Definition of Failure : Obama repeals Obamcare

UncleBob said:
You're the one that stepped up and thought you'd give answering DD's question a shot. If you simply cannot provide an answer, then that's fine. It's a complicated question that some folks are content with saying "more" or "less" and leaving it at that, in spite of the fact that they never really provided any kind of an answer.

Again, "no, u" isn't an answer.


Which is all well and good, but has zero to do with the question: "How much should the rich pay in taxes?"


There are a couple of ways you could answer this - and it would depend on your individual philosophy as to how taxes should be assessed and paid. You could say that people should pay X% per year based on $Y of income. X% per year based off of $Y Net Worth. You could use either (or both) of those on some sort of sliding-scale (X% for the first $Y, 2X% for the next $2Y, etc.) You could say folks should pay $Y per-head flat rate. You could go with a consumption-based tax where it's X% per $Y spent. It could be a production-tax, like a VAT Tax. There's all kinds of possibilities. It comes down to the question DD asked - "How much should the rich pay in taxes?"

It's a very complicated question - and I don't purpose to have the exact answer (though I do have a few thoughts that feed into the answer)... but then, I never asked for the answer. DD did. And, about a month ago, someone else asked the same question, and a certain someone on this forum jumped down that person's throat for asking the question because blah, blah, trolling, blah, blah, blah. I was just curious if that same someone was going to speak up when DD asked the same question.

By the by, since you seem to be stuck on Regan - when Regan's tax levels where in place, what was Federal spending per-capita then (adjusted for inflation) and what is Federal spending per-capita now?
Click to expand...
And there's absolutely no utility in the answer you gave, which was my question because I didn't want to write something that long without purpose. Which is what you wanted. Which is kind of a dick thing to ask for.

mrsilkunderwear said:
Funny thats coming from you. I am still awaiting several pages of responses from you in a different thread.
Click to expand...
I don't think we have any history on this board so you and I can have a discussion without referencing anything else. I'm looking for a response to the following "statement" about Obamacare:

Obamacare will help American small business because it offloads the responsibility for health care (ie a non core competency to a small business) to the government and the employee, leaving the business to focus on its business.

Thoughts?

 
speedracer said:
And there's absolutely no utility in the answer you gave, which was my question because I didn't want to write something that long without purpose. Which is what you wanted. Which is kind of a dick thing to ask for.
Click to expand...
Then it seems to me that you should call out the guy who asked the question to begin with.
 
I think I was the one who asked for an "acceptable" top level tax rate. It amazes me the dodges that this question gets in response. How about a more direct yes or no scenario? Is it ok for the gov't to take 50% of your income in taxes? 70%? 90%? 100% if you make over a certain amount? We can discuss details after the yes or no is delivered. Property taxes and estate taxes are criminal if you ask my opinion also.  

Getting back to healthcare, I had a new record set last night. A 26 year old lady living in gov't subsidized housing called 911 for her pregnancy. She has six living children and two abortions she told me about. This new kid will be her seventh child. Doh and I disagree that this is abuse of our welfare, SNAP, etc systems. Luckily I was driving the engine so I did not have to ride to the hospital with her selfish, ignorant ass. I don't want to hate anybody, but how can some people be so evil and irresponsible as to abuse living beings like that? These kids have pretty much zero chance of escaping the generational poverty/welfare cycle. If Melissa Perry is right, and kids are all of ours, then when do I get to step in and teach them morals and a work ethic? Do we continue to pay for people who continually act against their and our best interests?

On a brighter note, my homeless friend, Mary, came to see me at the station last night. I set up her "Obamaphone" for her and a retired FF friend has let her move in for a while. The forms and paperwork that I have helped her fill out are super redundant and complicated for non PC literate people. A new housing program is opening for the homeless, but sign ups are available for only one day during a 3 hour window. How do we make this system better?

 
speedracer said:
I don't think we have any history on this board so you and I can have a discussion without referencing anything else. I'm looking for a response to the following "statement" about Obamacare:

Obamacare will help American small business because it offloads the responsibility for health care (ie a non core competency to a small business) to the government and the employee, leaving the business to focus on its business.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
So you like to randomly pick on people? Now how do you think a libertarian republican feels about Obamacare?

 
egofed said:
I think I was the one who asked for an "acceptable" top level tax rate.
Click to expand...
I don't recall who asked it in an earlier thread, but I remember it being asked and a certain someone blasting them (you?) for even daring to ask. Which is why it was funny that DD asked the same question in this thread and not a single person calls him out on it... One person even makes a half-assed attempt at answering it, realizes that he doesn't really want to, then calls me names... when I wasn't even the one who asked to begin with.

