ikol

I'm disaffected and tired, not arrogant.

Maybe you're all three. Your post sure came across as "this is the way things are and if you disagree, you're a partisan zombie who just parrots talking points without actually thinking."

And the post was written so those with a guilty conscience would take offense.

My post was actually written so that only those who are arrogant would disagree.

Working professionals and small business owners pay the taxes. The rich don't - they pay the Bush Capital gains rates and some of the lowest effective tax rates of all filers, except for the true poor. It's the middle class (doctors, professionals, small business owners etc) who carry the load, and they need relief, but they're going to get soaked some more.

And if you've read any of the comments in this thread (made by ideologues lacking insight and critical thinking, no doubt), the whole point is that because many of these professionals and business owners make more than $200,000, they get thrown into the "rich" category whenever the topic of what their taxes should be arises. And FWIW, I agree with like 63% of what you said in your post, but damn, even I'm not that arrogant about my views.

Behold the Wikipedia

EGTRRA generally reduced the rates of individual income taxes:

 

* a new 10% bracket was created for single filers with taxable income up to $6,000, joint filers up to $12,000, and heads of households up to $10,000.

* the 15% bracket's lower threshold was indexed to the new 10% bracket

* the 28% bracket would be lowered to 25% by 2006.

* the 31% bracket would be lowered to 28% by 2006

* the 36% bracket would be lowered to 33% by 2006

* the 39.6% bracket would be lowered to 35% by 2006

And you wouldn't bill them/provide the service if you didn't think they could pay?

The government does this all the time.

Speaking of taxes, do you all realize most private businesses have to pay their corporate taxes BEFORE they've even collected the money/revenue from their customers? Chew on that logic for a while.

Of course they do. They're rich.

or we could have the SS tax applied to all income earned, not just the first $106,800.

But then you'd have to increase the benefits to those that would end up paying more. Or you could not, and just label them as "rich" which goes back to my original point.

I don't necessarily believe in raising taxes for ONLY the poor - like Ikol said, we just need to raise taxes, period.

That's not exactly what I said. My point was that tax increases are inevitable if we maintain/increase the current level of spending. My solution, of course, would be to cut spending. At the very least, we need to raise the Social Security retirement age.

And everyone here knows what we're really talking about here as to labeling people "rich." Once you get that label, any tax increase is justified. Why shouldn't their tax rate be 50%? They're rich. Hell, it should be 90%. After all, they're rich. We're not raising taxes on regular folks like us. We're just making the rich pay their fair share.

After you get done paying taxes, you're not!

Eh, it doesn't matter. Everyone's taxes are going up sooner or later with the amount of debt we're in. We cannot sustain this system where most Americans get more in benefits than they pay in taxes.

Can some of you anti-flip-floppers explain the difference between a flip-flop and another kind of sandal in the work place? This is assuming you're alright with people wearing other kinds of sandals to work, of course. I've never really understood why one is considerably more offensive than the other.

It's probably the annoying sound that flip flops make with every step that more secure sandals do not make. Personally, I just hate flip flops because I can't walk in them for any significant distance without getting blisters.

My son gets swimmers ear just about every time he goes swimming. I was out of the drops and called the doctor to see if they would call in more. Nope, I have to get him out of school early, arrange a pick up for my 8 year old, drop my 4 year old off at grandmas, drive 40 minutes to the doctor's office, wait around forever at the pharmacy, miss my other son's soccer game, and pay a $25 copay for the office visit and $11 for the Rx. If a kid gets swimmers ear that much, can't they just look back at his chart and say, "yeah, I guess they probably do know what it is I'll save everyone some time and just call in the stupid drops." Seriously, it the whole process cost me $36 in co-pays and $20 for dinner and ate up 3 hours of my afternoon. Ugh!

That sucks, but the doctor was probably just covering his ass. There's always a small chance that your son had something more serious than swimmer's ear, and it would be really bad if the doctor just called in a prescription without seeing your kid and have it turn out to be something worse.

Has everyone forgotten this slightly important piece of the puzzle?

That's probably near Bush's IQ, and he doesn't get a free pass around here.

Frankly, I don't think it's ever okay to harm *anyone* to "teach them a lesson".

 

Deter them from a behavior? Probably when they're using a deadly weapon or substantial aggressive force to try to seriously harm someone. And no, I don't think a five yaer-old playing with a lighter constitutes that, unless he's playing with fire and a gasoline line, in which case I'm not sure pepper spray or a taser would do much of anything to make that situation less dangerous.

