quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Sorry, I've been working a lot lately. No time to protest during the day like unemployed liberals screaming for government handouts.
Well that's why conservatives need to be extra vigilant, the enemies got all that extra time on their hands. Luckily they're usually too doped up to remember what they're arguing about. Perhaps legalizing pot really is the solution to the Republicans' problems. I mean, the pinkos would be an even greater burden on society as a result, but at least they'd be too busy thinking about their "munchies" to try and push their anti-Freedom agenda.
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Sorry, I've been working a lot lately. No time to protest during the day like unemployed liberals screaming for government handouts. Here's a few stats for you out there who think my views are marginal and on the fringes of society. Still waiting for an example of a government program that has met budget and is succesful.
I guess I can't provide that to you, given that apparently the necessary reading comprehension to spot the examples already provided can't be taught to you over the internet.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Could you work more, Malanthrop?
I may need to, once I have someone else's health care to pay for.
Just keeping up my false persona as a vet who had reserve duty last weekend. It is really difficult keeping up the charade.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Sorry, I've been working a lot lately. No time to protest during the day like unemployed liberals screaming for government handouts. Here's a few stats for you out there who think my views are marginal and on the fringes of society. Still waiting for an example of a government program that has met budget and is succesful.
I guess I can't provide that to you, given that apparently the necessary reading comprehension to spot the examples already provided can't be taught to you over the internet.
Since you can't answer and are avoiding the facts, here you go. From the US Government.
"The financial condition of the Social Security and Medicare programs remains problematic. Projected long run program costs are not sustainable under current financing arrangements. " Status of Social Security and Medicare, Social Security Administration, 2008 Read the details on the .gov site if you'd like. http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/trsummary.html
Hey lets add another program to the other unsustainable ones.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Sorry, I've been working a lot lately. No time to protest during the day like unemployed liberals screaming for government handouts. Here's a few stats for you out there who think my views are marginal and on the fringes of society. Still waiting for an example of a government program that has met budget and is succesful.
I guess I can't provide that to you, given that apparently the necessary reading comprehension to spot the examples already provided can't be taught to you over the internet.
Since you can't answer and are avoiding the facts, here you go. From the US Government.
"The financial condition of the Social Security and Medicare programs remains problematic. Projected long run program costs are not sustainable under current financing arrangements. " Status of Social Security and Medicare, Social Security Administration, 2008 Read the details on the .gov site if you'd like. http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/trsummary.html
Hey lets add another program to the other unsustainable ones.
Please stop saying that those who favor socialized health care don't have jobs, it's very rude and untrue.
What do you think the solution is then for social security and medicare since both appear to be underfunded. Is it impossible to find a way to make them solvent? I'd pay a little bit more social security taxes if I knew it would secure that program for myself in the future.
I think scuttling both programs would be a massive mistake of tremendous import.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
When I worked at a warehouse, getting health care was very hard. I believe they could put it off for 2 years of working full time. I imagine a lot of those employees would be interested in socialized health care. And for that matter, so would the employers.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:I may need to, once I have someone else's health care to pay for.
Just keeping up my false persona as a vet who had reserve duty last weekend. It is really difficult keeping up the charade.
You're already paying for other people's health care. A terrible state of affairs, I know. One wonders how you can scrape together two nickels to feed your family in the face of the evils of liberal government stripping you to the bone.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:When I worked at a warehouse, getting health care was very hard. I believe they could put it off for 2 years of working full time.
That's assuming of course that the employer doesn't restrict employee hours to just a bit below full-time...a prospect that's a lot easier right now in this all-the-Democrats'-fault economic climate.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh, it was amazing how many people worked 36 hours a week there. One of my friends is still working at a warehouse and her boss said that maybe next month she might start getting those extra 4 hours. She is very, very excited at the idea.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
"How Social Security was Created and Stolen If after you read this you don’t get that you will be facing more taxes and the elimination of the tax breaks you currently receive if you vote incorrectly in the next election, you probably deserve to lose more of your social security, most of your 401k when you withdraw it and any estate inheritance from your parents or grandparents…that is if they don’t lose all their savings after getting taxed further. Additional and increased taxes will be hurting everyone on social security now and in the future.
Don’t forget to read the last paragraph….Thomas Jefferson said it right!
Franklin Delano. Roosevelt (Terms of Office March 4, 1933, to April 12, 1945), a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program. He promised:
1.) That participation in the Program would be completely voluntary,
2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual Incomes into the Program,
3.) That the money the participants elected to put Into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year,
4.) That the money the participants put into the Independent “Trust Fund” rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would Only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and
5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.
Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month — and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to “Put Away” — you may be interested in the following:
Dwight David Eisenhower
34th. President, Republican,
Term of Office: January 20, 1953 to January 20, 1961
Insert by Vincent Peter Render,
If I recall correctly, 1958 is the first year that Congress voted to remove funds from Social Security and put it into the General Fund for Congress to spend. And if I recall correctly, it was a democratically Controlled Congress. From what I understand, Congress logic at that time was that there was so much money in Social Security Fund that it would never run out / be used up for the purpose it was intended / set aside for. Lyndon Baines Johnson 36th. President, Democrat, Term of Office: November 22, 1963 to January 20, 1969.
Question: Which Political Party took Social Security from the Independent “Trust Fund” and put it into the General Fund so that Congress could spend it?
Answer: It was Lyndon B. Johnson (Democrat, Term Of Office: November 22, 1963 to January 20, 1969) and the democratically Controlled House and Senate.
Question: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax Deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?
Answer: The Democratic Party.
William Jefferson Clinton
Democrat Term of Office: January 20, 1993 to January 20, 2001
Albert Arnold Gore, Jr. (Al Gore), 45th. Vice President
Democrat Term of Office: January 20, 1993 to January 20, 2001
Question: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?
Answer: The Democratic Party, with Albert Arnold Gore, Jr. (Al Gore) [Vice President Term of Office: January 20, 1993 to January 20, 2001] casting the “tie-breaking” deciding vote as
President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the US .
James Earl Carter, Jr (Jimmy Carter), 39th. President, Democrat, Term of Office: January 20, 1977 to January 20, 1981
Question: Which Political Party decided to start giving Annuity payments to immigrants?
Answer: That’s right! James Earl Carter, Jr. (Jimmy Carter) (Democrat, Term of Office: January 20, 1977 to January 20, 1981) and the Democratic Party.
Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive Social Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!
Then, after violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away! And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it! If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of Awareness will be planted and maybe changes will evolve. Maybe not, some Democrats are awfully sure of what isn’t so. But it’s worth a try. How many people can YOU send this to? Actions speak louder than bumper stickers.
AND CONGRESS GIVES THEMSELVES 100% RETIREMENT FOR ONLY SERVING ONE TERM!!!
Thomas Jefferson
3rd. President, Democrat
Term of Office: January 20, 1977 to January 20, 1981
“A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.”
posted
Gadzooks! Those dratted Democrats. I'm so angry at them I've forgotten you didn't respond to any statements made against your arguments!
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mal, I can't quite understand your chart. Maybe it's the formatting, but it looks like you've got something like 253% of people making over $100,000 reporting.
Not, of course, that we should be surprised that people who work more hours -- or claim to -- make more money, or pretend for a moment that "working" 80 hours as a middle manager is equivalent to working 30 hours as a stockboy.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
I went back and checked the data and removed it from my original entry. It was a .gov but not a US.gov site. Thanks.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Gadzooks! Those dratted Democrats. I'm so angry at them I've forgotten you didn't respond to any statements made against your arguments!
I'm not quite sure how I've failed to respond. I've demonstrated the failure of the largest government social programs we currently have. You have failed to provide examples of successful ones.
I'm illustrating how the costs are always much higher and sold at a severely underestimated level. SS was 1% tax, now it's 6.5% for employee and employer, or 13% of each income. You may be willing to pay more but more is never enough. Over time it's the same old arguments. It's a small increase, another small increase and another, followed by another. You're greedy if you are opposed to another slight increase. I'm still waiting for the toll to pay for a bridge to go away, never does. Now the bridge needs maintenance.
The average American works until April 13th to pay taxes. Maybe we should push it up to June, make it a nice even 50/50. 6 months for the government and other people and 6 months for my family. There must be a line drawn somewhere. The government can't provide everything. Anything they promise costs more than they sell.
TARP - never went to buy troubled assets as pushed by legislature.
They raise a specific tax for a shortfall just to return money to the general fund.
IE raise cigarette taxes to help pay for medical care, reduce medical care budget by that amount. Shortfall still exists. Lottory's passed to help pay for school shortfalls, lotto revenues only offset school spending rather than increase it. Social security, was solvent but they couldn't keep there hands off of it. Moved the money into the general fund creating this problem.
Here's an example that is near and dear. Military bases are not allowed to charge sales tax so they have a 5% "surcharge" instead. Not a tax, right?
Social security is "voluntary" yet if you choose not to participate you can't work or go to school. Your choice though.
I posted this one earlier: "The answer to the first question is that over the past 25 years, oil companies directly paid or remitted more than $2.2 trillion in taxes, after adjusting for inflation, to federal and state governments—including excise taxes, royalty payments and state and federal corporate income taxes. That amounts to more than three times what they earned in profits during the same period, according to the latest numbers from the Bureau of Economic Analysis and U.S. Department of Energy." http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/1168.html
They stand up there and talk about the greedy Big Oil????? How about Big Government.
