Health Care Sob Stories More Common Than Actual Events
by Big Dog on Mar 8, 2010 at 05:15 Political
Barack Obama says he reads letters that are sent to him and it is true that he has used some of them for political advantage. He walked into a meeting this past week and read a letter from some person regarding the increase in insurance premiums. He has used these kinds of letters to garner support for his health care takeover.
One thing we will never know is how many letters he gets telling him that the writer is happy with his health care. I bet Obama gets more letters of this nature than the ones where some poor schmo was wronged by an insurance company. Those letters always see the light of day. The other kind never will.
Interestingly, we are supposed to think about how bad our system is when Obama and his Democrats read these kinds of letters (the summit had letter after letter) but we are supposed to dismiss as unusual any story that shows the horrors of government run health care. Medicare denies services at a greater rate than the private companies, ignore it, not important. People dying in the UK under the health care system, ignore it because these examples are little stories and do not mean anything. Canadian politicians coming to the US for health care that is the best available, forget it, not worth mentioning.
Some old lady has to use her dead sister’s teeth, read the letter and make it the norm.
American Thinker has a great article describing the politics of the sad sack letter.
Doug Ross highlights the wonderful medical care in the UK and Canada where people lie in filth and are left to die and politicians come to America for the best care available, respectively.
The sob stories only seem common because that is all we hear. The same people who tell us how wonderful socialized medicine is and that these stories are rare expect us to believe that the letters read by politicians are representative of the system of health care as a whole.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Continually saying our health care is bad does not make the statement more true any more than continually continually saying attacks by Democrats were done by right wingers makes that claim true.
As an aside, Obama says not to worry because his plan will save us money. Of course this is absolutely untrue. Once again, saying something is so does not make it so. But, even if it did save money any potential savings would be offset by the 9.7 TRILLION DOLLARS Obama will add to the debt in the next decade. Even if his health care saved money (it does not), it will not be anywhere near 9.7 TRILLION DOLLARS.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: distortions, health care, lies, Obama, pentagon shooter, sob stories
“…offset by the 9.7 TRILLION DOLLARS Obama will add to the debt in the next decade.”
A third of that is from tax cuts. If you really believe tax cuts increase revenue then you shouldn’t be that worried, right?
In reality the tax cuts are going to be costly, as the CBO concludes. Hopefully Obama will increase taxes on the rich to get us out of this hole.
There is an optimal tax rate that will return the most tax revenue. It is dynamic though. If the rate is at the optimal point either increasing or decreasing taxes will decrease revenue. AGAIN, the optimal tax rate is dynamic.
We can’t tax the rich right out of their mansions?
Adam, I don’t understand (I know, insert your joke here) your analogy.
I wasn’t making an analogy. I support increasing taxes on the people making over $250,000 a year so I just thought it would be funny to say “tax the rich out of their mansions.”
Adam, so you believe the tax rate is below optimal for people making $250k and up. You may be right, I don’t know. Also, what I am discussing has nothing to do with fairness. At the risk of repeating myself there is an optimal tax rate that will return the most tax revenue. It is dynamic though. If the rate is at the optimal point either increasing or decreasing taxes will decrease revenue. AGAIN, the optimal tax rate is dynamic.
I know very little about what you’re saying so I don’t want to argue about that particular point.
For example, let’s assume a flat income tax and the optimal rate is 20%. If the optimal rate is in fact 20% (a big if) then either increasing or decreasing the rate would return less tax revenue.
BTW, do you only comment to argue? Just wondering.
I don’t only comment only to argue. I just assumed that since you were repeating yourself that you felt I was disagreeing with you.
I was just trying to say I have no opinion either way on that particular subject and that I wasn’t agreeing or disagreeing with you if you felt I was.
OK! Fair enough, Adam.
But I am interested in the subject of course. It’s something I’ll be reading more about soon I hope when I get some time. But this is more of my wife’s subject than it is mine.
MIKE: “There is an optimal tax rate that will return the most tax revenue. It is dynamic”>>
DAR
Contrary to supply sider dogma, Mike is exactly right.
I think supply siders realize there is an optimal rate below which not enough tax revenue is produced. Obviously at zero percent there is zero revenue. The trick is determining what the optimal rate is under current conditions.