Who said you could take my sarcasm and turn it into serious discussion?

Wouldn't you agree that teachable moments that end up in the back of a police cruiser belong to those old enough to, say, mow a lawn? Use a stove to cook? Don't need a step-up block to brush their teeth? Can cross the street without a guardian?

Oh yeah, wait till the pyro starts playing with the gas stove before you have him arrested. Just out of curiosity, at what age do you think it's ok to tase and/or pepper spray a kid to teach him a lesson?

-people who pronounce the word "amateur" as "ama-too-er"

That reminds me: people who pronounce centimeter as "sauntimeter".

People who shop for groceries by stopping their cart on the opposite side of the aisle from where they are browsing, thus forcing them to block the entire aisle while they shop.

And they sent the bill for your and Poongoogler's procedures DIRECTLY TO IKOL!!!

Joke's on you, I performed the abortion!

Did you wash your hands?

If you are implying that I would ever touch Mitt Romney, then I am offended.

Name two legitimate ones that would cover as many people as the law of the land does. Name minority bills that existed. They'd be a matter of public record. I went over the summit. The only detailed proposal Republicans offered was "let's start over."

HR 4038, HR 2520, and S 1099. Just because you are not aware of the other bills doesn't mean they didn't exist. I watched a little over half of the summit, and they brought up allowing insurance to be bought across state lines (allowing more competition without restricting the types of plans that people must purchase), increasing health savings accounts, and tort reform.

Seeing how close the plan is to Mitt Romney's plan, I think Mitt Romney's feelings will be hurt by you calling a plan like his a turd.

Mitt Romney is a turd. Now that we've cleared that up, who wants chocolate chips?

Health care is like any other public good: the more people that are healthy, the more productive and happy our society is. Just because you don't use roads in another part of the state doesn't make the government a "nanny state" for making you pay taxes that support them.

 

Some of us believe in taxes that help the common good, others don't (and adamantly disagree with the the use of the word "good"), but dude, talking about denying certain people access to things that others have often comes off as pushy.

We're not talking about access to anything. We're talking about who should pay. I consider the attitude that you're either for this particular healthcare reform or you're for denying people access to healthcare to be pushy.

For a libertarian, you're kinda pushy, dude.

I'm all for freedom of people to not comply with treatment and also the freedom of the rest of us to not have to pay for the results, dude. I'm opposed to the nanny state in all its forms, which is a position that is anything but pushy, dude.

There were options. But where was the right, the tea-baggers -- ANYONE ELSE -- to come up with alternatives. To come up with a minority bill that could be used against Obama's health care bill to reach a workable compromise. No where. There was no alternative to a problem that has gone unfettered for decades. Each time there's an attempt to create a solution, the only answer is to destroy, decry, lie and denounce. And the problem gets worse.

Are you serious? Republicans offered several proposals that provided alternative ways to reform healthcare. They even detailed many of these proposals in the healthcare summit. They just didn't get anywhere in a Democrat-controlled government. Just because Democrats ignored minority bills doesn't mean they didn't exist.

Yes, it could. But it's not. This bill is about more choices for more people. As you can see, this bill is not about every single conceivable choice for every single person.

But a health savings account isn't a rarely utilized option that only sits at the edge of the umbrella covering "every single conceivable choice." It's actually a very popular option and something that needs to be better utilized to help control healthcare costs. This bill isn't failing to create the option in the interest of covering more important ones, it's further restricting one that already exists.

The bill is going to raise the cost of premiums on what must be covered because, in my opinion, it is raising the bar on what should be covered - which I (but clearly not you) think is a good thing.

Which (if this bill were really about choices) could also be covered by health savings accounts should one choose to go that route.

I don't really understand how this bill is about choices when it's going to raise premiums on individual plans (due to less choice on what must be covered), restrict health savings accounts, and penalize those that don't get insurance.

So?

So there.

There are a number of problems with the health care system in the United States, and this bill was not intended - and never claimed to intend - to address everything. The problem you are continually bringing up today has little to do with allowing people equal access to care, but is rather something that should be, and often is, addressed at the community level.

Clearly you do not realize that every problem in the nation should be addressed at the federal level. That point notwithstanding, this problem is not a minor one that should be cast aside in the interest in getting more people covered; it may even be the problem that explains why healthcare is so expensive. Whether it is individuals, insurance companies, or the government that is paying for healthcare, someone is going bankrupt if people don't practice preventative care.

Is there a number behind many?

Yes. Do you want me to actually know it, or can I just make it up?