independent and unofficial
Prince fan community site
Fri 31st Oct 2014 8:18pm
Welcome! Sign up or enter username and password to remember me
Forum jump
Forums > Politics & Religion > 44% of Tea Party on Medicare?
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Page 1 of 2 12>
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Author

Tweet     Share

Message
Thread started 08/04/11 10:59am

lezama

avatar

44% of Tea Party on Medicare?

In preparing for the coming months of massive budget cuts, one should note that, in April 2010, a CBS/New York Times poll found 44 percent of Tea Party supporters were either receiving Medicare themselves or had a family member receiving Medicare. When it came to Social Security, that percentage was even higher (48 percent). Exactly one year later, in April of this year, it came as no surprise that 70 percent of tea party supporters said they were against Medicare cuts. They're also against Social Security cuts by a two-to-one margin. It makes sense: Would you want to slash programs from which you were benefiting so greatly?


Reminder: 44 Percent of T...ics - GOOD

DSC00155 DSC00131 DSC00203 DSC00150
.. last but not least ..

DSC00171

Change it one more time..
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #1 posted 08/04/11 11:05am

SupaFunkyOrgan
grinderSexy

avatar

Anyone registered as a Republican should be CUT OFF from government benefits. Let's see how much they truly believe in the bullshit they are trying to push on the rest of us.

2010: Healing the Wounds of the Past.... http://prince.org/msg/8/325740
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #2 posted 08/04/11 11:06am

SupaFunkyOrgan
grinderSexy

avatar

Any state governed by Republicans should be cut off from any government funding. Let them have all the broke ass states rights they want.

.

[Edited 8/4/11 11:07am]

2010: Healing the Wounds of the Past.... http://prince.org/msg/8/325740
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #3 posted 08/04/11 11:20am

2elijah

avatar

DSC00171

lol Some of them don't seem to be a very, bright bunch. lol Screaming against our tax dollars being used towards Medicare/Medicaid, while many of the same screamers are pulling from the system themselves.

I also wouldn't mind giving some of them free spelling lessons. Displaying a sign in public containing numerous misspellings, while shouting and expressing their concerns and freedom of speech, leaves them open to much public critique, and questions their intelligence level. Not to mention, makes some of them look twice as ignorant as they already display themselves to be.lol

[Edited 8/5/11 7:55am]

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #4 posted 08/04/11 12:34pm

rudedog

avatar

I have no idea why Tea Baggers vote against their own interest. They rally against entitlement programs even though they themselves use it. Then hold signs like 'Government, Keep your hands off my Medicare'. WTF???

Even their leaders like Palin, who has used Universal Health Care from Canada in the past, Bachmann who gets Farm Subsidies and Medicaid for her husband's 'Pray The Gay Away' Clinic.

The Tea Party is full of uninformed fuckin morons!

"The voter is less important than the man who provides money to the candidate," - Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens
Rudedog no no no!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #5 posted 08/04/11 12:59pm

capdmom

avatar

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

Anyone registered as a Republican should be CUT OFF from government benefits. Let's see how much they truly believe in the bullshit they are trying to push on the rest of us.

I completely agree. If they are that rich, they don't need the government interfering in their health care.

What doesn't kill us makes us stronger.... WHAT???
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #6 posted 08/04/11 1:08pm

capdmom

avatar

The ignorance of the general American public never ceases to amaze me. They are against government being in ANYTHING, yet don't realize how much our tax money pays for on a daily basis, from the roads these teabaggers drive on, to the schools their children are educated in. From food safety to the FAA, government is involved in many daily parts of American life.

I'm sure these idiots think like ALL Republicant's and believe that you can privatize it and make it more "efficient". Sure.... say that to the kids in private juvenile prisons who have been mistreated. What would the excuse of the GOP be if their "let's put Social Security in the stock market" ideas lost millions of dollars in the weakening economy? Just today, the market is down over 512 points! Can you imagine how much money people would have lost?

Heaven help us, the Tea Party morons have taken the GOP hostage, and are able and willing to put a stranglehold on our country in order to make it what THEY envision, a return to legal slavery. I'm glad I live close to Canada.

What doesn't kill us makes us stronger.... WHAT???
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #7 posted 08/04/11 2:11pm

rudedog

avatar

capdmom said:

The ignorance of the general American public never ceases to amaze me. They are against government being in ANYTHING, yet don't realize how much our tax money pays for on a daily basis, from the roads these teabaggers drive on, to the schools their children are educated in. From food safety to the FAA, government is involved in many daily parts of American life.

I'm sure these idiots think like ALL Republicant's and believe that you can privatize it and make it more "efficient". Sure.... say that to the kids in private juvenile prisons who have been mistreated. What would the excuse of the GOP be if their "let's put Social Security in the stock market" ideas lost millions of dollars in the weakening economy? Just today, the market is down over 512 points! Can you imagine how much money people would have lost?

Heaven help us, the Tea Party morons have taken the GOP hostage, and are able and willing to put a stranglehold on our country in order to make it what THEY envision, a return to legal slavery. I'm glad I live close to Canada.

If we get any worse, Canada will be working about illegal immigration.

"The voter is less important than the man who provides money to the candidate," - Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens
Rudedog no no no!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #8 posted 08/04/11 2:19pm

SupaFunkyOrgan
grinderSexy

avatar

capdmom said:

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

Anyone registered as a Republican should be CUT OFF from government benefits. Let's see how much they truly believe in the bullshit they are trying to push on the rest of us.