Wikipedia entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply-side_economics
From the entry (which does address optimizing the marginal tax rates):
Typical policy recommendations of supply-side economics are lower marginal tax rates and less regulation. Maximum benefits from taxation policy are achieved by optimizing the marginal tax rates to spur growth, although it is a common misunderstanding that supply side economics is concerned only with taxation policy when it is about removing barriers to production more generally. Keynesian macroeconomics, by contrast, contends that tax cuts should be used to increase demand, not supply, and thus should be targeted at lower-income earners, who are more likely to spend additional income on consumption than investment.
MIKE: “I think supply siders realize there is an optimal rate below which not enough tax revenue is produced.”>>
DAR
One would think so. Yet, only three weeks ago on this forum, Bigdog said:
“Tax cuts always increase revenue.”
D.
I realize he said that. He’ll have to address that himself, but I assumed at the time he meant actual tax cuts that were either passed or could possibly be passed. I was surprised both at the comment and by the fact you didn’t offer up the zero percent example.
I will further comment on this with what I call “use the budget up” example. The government, both left and right, and corporations are guilty of this. I’m retired from a large corporation and every unit I was ever in made sure we spent unused budget at the end of the cycle. Why? Because it was assumed if you didn’t use all your budget that it would get cut the next cycle.
So how does the above relate to the optimal tax rate? Well the liberals and conservatives are in a constant tug-of-war over what taxes should be. The optimal rate be damned by both. For if the conservatives are not trying to lower it then the liberals will be able to raise it. And if liberals are not trying to raise it then the conservatives will be able to lower it. Both sides make no attempt to even determine what the optimal rate at a given time should be let alone enact it. Just my 2 cents.
Adam you obviously don’t have a mansion and a million or so in the bank that you made by your entrepreneurial skills and abilities which is everyone’s absolute right in this country. It is also where the jobs come from.
I do know that the vast majority of jobs in America are created by small businesses and that the vast majority of small business owners make less than $250,000 a year. So, I don’t really see your point.
For a more detailed explanation of this idea that circulated in the last election check this article on it.
Or this link, rather.
Of course Obama is trying to sell the federalization of medical care with sob stories! What else does he have, when he’s trying to pretend that he can 1) insure 31 million more persons and compel insurers to cover pre-existing conditions and lower medical care costs, all at the same time?
It takes virtually no thought to see through Obama’s canard. And less than virtually no thought is what The Won would like us to give it. But then, Obama is a proven enemy of private property and the free market, so we shouldn’t have expected anything better. Worse, possibly, but nothing better.
FRAN: “[Obama’s] trying to pretend that he can 1) insure 31 million more persons and compel insurers to cover pre-existing conditions and lower medical care costs, all at the same time?”>>
DAR
Well gee, all of our peer countries:
1) insure nearly everyone AND
2) cover pre-existing conditions AND
3) do it all for less AND
they do it “all at the same time.” So what’s that matter, America too stupid and incompetent to do what these other countries do every day?
Too many rightwing knuckle draggers shilling for corporate interests and holding the country back from progress. But not for very much longer.
D.
————–
Oops…
“Sarah Palin… admitted over the weekend that she used to get her treatment in Canada’s single-payer system.
“We used to hustle over the border for health care we received in Canada,” Palin said in her first Canadian appearance since stepping down as governor of Alaska. “And I think now, isn’t that ironic?”
Link.
Ooops, looks like Darrel jumped the gun on Palin. She did not say she got her treatment in Canada’s single payer system. Turns out she was talking about the 1960s and they went to Canada because of geography:
And This time Palin went to Canada would be WELL before the single payer system was in place in Canada:
And even if single payer were available then, one can hardly hold a child responsible for where she goes to get care since her parents make the decision.
Nice try Darrel, almost had a gotcha on Palin but in your zeal to zing her you swung and missed.
Good fact checking Bigd! Well, almost. Let’s go to a little deeper level of checking EH?
And note, if you read my link it clearly stated that the excuse was because of geography.
