Page 92 of 143 FirstFirst ... 42828788899091929394959697102142 ... LastLast
Results 1,821 to 1,840 of 2855
  1. anthillmob's Avatar
    Posts
    8 Posts
    Global Posts
    11 Global Posts
    #1821  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Actually, naysayer means no such thing.

    Noun 1. naysayer - someone with an aggressively negative attitude
    obstructer, obstructionist, obstructor, resister, thwarter - someone who systematically obstructs some action that others want to take


    Seems appropriate to me.
    Thank you for providing a dictionary definition of naysayer. Just to be clear, it is not appropriate and is in fact insulting. Why is it insulting? From you definition, we gain some insight into the fuller meaning (including implications) and typical usage of this word. Aggressively negative attitude, obstructionist and someone who systematically obstructs some action, all point to the fact that in use this word implies that the obstruction is done purely for the sake of obstruction. That is that the people trying to do something are clearly in the right (or perceived to be) and the naysayer is a pessimistic and negative person trying to prevent them out of pettiness or some base motive. So the word naysayer IS inaccurate.
  2. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #1822  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    I would suggest absurd as a more appropriate description. And for those other than doctors who need to make a living and support their families, and their employees? Everyone that works in a hospital? Techicians, gardeners, people making minimum wage? They should all donate their time? The percentage of the health care dollar that goes to providers is around 20%. Over a third goes to hospitals to cover their costs. Another 10% is for drugs and about a third goes for ancillary services. Whether you think that doctors should see patients for free gets to the heart of a national health plan, now, doesn't it? Why not just salary them, right? That way you can easily control what they earn and don't earn. And then you will get a British system. If that's really what you want, go for it. We already don't get what we pay for in this country in terms of health care expenditures. Solving the problem by maintaining payment to for-profit insurance companies and cutting reimbursement to the most highly trained professionals will result in another example of "getting what you paid for". Go for it.
    Well, admittedly, this idea has some level of absurdity to it, and as I stated--I don't actually prefer this. It is a concept designed to evaluate things. I'd also like to state (if it wasn't clear) that this is not designed to work with my other preferred suggestions.

    One important thing to note--this system doesn't require donation of time for ALL patients--just those who can't pay--because they are poor, and don't have the ability to have insurance.

    Gardeners don't get paid based on what patients are seen--they are part of overhead--paid from the overall net gain. Their pay wouldn't change. They are not in the healthcare business--they are in the gardening business.

    I believe it was you who stated that For-Profit was a big problem in the Medical industry, and in fact--sometimes led to deaths. So, this example takes a step towards the system you seem to prefer--not for profit. In reality what this conceptual system does is reduce profit--because some percentage of customers that were formerly paid for would not be. If we look at it overall, and we have 30 million uninsured (that changed from 47 million last night) and a population of approximately 300 Million, we are looking at (average) about 10% who wouldn't pay.

    Assuming those numbers are good enough for the illustration, that means income would be approximately 10% less.

    It's just a matter of where the sacrifice is made. If David Axelrod is correct, claiming that Doctors, nurses and hospitals (I believe he included hospitals) want universal care (like you do) then here's a suggestion on how to achieve that. It isn't just doctors and nurses--the whole medical industry just gives up that roughly 10%. Its a huge sacrifice I know, but it the real goal is to help sick people, that's a very direct way to do it. No paperwork (after the initial 'card') is issued.

    As I said--this isn't the system I prefer. Its the system YOU prefer--universal coverage. How it is paid for is seemingly not as important to you, so I just suggested this as a possibility. I'm offering one suggestion on how to pay for it. I actually offered two variations--one relieves material costs from the Provider side (paid by the taxpayer). It also helps your goal of removing profit from the Medical industry.

    To avoid Doctors gouging me or other patients who do pay, passing on those costs, the Government could put strict price controls on what doctors can charge. Again--I dislike that sort of system, but it would do what you want.

    Of course, this is all based on the assumption that we CAN pay for these things, and that doctors, nurses, hospitals, etc won't be driven out of business by draining their profits. That's not important though--providing sick people with care is. That's what I concentrated on with this concept, and the rest was secondary.