I completely agree. If they are that rich, they don't need the government interfering in their health care.

I'm talking about these simple minded poor folks.

2010: Healing the Wounds of the Past.... http://prince.org/msg/8/325740
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #9 posted 08/05/11 1:36am

Tremolina

deny all these SICK motherfuckers their befits like they asked for, and just let them DIE

all you need to do then is wait and see see how FAST they will change that sadder than sad, dumber than dumb, hatefull tune. I bet within a year the tea party will have turned democratic!

Hateful traitor assholes

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #10 posted 08/17/11 5:45pm

capdmom

avatar

Tremolina said:

deny all these SICK motherfuckers their befits like they asked for, and just let them DIE

all you need to do then is wait and see see how FAST they will change that sadder than sad, dumber than dumb, hatefull tune. I bet within a year the tea party will have turned democratic!

Hateful traitor assholes

*applauds*

What doesn't kill us makes us stronger.... WHAT???
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #11 posted 08/17/11 6:33pm

DarlingDiana

avatar

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

Anyone registered as a Republican should be CUT OFF from government benefits. Let's see how much they truly believe in the bullshit they are trying to push on the rest of us.

Can they be cut off from taxes and social security contributions too?

So long as men desire to live together, no man may initiate the use of physical force against others.
- Ayn Rand
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #12 posted 08/17/11 6:37pm

V10LETBLUES

avatar

DarlingDiana said:

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

Anyone registered as a Republican should be CUT OFF from government benefits. Let's see how much they truly believe in the bullshit they are trying to push on the rest of us.

Can they be cut off from taxes and social security contributions too?

Sure if they also do not use public roads, police, emergency response, infrastructure and stay in their bunkers, sure, I don't see why not.


[Edited 8/17/11 18:39pm]

innocent
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #13 posted 08/17/11 6:38pm

SoulAlive

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

Anyone registered as a Republican should be CUT OFF from government benefits. Let's see how much they truly believe in the bullshit they are trying to push on the rest of us.

Very good point.They think the government is too big and too intrusive? Let's see them live without the benefits of it.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #14 posted 08/17/11 6:40pm

SoulAlive

Survey’s surprising finding: tea party less popular than atheists and Muslims

By Rachel Rose Hartman

Political Reporter


A Philadelphia tea party rally July 4 (Joseph Kaczmarek/AP)

In an op-ed article in the New York Times, Robert D. Putnam, a professor of public policy at Harvard, and David E. Campbell, a political scientist at Notre Dame, say they have collected data indicating that the tea party is "less popular than much m...Muslims.'"

But Campbell says the tea party was really an afterthought in their research.

"We didn't go into this study to look at the tea party," Campbell said in an interview with The Ticket.

The professors were following up on research they conducted in 2006 and 2007 for their book "American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us" and decided to add the tea party and atheists to their list of survey queries. By going back to many of the same respondents, the professors gleaned several interesting facts about the tea party.

One of their more surprising findings, Campbell concedes, (and one drawing national attention) is that the tea party drew a lower approval rating than Muslims and atheists. That put the tea party below 23 other entries--including Barack Obama, Sarah Palin, Republicans and Democrats--that the professors included on their survey of "a representative sample of 3,000 Americans."

By examining which respondents became supporters of the tea party, Campbell and Putnam's survey "casts doubt on the tea party's 'origin story,' " they write in the Times--though, in fairness, it's perhaps difficult to generalize on the movement's origins from a poll sample of 3,000 respondents.

Early tea partiers were described as "nonpartisan political neophytes," Campbell and Putnam write, but their findings showed that tea partiers were "highly partisan Republicans" who were more likely than others to have contacted government officials.

"They are overwhelmingly white, but even compared to other white Republicans, they had a low regard for immigrants and blacks long before Barack Obama was president, and they still do," they went on.

In addition to being socially conservative, the study found a close tie between religion and the tea party, whose supporters seek out "deeply religious" elected officials.

"This helps to explain why candidates like Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry are just as much about the public presentation of themselves as religious people as fiscal conservatives," Campbell told The Ticket.

Campbell said Tuesday that he does not regard his research as politically motivated. "I don't have a particular dog in this or any other political fight," he said.

"We actually didn't go into this study primarily to look at the tea party," he told the Ticket. "The primary purpose of the study is to update what we learned about religion in America."

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #15 posted 08/17/11 6:42pm

SoulAlive

V10LETBLUES said:

DarlingDiana said:

Can they be cut off from taxes and social security contributions too?

Sure if they also do not use public roads, police, emergency response, infrastructure and stay in their bunkers, sure, I don't see why not.


thumbs up!

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #16 posted 08/17/11 6:45pm

DarlingDiana

avatar

V10LETBLUES said:

DarlingDiana said:

Can they be cut off from taxes and social security contributions too?

Sure if they also do not use public roads or infrastructure and stay in their bunkers, I don't see why not.

[Edited 8/17/11 18:37pm]

So they have to pay the taxes and shut up about how their taxes are spent and not try to get the most out of their taxes as possible by utilizing government services?

I like Ron Paul's 10% opt out idea. You can choose to only pay 10% in taxes, which covers things a citizen can't avoid like infrastructure and national defense, but you opt out of everything else.

[Edited 8/17/11 18:49pm]

So long as men desire to live together, no man may initiate the use of physical force against others.
- Ayn Rand
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #17 posted 08/17/11 7:38pm

savoirfaire

avatar

DarlingDiana said:

V10LETBLUES said:

Sure if they also do not use public roads or infrastructure and stay in their bunkers, I don't see why not.

