Utopia Talk / Politics / Majority of Americans

Real Fred Member	Sat Nov 01 18:40:02 Like the Idea of Spreading the Wealth On Oct. 30, Gallup released results showing Americans favor Obama's style of wealth spreading by a whopping 58-to-37 margin. http://www.alternet.org/democracy/105652
SStrickland Member	Sat Nov 01 18:43:46 That comes as a surprise to me.
habebe Member	Sat Nov 01 18:50:19 The majority of Americans do not comprehend macroeconomics.
yankeessuck123 Member	Sat Nov 01 18:52:27 Wealth has to be spread at some level habebe. Even conservative economists (those who aren't completely useless at least) agree that wealth that is too concentrated is a bad thing.
roland Member	Sat Nov 01 18:53:11 Isn't that just a reverse to Bush's socialism to the rich?
habebe Member	Sat Nov 01 18:55:32 Yankees, this is why we have anti-monopoly laws. Roland, Your going to have to elaborate on that, or define the meaning of socialism in your terms.
roland Member	Sat Nov 01 18:57:16 "Roland, Your going to have to elaborate on that, or define the meaning of socialism in your terms." Bush's tax cuts to the rich.
yankeessuck123 Member	Sat Nov 01 18:58:37 Anti-monopoly laws on their own are not going to redistribute wealth to any noticeable degree.
Chen Member	Sat Nov 01 18:59:57 No one called Clinton a socialist, and Obama just wants to roll back taxes on the rich to Clinton's levels (at least according to him).
habebe Member	Sat Nov 01 19:13:08 I was not argueing that they did, but they stop the over concentration of wealth. Why should the government redistribute wealth? I agree in in principle, that it is good to help those less fortanate. But there is not one government welfare type program in the US history that has accomplished it's goal, never. chen, The difference is this, Obama has redefined the definition of "tax cut". He is giving 40% of people a "tax cut" who do not pay taxes.That is not a tax cut, that is forced welfare/socialism.
Hot Rod Member	Sat Nov 01 19:18:43 Fred - On Oct. 30, Gallup released results showing Americans favor Obama's style of wealth spreading by a whopping 58-to-37 margin. Lowest earners = 50%, hope to get something Middle earners = 37% , hope to get something Highest earners = 13%, not asked.
Hot Rod Member	Sat Nov 01 19:21:57 Lowest earners = 37% , hope to get something Middle earners = 58%, hope to get something Highest earners = 5%, not asked. FIXED
Nekran Member	Sat Nov 01 19:24:35 Are you saying the middle earners were in favour and the lowest against, even though they hope to get something?
Master Bates Member	Sat Nov 01 19:24:52 ^HR repeats and confirms what RF just said. How exciting.
Nekran Member	Sat Nov 01 19:26:18 By the way when looking at the source, the facts are being somewhat skewed, considering what the government does is what's up for discussion... "A majority of Americans (58%) say money and wealth should be more evenly distributed among a larger percentage of the people, although slightly less than half (46%) go so far as to say that the government should redistribute wealth by "heavy taxes on the rich."
yankeessuck123 Member	Sat Nov 01 19:38:15 "Why should the government redistribute wealth?" Because nobody else is going to do it, and the country at large will benefit froma certain amount of redistribution.
habebe Member	Sat Nov 01 19:48:09 yankees, Like I said, in principle I agree. But it does not work, never in history have programs such as social security actually accomplished what they were supposed to, quite often the opposite happens. SS for IE is little more than a 11-12% tax on workers to give to people who should have been saving their money while they were working, although considering they also had a 12% flat tax (just under actually) it was probaly a bit harder. Milty said it best if you seperate the two main aspects of SS most people dislike them, but put them together and it's a golden cow. "Because nobody else is going to do it" Really? IIRC the US public donates more money to charity than any other in the world. Even per capita the rates were much higher than most places, I'd imagine they would be higher if everyone had an extra 12% in their earnings. Charity is a good thing, a noble cause, government just is not best venue.
Real Fred Member	Sat Nov 01 20:20:02 "SS for IE is little more than a 11-12% tax on workers to give to people who should have been saving their money while they were working, although considering they also had a 12% flat tax (just under actually) it was probaly a bit harder." Individual SS tax is 6 or 6.5%
Real Fred Member	Sat Nov 01 20:23:24 6.2% is what it is.
Master Bates Member	Sat Nov 01 20:23:51 Habebe, are you aware that in the rest of the developed world, the fact that the US doesnt have NHS is considered quite awful for a developed modern society? Noone wants the US system outside of the US.
habebe Member	Sat Nov 01 20:24:08 Fred, But that tax is matched by the employer, who in turn passes that "tax" on themselves on to the worker by lowering their salary. But I should have said 12-13% then, thank you for the correction. An employer doesn't distinguish what he pays per worker in terms of salary and taxes, it makes no difference to them whether the salary they pay is 100% salary or 100% taxes, it still causes them to pay the same amount in payroll checks.
habebe Member	Sat Nov 01 20:27:50 MB, Most people inside the US want the current system either, I happen to be one of them. I don't understand why such an emphasis on employer based healthcare. It pretty much means that the worker is being paid partly in HC instead of money. Why not do the same with food? is food any less important to human survival? Why not pay people with 50% money, 25% HC/and food?
Real Fred Member	Sat Nov 01 20:31:23 Some places do. Many restaurants let employees eat free or at an extremely reduced price.
habebe Member	Sat Nov 01 20:34:21 lol, that is true, I worked at McDonalds in HS... And that is fine, if the worker themselves chooses that, but why should government try to force these things on people?