Bigd: “Palin went to Canada would be WELL before the single payer system was in place in Canada:”>>
DAR
Nope. You quote rightwingers, I’ll quote Health Canada:
“In the mid-1950s in response to public pressures, the federal government agreed to provide financial assistance to provinces to help them establish health insurance programs. In January 1956, the federal government placed concrete proposals before the provinces to inaugurate a phased health insurance program, with priority given to hospital insurance and diagnostic services. Discussions on these proposals led to the adoption of the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act in 1957. The implementation of the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services (HIDS) program started in July 1958, by which time Newfoundland, Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia and Manitoba were operating hospital insurance plans. By 1961, all provinces and territories were participating in the program.”
Health Canada.
Palin was born in 1964.
And she’s told flatly contradictory versions of this same story.
“When speaking in Canada, she claimed to have gotten treatment in Canada.
In 2007, when speaking to a group of fellow Alaskans, she told the same story but this time they traveled to Juneau via Ferry to receive treatment.”
Americans sneaking across to “hustle” Canada Health Care system has long been a problem. That’s why Ontario gave out “new health cards about ten years ago, with holographic security and magnetic strips. Hospitals in places that were near the border and close to US population centers were getting hit pretty hard.”
She was supposed to speak in Ontario next but I heard it got canceled.
Oh, and doesn’t Alaska have it’s own extensive healthcare system as a result of the “Socialist” Alaska Permanent Fund? You betcha.
But then oops, she didn’t handle that so well:
Palin Leaves Behind Mismanaged AK Health Care System – Hundreds Die Waiting For Care
Excerpt:
“State programs intended to help disabled and elderly Alaskans with daily life — taking a bath, eating dinner, getting to the bathroom — are so poorly managed, the state cannot assure the health and well-being of the people they are supposed to serve, a new federal review found.”
At least her grandson has found socialized medicine to be quite useful:
Tripp Palin Johnston has socialized health care through Indian Health Services and the Alaska Native Medical Center.
I got lot’s of gotcha’s on Palin. She’s a doosey.
D.
Well Adam, the tax cut argument that the deficit is from them is a blatant lie.
And if you took ALL the money the rich make it would not help. Not enough rich people and not enough money.
What he needs to do is make the slackers in the bottom 50% who pay little or NO taxes (only 3%) pay their fair share for all the stuff they keep getting.
Make them pay like the rest of us and they will soon quit asking for all the “free” stuff.
“Well Adam, the tax cut argument that the deficit is from them is a blatant lie.”
So what you’re saying is when you accused Obama of adding “9.7 TRILLION DOLLARS” to our debt that you were telling a blatant lie? Because that’s how the CBO got that number.
Great Adam, people making more than 250k a year already pay most of the taxes. You want them to pay more so slugs can get “free” stuff?
The very rich know how to shelter their money.
And 250k is not rich. It would hit a huge number of small businesses and kill this country.
But then again, that is what you progressives want.
Your problem is you think the bottom are at the bottom because they are lazy and the top are at the top because they work hard. You also think the top creates the most jobs. They don’t. You are wrong from top to bottom on this subject. We’ve been over this a thousand times before and you just don’t learn.
“And 250k is not rich. It would hit a huge number of small businesses and kill this country.”
Oh, please. Rolling back the tax cuts Bush put in place will kill this country? Give us a break. Oh those dark days of the 90’s when we teetered on the edge of extinction as a country…
The vast majority of small business owners do not make over 250k and even those that do will see only moderate tax increases. Tax the rich. They can afford it.
No, I just know you don’t make poor men rich by making rich men poor. You believe that the money people earn is not theirs and they should be made to give more and more for people who do not earn.
The top wage earners pay the most taxes and the bottom wage earners use the most federal resources.
I believe the rich get rich on the backs of the hard working middle and lower classes in America and that it’s only fair that these lower classes get support from the government since it’s their labor that keeps our country strong and our economy rolling. We’re not going to make the poor rich or the rich poor. That’s a silly statement. Stop pretending a return to tax levels we had a few years back is going to mean the end of our way of life.
Adam, CBO gives estimates based only on what it is provided. You have been told this and you fail to learn…
You cited the figure, not I. I guess you’ll be issuing a correction to your blog post now that you’ve admitted you think the “9.7 TRILLION DOLLARS” is a blatant lie from an organization that you can’t trust to do it’s job right.