[Edited 8/17/11 18:37pm]

So they have to pay the taxes and shut up about how their taxes are spent and not try to get the most out of their taxes as possible by utilizing government services?

I like Ron Paul's 10% opt out idea. You can choose to only pay 10% in taxes, which covers things a citizen can't avoid like infrastructure and national defense, but you opt out of everything else.

[Edited 8/17/11 18:49pm]

This is a nice idea in theory, but an "opt-out" program simply doesn't work for social services.

Case in point: As a Canadian, I have paid a lot of money into the Canada Pension Plan, Employment Insurance, and Health Care, to say nothing of other social programs like welfare, and child care subsidies and numerous other things. And, as a Canadian, I haven't collected a single red cent from any of these services since I became a taxpayer. No seriously. Not a penny.

And the fact is, most people won't collect on most of this stuff in their life (except for health care, of course. I just don't schedule regular doctor's appointments like I maybe should). But here's the problem. If everyone who didn't need it opted out of it, then those programs would collapse. EI is there to help people when they get laid off, when they need the help the most. Health Care costs overwhelmingly go to the elderly, when they need it the most, same with CPP. If these systems were opt-in only, they would be underfunded. The vast majority of the "haves" whether that be they have their health or their wealth, are needed to support the have-nots in their times of need, and we all recognize that a simple twist of fate could make any of us "haves" "have-nots". If we chose to opt-out, and accept that risk on our own, when things do turn sour for some of us, there will be people who become homeless. People who go bankrupt. People who die young. And that puts a horrible burden on the rest of us. We as a society then have a choice. 1) Watch all these people who opted out die or become homeless and destitute, or; 2)Support them, because who would want to see that, and now we're supporting them with less money than we were supporting them with before.

Social services are like auto insurance. They are a burden to pay for on a regular basis, but ultimately affordable, and there when you are at your most vulnerable. Sure they get taken advantage of from time to time, but I say it's better than the alternative.

However, I do agree with you 100% that just because they disagree with some form of social service does not mean they shouldn't collect from it if they are entitled. That being said, I'm pretty sure those 43% of tea partiers that collect that money wouldn't be happy to lose it. They just don't see it as government handouts because they all feel they have a good reason for deserving it. Which is always the difference between a government handout and an essential social service: Is it something I need, or something other people need?

"Knowledge is preferable to ignorance. Better by far to embrace the hard truth than a reassuring faith. If we crave some cosmic purpose, then let us find ourselves a worthy goal" - Carl Sagan

Check out my music podcast: http://adamj.podomatic.com/
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #18 posted 08/17/11 7:51pm

V10LETBLUES

avatar

^

Great post!

innocent
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #19 posted 08/17/11 8:54pm

DarlingDiana

avatar

savoirfaire said:

DarlingDiana said:

So they have to pay the taxes and shut up about how their taxes are spent and not try to get the most out of their taxes as possible by utilizing government services?

I like Ron Paul's 10% opt out idea. You can choose to only pay 10% in taxes, which covers things a citizen can't avoid like infrastructure and national defense, but you opt out of everything else.

[Edited 8/17/11 18:49pm]

This is a nice idea in theory, but an "opt-out" program simply doesn't work for social services.

Case in point: As a Canadian, I have paid a lot of money into the Canada Pension Plan, Employment Insurance, and Health Care, to say nothing of other social programs like welfare, and child care subsidies and numerous other things. And, as a Canadian, I haven't collected a single red cent from any of these services since I became a taxpayer. No seriously. Not a penny.

And the fact is, most people won't collect on most of this stuff in their life (except for health care, of course. I just don't schedule regular doctor's appointments like I maybe should). But here's the problem. If everyone who didn't need it opted out of it, then those programs would collapse. EI is there to help people when they get laid off, when they need the help the most. Health Care costs overwhelmingly go to the elderly, when they need it the most, same with CPP. If these systems were opt-in only, they would be underfunded. The vast majority of the "haves" whether that be they have their health or their wealth, are needed to support the have-nots in their times of need, and we all recognize that a simple twist of fate could make any of us "haves" "have-nots". If we chose to opt-out, and accept that risk on our own, when things do turn sour for some of us, there will be people who become homeless. People who go bankrupt. People who die young. And that puts a horrible burden on the rest of us. We as a society then have a choice. 1) Watch all these people who opted out die or become homeless and destitute, or; 2)Support them, because who would want to see that, and now we're supporting them with less money than we were supporting them with before.

Social services are like auto insurance. They are a burden to pay for on a regular basis, but ultimately affordable, and there when you are at your most vulnerable. Sure they get taken advantage of from time to time, but I say it's better than the alternative.

However, I do agree with you 100% that just because they disagree with some form of social service does not mean they shouldn't collect from it if they are entitled. That being said, I'm pretty sure those 43% of tea partiers that collect that money wouldn't be happy to lose it. They just don't see it as government handouts because they all feel they have a good reason for deserving it. Which is always the difference between a government handout and an essential social service: Is it something I need, or something other people need?

Excellent post. Now we're having a conversation.

I don't like the fact that we are increasingly becoming an insurance-based society. That's how we pay for things now and I'm not so sure it's a good a system. In fact you touched on exactly why it isn't a good system. Because for it to work it has to be compulsory and I just don't find that compatible with the kind of free society I'd like to live in.

In a free society you don't give people money and say "this is for that", "that is for this". The underlying problem of poverty is money, lol. Give those under the poverty line enough to bring them above the poverty line (e.g. through a negative income tax) and let them choose if they want to spend that money on a health care plan, or put it into a retirement fund. That's how it should be done because the only way to know whether comprehensive health insurance works better than personal health savings accounts, is to give people the choice and see who struggles more with medical expenses. That's how we find out what people want and what works in a free society.

It's not as simple as replacing society security and medicare with a negative income tax either. You also have to remove restrictions on health savings account, out-of-state health insurance, out-of-country perscription medication etc. Retirement funds have to be allowed to be offered by competiting providers in a competitive market. It's a lot more complex than a simple solution. But it's better than an insurance-based, pre-determined, welfare allocation system. Under my system people choose where to spend their money and someone else can choose differently so if person A spends it unwisely it doesn't effect person B and person A can learn from person B's choices and a series of individual experiments in consumer choices returns the best results possible.

[Edited 8/17/11 20:56pm]

So long as men desire to live together, no man may initiate the use of physical force against others.
- Ayn Rand
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #20 posted 08/17/11 9:08pm

savoirfaire

avatar

DarlingDiana said:

savoirfaire said:

This is a nice idea in theory, but an "opt-out" program simply doesn't work for social services.

Case in point: As a Canadian, I have paid a lot of money into the Canada Pension Plan, Employment Insurance, and Health Care, to say nothing of other social programs like welfare, and child care subsidies and numerous other things. And, as a Canadian, I haven't collected a single red cent from any of these services since I became a taxpayer. No seriously. Not a penny.

And the fact is, most people won't collect on most of this stuff in their life (except for health care, of course. I just don't schedule regular doctor's appointments like I maybe should). But here's the problem. If everyone who didn't need it opted out of it, then those programs would collapse. EI is there to help people when they get laid off, when they need the help the most. Health Care costs overwhelmingly go to the elderly, when they need it the most, same with CPP. If these systems were opt-in only, they would be underfunded. The vast majority of the "haves" whether that be they have their health or their wealth, are needed to support the have-nots in their times of need, and we all recognize that a simple twist of fate could make any of us "haves" "have-nots". If we chose to opt-out, and accept that risk on our own, when things do turn sour for some of us, there will be people who become homeless. People who go bankrupt. People who die young. And that puts a horrible burden on the rest of us. We as a society then have a choice. 1) Watch all these people who opted out die or become homeless and destitute, or; 2)Support them, because who would want to see that, and now we're supporting them with less money than we were supporting them with before.

Social services are like auto insurance. They are a burden to pay for on a regular basis, but ultimately affordable, and there when you are at your most vulnerable. Sure they get taken advantage of from time to time, but I say it's better than the alternative.

However, I do agree with you 100% that just because they disagree with some form of social service does not mean they shouldn't collect from it if they are entitled. That being said, I'm pretty sure those 43% of tea partiers that collect that money wouldn't be happy to lose it. They just don't see it as government handouts because they all feel they have a good reason for deserving it. Which is always the difference between a government handout and an essential social service: Is it something I need, or something other people need?

Excellent post. Now we're having a conversation.

I don't like the fact that we are increasingly becoming an insurance-based society. That's how we pay for things now and I'm not so sure it's a good a system. In fact you touched on exactly why it isn't a good system. Because for it to work it has to be compulsory and I just don't find that compatible with the kind of free society I'd like to live in.

In a free society you don't give people money and say "this is for that", "that is for this". The underlying problem of poverty is money, lol. Give those under the poverty line enough to bring them above the poverty line (e.g. through a negative income tax) and let them choose if they want to spend that money on a health care plan, or put it into a retirement fund. That's how it should be done because the only way to know whether comprehensive health insurance works better than personal health savings accounts, is to give people the choice and see who struggles more with medical expenses. That's how we find out what people want and what works in a free society.

It's not as simple as replacing society security and medicare with a negative income tax either. You also have to remove restrictions on health savings account, out-of-state health insurance, out-of-country perscription medication etc. Retirement funds have to be allowed to be offered by competiting providers in a competitive market. It's a lot more complex than a simple solution. But it's better than an insurance-based, pre-determined, welfare allocation system. Under my system people choose where to spend their money and someone else can choose differently so if person A spends it unwisely it doesn't effect person B and person A can learn from person B's choices and a series of individual experiments in consumer choices returns the best results possible.

[Edited 8/17/11 20:56pm]

I go back to the original problem though. Those who choose to spend the money on a better quality of life than a health insurance plan.... then get sick... Are you okay with society as a whole now ignoring them and letting them die? I don't think most are. I think most people believe they have some sort of responsibility to their fellow citizens and are innately built to not want to see human suffering. A compulsory system of taxes that provide basic social services is the only way this can be done.

I agree with you that competing products should be offered in a free market. None of these social services prevent that. In the case of the Canadian Pension Plan, it's a supplementary plan. It only works out to something like 900 dollars a month, best case. People still need to invest their own money and choose how they wish to retire. I have a generous company pension plan, share purchase plan, and various investment options from banks. But that program exists to help prevent too many people from slipping through the cracks.

EI is the same deal. There is a cap on what you can get from EI, it's only a fraction of your previous salary, and you only keep it as long as can be demonstrably proved you're trying to get back on your feet. And of course, you can use your own savings to help pay for your period of lay off.

Even health care can be supplemented with private plans. My company provides me with extended health care through Manulife.

Like I said, it's great to say people should be allowed to choose how to take care of themselves, who could disagree with that, but when things go wrong in their lives and they are not sufficiently prepared, how many of us are willing to just turn our backs on them?