Master Bates Member	Sat Nov 01 20:34:41 Habebe, it means if my old mum needs a hugely expensive operation that she could never afford to stay alive, its there for her, no economic disasters, no ruinous bills, no nothing. Whether shes paid enough taxes to cover that, or whether shes never paid any taxes at all because she was busy raising 5 kids instead of working. She goes to the doctor, pays $20 and they do whatever operation is neccessary. Afterwards she goes home with not a pennys debt for it.
habebe Member	Sat Nov 01 20:38:41 mb, But with that extra income she would have been earning (or whoever the bread winner of the family was) she could have bought insurance to do the same thing. (damnit, i think my touchpad mouse is taking a shit)
Real Fred Member	Sat Nov 01 20:38:44 "She goes to the doctor, pays $20 and they do whatever operation is neccessary. Afterwards she goes home with not a pennys debt for it. " Kinda like me with a mexican hooker. I go with an overload of jizz, pay $20 and then leave after having my nuts completely drained and I'm paid in full. That same deal would cost $300 or more in the US from a much less quality "nurse".
Real Fred Member	Sat Nov 01 20:40:44 (damnit, i think my touchpad mouse is taking a shit) Fuck the touchpad, get a USB optical mouse. Works sweet in the truck.
habebe Member	Sat Nov 01 20:41:05 "Kinda like me with a mexican hooker. I go with an overload of jizz, pay $20 and then leave after having my nuts completely drained and I'm paid in full. That same deal would cost $300 or more in the US from a much less quality "nurse". " RF, Economic freedom at work, you CHOSE to spend your money more wisley, instead of the government forcing you to go to that expensive nurse and forcing you to pay for it with taxes.
Master Bates Member	Sat Nov 01 20:41:09 "mb, But with that extra income she would have been earning (or whoever the bread winner of the family was) she could have bought insurance to do the same thing." What extra income from being a housewife raising 5 kids?
habebe Member	Sat Nov 01 20:43:44 Well, if she had no income, then what is your arguement for employer-based HC?(since she had no employer) I think there is a misscommunication here.
Real Fred Member	Sat Nov 01 20:44:08 "RF, Economic freedom at work, you CHOSE to spend your money more wisley, instead of the government forcing you to go to that expensive nurse and forcing you to pay for it with taxes. " Well I have to go to mexico for that treatment but I get paid to drive to the border where I take a cab for $20 round trip which includes a 6 pack of Corona and 6 shots of rotgut tequila.
habebe Member	Sat Nov 01 20:46:10 I've always wanted to get some mexican whores, if I'm ever in the area I'll be sure to ask you about where to go. I need to pick up some prescriptions down there anyway.
Master Bates Member	Sat Nov 01 20:48:10 habebe, true, I didn't read the whole thread, I jumped in on the national health service issue without noting the employer bit. Hang on, after reading a bit more of the thread, its not just about employers paying for health care, so my point about general national health care is still valid.
Master Bates Member	Sat Nov 01 20:49:13 "Well I have to go to mexico for that treatment but I get paid to drive to the border where I take a cab for $20 round trip which includes a 6 pack of Corona and 6 shots of rotgut tequila. " I thought you didn't drink anymore?
Real Fred Member	Sat Nov 01 20:49:18 You can get single viagra's at mexican pharmacia's for $1 a pop. Sometimes I'll get 1 and 2-3 hookers and live it up a bit :)
Real Fred Member	Sat Nov 01 20:51:01 "I thought you didn't drink anymore? " I don't. I said it was included. I give mine to other truckdrivers sharing the ride and sometimes they'll buy me a few tacos in exchange.
habebe Member	Sat Nov 01 20:54:21 MB, I'm not saying it is, my arguement was that you said most people outside the US dislike the US system, I said that I also did, but probably for different reasons, I dislike the employer-based hc system being forced upon us. RF, Seriously? I use to fool around with nurse who got me free samples of viagra, I'd split the profits with her, I know a bunch of old heads that will pay 15-20 PER PILL If you ever decide to go there again I'd pay for the trip, I'm assuming you know your way around down there.
Real Fred Member	Sat Nov 01 20:57:07 Last time I was in mexico it was Cinco de Mayo. I go pretty much every time my truck takes me to the border. Either Laredo, Nogales, or San Ysidro.
Master Bates Member	Sat Nov 01 20:58:43 viagra is good fun.
habebe Member	Sat Nov 01 21:06:24 Mabey it's just me but I tried it before and noticed no difference, I mean the mechanics worked, but since they normally work I suppose thats why I had no bonus off of it. Amphetamines on the other hand are great for sex, you can fuck all day if you want, cum again and again without even needing that 10-15 minute break in between fucking and cumming.
Real Fred Member	Sat Nov 01 21:07:27 3 "18" year old super hot mexican bitches = $60 1 viagra = $1 1 motel room $3 excellent food and drink = $5 Funky limo "cab" ride = $20 Awesome evening total = $89 In america: Shitty average dinner and a crappy movie with a 50 year old wrinkled up cunt with tons of baggage and won't ever stop running her fucking yapper who MIGHT blow me if I'm "lucky" = $100 minimum. Pretty much a no-brainer choice there, chummy.
habebe Member	Sat Nov 01 21:08:59 Fred, You should go into bussiness selling guided tours.
Real Fred Member	Sat Nov 01 21:10:18 Yeah, that aspect is already well covered by wetbacks, habebe.
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: