Suck it, Bush!

[Naked Gents Rut]

Every time you use that as an example I have to rethink whether you're stupid, ignorant, or a liar.

Why can't he be all three? That's been my assumption.

[Kuciwalker]

I'm talking about Boris, not Ben.

[Naked Gents Rut]

I was talking about Boris, too. He's the new Ben for the Hopenchange era.

[Arrian]

People should have the same attitude about themselves, as they do about their car. You don't drive on the road without insurance, yet you don't see the government paying for your car insurance do you? Why should the government pay for my medical coverage?

I've said this over and over. The more that people pay directly for medical services, the better these services will become. When you see the cost out of pocket, you are better able to make decisions that are rational for you.

Right. People are just like cars.

And living is just like driving on public roads. Great analogy, Ben

I love the lecture on rationalism, coming from you. That's rich. There is no reason, btw, that a governmental plan cannot include things like copays and partial coverage for certain procedures, much like the PPO plan I have through my employer.

How is that a responsibility of the government? It's your body isn't it? If you care about it wouldn't you try to find that information out yourself?

I believe it's a good investment for society to make (educating people about nutrition, etc). For me this is a simple cost/benifit thing. Not a "role of gummint" issue.

Right, because I'm such a racist. Damn man. I've never spoken to the blackies and the brownies except to have them serve me.

I don't necessarily think you're a racist (though you make me wonder sometimes). You do, however, clearly loathe the idea of the government spending money on programs to aid the poor and/or minorities. I wasn't actually calling you a racist. I was pointing out that my policy proposal was one you wouldn't like. Was I wrong?

Well of course. You don't believe that the blackies and brownies are capable of managing their own health or money. QED.

I think that the urban poor in this country are at a serious disadvantage, largely due to their home life, with respect to education and therefore about managing their health and money (what little they have). I'm talking about making an investment in those people. I think it would benifit society at large. It has nothing to do with who is at fault for the situation. It's about addressing a problem.

I wish highschools offered classes (electives) on basic financial stuff. I learned that from my parents, b/c I was lucky enough to have good parents who taught me well. Many don't have that, and though that isn't my fault, or your fault, I think it's in our interest to plug that educational gap. And I'm willing to pay for it. I know you're not. Fine. I wouldn't necessarily chose to pay for large chunks of our military budget, but don't have a personal line item veto.

And I'm the racist?

I don't really know. But, as noted above, I wasn't calling you one. I understand why you took it that way, and for that I apologize. It wasn't my intent. You do not like government programs that spend money on the poor, as you don't think that's the government's responsibility and you don't want to pay for it. Obese, poor, undereducated people in this country are disproportionately brown and therefore a program aimed at getting the most bang for our buck would also be tipped in that direction (note: said program would also be aimed at helping poor whites. But, simply b/c of the current stats, it would naturally be skewed toward minorities. Which you and others who think like you would scream was racist, so come off the "Arrian thinks all white people are rich" bull****). Hence my reference to poor brown people.

-Arrian

[Boris Godunov]

Every time you use that as an example I have to rethink whether you're stupid, ignorant, or a liar. At the time the highest bracket was that much, there were sufficient loopholes that no one paid anywhere near it.

1. I don't recall ever discussing marginal tax rates here before. Cite an example.
2. What you say is irrelevant to the point. That loopholes or deductions existed isn't the issue, or even if "no one" paid the top marginal rate. It's that we did indeed have a much higher marginal tax rate than Canada currently has. You didn't provide any support for your claim that "no one" paid "anywhere near" it, either (of course that's vague enough to give you plenty of weasel room).

http://www.treasury.gov/education/fact-sheets/taxes/ustax.shtml

These tax changes increased federal receipts from $8.7 billion in 1941 to $45.2 billion in 1945. Even with an economy stimulated by war-time production, federal taxes as a share of GDP grew from 7.6 percent in 1941 to 20.4 percent in 1945.

While a large part of that was due to lowered brackets, thus adding tax payers, there's little doubt that the large increase in the top marginal rate resulted in richer people paying much higher taxes. Why would they bother to raise the top marginal rate from 81% to 94% if it wouldn't result in increased tax revenues, thanks to loopholes?

[Boris Godunov]

I was talking about Boris, too. He's the new Ben for the Hopenchange era.

After your blatant lying re: Obama and Ayers a few months back, you have absolutely no grounds to lob criticisms in this regard against anyone.

[Ben Kenobi]

There is no reason, btw, that a governmental plan cannot include things like copays and partial coverage for certain procedures, much like the PPO plan I have through my employer.

It's better then making it free, but the issue is that having it partially subsidized will increase the costs. It's the same with tuition. Tuition is higher because it is government funded. Up here we had glasses taken off the list, and glasses have actually gotten cheaper. Most places offer a free exam with purchase of new glasses, which is pretty much the same as it was before.

I believe it's a good investment for society to make (educating people about nutrition, etc). For me this is a simple cost/benifit thing. Not a "role of gummint" issue.

Would you do it in class? I found working in a health food store that folks don't know much about nutrition, and that books which had information on nutrition were particularly popular. It's not sufficient to simply say, "this is what you need to know", etc there has to be some willingness on people to receive the information.

I don't necessarily think you're a racist (though you make me wonder sometimes).

That makes me curious. Why would you think this? I don't like Obama, but I didn't like Hillary either. It's their policies that worry me. I think Jindal would make an awesome president.

You do, however, clearly loathe the idea of the government spending money on programs to aid the poor and/or minorities. I wasn't actually calling you a racist. I was pointing out that my policy proposal was one you wouldn't like. Was I wrong?

Well I am, technically, a minority. I'm against the programs because of my own experiences in dealing with them. As I said earlier, disability could cover all my costs and I'd have about 30 percent more then I do on my normal budget. I choose to forgo disability, because I think it's better if you are able to make your own living to do so.

I don't like government spending at all, it doesn't matter if you are white, black, brown, green or yellow, poor or rich, rural or urban.

I think that the urban poor in this country are at a serious disadvantage, largely due to their home life, with respect to education and therefore about managing their health and money (what little they have). I'm talking about making an investment in those people.

Now you are talking. Investment is one thing. I don't have a problem with nutrition volunteers going into the community and educating them on proper diets and helping them make meal plans. That to me would be a positive contribution, that would be more effective then simply making announcements. I think you need to show people just how easy it is and that it's not that time consuming or expensive.

I wish highschools offered classes (electives) on basic financial stuff. I learned that from my parents, b/c I was lucky enough to have good parents who taught me well. Many don't have that, and though that isn't my fault, or your fault, I think it's in our interest to plug that educational gap. And I'm willing to pay for it. I know you're not. Fine. I wouldn't necessarily chose to pay for large chunks of our military budget, but don't have a personal line item veto.

I don't understand why we didn't cover that in our business education classes, or home economics. Part of the problem is that if you take the class at 16, and that the information isn't there when later you are making a budget and having to deal with these responsibilities. With me, it wasn't difficult. I've been on a budget since I was 18. You have so much to spend, and that's it. Put the rest into the bank. I can do my own taxes, etc, but then my father showed me how to do them.

I think the combination of a separate elective (home economics), and a (business ed) course, as well as volunteers going into the community and trying to improve awareness on nutrition would be helpful.

I don't really know. But, as noted above, I wasn't calling you one. I understand why you took it that way, and for that I apologize. It wasn't my intent. You do not like government programs that spend money on the poor, as you don't think that's the government's responsibility and you don't want to pay for it.

That is my only issue. Thanks for the apology Arrian. Private charities? Not a problem. I've worked for them to know enough that it is possible to do things along your line of thinking without having to get government funding. I have an issue in where the money is coming from, not to where it's going.

[Kuciwalker]

1. I don't recall ever discussing marginal tax rates here before. Cite an example.

I never said you had.

2. What you say is irrelevant to the point. That loopholes or deductions existed isn't the issue, or even if "no one" paid the top marginal rate. It's that we did indeed have a much higher marginal tax rate than Canada currently has.

It's relevant because that tax rate wasn't the real tax rate, it existed only on paper.

You didn't provide any support for your claim that "no one" paid "anywhere near" it, either (of course that's vague enough to give you plenty of weasel room).

The AMT was enacted to solve this specific problem.

[Boris Godunov]

I never said you had.

You said:

Every time you use that as an example

That definitely is at least strongly implying that I've "used that as an example" more than once. I think most people competent in English would see that as an accusation of it being a repeated offense, especially with accompanying accusation of lying, which was just bizarre.

It's relevant because that tax rate wasn't the real tax rate, it existed only on paper.

So did the highest brackets of income pay 40% or less of a rate accounting for "loopholes?" You didn't cite any evidence for this, and if they did on average pay more than that, my point stands as-is, regardless of "loopholes." The precise % paid isn't relevant, it's the overall larger percentage paid.

Oh, and it looks like BK was wrong anyway:

http://www.kpmg.ca/en/services/tax/documents/FedandProvTaxRates.pdf

That has the Federal Income Tax rate for the highest tax bracket as 29% for 2009. Would you agree that the average person making $200,000+ a year in the U.S. in 1945 paid more than 29% in Federal income taxes?

The AMT was enacted to solve this specific problem.

The AMT was introduced by the Tax Reform Act of 1969[1] and became operative in 1970. It was intended to target 155 high-income households that had been eligible for so many tax benefits that they owed little or no income tax under the tax code of the time.

155 = "no one"?

Again, do you actually have some factual support for your absolute claim that "no one paid anywhere near" the top marginal rate? No one?

[-Jrabbit]

I don't like government spending at all...

So tell me again why you are such a fan of George W. Bush.

[Ming]

So tell me again why you are such a fan of George W. Bush.

He shoots... HE SCORES!

[Thoth]

So tell me again why you are such a fan of George W. Bush.

PWNED!!!

[Boris Godunov]

Because the government spending money to kill brown people is an exception, sillies.

[Ben Kenobi]

So tell me again why you are such a fan of George W. Bush.

He wanted a line-item veto.

Congress passes budgets, not the president.

[Ben Kenobi]

1,2,3 posts before I reply?

You folks might want to hold off on the circle jerk.