'Red Scares'
in [Cars]
|
From: Beam Me Up Scotty on 25 Jul 2010 11:35 On 7/25/2010 8:57 AM, Larry G wrote: > On Jul 24, 2:37 pm, Rich Piehl > <rpiehl5REMOVETHIS...(a)NOSPAMcharter.net> wrote: >> On 7/24/2010 10:04 AM, Otto Yamamoto wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> Rich Piehl wrote: >>>> On 7/23/2010 8:53 PM, Otto Yamamoto wrote: >>>>> On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 14:00:43 -0500, Rich Piehl wrote: >> >>>>>> I think you like everything that Europe does so much, their power plants >>>>>> their governments, their cars, their rails, their transit system their >>>>>> socialistic governments (that some in this group have denied are >>>>>> socialistic) >> >>>> I'm not the one that called socialistic. Larry did. >> >>>> BTW, who is the sourcing on that. It's just a chart - I'm probably >>>> missing it but no data that I see. No explanation of how the chart was >>>> arrived at and by what/whose yardstick. >> >>>> But for proof about European socialism just google it. There's all >>>> kinds of sources from all over the world. Some right, some left. >> >>> Where are the majority Socialist Governments, then? I hate to break >>> this to ya, but Socism has been irrelevant for years. Just a buncha >>> impotent guilt-ridden yuppies. And you quake in fear. >> >> Because, as the European countries are finding out, eventually you run >> out of other people's money. And that's the direction we're heading in >> here. I'm not quaking in fear. But why go down that road when we know >> what awaits us at the end of it? > > running out of money from Socialism? How about running out of money > like we have? > > Ya'll don't have a clue what the problem is. Most of what is causing > our structural deficit is not "govt spending". It's entitlements - > social security and Medicare which are funded from FICA taxes not > income taxes. > > You guys that say "cut taxes" to head off disaster would cut what kind > of taxes. FICA taxes? > > Cutting the Income Tax which is what primary funds non-Medicare and > non-SS would do what? > > Do you think cutting the Dept of Education or the EPA is going to fix > the structural deficit that is due to SS and Medicare? > > The only way to fix Medicare and SS is to either raise FICA taxes or > cut benefits, extend retirement age, etc or BOTH. > > Cutting income taxes and cutting other Govt will not touch the > structural deficit. > > European "socialism" is having the same issues - the costs of health > care have gone up faster than what they collect in taxes to pay for > it. > > The solution is the same. You either have to increase the taxes to pay > for it or you have to cut the benefits or both. > > The Conservatives have offered NOTHING to actually deal with the > causes of the structural deficit other than be opposed to stimulus and > generic "govt spending" - which won't deal with the real causes of > the structural deficit. > > It's not socialism that's the issue. Both Europe and US have the same > basic problem and that is the costs of health care - in part because > of an aging demographic is rising... and our current taxing to pay for > it is not enough. > > It has little to do with "socialism" which is just another idiotic > canard used by those who have a sound-bite mentality It's about the "Ruling Class" and they want to care for their slaves equally and stop the slaves from invading the dark meeting rooms and vacation places of the mega rich. It is Socialism that is being forced on America to accomplish the restrictive lifestyle that the Rulers need to feel secure in their positions.
From: Dave Head on 25 Jul 2010 11:45 On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 08:24:56 -0700 (PDT), Larry G <gross.larry(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >The vast majority of the structural deficit is due to entitlements >that are primarily funded from FICA. >that's a fact. Social Security and Medicare are the big expense of the budget. >Europeans have UHC and pay 1/2 as much for health care. > >that's a fact. They don't have a society that is suing every doctor that makes a mistake of any sort. We want cheaper healthcare, we have to do something about that. This insurance is hideous for medicine, from 1 end to the other - drugs, doctors, hospitals, etc. etc. >you can argue about the military spending or the rest of the govt >spending but even if you cut both of them to the bone - it would not >fix the structural deficit. > >that's a fact. Yes, we have to get rid of SS and Medicare. >time to man up for the realities. > >the first step before you propose changes to the tax system is to man >up to the current realities about the role of the entitlements in the >deficit. That can't be handled quickly without hurting people. Getting rid of the income tax would benefit ALL the people, with the exception of those that are avoiding the income taxes now. Those would be the criminals, those living off non-taxable instruments like muni bonds exclusively, those sitting on a pile of $$$ and just spending a piece of it every year. They would pay taxes that they now do not. >You can replace the income tax with a VAT tax but if you don't address >the Medicare and SS problems.. we'll still have the same problems. Not a VAT. VAT adds to the cost of everything as it is manufactured, and manufactured here. That is just another attack on our manufacturing. We need a retail sales tax, that is not applied to things bought for business purposes, and is applied to foreign goods as well as American goods. Farmers should be able to buy tractors that are not taxed. Coal companies should be able to buy machinery to do mining that is not taxed. >the bottom line is that we do not tax enough for the benefits we are >paying out and it comprises close to 2/3 of the structural deficit. Yep. Bringing back prosperity will eventually increase revenue. The way to bring back prosperity is to kill the income taxes. >The trouble with the anti-govt rhetoric is that it's all over the >map... lots of talk... but precious little in addressing the actual >realities. There is nothing anti-government about killing the income tax. >Cutting the Ed, EPA, FDA, etc, etc, name the agencies you don't like.. >cut them all .. get rid of them... and you're still going to have a >huge structural deficit. > >thems the facts... We can do without a lot of them, and esp. without SS and Medicare. They have to go eventually, but to do that, we have to bring back prosperity. SS and Medicare is for poor people. We have 40 million poor people. If we only had 2 million, we could then afford SS and Medicare, but we could afford to get rid of them, too, as nearly everyone would be able to save for their retirement, and those that couldn't, we could make a less gov't driven way to take care of them.
From: Dave Head on 25 Jul 2010 11:50 On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 08:28:10 -0700 (PDT), Larry G <gross.larry(a)gmail.com> wrote: >"The SS needs to be phased out. Cutting it suddenly isn't possible >without adversely affecting lots of people. " > >Who is agreeing with you on this? Not the establishment Republicans. >Not the Tea Party - the last POLL of them say 2/3 of them do not want >to get rid of SS. I don't really give a rip. We have to do it. >so WHO do you think will champion this? I'm not so concerned about that. It is just my opinion. What I'm concerned about is getting rid of the income tax. Without doing that, we will never see prosperity again. >Do you seriously think that the majority of people in this country are >going to elect to Congress and the Presidency someone who says they >will phase out SS? Dunno. Maybe if they are made to understand. >what is Your ... REALISTIC solution here? The realistic solution is to cut the income taxes to zero, thus supercharging the economy, and therefore cutting the number of really poor people to very small numbers. When you get to the point where everyone has significant money, and starts looking at SS and Medicare as a drag on their pocketbook and not as a salvation in their old age which they can afford to take care of themselves anyway, then maybe SS and Medicare will be repealed. But the income tax has to die first. > >anyone can blather anti-govt rhetoric but where are the solutions? That's the solution. Get rid of the income tax, bring back prosperity so people don't NEED the gov't handouts at any time in their lives, and then we can work on getting rid of the socialism.
From: Larry G on 25 Jul 2010 11:59 On Jul 25, 11:45 am, Dave Head <rally...(a)att.net> wrote: > On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 08:24:56 -0700 (PDT), Larry G > > <gross.la...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >The vast majority of the structural deficit is due to entitlements > >that are primarily funded from FICA. > >that's a fact. > > Social Security and Medicare are the big expense of the budget. > > >Europeans have UHC and pay 1/2 as much for health care. > > >that's a fact. > > They don't have a society that is suing every doctor that makes a > mistake of any sort. We want cheaper healthcare, we have to do > something about that. This insurance is hideous for medicine, from 1 > end to the other - drugs, doctors, hospitals, etc. etc. > > >you can argue about the military spending or the rest of the govt > >spending but even if you cut both of them to the bone - it would not > >fix the structural deficit. > > >that's a fact. > > Yes, we have to get rid of SS and Medicare. > > >time to man up for the realities. > > >the first step before you propose changes to the tax system is to man > >up to the current realities about the role of the entitlements in the > >deficit. > > That can't be handled quickly without hurting people. Getting rid of > the income tax would benefit ALL the people, with the exception of > those that are avoiding the income taxes now. Those would be the > criminals, those living off non-taxable instruments like muni bonds > exclusively, those sitting on a pile of $$$ and just spending a piece > of it every year. They would pay taxes that they now do not. > > >You can replace the income tax with a VAT tax but if you don't address > >the Medicare and SS problems.. we'll still have the same problems. > > Not a VAT. VAT adds to the cost of everything as it is manufactured, > and manufactured here. That is just another attack on our > manufacturing. > > We need a retail sales tax, that is not applied to things bought for > business purposes, and is applied to foreign goods as well as American > goods. Farmers should be able to buy tractors that are not taxed. > Coal companies should be able to buy machinery to do mining that is > not taxed. > > >the bottom line is that we do not tax enough for the benefits we are > >paying out and it comprises close to 2/3 of the structural deficit. > > Yep. > > Bringing back prosperity will eventually increase revenue. The way to > bring back prosperity is to kill the income taxes. > > >The trouble with the anti-govt rhetoric is that it's all over the > >map... lots of talk... but precious little in addressing the actual > >realities. > > There is nothing anti-government about killing the income tax. > > >Cutting the Ed, EPA, FDA, etc, etc, name the agencies you don't like.. > >cut them all .. get rid of them... and you're still going to have a > >huge structural deficit. > > >thems the facts... > > We can do without a lot of them, and esp. without SS and Medicare. > They have to go eventually, but to do that, we have to bring back > prosperity. SS and Medicare is for poor people. We have 40 million > poor people. If we only had 2 million, we could then afford SS and > Medicare, but we could afford to get rid of them, too, as nearly > everyone would be able to save for their retirement, and those that > couldn't, we could make a less gov't driven way to take care of them. SS and Medicare are for people who won't save for their retirement and then when broke an old want other taxpayers to pay for them. SS and Medicare are enforced savings programs to force people to set aside for their retirement. The Income Tax is not the FICA tax. Cutting the income tax won't affect SS and Medicare. Good luck on getting rid of SS/Medicare. A majority of Republicans and Tea Party folks are opposed to that. How do you intend to make it happen?
From: US 71 on 25 Jul 2010 12:21
"Beam Me Up Scotty" <Then-Destroy-Everything(a)Blackhole.NebulaX.com> wrote > > It's about the "Ruling Class" and they want to care for their slaves > equally and stop the slaves from invading the dark meeting rooms and > vacation places of the mega rich. It is Socialism that is being forced > on America to accomplish the restrictive lifestyle that the Rulers need > to feel secure in their positions. > > So the Republicans are Socialist? Are they not the "ruling class" : big money, big business, given a blank check by John Roberst & company to crush free speech, to crush the working class? |