    KAM
    Last edited by KAM1138; 09/10/2009 at 01:39 PM. Reason: Typo and elaboration
  3. levitate's Avatar
    Posts
    17 Posts
    Global Posts
    18 Global Posts
    #1823  
    you know, the doctors deserve the money they charge. i am trying to become a doctor, my self. i would agree with obama because why should we let people die. i understand who ever is rich and we are taking from the rich, but who is really to say "people should die". i mean some rich people have so much money that they buy 300 dollar shirts for they stupid dogs. People are dieing but they rather spend it on stupid things. i understand the rich deserve the money compared to a drunk but come on should we really let people die. if i had alot of money i wouldnt mind helping other people, but im not im actually in debt. they are not taking the money from mom and pop shops , they are taking the money from big companys; Radioshack, best buy, wells fargo, big people. thats fair because they dont even pay their employees much anyway. so obamas plan is rightous. if you are rich, all i can say is that i understand you worked hard for it but come on do you really need a billion dollars? why not a couple mill?
  4. 1thing2add's Avatar
    Posts
    6 Posts
    Global Posts
    8 Global Posts
    #1824  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    When the bills come out, and there is coverage for illegals, or evidence that the deficit will increase, or a lack of efforts to evaluate tort reform, then I will be glad to be disappointed that he didn't keep his word. Until then, those are the things I expect to see in the bill....all in response to republican complaints. Are those specific enough? But will it make a difference in any support from republicans? Any bets?
    The only thing left, as was the original point of this thread's title, is to politicize this issue downward into Red and Blue terms in order to block any responsible action. Meanwhile, the siphoning of our healthcare dollars continues.
  5. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #1825  
    Quote Originally Posted by levitate View Post
    you know, the doctors deserve the money they charge. i am trying to become a doctor, my self. i would agree with obama because why should we let people die. i understand who ever is rich and we are taking from the rich, but who is really to say "people should die". i mean some rich people have so much money that they buy 300 dollar shirts for they stupid dogs. People are dieing but they rather spend it on stupid things. i understand the rich deserve the money compared to a drunk but come on should we really let people die. if i had alot of money i wouldnt mind helping other people, but im not im actually in debt. they are not taking the money from mom and pop shops , they are taking the money from big companys; Radioshack, best buy, wells fargo, big people. thats fair because they dont even pay their employees much anyway. so obamas plan is rightous. if you are rich, all i can say is that i understand you worked hard for it but come on do you really need a billion dollars? why not a couple mill?
    So, if someone has a billion dollars, they should just have it taken from them? How much? Half? 500 Million is surely enough to live on--really well. What about 80%--200 Million is still a LOT of money. What about 99.5%--that leaves them 5 million--I'd LOVE that much money.

    Then what? After you've taken 99.5% of the riches money, then what happens? Do you think anyone is going to bother risking their remaining wealth to make more? Do you think that this loss of capital is going to have no effect on the rest of the economy?

    I think there might be a false assumption here at work--that this billion dollars is just sitting in a bin, and not functioning in any useful way in the rest of the economy, and that's not true.

    Also--and I'm not going to bother arguing it, there is the principle of personal property (and money) being a pillar of our entire nation's founding. Either you understand and respect that right or you don't.

    KAM
    Last edited by KAM1138; 09/10/2009 at 01:48 PM. Reason: Corrected Figure
  6. #1826  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    So, if someone has a billion dollars, they should just have it taken from them? How much? Half? 500 Million is surely enough to live on--really well. What about 80%--200 Million is still a LOT of money. What about 99.5%--that leaves them 5 million--I'd LOVE that much money.

    Then what? After you've taken 99.5% of the riches money, then what happens? Do you think anyone is going to bother risking their remaining wealth to make more? Do you think that this loss of capital is going to have no effect on the rest of the economy?

    I think there might be a false assumption here at work--that this billion dollars is just sitting in a bin, and not functioning in any useful way in the rest of the economy, and that's not true.

    Also--and I'm not going to bother arguing it, there is the principle of personal property (and money) being a pillar of our entire nation's founding. Either you understand and respect that right or you don't.

    KAM
    There's a great inequity in wealth from the top to the bottom in the United States. The more there is at the top, the less there is at the bottom.