Between 1985 and 2007, real federal spending on K-12 education programs has increased by 138 percent. Has education improved?
When the federal government starts taxing cattle for farts and dictates what kind of lightbulb you can have or how many gallons your toilet can flush, we've gone too far.
posted
The problem with the American people, is that if the government didn't regulate lightbulb wattage or appliance efficiency, in the next couple decades we'd be in a world of hurt, and we'd wonder why the government didn't save us when it had the chance.
We're an extremely short sighted people en masse. Water shortages are rampant around the world, but we've mostly technologied our way out of that particular problem (with some massive exceptions), but it's only becoming more acute here at home as time marches on, and as our horrible mismanagement of water resources starts to dawn on us. With the exception of the Great Lakes states, most of the United States is going to deal with water shortage issues in the coming years (and no, you can't have our water). That means choosing between water for your toilet or water for a nuclear power plant, between irrigating a farm, and running a factory. Places like SoCal are already dealing with this issue in more realistic terms, and have instituted water rationing and are considering vast spending amounts to build desalization plants even as they enact strict measures against overusage of water. They can't control mountain snowmelt runoff, but they can control local water use to a degree. What does that get you? Restrictions on the volume of water that can be used per flush. You'd prefer to be wasteful at the expense of both the greater good and your own personal good. You can use the water up now, but that means neither the low or high flow toilets will work in the future.
And lightbulbs of course. The legislation that calls for regulation of bulbs doesn't actually dictate the bulb you can buy, it just mandates that they meet a certain level of efficiency. Your choice will still be plentiful, and in many cases, you probably won't even notice the difference except for a higher up front cost, but lower lifetime coast.
Curse that blasted government! Trying to ensure longterm prosperity and access to the most important natural resource on the planet (water) and trying to ensure a stable energy supply for the future! When will the tyranny end?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe we're in a world of hurt because we haven't built a nuclear reactor in decades. We can't drill for oil and we haven't built one refinery in 30 years. I remember the rolling blackouts in California. Good thing Washington State was there to pipe juice into their 30 year old power generation system.
As far as light bulbs are concerned they are outlawing incandescent bulbs. You may as well say they aren't making electric cars the law of the land, just mandating cars get at least 75 mpg. (I don't have any incandescents left in my house by the way, by choice) Kinda like: social security is optional? You choose to participate. Choose not to and you can't work or get an education. It's a choice though.
Places like So Cal can have restrictions. I'm a states rights believer. If a state wants to regulate, let them. Speaking of Cali, say goodby to big screen tv's and get ready for govt controlled thermostats. Federal govt has no business in this. If a state wants gay marriage, good. I could live in a different state. If Oregon wants universal health care and you want it, move there, if not move away. This is the beauty of states rights. Our system of government was designed to operate this way. If not specifically enumerated in the constitution it is left to the states and to the people. The Fed has no business micromanaging our laws and communities.
Tax increases are almost always justified with threats of a reduction in necessary services. The gov budget is tight and they scare the public into agreeing. It's always: we're going to have to cut the police, paramedics, firemen and teachers. Talk about irresponsibility? What about the govt beurocrats that outnumber the police? Never a threat that they are going to have to cut a beurocrat's job.
I'll try the same trick with my wife. Maybe I should tell her to put in a few extra hours to contribute more towards the mortgage. Once she does, I go buy a jet ski.
I'm enjoying my $15 a week tax cut, thank you Mr. President. His green initiative tax increases will more than wipe that out though. The greatest shell game players of all. When he runs for reelection he'll brag about his tax cut while his believers wonder why their money doesn't seem to go as far.
posted
For the record, everything in America is dirt cheap because of the low taxes. But people in places with higher taxes still get by and they still get rich--they just buy less crap.
Think, for example, how much richer the average reasonably well-off young person would be if they didn't buy alcohol except on special occasions. An alcoholic drink, let's say, is $5. Multiply that by two a week and that's a month's rent down the drain (literally!) in a year.
What about clothes? I expect the average woman spends about the same on clothes, if not significantly more, every year. Another month's rent.
Electricity. With efficient (and smaller) building construction, fans and turning the air-conditioning up to bearable instead of really freaking cold, most companies would probably save good portion of their taxes
The average family goes out to dinner maybe, let's say, once every two weeks (some seems to go almost every night, others less). Dinner for family or four or five out, thinking frugally: $60, Dinner for family of four or five at home: $30 and that's eating well.
Television. People pay hundreds of dollars a month for hundreds of channels which show almost nothing. Cancel the TV and rent DVDs and all of a sudden you're saving hundreds of dollars.
Cars. Keep that car one year longer or give your kids an old car rather than a new one. Instead of going through ten cars in your life time, you go through nine. Savings of the price of a car!