It's amazing, really.
 
speedracer said:
I don't think we have any history on this board so you and I can have a discussion without referencing anything else. I'm looking for a response to the following "statement" about Obamacare:

Obamacare will help American small business because it offloads the responsibility for health care (ie a non core competency to a small business) to the government and the employee, leaving the business to focus on its business.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
I know this wasn't asked to me, but I'd like to give some thoughts on it.

First, why is the government going out of the way to "help" businesses? Even more so, certain types of businesses? Isn't that something that we pretty much all agree on - that government shouldn't be picking and choosing which businesses to give special favors to?

Second, why is health insurance even remotely something that a business should be forced to provide? Combined with the fact that any insurance tied to your employment is pretty crappy (because, if you find yourself without that job...), we should be encouraging the system to go to a less employer-based health insurance model.

Finally, you said "health care". You meant "health insurance". Most employers of any size do not provide any kind of "health care". Which is the biggest issue with the Affordable Care Act - is that it pretty much isn't designed to do anything about health care and is mostly designed around health insurance. One is designed to help you. The other is a middle-man that gets in between you and the thing that's supposed to help you.
 
Ya know, it's funny that Regan gets brought up by left-leaning folks so often. More-so than right-leaning folks. Like this gem:

someone said:
We will remember record deficit spending, nearly doubling the national debt in 8 years. Shattering the reckless legacy of spending and its damage by Reagan.
Click to expand...
 
Now that more than 2 million people have signed up for private insurance plans created by President Barack Obama's healthcare law, a crucial next check-up for the new marketplace will be to see how old customers are.

Early data from a handful of state exchanges shows the administration needs more young adults to sign up in the next three months to help offset costs from older enrollees and prevent insurers from raising their rates.

The market won't attract enough young people to keep it financially viable, putting more pressure on government funds to compensate for any insurer losses. (In other words this was just one big huge waste of time and you were better off under your old plan)


Young people got suckered. The ACA is relying on you paying more than you would in regular market conditions to pay the way of the chronically ill and older Americans. You kids spend your youth whining that the rich should have their wealth redistributed to the "less fortunate" via taxation. Well, welcome to healthcare redistribution. Where the youth (regardless of wealth) are paying more for the benefit of others. Do you feel like you are doing your part for paying someone else's way? Are you enjoying your high premiums and higher deductibles? Just checking, because the next target is your employer sponsored "private" 401K or other retirement plan. When they come take that from you to give to others that didn't plan for their retirement you should feel wonderful that your hard earning and invested money is going toward someone else's lack of preparation.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
RPGNinja said:
Now that more than 2 million people have signed up for private insurance plans created by President Barack Obama's healthcare law, a crucial next check-up for the new marketplace will be to see how old customers are.

Early data from a handful of state exchanges shows the administration needs more young adults to sign up in the next three months to help offset costs from older enrollees and prevent insurers from raising their rates.

The market won't attract enough young people to keep it financially viable, putting more pressure on government funds to compensate for any insurer losses. (In other words this was just one big huge waste of time and you were better off under your old plan)


Young people got suckered. The ACA is relying on you paying more than you would in regular market conditions to pay the way of the chronically ill and older Americans. You kids spend your youth whining that the rich should have their wealth redistributed to the "less fortunate" via taxation. Well, welcome to healthcare redistribution. Where the youth (regardless of wealth) are paying more for the benefit of others. Do you feel like you are doing your part for paying someone else's way? Are you enjoying your high premiums and higher deductibles? Just checking, because the next target is your employer sponsored "private" 401K or other retirement plan. When they come take that from you to give to others that didn't plan for their retirement you should feel wonderful that your hard earning and invested money is going toward someone else's lack of preparation.
Click to expand...
In the days of google you'd think people wouldn't copy an online article word for word and not even bother to cite it implying it's their own work...

http://www.businessinsider.com/obamacare-will-cost-much-more-if-young-americans-dont-start-signing-up-2014-1

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Now that more than 2 million people have signed up for private insurance plans created by President Barack Obama's healthcare law, a crucial next check-up for the new marketplace will be to see how old customers are.
Early data from a handful of state exchanges shows the administration needs more young adults to sign up in the next three months to help offset costs from older enrollees and prevent insurers from raising their rates.

