Its in, Fox, AP, MSNBC, McCain confirms picking of Sarah Palin as VP

[pseudobrit]

Just because the wealthiest could shoulder the burden better, doesn't mean they should. I guess that's my point. If I made more than I do now (I wish), I would be a little irritated that my taxes were just raised because there are more poor voters than rich ones.

I would love to pay taxes in the top bracket. It would be my pleasure.

Don't the top 1% of wage earners already pay the majority of this country's taxes?

No, but that's irrelevant. The top 1% extract and hoard 23% of the wealth out of our economy. By the time they cook their books, they pay about 45-50% of their income to taxes, which is the same or less than a middle class household.

Please don't get me wrong, I'm trying to have compassion here, but let's at least try to be fair.

The current system is more than fair to the wealthy.

[nomar383]

That is a fantastic idea! I wonder why no one thought of that before!!!
Oh wait, you're talking about INSURANCE. :o

You figured it out! lol :D

EDIT: Except my version wouldn't allow for discrimination based on pre-existing conditions (no denial) and would be a tad bit cheaper to the cosumer

[nomar383]

<SNIP>
The current system is more than fair to the wealthy.

I can live with taxes the way they are now, but the more that are piled on, the less fair it seems.

[fivepoint]

You figured it out! lol :D

EDIT: Except my version wouldn't allow for discrimination based on pre-existing conditions (no denial) and would be a tad bit cheaper to the cosumer

Actually, if you remove the "discrimination" based on pre-existing conditions... the cost will go up significantly. Just ask your local Actuary. They'll give you the low-down.

[nomar383]

Actually, if you remove the "discrimination" based on pre-existing conditions... the cost will go up significantly. Just ask your local Actuary. They'll give you the low-down.

But universal health care wouldn't discriminate, would it?

[Don't panic]

Just because the wealthiest could shoulder the burden better, doesn't mean they should. I guess that's my point. If I made more than I do now (I wish), I would be a little irritated that my taxes were just raised because there are more poor voters than rich ones.

Don't the top 1% of wage earners already pay the majority of this country's taxes?

Please don't get me wrong, I'm trying to have compassion here, but let's at least try to be fair.

i pay taxes in a high bracket (not the very highest). i think it's fair.
i don't even look for loopholes (i'm stupid that way).

i just wish my money would be used in a better way than in donations to cheney and friends, like better education and -yes- universal health care.

[nomar383]

i pay taxes in a high bracket (not the very highest). i think it's fair.
i don't even look for loopholes (i'm stupid that way).

i just wish my money would be used in a better way than in donations to cheney and friends, like better education and -yes- universal health care.

I wish it would too! I'm not against universal health care so much as the way that it's going to be implemented.

[it5five]

What is the problem with the implementation? It works fine everywhere else in the industrialized world. Better than fine actually, since nobody pays more for healthcare than us in the United States, and we get less out of it. Countries with national healthcare programs pay less and get more. What's the problem? It's an example of government working well, and goes against your pre-conceived baseless assumption that anything government = bad?

[nomar383]

What is the problem with the implementation? It works fine everywhere else in the industrialized world. Better than fine actually, since nobody pays more for healthcare than us in the United States, and we get less out of it. Countries with national healthcare programs pay less and get more. What's the problem? It's an example of government working well, and goes against your pre-conceived baseless assumption that anything government = bad?

I never once said anything the government does is bad, my good sir.

Other nations do many things very differently and it is hard to make a direct comparison.

[BoyBach]

Deleted post.

[leekohler]

I never once said anything the government does is bad, my good sir.

Other nations do many things very differently and it is hard to make a direct comparison.

Could you address the main point? I'm curious...

[atszyman]

The man himself on mayors/governors (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzhFDQIgGSg).

[jplan2008]

I never once said anything the government does is bad, my good sir.

Other nations do many things very differently and it is hard to make a direct comparison.

We have an example here in the gold ol' USA. Medicare. Insanely popular for those that are part of it, and incredibly efficient.

Those that make under $100,000 (approx.) per year pay 7.65% of their earnings toward social security, those that earn $1,000,000 pay approx .765% of their salary towards social security. The poorer you are, the higher the percentage of your salary you pay in sales tax. Investment income is taxed at the incredibly burdonsome rate of 15%. All that is before taking into account loopholes and deductions, and the tax breaks and incentives big corporations get that benefit the rich and not the poor. I don't think the rich have anything to complain about. They're not paying their fair share now.