And this isn't really living terribly poorly. You can still buy your big screen TVs and your computers. You can still eat extremely well. You can still dress extremely well. You don't have to turn the air-conditioning off entirely. You don't have to go without alcoholic drinks.
Some people live like this and I think with all this stuff put together you can save thousands of dollars a year. Enough to pay those extra taxes or save up for that slightly more efficient vehicle.
Many Westerners live like Kings not in the sense that they live well but in the sense that they live better than well. They (We), like Kings in a different era, rely on the rest of the world living less than well in order to maintain their living standard. We haven't grown out of a feudal order, we've just outsourced it.
And that is where the government comes in. If the government mandates standards on fuel efficiency, they are forcing us to consume less fuel (although we may pay the cost in the initial purchase). When they mandate we use more efficient bulbs, they are saving us paying electricity bills. And this is on top of the usage of fuel anyway. Every bit of fuel that doesn't get used is not only saved on the cost to get it out the ground and ship it to your powerstation or car, but it also means it's there for somebody else to use later on down the line. Triple win!
It's mandated because the vast majority of people do not save on their own.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Kinda like: social security is optional? You choose to participate. Choose not to and you can't work or get an education. It's a choice though.
I bet you think there should be consequences to not registering for the selective service. Don't you?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Please stop saying that those who favor socialized health care don't have jobs, it's very rude and untrue.
Indeed. I support a single-payer system though I currently have one of the best employer-paid private health plans in the world. I don't pay any premiums nor do I pay single cent out of pocket for any medical procedures or prescriptions. There are unlimited mental health benefits and even many "elective" procedures like fertility treatments are fully covered.
While my situation is great, I still think that as a nation our healthcare system is embarrasing by western standards in its overall cost and availability measured against outcomes.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
I'm googling specific chunks of malanthrop's posts and finding out which websites and chain e-mails they've been copied from.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Teshi, there's one problem with that logic: the American economy is currently predicated on our willingness to spend more than we can afford on disposable gadgets and optional services. If we start cutting back on these things, we start losing jobs.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Teshi, there's one problem with that logic: the American economy is currently predicated on our willingness to spend more than we can afford on disposable gadgets and optional services. If we start cutting back on these things, we start losing jobs.
But that can't mean that we shouldn't cut back, right?
From my limited experience with these things, I see it from two points of view. The first I guess I would call bottom up. Workers have rights, people have a right to make money to sustain themselves, etc. I don't think many people are actively trying to prevent people from working, or actively declaring that people don't have the right to make money for sustenance.
On the other hand, the top down, large portions of our system are broken. The transportation sector is spewing greenhouse gases, air pollutants, causes asthma, guzzles foreign oil, etc. Our agricultural system, for the most part, is dependent on synthetic fertilizers, large amounts of pesticides and herbicides, and is sucking many of our aquifers dry, the Colorado River no longer ends, and there is a ginormous dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico from the fertilizer and agricultural runoff. I don't think that there are many people who would declare these to be negligible problems.
And somewhere in the middle, the top-down and bottom-up meet. Somewhere in there the rights of workers and the need to address these large scale problems are clashing. I tend to be more concerned with the large scale problems, and that's partly due to the fact that it's some of those large scale problems that I study and spend my days researching.
I don't want to force an automobile worker into unemployment and declare that it's for the good of our planet, but I also don't want to reject sound and sustainable policy because some of our population currently earns money from producing Hummers.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:From malanthrop: Maybe we're in a world of hurt because we haven't built a nuclear reactor in decades. We can't drill for oil and we haven't built one refinery in 30 years. I remember the rolling blackouts in California. Good thing Washington State was there to pipe juice into their 30 year old power generation system.
As far as light bulbs are concerned they are outlawing incandescent bulbs. You may as well say they aren't making electric cars the law of the land, just mandating cars get at least 75 mpg. (I don't have any incandescents left in my house by the way, by choice) Kinda like: social security is optional? You choose to participate. Choose not to and you can't work or get an education. It's a choice though.
I don't see why not having built a nuclear reactor in decades is the sole reason for us being on the teetering point of big problems. We've built considerably extra electric generating capacity using other sources of energy, and despite the high cost and long build time, nuclear power will soon make a come back.
Also, I love it when people point out that no new refineries have been built in decades, and ignore the fact that refining capacity has increased by leaps and bounds because existing refineries have dramatically scaled up their own production capabilities to meet demand. Bad malanthrop.
And no, they aren't outlawing incandescents. There are still many numerous kinds of incandescents that are exempted in the efficiency bill that was passed, and GE at least, maybe Phillips too, are working on and plan to bring to market high efficiency incandescents by the time the bill actually comes into force that will meet the standards of the bill and still be the same incandescents that you've always known and loved. The result? You get to keep your same bulb, but there's a net gain both for you personally and the nation as a whole.