[Edited 8/17/11 21:09pm]

"Knowledge is preferable to ignorance. Better by far to embrace the hard truth than a reassuring faith. If we crave some cosmic purpose, then let us find ourselves a worthy goal" - Carl Sagan

Check out my music podcast: http://adamj.podomatic.com/
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #21 posted 08/17/11 9:21pm

jjhunsecker

savoirfaire said:

DarlingDiana said:

Excellent post. Now we're having a conversation.

I don't like the fact that we are increasingly becoming an insurance-based society. That's how we pay for things now and I'm not so sure it's a good a system. In fact you touched on exactly why it isn't a good system. Because for it to work it has to be compulsory and I just don't find that compatible with the kind of free society I'd like to live in.

In a free society you don't give people money and say "this is for that", "that is for this". The underlying problem of poverty is money, lol. Give those under the poverty line enough to bring them above the poverty line (e.g. through a negative income tax) and let them choose if they want to spend that money on a health care plan, or put it into a retirement fund. That's how it should be done because the only way to know whether comprehensive health insurance works better than personal health savings accounts, is to give people the choice and see who struggles more with medical expenses. That's how we find out what people want and what works in a free society.

It's not as simple as replacing society security and medicare with a negative income tax either. You also have to remove restrictions on health savings account, out-of-state health insurance, out-of-country perscription medication etc. Retirement funds have to be allowed to be offered by competiting providers in a competitive market. It's a lot more complex than a simple solution. But it's better than an insurance-based, pre-determined, welfare allocation system. Under my system people choose where to spend their money and someone else can choose differently so if person A spends it unwisely it doesn't effect person B and person A can learn from person B's choices and a series of individual experiments in consumer choices returns the best results possible.

[Edited 8/17/11 20:56pm]

I go back to the original problem though. Those who choose to spend the money on a better quality of life than a health insurance plan.... then get sick... Are you okay with society as a whole now ignoring them and letting them die? I don't think most are. I think most people believe they have some sort of responsibility to their fellow citizens and are innately built to not want to see human suffering. A compulsory system of taxes that provide basic social services is the only way this can be done.

I agree with you that competing products should be offered in a free market. None of these social services prevent that. In the case of the Canadian Pension Plan, it's a supplementary plan. It only works out to something like 900 dollars a month, best case. People still need to invest their own money and choose how they wish to retire. I have a generous company pension plan, share purchase plan, and various investment options from banks. But that program exists to help prevent too many people from slipping through the cracks.

EI is the same deal. There is a cap on what you can get from EI, it's only a fraction of your previous salary, and you only keep it as long as can be demonstrably proved you're trying to get back on your feet. And of course, you can use your own savings to help pay for your period of lay off.

Even health care can be supplemented with private plans. My company provides me with extended health care through Manulife.

Like I said, it's great to say people should be allowed to choose how to take care of themselves, who could disagree with that, but when things go wrong in their lives and they are not sufficiently prepared, how many of us are willing to just turn our backs on them?

[Edited 8/17/11 21:09pm]

But this is exactly where DD and many of his ilk are coming from. They ARE completely indifferent to the suffering of others...anything as long as it doesn't effect their pocketbook or their idea of a 'perfect political utopia" as "envisoned by the Founding Fathers" or whatever...

(And cue the response: "You liberals only what to make yourselves feel good, that you have good intentions, that ultimately hurt the people you believe your helping....blah blah blah...."Are there no workhouses ???" )

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #22 posted 08/17/11 9:26pm

DarlingDiana

avatar

savoirfaire said:

I go back to the original problem though. Those who choose to spend the money on a better quality of life than a health insurance plan.... then get sick... Are you okay with society as a whole now ignoring them and letting them die? I don't think most are. I think most people believe they have some sort of responsibility to their fellow citizens and are innately built to not want to see human suffering. A compulsory system of taxes that provide basic social services is the only way this can be done.

I agree with you that competing products should be offered in a free market. None of these social services prevent that. In the case of the Canadian Pension Plan, it's a supplementary plan. It only works out to something like 900 dollars a month, best case. People still need to invest their own money and choose how they wish to retire. I have a generous company pension plan, share purchase plan, and various investment options from banks. But that program exists to help prevent too many people from slipping through the cracks.

EI is the same deal. There is a cap on what you can get from EI, it's only a fraction of your previous salary, and you only keep it as long as can be demonstrably proved you're trying to get back on your feet. And of course, you can use your own savings to help pay for your period of lay off.

Even health care can be supplemented with private plans. My company provides me with extended health care through Manulife.

Like I said, it's great to say people should be allowed to choose how to take care of themselves, who could disagree with that, but when things go wrong in their lives and they are not sufficiently prepared, how many of us are willing to just turn our backs on them?

[Edited 8/17/11 21:09pm]

Bailing out bad decision makers is no way to encourage good decision making. It always strikes me as perculiar that those who say the poor are victims of bad luck are the first to assume they can't make good decisions and need to be given pre-appropriated welfare. Give an elderly person money, and no guarantee of health care, and I'll give you three guesses as to what their first purchase is. If there is no bail-out, then we now have a system that breed personal responsibility. But, on the other hand, is it really a problem if a 21-year-old unemployed healthy male chooses to use his welfare money to increase his quality of life rather than purchase health insurance? No, but we force everyone into a mandatory insurance program because 21-year-old healthy males are distorting the statistics of uninsured people.