Well, there we have it. Adam has decided what the rich can afford. Nice of you Adam. Taking all their money would NOT put a dent in the debt.
But if they let the Bush tax cuts expire I would be happy because the poor and middle class made out better from them. It would be nice to see people paying taxes.
What kind of country is this where people who pay NO taxes get refunds?
And Adam, it is nice of you to decide how small business will be affected.
Let me tell you what will happen, people who are a little over the 250K will find ways to be under it. There are plenty of ways to do that and then, poof, no money.
Just like when they make some foolish and expensive mandate that a business with more than X employees must follow. Business owners with a few more than X get rid of people until they are below X.
But I will grant you this. If we could get people who are supposed to pay taxes to just pay them we might be in better shape. Geithner, Rangel and (pick a name from Obama administration).
The key is to cut spending, not increase taxes to spend more.
We had no income tax a long time ago and di well. Then came the progressive movement.
“What kind of country is this where people who pay NO taxes get refunds?”
We’re a country that understands that contribution is not measured by income level alone. You act as if paying few taxes means these folks aren’t working hard or contributing. Wrong. We cut them a break on the taxes and we give them money back through EITC and other means because these people work hard and earn small wages and deserve a little security for themselves or their families.
“And Adam, it is nice of you to decide how small business will be affected.”
It’s nice of me to what? To correct the record and put down the lies you and other conservatives spread about small businesses getting taxed?
“We had no income tax a long time ago and did well. Then came the progressive movement.”
Ah yes, the wonderful the 1800s when there were fewer than 30,000,000 Americans and most of those were slaves or women who had little or no role in our society. If only things were that simple then maybe subjects like income taxes wouldn’t matter quite as much…
Are you learning to twist words from Darrel. I did not say you could not trust them. I said that they can only come up with conclusions based on what they are given and they are only given enough to get the conclusion that is desired.
But don’t worry Adam, Hoyer is calling on taxes for everyone. Soon all will pay.
I think if someone is getting tax dollars in social programs we should be allowed to drug test them, inspect their homes, and monitor their lives.
If I pay for them I want to see how my money is being spent.
Do you or do you not stand by the CBO’s “9.7 TRILLION DOLLARS” figure?
HAHAHA
The rich get rich off the backs of the poor? Not a chance. People engage in a contract to provide a certain labor for a certain compensation. If people are not happy with their compensation then they can move on or renegotiate.
The rich have provided good wages and good benefits and get soaked by the bloodsuckers in unions. They are one of the reasons that the pensions are unsustainable.
Think Greece.
It’s just the lower and middle class workers in America that drive the economic systems and markets that let our smart, go-getting entrepreneurs and CEOs succeed at their businesses and get rich as opposed to fail and grow poor. This is why the lower rungs shoulder less of the tax burden and those of us who have been given the opportunity to succeed pay a little more because of it.
If the CBO says 9.7 trillion mostly because of tax cuts then they are wrong. Unless, they are making the case that cutting taxes and increasing the spending at the rate that Obama is causes the figure. That would make more sense.
If the case is that the tax cuts are the cause then it is wrong. The additional spending after the tax cuts then they are correct.
You cited the figure. Wouldn’t you want to know how it was derived before doing so?
Once again, it matters little because they can only give figures based on what they are provided.
Then you’ve admitted it. You’ve attacked Obama using a figure you don’t understand and can’t confirm but that you don’t really believe in or agree with anyway. It looks like a club so you’ll just use it any way you can?
Bigd should take a moment and read this short article in Scientific American. He’d learn lots.
The Social Welfare State, beyond Ideology
“Are higher taxes and strong social “safety nets” antagonistic to a prosperous market economy? The evidence is now in”
Excerpt:
“…there is by now a rich empirical record to judge these issues scientifically. The evidence may be found by comparing a group of relatively free-market economies that have low to moderate rates of taxation and social outlays with a group of social-welfare states that have high rates of taxation and social outlays.