I'm not pretending any of these things are optional, I'm arguing that the government is acting as a preventative force for the general welfare of the nation, over the objections of a short sighted few that want to keep doing things the same old way, not realizing or caring that the old way is highly unsustainable will lead to eventual ruin.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Teshi, there's one problem with that logic: the American economy is currently predicated on our willingness to spend more than we can afford on disposable gadgets and optional services. If we start cutting back on these things, we start losing jobs.
What the White Whale said. I realise there are economic issues. Every time I don't buy something, I prevent someone from being employed. However, it doesn't actually make me want to buy more stuff just to support people because I don't have lots of extra money anyway.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I'm not pretending any of these things are optional, I'm arguing that the government is acting as a preventative force for the general welfare of the nation, over the objections of a short sighted few that want to keep doing things the same old way, not realizing or caring that the old way is highly unsustainable will lead to eventual ruin.
posted
It seems to me that China's economy is predicated on American willingness to spend on disposable gadgets.
Oddly enough, it appears that America's economy is predicated on American willingness to play games with pieces of paper in order to create the appearance of it being a good idea to borrow in order to spend on those aforementioned gadgets (while taking a big vig on those games).
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would imagine that at least some of the wind taken from the Chinese economy's sails won't ever return. Large sectors of their economy ARE based on selling crap to Americans, and as Americans realize their own lack of ability to buy said crap, the Chinese will have to shutter factories due to reduced demand. It's not like they can turn around and sell it to Europe, they're in even worse shape than we are.
I've already read articles about closed factories and angry workers demanding jobs. I don't think the global economic downturn will be enough to seriously destabilize the Chinese government or anything, but I do think the ripple effects are clear.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Force GE to make more efficienct incandescents? I suppose you're one of those guys who believes the oil companies bought up all the patents for the 100mpg carburators that have been designed. You can't legislate away the laws of physics.
Of course refining capacity has gone up, we are more technologically advanced. We are much more efficient and a much cleaner society as well.
Convenient no one wants to discuss the government has made more money from oil than the oil companies.
Still waiting for the examples of successful government social programs. I've demonstrated the failure of the one's we have and you argue for more.
The government isn't inherently evil or bad. Government programs are full of fraud because people are inherently greedy. If it's being paid for by the govt, people will take full advantage and beyond. Bill medicare for unnecessary services. I know elderly who go to the doctor every single week, not for any particular reason but it makes them feel better and the doctor is more than happy to bill the government for their "checkup" where they just chit chat. Milk the contracts to the bitter end. Apply for every social welfare program, able bodied or not. My daughter's school offers free breakfast and lunch, some kids need it but they don't bother to check who does. My kids could get it, just get in line without money. My brother in law has recieved Soccial Security benefits since he was 19 (SSI) because my in laws got a good lawyer and he's a drug addict who can't hold a job. It's not the government's fault but when it comes to government money, it's freeby time.
The govt pays for commercials on tv and radio to advertise welfare and foodstamps where I live. Are they serious? Is it a program of need or are they encouraging people to get on the tit. Why not, the school gets extra money for every kid who gets free lunch. The city gets federal dollars for each welfare recipient. If you don't spend every cent in your budget in govt, they reduce your budget. Budgets in any industry fluctuate up and down, in government, they normally only go up. I've been there, "It's the end of the quarter and we have $60k left. Break out Fed Log and start ordering stuff." All agencies work this way in the gov.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, GE was going to make them anyway. They'd already phased out their regular incandescent division before the law was even passed to focus on CFLs, but had long planned to bring HEIs to market as an interim move because people are hesitant to buy CFLs and because LEDs for residential use aren't really close to large scale application yet. That thing about the oil companies and the thing about the laws of physics are non-sequitors as far as I can tell, unless you want to explain the linkage.
Technological advancement has something to do with it, yes, but it's also the physical act of adding more machinery and what not onto existing plants to increase capacity. It's more like saying a distillery has added additional vats to increase whiskey production rather than saying they've become more adept at creating the whiskey in the vats they already have. And by the way, the only reason we're a cleaner and more efficient society is because government (generally at the insistence of liberals) has forced industry to do so. They figured it out. They got over it. They profited from it. And we all benefit from it as a society.
Social Security when it was first enacted by the way lifted tens of thousands of the elderly out of poverty. It was an immediate success that has since reached critical mass less because of the system than because of the political problems that make fixing it untenable. The retirement age will have to be raised, and the benefits will have to be reduced. There's no way around it, and the sooner we realize that, the better off we'll be, but there's nothing inherently wrong with social security. If only the youth of this nation could organize into a lobbying group like the old people did with AARP, I think SS reform would move along a heck of a lot faster. That and a lot of things. It's amazing how lazy we can be as a demographic when it REALLY matters, and how up in arms we can get about crap that I couldn't care less about.