Also, the fact that, as you said, decent people feel a humanitarian responsibility to those members of their community who are genuinely disadvantaged, is why in a more free society no one who was friends, family or a community around them, will die on the streets. Charity has always existed and it more commonly exists in the absense of government. Charity often exists where government has failed, like in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. And it does a better job, charity is more desirable than government. Charity is voluntary compassion that is very heart-warming to see. Government is forced-compassion that almost always has some corrupted special interests involved.

As I said before, the problem with poverty is money. Once people have money you've eliminated that problem. How they spend that money should be of no concern if you have a system where responsible purchases are encouraged because there is no bail-out. The money they go to bring them above the poverty line was their bail out. They've had their bail-out, it's up to them now. And if you tell them they must spend their money on a health care plan, on food goods, on rent etc. then you're also telling them they can't spend on possibly a low-grade professional film camera so they can make an independent movie which will be their ticket out of poverty. That's why what you're creating is a culture of poverty, a culture of dependency.

[Edited 8/17/11 21:32pm]

So long as men desire to live together, no man may initiate the use of physical force against others.
- Ayn Rand
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #23 posted 08/18/11 5:06am

RicoN

avatar

so what you're saying Darling Diaina is tax the rich and give it to the poor and let them choose how to spend it?

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #24 posted 08/18/11 5:37am

DarlingDiana

avatar

RicoN said:

so what you're saying Darling Diaina is tax the rich and give it to the poor and let them choose how to spend it?

Yes. We have so many programs aimed at the poor, so much money supposedly going to the poor, that if they actually received all of it they'd be among the rich. Professor Walter Williams did a study at George Mason university into this and found that you could simply give those below the poverty line enough money to bring them above the poverty line at a fraction of the cost of all these government programs that intend to do that very thing. So I say, 'why not?'. It's more consistent with a free society based on a market economy anyway.

The market economy works through people choosing how to spend their money. The problem is that some people don't have enough money to play their part in this system of consumer choices that signal producers and investors and make sure enough milk is produced and it is sold at the correct price so it is appropriated effectively. So yes, I say give those below the poverty line money that is collected from taxes on people above the poverty line. And I think Milton Friedman came up with a pretty good way of doing this (not a totally original idea, I think it was first proposed by some British economist).

The negative income tax is a simple system. Tax everybody's income at a flat rate of 25%. Give everybody $10,000. These are figures Freidman came up with in the 1970s. I suspect they'd need to be adjusted. But regardless of the exact figures, you get how it works. So using Friedman's 1970s figures, no-one really pays taxes if 25% of the income is equal to or less than $10,000. So effectively there is a tax-free threshold of $40,000. From there up it is effectively a graduated/progressive tax because the $10,000 is factored in. Someone earning $100,000 effectively pays 15% of their income in taxes, and someone earning $200,000 effectively pays 20% of their income in taxes. Individuals earning under $40,000 actually receive an income supplement, but again it's graduated. Someone with no income gets the whole $10,000. But someone earning $20,000 still has to pay 25% in taxes so they end up with $5,000 extra as a little bit of low-income welfare.

But this would replace all welfare programs and dramatically reduce the size of government. I think half the reason it never passed under Nixon was because a lot of the people who originally supported it opposed it by the time it had been subjected to the negotiations of congress and didn't end up replacing anything by the time an actual bill was ready to be voted on. This sounds like a radical welfare program, a radical redistributive program, but it's actually a radical reduction in the government welfare establishment. Why it seems poor people will end up with so much while at the same thing government welfare is reduced, is because now all the money is going into the hands of the poor instead of into the hands of bureaucrats to appropriate to welfare recipients, meanwhile paying mid-level government workers and everything.

[Edited 8/18/11 5:45am]

So long as men desire to live together, no man may initiate the use of physical force against others.
- Ayn Rand
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #25 posted 08/18/11 5:37am

V10LETBLUES

avatar

DarlingDiana said:

savoirfaire said:

I go back to the original problem though. Those who choose to spend the money on a better quality of life than a health insurance plan.... then get sick... Are you okay with society as a whole now ignoring them and letting them die? I don't think most are. I think most people believe they have some sort of responsibility to their fellow citizens and are innately built to not want to see human suffering. A compulsory system of taxes that provide basic social services is the only way this can be done.

I agree with you that competing products should be offered in a free market. None of these social services prevent that. In the case of the Canadian Pension Plan, it's a supplementary plan. It only works out to something like 900 dollars a month, best case. People still need to invest their own money and choose how they wish to retire. I have a generous company pension plan, share purchase plan, and various investment options from banks. But that program exists to help prevent too many people from slipping through the cracks.

EI is the same deal. There is a cap on what you can get from EI, it's only a fraction of your previous salary, and you only keep it as long as can be demonstrably proved you're trying to get back on your feet. And of course, you can use your own savings to help pay for your period of lay off.

Even health care can be supplemented with private plans. My company provides me with extended health care through Manulife.

Like I said, it's great to say people should be allowed to choose how to take care of themselves, who could disagree with that, but when things go wrong in their lives and they are not sufficiently prepared, how many of us are willing to just turn our backs on them?

[Edited 8/17/11 21:09pm]

Bailing out bad decision makers is no way to encourage good decision making. It always strikes me as perculiar that those who say the poor are victims of bad luck are the first to assume they can't make good decisions and need to be given pre-appropriated welfare. Give an elderly person money, and no guarantee of health care, and I'll give you three guesses as to what their first purchase is. If there is no bail-out, then we now have a system that breed personal responsibility. But, on the other hand, is it really a problem if a 21-year-old unemployed healthy male chooses to use his welfare money to increase his quality of life rather than purchase health insurance? No, but we force everyone into a mandatory insurance program because 21-year-old healthy males are distorting the statistics of uninsured people.