Not coincidentally, the low-tax, high-income countries are mostly English-speaking ones that share a direct historical lineage with 19th-century Britain and its theories of economic laissez-faire. These countries include Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, the U.K. and the U.S. The high-tax, high-income states are the Nordic social democracies, notably Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden, which have been governed by left-of-center social democratic parties for much or all of the post World War II era. They combine a healthy respect for market forces with a strong commitment to antipoverty programs. Budgetary outlays for social purposes average around 27 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) in the Nordic countries and just 17 percent of GDP in the English-speaking countries.”
DAR
Also, there is good evidence that income inequality correlates strongly with a dysfunctional society. The more inequality you have, the more your society is dysfunctional. See:
…almost every social problem, from crime to obesity, stems from one root cause: inequality.
Excerpt:
“It became clear,” Wilkinson says, “that countries such as the US, the UK and Portugal, where the top 20% earn seven, eight or nine times more than the lowest 20%, scored noticeably higher on all social problems at every level of society than in countries such as Sweden and Japan, where the differential is only two or three times higher at the top.”
…To ensure their findings weren’t explainable by cultural differences, they analysed the data from all 50 US states and found the same pattern. In states where income differentials were greatest, so were the social problems and lack of cohesion.”
Link.
I’ve admitted no such thing.
Darrel, all men are created equal and have equal opportunity. What thy do with that opportunity is another thing.
We pay taxes and spend a fortune on education only to produce children who have no ability to function. They can’t speak correctly and often end up in the judicial system.
Income inequality exists because some people work hard and apply themselves and others do not. Now, there are some who work hard and apply themselves who do not make it big but there is nothing wrong with any job. Garbage collection is important.
But the garbage man does not deserve the same salary as a doctor.
The findings of the study are hardly scientific and only point out the differences among nations. There are other differences that set us apart, in part because of the diferences in salaries and abilities.
How many of those countries have put a man on the moon? Did they invent the computer? I am sure they have contributed to society but how much, comparatively?
And as I always say, if you like their system better then move there but don’t try to impose it on those of us who do not want it.
Regardless of any optimal tax rate, it will make no difference if we continue to spend more than we have.
Why do people want to punish wealthy people for having made it? Is it jealousy????
Barbara, you read Adam here. The rich are
evil and make all their money on the backs of the hard working middle class. He has learned class warfare well from the left wing idealogy. It is just really interesting how rich some of the Democratic Congressman and Senators are and how they are not going to be subject to healthcare if it passes. Adam really buys the BS about the Democrats being for the common man.
I never said the rich were evil. Don’t lie. I’m not calling for taxing the rich to death. That was just a joke. See, I don’t hate rich people. I have rich friends!
No, my point is simply that there is no such thing as a “self made man.” We don’t do it alone. When we become rich in America it’s not just because we are smart and we work harder. We are profiting from the infrastructure, legal systems, markets and the many industries sustained by lower and middle class Americans through labor and tax dollars.
The best example of this is any person that has become rich because off the Internet. That person didn’t have to invent the Internet. Our tax dollars helped do that. So is it bad to suggest that since this man got rich because of things created and supported by all Americans, not just the smart, hard working, charming, beautiful rich people, that they pay a little higher tax burden? I don’t think so myself.
Who died and made you judge of what anyone should pay? That is the arrogance of the whole Democrat party.
You want to live the American dream you’ve got to pay your dues. You want to take advantage of all our country has to offer you’ve got to pay up. If Obama and Congress are smart they’ll increase taxes on those making over 250,000. See, I’m not the judge of what anyone should pay. I simply voted for the Democrats in Washington to represent me on this issue.
[…] Health Care Sob Stories More Common Than Actual Events – Big Dogs House […]
Adam–“You want to live the American dream you’ve got to pay your dues. You want to take advantage of all our country has to offer you’ve got to pay up. If Obama and Congress are smart they’ll increase taxes on those making over 250,000.”
In the beginning of this country “The American Dream” was hard work, thrift, and self-reliance made it possible for you to become whatever you and your talents were capable of free of any infringement by government. You start out equal but you didn’t maybe end up equal. Well, now it has become I am supposed to pay for Your Dream as well because you didn’t end up equally well off as I did that is what the government has decided and you voted for that. Like I said in the beginning (since you wanted to bring in the $250,000 mark) you obviously don’t have $250,000 in the bank which in this day and age, is not a lot of money anymore with the rate of inflation it is going to get less and less too. But I’ll tell you what, Obama is going to go under the $250,000 mark and I can’t wait till he gets down to you.
“…hard work, thrift, and self-reliance made it possible for you to become whatever you and your talents were capable of…”
There aren’t now and never were self-made men or women in America. No one is an island. This is a fallacy that conservatives rely on so they can say the rich worked hard and the poor are lazy.
“…you obviously don’t have $250,000 in the bank…”
Are you sure?
“…Obama is going to go under the $250,000 mark…”
There’s no need to so why would he? He’s cut taxes for most working Americans. This is going to cost us so I hope he does the right thing and raises taxes on the top who can afford it.
Rich people make it with their own resources. You can make the claim tat they use labor and other resources along the way but they put up their capital and many of them fail.
It is the risk of their money that is rewarded. Those who labor for them risk nothing unless they are investors.
I notice that when the business fails and the guy who put his money on the line goes under the labor does not lose along with him, other than being out of a job.
”You want to live the American dream you’ve got to pay your dues. You want to take advantage of all our country has to offer you’ve got to pay up.
So Adam, when are the people on the bottom going to pay their dues? When are THEY going to pay up?
They are trying to live the American dream on the dues of others.
By your own point you are saying that those who do not pay their dues (taxes) do not deserve the American dream.
And I already told you that you could tal every single dollar that the rich have and it would not dent the debt. They do not have enough money.
And who the hell are you to decide what they can afford to pay?
The middle class can afford to pay taxes so let us make them do that.
And he did not cut taxes for 95%. More propaganda.
“So Adam, when are the people on the bottom going to pay their dues? When are THEY going to pay up?”
When are they not paying their dues? When are they not working hard and making little wages? Or do you think it’s a walk in the park being poor? The lucky duckies? Or do you just really believe that the poor are poor because they are lazy?
“The middle class can afford to pay taxes so let us make them do that.”
The middle class (not the rich) actually creates the jobs in America both literally by small businesses and by their consumption. You tax the middle class more than you tax the lower class but this is the class you don’t over tax for sure.
Tax the rich. They’ve gotten their wealth partially from the hard work of their employees in the middle and lower classes and the American consumers in general so let’s see them give a little back.
“They do not have enough money.”
Take a few percentages more. That’s all. We’re not talking about punishment or taking enough to pay off the debt but a little goes a long way when it comes to taxing the top rung.
Adam, you live in a delusional world.
How about all the millions upon millions that rich people give to charity? Rich companies donate lots of money to plenty of causes.
Perhaps we should tax them more and they can give less. After all, government certainly knows how to use their money better than they do.
While we are at it, how about we cut the taxes going to the government. I mean, the government gets ALL of its money off the backs of the workers. It gets all of our money by confiscating it.
At least the rich pay their workers. You call them unfair but how much should we pay a dishwasher or a burger flipper?
You seem to have this idea that everyone should be paid the same and that the rich did nothing to earn what they have so we have some right to take more of their money and give it to others.
And you mischaracterize how I feel about the poor.
But to feel they owe nothing because they have paid their dues and that the rich owe more (remember, the rich pay nearly ALL the taxes) is beyond logic. How can they not have already paid their dues?
“You seem to have this idea that everyone should be paid the same…”
Nonsense. I think lower income people deserve a wage that at least keeps up with inflation though. I just won’t pretend it’s easy to be poor and that these people who have nothing should for some reason pay more because somehow they’re not paying their fair share right now? And you want to call me delusional?
“And you mischaracterize how I feel about the poor.”
Do I now? You referred to the people who pay few taxes as “slackers” and “slugs” so I’m not sure I’m all that wrong in calling you out for your disdain for poor people. It’s classic conservatism after all.
“But to feel they owe nothing because they have paid their dues and that the rich owe more is beyond logic.”
Beyond logic? Yes, let’s just increase their taxes and decrease the taxes on the rich to meet in the middle for a flat tax. That has so much more logic too it…
Big Dog says:
“…but how much should we pay a dishwasher or a burger flipper?”
Pay should be commensurate with productivity. In the middle class world, pay generally is roughly commensurate wqith productivity: higher productivity brings higher compensation.