Single payer universal health care, by the way, is probably the most appropriate example of a government social program that works successfully for the betterment of the society at large. Oh wait, has that been mentioned?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Yes, I'm aware of that. I just surmise that Mal is in favor of those consequences.
Suprised you would think that. When's the last time we needed a draft? There are plenty of volunteers. Unless you believe the military is a place for the desperate, stupid and minorities who are being victimized for their position in life.
Social security was a great idea. The money I pay in would make a much better retirement and the money the elderly already paid in would've been so for them, had they left it alone.
No debate on my position about government spending huh? No examples of good programs? Blah, blah, blah. You want more but you can't deny the failure of the ones in existence. Lucy, Charlie and the football.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:No debate on my position about government spending huh? No examples of good programs? Blah, blah, blah. You want more but you can't deny the failure of the ones in existence.
Usually in a debate, or even a decent, working discussion, you have to consider the points the opposition makes before flatly rejecting them. I guess your way is easier.
But it's also neither discussing nor debating. It's talking to yourself.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: No debate on my position about government spending huh?
Let's point to a random poster such as, oh, say .. the rabbit.
One might cleverly note the substance behind those post(s) which constitute an attempt at debating your position on government spending.
One might even go so far as to note that others, such as myself, have offered plenty, only to have it be roundly rejected by you based on epic goalpoast-shifting, then relegated to the status of never-have-existing.
To deny the validity of these arguments is one thing; to deny that they exist and have been provided to you reveals your lack of willingness or ability to comprehend.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let me go back a couple pages and respond to the "random" poster since none of the regulars are capable on their own.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
A half dozen of the regulars have responded to you, repeatedly. But when you can't find a good rebuttal for arguments, you ignore them, change the subject and attack peoples character and patriotism. Then you wait for the page to change and pretend none of it ever happened.
You are either too stupid to recognize a rebuttal when you read one, so demented you can't remember what was said from one day to the next or so naive you think a page change can cover an obvious lie.
You aren't worth our time.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:My opinions are in no way ucommon. The majority of the people I know, neighbors, coworkers, freinds and family are on the same page as I. It may be uncommon for my opinions to be expressed in this forum and to be sure, there are forums where I would fit right in, as you do here. You don't seek to be challenged or debated you only seek affirmation of your beliefs or challenges in minutia.
Actually there is far more diversity of opinion here than most of the forums out there.
Furthermore, the question wasn't about your opinions in general but about a specific opinion -- one which has a quantitative answer. That specific question was the belief that health insurance could possibly be cheaper than any common combination of TV, cell phone and internet use.
Like I said that question has a quantitative answer. In the US, the average per capita health care expenditure is $5,711. So the average cost of insurance for a family of 4, should come out to $22,544, or about $1900/month. The cost of private insurance is almost certainly much lower than that (around half I believe) but that is because public insurance (medicare) pays for the oldest and most expensive segment of the population.
In Finland (the OECD country with the cheapest health care), the average annual per capita health care cost is $2,104 or $8,416 for a family of four or about $700/month. Its unreasonable to expect that a family would be able to get reasonable insurance coverage for less than that in any developed country. How families do you know who spend more than $700/month on cell phones, cable and internet? I don't know any.
You are mixing numbers. The average per capita expenditure includes employee and employer contributions. You are pretending the total cost is on the employee.
I'm partial to US Government Census statitics: They aren't pushing an agenda and are quite quantitative. Based on National Compensation Survey, a sample survey of 12,821 private industry establishments of all sizes, representing about 108 million workers; http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/tables/09s0150.pdf
Average employee monthly contribution family $312 Average employer contribution 87%
A bit off of your statistic but if you'd like to argue with the US census bureau, go ahead.
Coincidentally, that's just about what health care for my family costs and equivalent to my cell phone, tv and internet (maybe I'll have to skip starbucks a couple times a month to make up the difference) Honestly, my utilities in Florida cost more, drill baby drill.
The topic really isn't about the workers contribution to health care but health care for EVERYONE. Of course if you an unskilled drop out working at a fast food restaurant, you probably aren't going to be offered health care. There is one option, you could work for Wal Mart and get benefits though: http://walmartstores.com/download/2320.pdf
Employer contribution is the key, that is if you are an employee somewhere. The agenda pushers quote "total cost", disregarding the employer contributions to that cost then count in the "uninsured" category the people who choose not to have the insurance and illegal aliens. Sure there are people who are in need, those people deserve it but don't twist the numbers for your agenda. I didn't "choose" an insurance plan until I was married. "The sky is falling" works great. What happened to the starving children and the millions of homeless angle during the Clinton years? I suppose that one is old hat now.
