued for nearly anything, even if they improve the person's quality of life. and because they have to have insane insurance to cover themselves, all the procedures cost an arm and a leg. your 2% could cover that, i'm just asking

I don't know. I knew it was a small amount and wanted to find the total - it said 2% of all health care costs. I've seen studies of the factors for the INCREASE in health care and have seen malpractice insurance increases be in the 3-10% as a part of that increase. It depends who you ask.

In either case, the point is it is made out to be a HUGE factor in rising costs when it's not even in the top 3-4 factors.

The thing that exacerbates this are headlines. You will see this "Man Sues for $3.7 million for Stiches Taken Out Wrong." You understand you can "sue" for pretty much any amount you can find cause for. The headline you DON'T see is "Man Who Sued for $3.7 millions gets $3,200." It's not sexy. It doesn't sell papers. Sure some whacko jury awards an outrageous sum every once in awhile, but it's the exception. And that's what you see in papers, the exception. Not the normal everyday settlements that end in reasonable, fair amounts in well over 99% of civil cases.

 

[BostonAJ]

We pay for really expensive procedures for 86-year olds that only prolong their life a few years or where the cost way outpaces the quality return they are getting. It's a cold way to think about things, but you have to at some point say we aren't going to pay for a $130,000 procedure for someone who has lived a full life. If they have private insurance, they can pay for it that way. No one is stopping them from doing that. But these costs are a huge drain and there have to be some measures of control.

I say we just turn them all into Soylent Green.

/Damn elo, you scared me with this post. Hope you don't work for an insurance company.

 

[jerseyjigroe]

But see, you've provided a perfect example of what I was talking about earlier. You're reaction to touching "grandma's medical care" is an immediate negative one, but it's many times over more expensive than the unemployment benefits of welfare you are talking about. As I also mentioned earlier, the political groups and media machine use buzz words that only exacerbate your fears of what this means. Like when we heard "death panels" a lot a couple years ago in a matter that was related to living wills. That's not a real debate, that's clouding the truth. That's using buzz words to attack a piece of legislation and make it something it's not rather than an actual debate on the contents and alternatives to that legislation.

We pay for really expensive procedures for 86-year olds that only prolong their life a few years or where the cost way outpaces the quality return they are getting. It's a cold way to think about things, but you have to at some point say we aren't going to pay for a $130,000 procedure for someone who has lived a full life. If they have private insurance, they can pay for it that way. No one is stopping them from doing that. But these costs are a huge drain and there have to be some measures of control.

Instead politicians target tort reform and medical malpractice lawsuits, which make up about 2% of health care costs. Again, it's easier to go after the money-grubbing lawyers than think about possibly denying poor grandma a procedure. But how much money does it save?

It's politically convenient. It plays into our steretypes. The media runs with that and nobody has really saved any or much money at the end of the day to help improve people's lives and alleviate the budget/deficit crisis.

The talk of death panels were in regards to the rationing of health care. That is a very big reason to be against socialized health care.

Tort reform would be a great start to fix things but that is a whole nother debate.

 

[Nasty_Magician]

I have a little bit of a left field response to what should be done in this situation. The best thing to do, IMO, has nothing to do with increasing taxes, cutting funding to social programs, or increasing the debt ceiling.

Instead, the federal government needs a good old fashioned audit. It needs to be downsized in spots, and have wasteful spending cut out.

I work in the scrap metal recycling business, and I purchase many items from the government for scrap. Realistically I would say 80% of the "scrap" I purchase is brand new and unopened items. The waste in the government is spectacular. One item I purchase are aluminum camo netting support poles. I pay approximately $12.00 per bag on average for these and have to remove plastic protective wrap from them after breaking open the brand new boxes before I package them up to be melted down. Most still have the government invoice on them, listing them as $489/bag. This year alone I have purchased closed to 45,000 bags. Do the math, right there is a government waste of over $21 million. This isn't even the largest waste that the government makes.

I purchased another lot of scrap bolts that were specialty bolts for the government. All were plastic wrapped and sealed in boxes. I purchased 4,056 lbs. of these bolts, and it took approximately 120 bolts to make a pound, for a total of around 485,000 bolts. Now, these were stainless and i paid the government just over $2,800 for these. The government paid $89/bolt for a total of over $43 million.

In the long run, the answer is not to tax the people, rich or poor, it's not to decrease spending on necessary social programs, and it's not to devalue our currency by increasing our national debt. We need to hold our government responsible and start demanding that the waste stop and that the government run efficiently.

I'll agree with this. An audit for the government is absolutely neccessary. I would love to see a list of the wonderful things our tax money is being used on.

 

[Comeds]

The talk of death panels were in regards to the rationing of health care. That is a very big reason to be against socialized health care.

Isn't it rationed now, just privately - not publically?

 

[SLY]

oh? can you give me something more than that, or at least define what you mean by 'truly earning'?

just because there are millionaire 20-something year olds out there that have gotten everything from daddy doesn't mean 'the rich dont earn it'. some dont, i agree, that's why they have taxes on handing money over. should those be higher? maybe. but that doesn't mean you should just tax the rich more to help the poor. be more specific with who you target. dont target the rich for being rich, target the people that haven't earned it.

saying 'the rich rarely truly earn their status' is a pretty outrageous generalization.

That money was already taxed every which way... Shouldn't be taxed at all. Handing money to your children or any estate should not be taxed at all whatsoever when it changes hands.

 

[CatScrap]

Does this make you want to audit your government a little bit?

The Missing $25 Billion

Buried in the Department of the Treasury's 2003 Financial Report of the United States Government is a short section titled "Unreconciled Transactions Affecting the Change in Net Position," which explains that these unreconciled transactions totaled $24.5 billion in 2003.[2]

The unreconciled transactions are funds for which auditors cannot account: The government knows that $25 billion was spent by someone, somewhere, on something, but auditors do not know who spent it, where it was spent, or on what it was spent. Blaming these unreconciled transactions on the failure of federal agencies to report their expenditures adequately, the Treasury report concludes that locating the money is "a priority."

The unreconciled $25 billion could have funded the entire Department of Justice for an entire year.