    If your last name was Dow, DuPont or Mellon, you wouldn't have to work a day in your life, you could simply live off the interest of your trust fund.

    I remember when one of the Kennedy's was on trial for rape in Florida, all the witnesses they brought to the witness stand from Palm Springs were asked how they supported themselves, all the ones I heard said a trust fund.

    I think there should be a 100% inheritance tax starting at like 5 million. It's not fair to the people who have to start at the bottom. I think everyone should have to work for a living, rather than own for a living, by being born into the right family.
    Last edited by palandri; 09/10/2009 at 02:15 PM.
    My Phone & My Wife's Phone Two Unlocked GSM Treo Pro's

  7. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
       #1827  
    Quote Originally Posted by palandri View Post
    There's a great inequity in wealth from the top to the bottom in the United States. The more there is at the top, the less there is at the bottom.

    If your last name was Dow, DuPont or Mellon, you wouldn't have to work a day in your life, you could simply live off the interest of your trust fund.

    I remember when one of the Kennedy's was on trial for rape in Florida, all the witnesses they brought to the witness stand from Palm Springs were asked how they supported themselves, all the ones I heard said a trust fund.

    I think there should be a 100% inheritance tax stating at like 5 million. It's not fair to the people who have to start at the bottom.
    Good old redistribution, eh! It's amazing how you guys love fixing people problems with other peoples money. Lets eliminate all classes! Power to the people!

    It's because of the very people that you attack that we have the fantastic system that we have, palandri. Stop for a minute and really look. The glass isn't half empty.... it's 1/99th empty.... and that's still all that you can see. Amazing.

    Just curious. Have you never read Atlas Shrugged?
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  8. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
       #1828  
    Actually, the day of the old family money is a thing of the past. Most of today's millionaires are self made, and not freeloaders from the work of their parents. These are the people that provide jobs for the rest of us "poor" inequitied people.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  9. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #1829  
    Quote Originally Posted by palandri View Post
    There's a great inequity in wealth from the top to the bottom in the United States. The more there is at the top, the less there is at the bottom.

    If your last name was Dow, DuPont or Mellon, you wouldn't have to work a day in your life, you could simply live off the interest of your trust fund.

    I remember when one of the Kennedy's was on trial for rape in Florida, all the witnesses they brought to the witness stand from Palm Springs were asked how they supported themselves, all the ones I heard said a trust fund.

    I think there should be a 100% inheritance tax stating at like 5 million. It's not fair to the people who have to start at the bottom.
    Honestly, palandri, I couldn't disagree more. First, our primary responsibility as individuals is to our offspring. Why should our attempts to make sure those in our trust have every benefit in life be punished?

    Second, I think the fundamental flaw in this line of thinking is the notion that wealth is a zero-sum game. That there is only so much in the pie and everyone has to get a share. This is not true. And I believe it's been proven false time and again by American history. How many rags-to-riches stories have you heard of in this country? In fact, the descendants of the Kennedy's themselves came to America with nothing to escape the Irish famine.

    The fact that some people abuse their wealth and privilege doesn't mean wealth is bad, just as the fact that the welfare system is abused doesn't mean the welfare system is inherently bad. We can, and have, put laws in place to limit the abuse without totally scrapping this system.
  10. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #1830  
    Quote Originally Posted by palandri View Post
    There's a great inequity in wealth from the top to the bottom in the United States. The more there is at the top, the less there is at the bottom.

    If your last name was Dow, DuPont or Mellon, you wouldn't have to work a day in your life, you could simply live off the interest of your trust fund.

    I remember when one of the Kennedy's was on trial for rape in Florida, all the witnesses they brought to the witness stand from Palm Springs were asked how they supported themselves, all the ones I heard said a trust fund.

    I think there should be a 100% inheritance tax stating at like 5 million. It's not fair to the people who have to start at the bottom. I think everyone should have to work for a living, rather than own for a living, by being born into the right family.
    Well, first, I'd ask if that includes small businesses, farms because I'd suspect many are worth more than 5 Million. Do you break them up to pay that tax? Not sure what the average value is of personally owned farms and businesses, but 5 Million sounds like a pretty small number.