And what exactly is the problem with the idea that they actually pay MORE than their fair share (not proposed by anyone on either side), so that as a country we will all be "richer?" As far as health care goes, even if we don't care about human life, in the long run, preventative medicine that those without insurance can't afford ends up costing less than emergency medicine, which is the only "universal" health care we have -- since hospitals can't turn away an emergency patient, and some hospitals actually follow that law.

What is the problem with WORK being taxed at really low levels, and WEALTH being taxed at really high levels (no one on either side is recommending that), instead of the opposite system we have now, where work is taxed at a much higher rate?

[nomar383]

Could you address the main point? I'm curious...

Honestly, you all have made some excellent points and I am beggining to agree with you on this issue. I think I'm done debating :) lol

[leekohler]

Honestly, you all have made some excellent points and I am beggining to agree with you on this issue. I think I'm done debating :) lol

Wow- that never happens. ;)

[nomar383]

Wow- that never happens. ;)

I try to be reasonable :)

[atszyman]

I try to be reasonable :)

Then you clearly have no place in this forum.

The only time you're allowed to leave a debate is when you loudly cry foul, bias, and leave the PRSI forums for a couple months.:D

I have marked the date, September 12, 2008, Internet debate actually sways opinion. It might just be the first recorded instance.

[leekohler]

Then you clearly have no place in this forum.

The only time you're allowed to leave a debate is when you loudly cry foul, bias, and leave the PRSI forums for a couple months.:D

I have marked the date, September 12, 2008, Internet debate actually sways opinion. It might just be the first recorded instance.

Oh I don't know. My mind has been changed about a few things since coming here. Libertarianism for one.

[atszyman]

Oh I don't know. My mind has been changed about a few things since coming here. Libertarianism for one.

But the rules of the interwebs clearly state that you cannot admit defeat. You keep your slowly evolving position until you parse the argument down to a "semantics difference" and finally agree that you have been in agreement from the beginning, you just didn't like the way it was phrased.:p

[nomar383]

But the rules of the interwebs clearly state that you cannot admit defeat. You keep your slowly evolving position until you parse the argument down to a "semantics difference" and finally agree that you have been in agreement from the beginning, you just didn't like the way it was phrased.:p

lmao so true

[solvs]

It might just be the first recorded instance.
I don't know, I've also changed my mind her on something. I can admit when I'm wrong. We also once convinced someone to be for gay rights when they used to be against it. Now that was a momentous day.

Anyway, on to the Palin bashing, which I'm sure is being carried out in several other threads right now:

A judge repeatedly told Palin and family not to badmouth her sister's ex (http://www.newsweek.com/id/158140)
Obama to Palin: 'Don't Mock the Constitution' (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/08/obama_to_palin_dont_mock_the_c.html)
Sarah Palin's Alaskonomics (http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1839724,00.html) (noting her not-so fiscalism)
Roger Ebert on Sarah Palin: The American Idol candidate (http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/1156080,091008ebertpalin.article)
New Evidence: Palin Had Direct Role In Charging Rape Victims For Exams (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jacob-alperinsheriff/sarah-palin-instituted-ra_b_125833.html)
John McCain continues to laud his running mate erroneously (http://groups.google.com/group/soc.veterans/browse_thread/thread/bb7799687408f539/840dd5e21723b9fd?lnk=raot)
Alaska National Guard General Changes Story; Palin Promotes (http://vetvoice.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=6DE0F0272B752D55F135594EC5726947?diaryId=1869)

And saving the best for last:

The Palin interview (http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/09/the_palin_interview.php)
It is embarrassing to have to spell this out, but for the record let me explain why Gov. Palin's answer to the "Bush Doctrine" question -- the only part of the recent interview I have yet seen over here in China -- implies a disqualifying lack of preparation for the job.

Not the mundane job of vice president, of course, which many people could handle. Rather the job of potential Commander in Chief and most powerful individual on earth.
-
What Sarah Palin revealed is that she has not been interested enough in world affairs to become minimally conversant with the issues. Many people in our great land might have difficulty defining the "Bush Doctrine" exactly. But not to recognize the name, as obviously was the case for Palin, indicates not a failure of last-minute cramming but a lack of attention to any foreign-policy discussion whatsoever in the last seven years.
The more we find out about this person, the more there is to dislike.