Critics of Obama's Affordable Care Act say the market won't attract enough young people to keep it financially viable, putting more pressure on government funds to compensate for any insurer losses.
Click to expand...
 
Uh dude.. in case you have not noticed I have been quoting articles all throughout this thread. Even my first post started out with an article. Granted I forgot to put the quotes around it but my comment on the article is the big paragraph below it HENCE why I took MANY spaces before the comment started. Everything that has been said that article is a fact regardless so why are you so uptight?

So since you are obviously won't comment on it let me post my reply to the article yet again.

"Young people got suckered. The ACA is relying on you paying more than you would in regular market conditions to pay the way of the chronically ill and older Americans. You kids spend your youth whining that the rich should have their wealth redistributed to the "less fortunate" via taxation. Well, welcome to healthcare redistribution. Where the youth (regardless of wealth) are paying more for the benefit of others. Do you feel like you are doing your part for paying someone else's way? Are you enjoying your high premiums and higher deductibles? Just checking, because the next target is your employer sponsored "private" 401K or other retirement plan. When they come take that from you to give to others that didn't plan for their retirement you should feel wonderful that your hard earning and invested money is going toward someone else's lack of preparation."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So plagarism is no big deal if you do it a lot? Or is it that plagarism is a-ok if at least one third of the work is your own commentary.

See, the funny thing I noticed when I copy and pasted the same article you did was that I had to actually remove a "read more at Business Insider" tag that automatically followed the copy and paste. I had already cited them so I had no need to leave that in. You, on the other hand, would have had to intentionally remove that tag. It's not like you can say you were just too busy to cite it or that you forgot, you had to literally do extra work to remove the fact that it was pre-cited for you. Not to mention the article itself started with "NEW YORK (Reuters)" which you would have had to have left out as well.

Extra spaces? There's one extra line break, how in the world does one extra line break point to a citation. Even if you never went to college, high school teaches you to cite your work.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
RedvsBlue said:
See, the funny thing I noticed when I copy and pasted the same article you did was that I had to actually remove a "read more at Business Insider" tag that automatically followed the copy and paste. I had already cited them so I had no need to leave that in. You, on the other hand, would have had to intentionally remove that tag. It's not like you can say you were just too busy to cite it or that you forgot, you had to literally do extra work to remove the fact that it was pre-cited for you.
Click to expand...
Funny. For someone who's all about citing sources, you'd think he'd realize that the ORIGINAL source for this article (Reuters, as RvB pointed out) doesn't automatically tag a copy/paste with a "read more..." tag.

But hey, it's so much more fun to attack someone based off how they cite their sources on some random internet video gaming website than to actually discuss the topic at hand.
 
RedvsBlue said:
So plagarism is no big deal if you do it a lot? Or is it that plagarism is a-ok if at least one third of the work is your own commentary.

See, the funny thing I noticed when I copy and pasted the same article you did was that I had to actually remove a "read more at Business Insider" tag that automatically followed the copy and paste. I had already cited them so I had no need to leave that in. You, on the other hand, would have had to intentionally remove that tag. It's not like you can say you were just too busy to cite it or that you forgot, you had to literally do extra work to remove the fact that it was pre-cited for you. Not to mention the article itself started with "NEW YORK (Reuters)" which you would have had to have left out as well.

Extra spaces? There's one extra line break, how in the world does one extra line break point to a citation. Even if you never went to college, high school teaches you to cite your work.
Click to expand...
How is it plagiarizing anyway if you truly believe that was my intent? I am not writing some college thesis where I need a Works Cited page. I am proving why Obamacare is a bad plan. And everything in that article is factual anyway so its not like I am making it up. If you even bothered to read my post you can clearly see when I started to offer my opinion and the stuff before sounded like a news story. It is not my fault you can't read correctly.

So rather than focus on the topic at hand you have to keep sidetracking everyone because you can't admit yourself it is a disastrous plan for America.

And just so you know I didn't even get that article from Business Insider. I got it from Yahoo. It is all over the internet just like when an AP article gets shared around.

Since you are so fixated on plagiarism don't forget your hero and savior Obama was caught up in that mess as well.

http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2008/02/20/the-obama-plagiarism-scandal/

Which is kind of a big deal since you know he is the PRESIDENT, and I am just a guy on a forum pointing out how horrible his ideas are.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top