Here's another interesting statistic, 5% of of our population accounts for 49% of our health care costs. Maybe we should just start putting old people to sleep like our dogs. It would be best for all society that way; save health care costs for truly needy people. I heard it suggested we should take plastic surgery money away from rich people too, great ideas fellas. We should have a health care tax for every pound a person is overwhieght due to their burdon on the health care industry, worked for smokers. The needs of the many, Mr. Spock.
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: You are mixing numbers. The average per capita expenditure includes employee and employer contributions. You are pretending the total cost is on the employee.
I was referring to the question posed by shigoshi
quote:Hey, I was wondering...does anyone besides Malanthrop believe that the cost of health insurance (the full cost, not partially paid for by an employer) could possibly be less than any amount of cell phone, TV, and internet services that a normal person would use?
So yes, I was talking about the total cost, not just the cost to the employee -- that was the question presented. Furthermore, its stupid to pretend that the employers contribution isn't a cost to the employee. That is part of the employees compensation package. The employee receives that in exchange for his/her work. If health care were less expensive, the employee could demand a higher salary.
quote:
quote:I'm partial to US Government Census statitics: They aren't pushing an agenda and are quite quantitative. Based on National Compensation Survey, a sample survey of 12,821 private industry establishments of all sizes, representing about 108 million workers; http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/tables/09s0150.pdf
Average employee monthly contribution family $312 Average employer contribution 87%
A bit off of your statistic but if you'd like to argue with the US census bureau, go ahead.
They don't disagree with my statistics at all since the US census bureau is reporting average employee monthly contribution per family and the question posed was specifically "the full cost", including what is paid for by the employer.
Based on the US census statistics you quote, employers are on average covering 87% of the cost. Using the average employee contribution, that suggest that the full cost per month is $2400/family. That is higher than the estimate I came up with, likely because most employers cover a smaller percent of the insurance for families than for individuals. Kaiser foundation studies suggest employers pay about 80% of the insurance costs for familes, which would make a total of ~$1600/month. Those numbers bracket the estimate I made using average per capita health care costs which isn't bad consider all the ill founded assumption underlying all the calculations.
quote:Coincidentally, that's just about what health care for my family costs and equivalent to my cell phone, tv and internet (maybe I'll have to skip starbucks a couple times a month to make up the difference) Honestly, my utilities in Florida cost more, drill baby drill.
Once again, the question wasn't about your cost, it was about the combined cost to you and your employer. Are you paying the full cost of your health insurance or does your employer actually pay 80% or more?
quote:The topic really isn't about the workers contribution to health care but health care for EVERYONE.
You got that right. You are the only one talking solely about the employee contribution, everyone else is talking about total cost.
quote:Of course if you an unskilled drop out working at a fast food restaurant, you probably aren't going to be offered health care. There is one option, you could work for Wal Mart and get benefits though: http://walmartstores.com/download/2320.pdf
Employer contribution is the key, that is if you are an employee somewhere. The agenda pushers quote "total cost", disregarding the employer contributions to that cost then count in the "uninsured" category the people who choose not to have the insurance and illegal aliens.
Yes, the agenda pushers push "total cost" because that is the real cost. Very few of the uninsured are people who are opting out of an employee health plan because they don't want to pay their 13% of the total cost. Most small business don't offer health insurance benefits, people who are self employed don't get an "employer contribution". As the cost of health care skyrockets, more and more employers are dropping health insurance benefits. Funny you should mention Walmart, one of their standard practices is to employ people for 35 hours/week to save the cost of health care benefits they give to 36 hr/week employees.
Furthermore, the high cost of health insurance in the US, makes it difficult for US employers to compete with companies in Canada and Europe where the cost of health benefits is half what it in the US. So this isn't just about individuals and families, its also about businesses. That is one of the reasons that so many companies have started pushing the "agenda".
Insurance companies offer discounts to big businesses that small businesses and individuals can't get. People who are considered "high risk" by insurance companies, generally cannot get insurance unless they work for a large employer. Drs bills are substantially higher if you are uninsured. I personally have several friends who closed their small business and gone to work for a large business in order to get insurance. I know several more who would quit their jobs and start a small business if they could get affordable health care.
According to the Kaiser foundation, in 2007 66.7% of uninsured population are full time full year legal workers.
quote:Sure there are people who are in need, those people deserve it but don't twist the numbers for your agenda.
You are the one who is twisting the numbers for your agenda. Using only the "employee contribution" accounts only for the very small fraction of uninsured people who opt out of their employers insurance plan. It doesn't account for the overwhelming majority of uninsured families who work but whose employers don't offer health benefits.
[ April 09, 2009, 01:51 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Social Security when it was first enacted by the way lifted tens of thousands of the elderly out of poverty. It was an immediate success that has since reached critical mass less because of the system than because of the political problems that make fixing it untenable. The retirement age will have to be raised, and the benefits will have to be reduced. There's no way around it, and the sooner we realize that, the better off we'll be, but there's nothing inherently wrong with social security. If only the youth of this nation could organize into a lobbying group like the old people did with AARP, I think SS reform would move along a heck of a lot faster. That and a lot of things. It's amazing how lazy we can be as a demographic when it REALLY matters, and how up in arms we can get about crap that I couldn't care less about.