Also, the fact that, as you said, decent people feel a humanitarian responsibility to those members of their community who are genuinely disadvantaged, is why in a more free society no one who was friends, family or a community around them, will die on the streets. Charity has always existed and it more commonly exists in the absense of government. Charity often exists where government has failed, like in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. And it does a better job, charity is more desirable than government. Charity is voluntary compassion that is very heart-warming to see. Government is forced-compassion that almost always has some corrupted special interests involved.

As I said before, the problem with poverty is money. Once people have money you've eliminated that problem. How they spend that money should be of no concern if you have a system where responsible purchases are encouraged because there is no bail-out. The money they go to bring them above the poverty line was their bail out. They've had their bail-out, it's up to them now. And if you tell them they must spend their money on a health care plan, on food goods, on rent etc. then you're also telling them they can't spend on possibly a low-grade professional film camera so they can make an independent movie which will be their ticket out of poverty. That's why what you're creating is a culture of poverty, a culture of dependency.

[Edited 8/17/11 21:32pm]

So being born with a low IQ is not bad luck? Getting a life altering illness is not bad luck? Losing you job is not bad luck? Mental illness is not bad luck? Racial discrimination is not bad luck?

And what a police department is "forced civility"?

I think you completely or naively miss the point of government. Too simplistic and does not take into account the billions of factors in the human condition.

innocent
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #26 posted 08/18/11 6:03am

DarlingDiana

avatar

V10LETBLUES said:

DarlingDiana said:

Bailing out bad decision makers is no way to encourage good decision making. It always strikes me as perculiar that those who say the poor are victims of bad luck are the first to assume they can't make good decisions and need to be given pre-appropriated welfare. Give an elderly person money, and no guarantee of health care, and I'll give you three guesses as to what their first purchase is. If there is no bail-out, then we now have a system that breed personal responsibility. But, on the other hand, is it really a problem if a 21-year-old unemployed healthy male chooses to use his welfare money to increase his quality of life rather than purchase health insurance? No, but we force everyone into a mandatory insurance program because 21-year-old healthy males are distorting the statistics of uninsured people.

Also, the fact that, as you said, decent people feel a humanitarian responsibility to those members of their community who are genuinely disadvantaged, is why in a more free society no one who was friends, family or a community around them, will die on the streets. Charity has always existed and it more commonly exists in the absense of government. Charity often exists where government has failed, like in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. And it does a better job, charity is more desirable than government. Charity is voluntary compassion that is very heart-warming to see. Government is forced-compassion that almost always has some corrupted special interests involved.

As I said before, the problem with poverty is money. Once people have money you've eliminated that problem. How they spend that money should be of no concern if you have a system where responsible purchases are encouraged because there is no bail-out. The money they go to bring them above the poverty line was their bail out. They've had their bail-out, it's up to them now. And if you tell them they must spend their money on a health care plan, on food goods, on rent etc. then you're also telling them they can't spend on possibly a low-grade professional film camera so they can make an independent movie which will be their ticket out of poverty. That's why what you're creating is a culture of poverty, a culture of dependency.

[Edited 8/17/11 21:32pm]

So being born with a low IQ is not bad luck? Getting a life altering illness is not bad luck? Losing you job is not bad luck? Mental illness is not bad luck? Racial discrimination is not bad luck?

And what a police department is "forced civility"?

I think you completely or naively miss the point of government. Too simplistic and does not take into account the billions of factors in the human condition.

I think you have very little faith in people.

The only low IQ that would prohibit anyone from learning how to be responsible with their money is actually clinically classed as mentally handicapped and people born with mental defects have workers to look after them.

Getting a life-altering illncess can be bad luck, but it can also be a side-effect of making choices. But you can always purchase insurance to cover yourself in such a case as bad luck. If you don't purchase insurance, and you have the money to do so, why should you be bailed out? That's not reasonable, you aren't being reasonable. We can't have a system where people buy their own insurance but in case you don't the government will cover you. Why would anyone be responsible and buy their own insurance then? No, if you are given the money to buy health insurance, and insurance reforms have made it possible for you to choose a low-cost, low-coverage plan, but you refuse to take it, then you have to hope you have generous family, friends or community members.

If losing a job is just bad luck, that is what the Negative Income Tax safety net is for. If you are unemployed, earning $0, you get $10,000 over the year to bus yourself around, buy nice clothes etc. in looking for another job.

Again, there are many services available to help people with mental illness, both charitable and governmental, and I'm not saying remove those government services.

And finally, when it comes to racial discrimination, the negative income tax being an income supplement makes a minimum wage redundant, and studies show that the minimum wage hurts black youths more than any other group. Because not only are they hurt by the minimum wage as youths in general are, because they lack skills and experience. But if an employer is racially prejudiced, and they have a black applicant and a white applicant, and they have to be paid at least the same rate, guess who they will choose? Black workers use to bargain with employers by offering to work for less, and then gaining the skills and experience in that job to later get a better paying job. And this was in the days when racial prejudice was more prevelant. I don't think it is as big a problem today.

So long as men desire to live together, no man may initiate the use of physical force against others.
- Ayn Rand
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #27 posted 08/18/11 8:46am

savoirfaire

avatar

DarlingDiana said:

savoirfaire said:

I go back to the original problem though. Those who choose to spend the money on a better quality of life than a health insurance plan.... then get sick... Are you okay with society as a whole now ignoring them and letting them die? I don't think most are. I think most people believe they have some sort of responsibility to their fellow citizens and are innately built to not want to see human suffering. A compulsory system of taxes that provide basic social services is the only way this can be done.

I agree with you that competing products should be offered in a free market. None of these social services prevent that. In the case of the Canadian Pension Plan, it's a supplementary plan. It only works out to something like 900 dollars a month, best case. People still need to invest their own money and choose how they wish to retire. I have a generous company pension plan, share purchase plan, and various investment options from banks. But that program exists to help prevent too many people from slipping through the cracks.

EI is the same deal. There is a cap on what you can get from EI, it's only a fraction of your previous salary, and you only keep it as long as can be demonstrably proved you're trying to get back on your feet. And of course, you can use your own savings to help pay for your period of lay off.

Even health care can be supplemented with private plans. My company provides me with extended health care through Manulife.

Like I said, it's great to say people should be allowed to choose how to take care of themselves, who could disagree with that, but when things go wrong in their lives and they are not sufficiently prepared, how many of us are willing to just turn our backs on them?

[Edited 8/17/11 21:09pm]

Bailing out bad decision makers is no way to encourage good decision making.

Also, the fact that, as you said, decent people feel a humanitarian responsibility to those members of their community who are genuinely disadvantaged, is why in a more free society no one who was friends, family or a community around them, will die on the streets.

Just pulling out two specific points from your post.

I agree, I HATE bailing out bad decision makers. It happens all the time. Not too long ago, a bunch of people built their beautiful homes beside a river nearby so they could have waterfront proper. However, because of the nature of where their homes were, the insurance companies wouldn't cover them for flooding. Then their homes were flooded and destroyed. These wealthy people wanted prime real estate that they couldn't get insurance for, and when this happened, they asked for relief funds from the government and got it.

I loathe that.

I also, to a much much smaller extent, dislike paying for people's cancer care that they need from a lifetime of smoking. But if I didn't pay for it, I would dislike watching them die without help much more.

Now you mentioned that you agreed people feel a responsibility to fellow members of their community, and we\ill help them out. So how does this not encourage bad decision making as well? "Eh, if I'm sick, my friends and neighbours will help me, I'm going to buy this new TV". I think putting such burdens on a few people in a specific community, especially, say, a community of new immigrants that don't have a lot of money, or a historically poor community, is a lot worse than putting the burden on a nation of hundreds of millions, spreading the burden out equally between the rich and poor, selfish and unselfish, intelligent and dumb, caring and uncaring.

Based on the scenario you presented, the uncaring will opt out of the system, the caring will stay in, and the caring will still end up taking care of the uncaring when they need it. If we had the ability to physically not care about the plight of others, sure that might be a good system, but we don't.

You also mentioned the fit, healthy 21 year old, and why it might make sense for him to opt out. So, then, when he gets old, he opts in, right? Do you know how much health insurance premiums would be if people only opted in when they actually needed it?? It's thanks to the years and years of payments that the young and healthy make that people can afford health care at all, even in the US, when they are very old. The money has to come from somewhere. If nearly everyone who had health care was a net benefactor of health insurance, the insurance companies would go bankrupt very fast. Another reason why everyone needs to contribute.

"Knowledge is preferable to ignorance. Better by far to embrace the hard truth than a reassuring faith. If we crave some cosmic purpose, then let us find ourselves a worthy goal" - Carl Sagan

Check out my music podcast: http://adamj.podomatic.com/
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #28 posted 08/18/11 8:47am

savoirfaire

avatar

DarlingDiana said:

If losing a job is just bad luck, that is what the Negative Income Tax safety net is for. If you are unemployed, earning $0, you get $10,000 over the year to bus yourself around, buy nice clothes etc. in looking for another job.

Again, there are many services available to help people with mental illness, both charitable and governmental, and I'm not saying remove those government services.

Okay, so now I don't understand what your point was. I thought this is exactly what you were advocating. What exactly are people opting out of that allows them to pay only 10% income tax?

"Knowledge is preferable to ignorance. Better by far to embrace the hard truth than a reassuring faith. If we crave some cosmic purpose, then let us find ourselves a worthy goal" - Carl Sagan

Check out my music podcast: http://adamj.podomatic.com/
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #29 posted 08/18/11 10:23am

AKABubbleup

DarlingDiana said:

RicoN said:

so what you're saying Darling Diaina is tax the rich and give it to the poor and let them choose how to spend it?

Professor Walter Williams did a study at George Mason university into this and found that you could simply give those below the poverty line enough money to bring them above the poverty line at a fraction of the cost of all these government programs that intend to do that very thing.

Ronald Reagan said the very same thing in 1964. While it's nice to know that Dr. Williams' study backs the original claim even today, the value of the study is only realized if it produces an actionable event (to transform current state to new state).

I'd like to know more about the study if you have a link. The study is not highlighted on Dr. Williams' home page. This is most unfortunate as the web site, the study and Dr. Williams' salary, pension and benefits are funded by our tax dollars.

Can't disagree with your mindset regarding making the gov't more cost-effective. Enjoying the dialogue. Thx...

My wife? She's my keel, and I'm her pesky boulder in shallow water... http://kideuphrates.wordpress.com/
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Page 1 of 2 12>
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Politics & Religion > 44% of Tea Party on Medicare?