    I disagree with your proposal, because I don't believe the State has any right to claim the property that someone earned (or even just had). As I mentioned in another post--one of the foundational pillars of this Nation is property rights. Clearly you have a much different view of that than I do.

    Of course, I'm guessing that your suggestion would discourage various types of businesses from existing in the first place. Why risk money to build something that will be confiscated by the State? I think your suggestion would be very harmful to the economy.

    This brings up an interesting point however. Have you ever read or heard of "Atlas Shrugged"? Its a novel by Ayn Rand, and while I'm not particularly fond of that novel--for reasons that don't need exploring at this juncture, it did bring up something interesting.

    The basic premise is that the thinker/producers of the United States go on strike--simply refuse to contribute anything--it all falls apart, blah, blah, blah. I don't thin that would ever happen. However, it started me thinking--the rich in this country can essentially do that.

    As you note--a very small number of people in this country hold a lot of the wealth...but they also pay a very disproportionately large amount of taxes. That of course is based on income, not just having wealth. If someone sits on 1 billion dollars they don't pay tax.

    So, what if the rich "shrugged" and decided to withdraw all their money from investments, bank accounts, businesses, etc. They simply stopped letting their money be used to earn any more. Well, they'd lose growth obviously, but would that hurt them? No--as the other poster points out, they have more money than they know what to do with, so their lifestyle wouldn't change one bit.

    Now of course they'd still pay property tax and sales tax if they buy things, but income tax--that would dry up immediately. I wonder how long the government would last if they lost...let's say 25% of their income. Could government function? Sure--they could print money, which would of course cause huge inflation, economic collapse, etc.

    So, the reason I bring that up...is to perhaps get you to consider how much you benefit from the rich and their money paying for all those things we take for granted. I hope to God they keep earning money and paying my way, because they give a hell of a lot more than I do (I'm not rich).

    KAM
  11. #1831  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    I would suggest absurd as a more appropriate description. And for those other than doctors who need to make a living and support their families, and their employees? Everyone that works in a hospital? Techicians, gardeners, people making minimum wage? They should all donate their time? The percentage of the health care dollar that goes to providers is around 20%. Over a third goes to hospitals to cover their costs. Another 10% is for drugs and about a third goes for ancillary services. Whether you think that doctors should see patients for free gets to the heart of a national health plan, now, doesn't it? Why not just salary them, right? That way you can easily control what they earn and don't earn. And then you will get a British system. If that's really what you want, go for it. We already don't get what we pay for in this country in terms of health care expenditures. Solving the problem by maintaining payment to for-profit insurance companies and cutting reimbursement to the most highly trained professionals will result in another example of "getting what you paid for". Go for it.
    Thank you for a truly knee-jerk emotional reaction. AAMOF, none of those would fall under his proposal (however tongue-in-cheek it may or may not have been). Note that he only said that those that truly couldn't afford it under his plan would receive those services at a donated rate. Everything else would stay as is. Revenue from those who were insured would continue at the existing rates. Why is his proposal any more absurd than any other universal coverage plan?
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  12. #1832  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    Second, I think the fundamental flaw in this line of thinking is the notion that wealth is a zero-sum game. That there is only so much in the pie and everyone has to get a share. This is not true. And I believe it's been proven false time and again by American history. How many rags-to-riches stories have you heard of in this country? In fact, the descendants of the Kennedy's themselves came to America with nothing to escape the Irish famine.
    Perhaps you should re-evaluate. With such a law in place, what would Joe's kids have had to do for a living?
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  13. #1833  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    When the bills come out, and there is coverage for illegals, or evidence that the deficit will increase, or a lack of efforts to evaluate tort reform, then I will be glad to be disappointed that he didn't keep his word. Until then, those are the things I expect to see in the bill....all in response to republican complaints. Are those specific enough? But will it make a difference in any support from republicans? Any bets?
    No offense....but what you expect to see in the bill doesn't make a bit of difference (unless you've been holding out on us on who you know in DC?). I personally will be surprised if there is anything serious about tort reform in a final bill. Democrats get too much cash from attorneys and I think Obama threw that in at the end just because he knew he'd get busted if he didn't at least mention it. I think all he said was he would be interested in more studies on it, or something like that. If you'll recall, while the Republicans stood when he mentioned it, the democrats were all sitting down....they don't want to touch it.

    I just hope the Republicans dig in on the public option. I would expect Snowe to cross over....but hopefully all others will dig in on that issue. Obama knows that he needs to get that going for him to get his ultimate goal of full government control of healthcare. I won't put the link up again....but the video of him explaining that it has to start small before they can get a full single payer system is just too good.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  14. #1834  
    Quote Originally Posted by palandri View Post
    There's a great inequity in wealth from the top to the bottom in the United States. The more there is at the top, the less there is at the bottom.
    One of the great fallacies about economics is that wealth is a zero-sum game; that there is a set amount of money out there and it's merely shifted. Actually, wealth is created, not simply transferred. It's not enough to point out the disparity. We need to look at the real reasons why people are in the lower income brackets instead of claiming that someone else took their share of the pie. An economist wrote a few years ago that there are 4 keys to avoiding poverty: (1) graduate from high school, (2) get married before you have kids...and stay married, (3) work any job, including minimum-wage ones, and (4) don't engage in criminal behavior.

    Quote Originally Posted by palandri View Post
    If your last name was Dow, DuPont or Mellon, you wouldn't have to work a day in your life, you could simply live off the interest of your trust fund.
    80% of millionaires today are 1st generation millionaires. Their wealth wasn't handed to them; they worked for it.

    Quote Originally Posted by palandri View Post
    I remember when one of the Kennedy's was on trial for rape in Florida, all the witnesses they brought to the witness stand from Palm Springs were asked how they supported themselves, all the ones I heard said a trust fund.

    I think there should be a 100% inheritance tax stating at like 5 million. It's not fair to the people who have to start at the bottom. I think everyone should have to work for a living, rather than own for a living, by being born into the right family.
    And you've just done away with private property rights, liberty, and self-determination. Who are you to say that "they" must do anything? Where they work? How much they make? What starter job they must hold? What will happen to the money they earn? You can't, in a free society, claim that some people aren't entitled to their property and not apply that same principle to all. If the wealthy aren't entitled to their property, then neither should you be. That wouldn't be "fair."

    As long as someone has earned their money legally, it's none of our business how much they have or how they utilize it. We may shake our heads at someone who spends $10K for a pair of shoes but we have no right to tell them how to spend their money because, frankly, it's not ours. And is an extravagant shoe purchase worse than someone on food stamps buying a carton of cigarettes every week?

    Many will say that "greed" is bad (and I won't concede that every wealthy person is greedy), but is "envy" any better? Especially as an economic principle?
    Last edited by semprini; 09/10/2009 at 04:10 PM.
  15. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #1835  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    Perhaps you should re-evaluate. With such a law in place, what would Joe's kids have had to do for a living?
    True enough. But we'd still have to contend with the Buffetts and Soros' of the world--neither of whom had particularly privileged upbringings.
  16. #1836  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    Honestly, palandri, I couldn't disagree more. First, our primary responsibility as individuals is to our offspring. Why should our attempts to make sure those in our trust have every benefit in life be punished?

    Second, I think the fundamental flaw in this line of thinking is the notion that wealth is a zero-sum game. That there is only so much in the pie and everyone has to get a share. This is not true. And I believe it's been proven false time and again by American history. How many rags-to-riches stories have you heard of in this country? In fact, the descendants of the Kennedy's themselves came to America with nothing to escape the Irish famine.

    The fact that some people abuse their wealth and privilege doesn't mean wealth is bad, just as the fact that the welfare system is abused doesn't mean the welfare system is inherently bad. We can, and have, put laws in place to limit the abuse without totally scrapping this system.
    I think everyone should have to work for a living. Do you disagree with that? I think the starting gate should be equitable. It's not. Dreams of a rags to riches story is like playing the lotto, what are your chances? I believe a planned economy is better than an unplanned economy. What produces wealth? Labor.
    My Phone & My Wife's Phone Two Unlocked GSM Treo Pro's

  17. #1837  
    Quote Originally Posted by palandri View Post
    There's a great inequity in wealth from the top to the bottom in the United States. The more there is at the top, the less there is at the bottom.

    If your last name was Dow, DuPont or Mellon, you wouldn't have to work a day in your life, you could simply live off the interest of your trust fund.

    I remember when one of the Kennedy's was on trial for rape in Florida, all the witnesses they brought to the witness stand from Palm Springs were asked how they supported themselves, all the ones I heard said a trust fund.

    I think there should be a 100% inheritance tax starting at like 5 million. It's not fair to the people who have to start at the bottom. I think everyone should have to work for a living, rather than own for a living, by being born into the right family.
    Don't forget the Kennedy's! You see, that is what is so funny about you guys....you bust on the trust funds of the Republican children....but always leave out the Kennedy's. What is it about those darn Kennedy's that make them off limits? Do you lose your rights to vote for democrats if you are critical of them. I know....I know....it was just a rape....just leave him alone....I know.....and it was just a woman who drowned because Teddy didn't want to get in serious trouble. Good grief, LOL.

    As for that last paragraph....I think you're just going for one of palandri's "stir the pot" deals. That comment is so ridiculous you can't even begin to attack it. Holy cow.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  18. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #1838  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    No offense....but what you expect to see in the bill doesn't make a bit of difference (unless you've been holding out on us on who you know in DC?). I personally will be surprised if there is anything serious about tort reform in a final bill. Democrats get too much cash from attorneys and I think Obama threw that in at the end just because he knew he'd get busted if he didn't at least mention it. I think all he said was he would be interested in more studies on it, or something like that. If you'll recall, while the Republicans stood when he mentioned it, the democrats were all sitting down....they don't want to touch it.

    I just hope the Republicans dig in on the public option. I would expect Snowe to cross over....but hopefully all others will dig in on that issue. Obama knows that he needs to get that going for him to get his ultimate goal of full government control of healthcare. I won't put the link up again....but the video of him explaining that it has to start small before they can get a full single payer system is just too good.
    It will be interesting to see if what the President says and what is produced match. Let's assume he is being 100% sincere and he intends the bill to be exactly what he said. He's continuing to let Congress do its own thing (not that I've got a problem with that in concept), but it means he isn't in control of the process (and I don't think he wants to be). As such, he can say he wants, X, Y or Z, but he can't insure that happens.

    If they eliminate the government 'option' (and any stealth version of it) include Tort Reform--in a meaningful way, and address things like pre-existing conditions and portability, and if they make ALL medical expenses tax deductible, and open up competition restrictions I'd be willing to consider it.

    Further--if we can save so much from Medicare without cutting care to Seniors, why wait? Do that immediately. That may even be possible administratively without legislation. Let's see what those savings are.

    KAM
  19. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #1839  
    Quote Originally Posted by palandri View Post
    I think everyone should have to work for a living. Do you disagree with that? I think the starting gate should be equitable. It's not. Dreams of a rags to riches story is like playing the lotto, what are your chances? I believe a planned economy is better than an unplanned economy. What produces wealth? Labor.
    I don't think even with a totally democrat dominated Congress and Presidency this is even remotely possible. The old-fashioned idea that Republicans are Rich and Democrats are working class is simply no longer true.

    The Democrat party is not a bunch of blue-collar hard-working men anymore than the Republican party is. There are all kinds of Democrat or leftist millionaires out there. They don't want to give up their money either.

    I think some countries in Europe might have systems that you'd admire.

    KAM
  20. #1840  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    I don't think even with a totally democrat dominated Congress and Presidency this is even remotely possible. The old-fashioned idea that Republicans are Rich and Democrats are working class is simply no longer true.

    The Democrat party is not a bunch of blue-collar hard-working men anymore than the Republican party is. There are all kinds of Democrat or leftist millionaires out there. They don't want to give up their money either.

    I think some countries in Europe might have systems that you'd admire.

    KAM
    Although....if something could suddenly happen to Bill Gates and Warren Buffet....the treasury could suddenly get a nice injection of cash under palandri's plan. The 2 top wealthiest men in the WORLD are democrats....good grief....what is this world coming to?
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton

Posting Permissions