What about raising the cap as part of that solution?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, raising the cap needs to be added as part of that solution.
Its worth noting that the percentage of adults expected to live to retirement age has increased significantly and the average number of years people live once they reach age 65 has increased significantly. Add to that the fact the people tend to be older when they enter the work force, and what you see is that raising the retirement is almost unavoidable. A society simply can't continue to thrive with the average person working a smaller and smaller percentage of their life.
But overall, the problems with social security have been greatly overblown for political reasons. Gradually raising the retirement age to 68 over the next 20 years will virtually eliminate any solvency problems. What it won't fix is the fact that social security has a much lower rate of return than nearly all other pension plans, which is I think the real source of dissatisfaction with social security and one of the reasons that no one is too concerned about it right now. (Aren't you glad we didn't listen to Bush and put SS in the stock market in 2005? )
There are also some hidden agendas behind social security reform. There are those on Wall Street who stand (or stood) to reap massive profits from the privatization of SS. And then there is the fact that the government has been borrowing money from the SS fund since the Reagan years. When that debt come due, there will be hell to pay and many politicians are looking for a way to avoid responsibility for that particular mess.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Since you've considered employers cost in the true cost to the employee I'll follow you down that road.
Self employed individual pays the full amount (no matching funds) of social security and medicare.
Social Security 15.3% Medicare 5.2%
This doesn't include income tax.
So >20% of one's income is directed to the federal social programs we already have in place, and they are miserable failures, "unsustainable" according to the social security administration.
This doesn't include taxes on income, luxury, sales, gas, cars, etc etc.
There is a limit to the burdon that can be placed on the productive members of our society. Do you honestly think a hard working American should work half the year just for taxes?
Social security funds were tapped long before the Reagan years but and all administrations have continued with the general fund shell game.
I am sympathetic to the plight and understand the good intentions here. Someone has to pay for octamom's kids and I feel bad for people in third world countries. There will never be a perfect utopia.
I remember making 25k a year with a wife and two kids. Paying in $200 to income tax and getting a return of $6900. Maybe the poor should use that fat redistributive tax return to buy insurance instead of big screens, etc.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Average employee monthly contribution family $312 Average employer contribution 87%
I double checked this at the US census bureau site. here is the link The report is definitely worth reading and has some interesting stats.
First off, 87% is not the average employer contribution. 87% is the percentage of employees that are required to pay part of the health insurance premiums for their families. In other words, only 13% of families receive health insurance that is paid for in full by their employer.
On average, employees paid 19 percent of the medical care premium for single coverage and 29 percent of the premium for family coverage. The brings that average total premium for a family to around $1095/month. The average is certainly higher for those who must get insurance independently.
(P.S. I find that number eerily close to my crude estimate that private insurance was running at around half of the average per capita health care cost)
Also of note in the census bureau link above, are statistics about the percentage of employees who receive health care benefits.
71% of workers in private industry have access to medical care through their employers and about 52% actually receive benefits. So 48% of private industry workers are not receiving medical benefits. Of those who do not receive medical benefits, 40% opt out of employer benefits and 60% have no access to employer benefits.
Its worth noting that only a portion of those who do not receive medical benefits through their employer are uninsured. Many people who opt out of their employers plan, do so because they get medical benefits through their spouses employer. The same is true for many workers who have no access to medical benefits.
I'd be very interested to see what fraction of the uninsured have access to an employer subsidized health care plan but choose not to participate. I suspect that number is fairly low and is made up primarily of single men in their twenties but that is just a guess. I'm sure there are many families living just above the poverty level for whom $300/month is significant financial burden and who have to choose between paying the rent or paying for medical insurance.
Bottom line, 6 out of 10 workers who don't get medical benefits, don't have the option and would have to pay 100% of the insurance cost rather than 29% of the insurance costs. Chance are this group make up far more than 60% of uninsured workers.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Self employed individual pays the full amount (no matching funds) of social security and medicare.
Social Security 15.3% Medicare 5.2%
This doesn't include income tax.
Actually, this is an over simplification. A self employed person pays 15.3% self employment tax (12.4% SS and 2.9% medicare). But that is 15.3% of 92.65% of net earnings from self employment not form 100% of gross earning. A person who is not self employed pays 7.65% of gross (before tax) income and their employer pays and additional 7.65%. It comes out exactly the same.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
And that is only on the first $100,000 or so. Even moderately wealthy people - say a full professor at a major university, not even a CEO - pay a smaller percent when you look at their total income, yes?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