In the minimum wage world, producivity sets a ceiling but not a floor for compensation. In the minimum wage world, higher productivity DOES NOT bring a significant increase in compensation.
In my last job I worked for a small local convenience store chain (several stores under common ownership). All employees (approx two dozen) were paid within 20 cents of minimum wage.
Some had worked there over ten years, a few were recent hires. Most were very good employees, and some were more productive than others. But the pay vatied by only 20 cents per hour, so there was apparently no meaningful relationship between productivity and pay.
The owner’s net profit from the stores was approx $2 million the last year I worked there, and the total payroll was maybe $400,000.
Yes, people should NOT be all paid the same – I think we can agree that they should be paid based on productivity.
But that’s not happening in the minimum wage world.
I have no disdain for the poor. The people to whom I refer are the slackers and slugs among them. You know, the people who get welfare and have cell phones and big screen TVs.
The wage that keeps up with inflation? Very few people have that. But what about times like now when there is deflation? Can we lower their pay then?
“I have no disdain for the poor.”
Again, you had me fooled…
Not a tough thing to do.
If I had disdain for them I would not give to charity as generously as I do.
Charity is nice but our tax dollars together have a much greater impact and always will.
Tax dollars are not charity. They come from confiscated dollars.
Of course not. But I’m suggesting raising the tax level on the highest earners and you’re fighting me on it as if it will destroy our very way of life. You act as if it weren’t slightly higher in the 90’s when the economy was booming.
An increase isn’t going to kill jobs because the rich don’t create most of them. The middle class does that and very few small businesses would see a change and if they did it it would be very little. We know the rich aren’t going to make less money just because of a 2% or 3% increase in taxes. That’s an absurd suggestion. So what is your reasoning again for this being such a bad idea?
That would be funny if the right wing hadn’t launched perhaps the greatest smear campaign in history against the latest attempt at health care reform. So yes, when it passes voters will find out how much better it is and how it’s not the evil socialist takeover of medicine that the right has said it would be.
Sorry Darrel but SINGLE PAYER was not in place at that time. The hospital insurance was. And the source indicated that Single Payer did not hit that region (province?) until 1972.
Bigd: “but SINGLE PAYER was not in place at that time.”>>
DAR
Now you’re just quibbling. As my quote shows, federal, SOCIALIZED medical programs were instituted in Canada years before Palin was even born.
And which one of her stories is true and which one is false? They can’t both be true. It’s tough job defending Palin. I wouldn’t want to do it. When she isn’t making it up she’s just getting it wrong by accident.
D.
The definition of rich is above 250K and they create the most jobs.
Higher taxes during booming times is not as detrimental as raising them during a bad economy.
If you raise taxes 2 or 3 percent then the rich will find ways to avoid taxes in order to pay less.
“The definition of rich is above 250K and they create the most jobs.”
Prove it.
No, assuming this health care passes, which it might not, then it will only be good to people like you who need to be led around by the nose by nanny government.
And Republicans did not lie or smear the bill.
Now, the Democrats have lied about what is and what is not in it and Obama lied about what would be in it or what he would sign.
Bigd: “Republicans did not lie or smear the bill.”>>
DAR
Sure they didn’t. That’s why they won “Lie of the Year.”
PolitiFact’s Lie of the Year: ‘Death panels’.
I understand Darrel. You were caught repeating an untrue story and you are trying to cover. No problem.
I think it is funny how you ignore when Obama tells different stories but find a need to attack Palin when you believe she told different ones.
I know you misogynists are afraid of strong women.
Bigd: “You were caught repeating an untrue story”>>
DAR
What’s untrue? The writer of the Huff Po article said “single payer” instead of socialized? Oh my. Here’s something we know for sure. One version of Palin’s story is true, and one is not. And it’s her own bloody story! She makes it up as she goes.
The difference between Dan Quayle and Sarah Palin? LIPSTICK.
Lie of the year from plitifacts. Well now, there is something to worry about.
Lie of the year.
“Under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place,” he said. — Barack Obama
He will sign any bill that gets to his desk with or without. And the way it looks it is with.
Lie of the year, Mandates are not good because Hillary is pushing them…
Now he wants mandates as the only way to pay for health care.
Yes, the lies keep coming from the left.
Bigd: “Lie of the year.
“Under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place,” Obama said.”>>
DAR
You forgot the rather important part of actually showing that what he said, isn’t true. And you won’t be doing that because while he makes two claims in the above, both of them happen to be true. Oh I see, you base it upon “and the way it looks…”.
And this is your best example of “Lie of the year.”
How telling. You swim in such a sea of lies don’t know truth from fiction anymore.
D.
The times he has stated that he would not sign a bill containing [fill in the blank]. I will sign no bill with earmarks. Then he signed the stimulus which had about 9000 of them.
Plenty of examples of these kinds of lies.
But then again, you would have to prove that there was an intentional act to deceive in order to show someone lied. So please, show that.
It’s ironic that you’d lie about a lie you claim Obama told.
Obama never said anything like “I will sign no bill with earmarks.” He said wanted a stimulus bill with earmarks and the stimulus had very few so he basically kept his word.
It was the omnibus spending bill which was pretty much 100% earmarks that had the 9000 count. Obama did not campaigned ever on removing earmarks but seeks reform is all.
Rather, Obama said he wanted a stimulus bill without earmarks and he got one that had very, very few.
Yes, and you could use that same lipstick line about Obama. He has a few versions of his growing up story, the parts he does not hide, that is.
Prove which part?
Prove that the people above 250 create the most jobs. You always say it. You never prove it. Every piece of research I’ve done concludes otherwise but you’ve always discounted it. So, let’s see what you got.
ADM: “I’m suggesting raising the tax level on the highest earners and you’re fighting me on it as if it will destroy our very way of life.”>>
DAR
Interesting article. Perhaps of interest.
Why Are We Afraid to Tax the Super-Rich?.
Excerpts:
“In the 1950s the marginal tax rate on those earning more than $3 million a year (in today’s dollars) was 91 percent. By 1990 it was 28 percent. The IRS says that the top 400 richest tax filers actually paid a rate of just 16 percent in 2007 (the latest numbers we have). Yep, the richest earners — people who took in an average of $343 million each — probably paid a lower rate than you did.
…During the post-WWII boom we had one of the fairest income distributions in the world. Not anymore. Today the gap between rich and poor is wider than at any time in U.S. history. Here’s a telling statistic: In 1970 the compensation ratio of the top 100 CEOs compared to the average worker was 45 to one. By 2008 it was 1,071 to one. You think they got that much smarter?
…By failing to tax the super-rich, we’re burrowing even deeper into a billionaire bailout society in which the rich keep on gambling away our money, knowing that we will bail them out if they lose.”
Why Are We Afraid to Tax the Super-Rich?.
Yeah, will get right on that liberal HuffPo stuff.
You can spin this however you want but the reality is the super rich pay most of the taxes. The top 1% of wage earners pay about 25% of the taxes and the bottom 50% pay 3%. The bottom 40% pay no taxes. Until they have skin in the game they are not allowed to participate.
How can anyone think it is OK to take 91% of what people earn?
And we are talking income taxes here, not SS or Medicare. These are called taxes but they are supposed to be premiums we pay in for the insurance later in life. They are scams and money is wasted but these are not taxes, they are premiums.
We should eliminate the income tax and go to a consumption tax. Everyone pays a tax on the things they buy not on what they make. This will force everyone to have skin in the game and will allow us to keep our money. It will tax consumption and not production.
Then the rich and poor alike have skin in the game.
The wealthy will always find ways to lower their taxes. The members of Congress are wealthy and they write the tax laws and leave the loopholes. Taxes are unpopular which is why so many politicians scream about needing to raise them while finding ways to lower or avoind their own taxes.
It needs to be fair.
And I do not care about CEO pay. They are private companies and can pay what they want. Worry about the pay and pension of public sector workers because they suckle at the teat of the taxpayer at both state and federal level. A private company makes its own money and can spend it on how they want.
No one is worth 10 million a year to throw or hit a baseball but if that is what the private employer wants to pay it is his business (though unions screwed that up along the way).
By failing to tax the bottom 40% we are losing revenue and raising generations of people who think that the government should provide for them and that the money is “free.” We can stop this by letting everyone have skin in the game.