well what about this bro wrote:
So why does the GOP, Tea Party, et al, scream class warfare when the idea of allowing these tax cuts to expire is mentioned?
it would cut into their massive profits, incomes, etc
this explains it:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-the-gop-became-the-party-of-the-rich-20111109Independent thinker wrote:I think much of the class warfare calls are less about the amount of money requested and more in the portrayal of the rich. The GOP feel the rich are being portrayed as the cause of and potential solution to (through taxes - not economic growth) the current economic crises. Whether you think this is true or not, the GOP feel it is an intentional demonization of the rich. This creates a level of animosity between the different classes, which is where the class warfare calls are from.
Wait, how do you get from the idea that the extreme wealth gap is a cause of our economic problems to notions of demonization, animosity, and class warfare. Explain it slowly so that I can follow the reasoning because it makes no sense to me.
deleuze wrote:
Independent thinker wrote:I think much of the class warfare calls are less about the amount of money requested and more in the portrayal of the rich. The GOP feel the rich are being portrayed as the cause of and potential solution to (through taxes - not economic growth) the current economic crises. Whether you think this is true or not, the GOP feel it is an intentional demonization of the rich. This creates a level of animosity between the different classes, which is where the class warfare calls are from.Wait, how do you get from the idea that the extreme wealth gap is a cause of our economic problems to notions of demonization, animosity, and class warfare. Explain it slowly so that I can follow the reasoning because it makes no sense to me.
It's the political rhetoric used. I know this is on both sides. It drives me crazy. But by the left saying that the rich aren't paying their "fair share", or that they got "exorbitant tax cuts" is an intentionally play at emotions. Playing on emotions pits people against each other. Since the people pitted against each other are from different classes, they use the term "class warfare".
If they instead focused on the math and not emotions, I think they would get a lot more support. Saying that a relatively small increase from 35% to 39.6% would cut $X billion dollars off the deficit would resound with a lot of people.
It's hard for them to say that, however, as the Bush Tax Cuts have already been claimed as "exorbitant". It's hard to argue that letting them expire wouldn't result in an "exorbitant" increase in taxes after that.
dfsdfs wrote:
well what about this bro wrote:So why does the GOP, Tea Party, et al, scream class warfare when the idea of allowing these tax cuts to expire is mentioned?
it would cut into their massive profits, incomes, etc
this explains it:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-the-gop-became-the-party-of-the-rich-20111109
From the opening cartoon, I could tell it was going to be a very well thought out, balanced article...
The question is why is it so expensive to get healthcare in America.
And the answer is the Healthcare Insurers, for profit Hospitals, and Big Pharma.
Yet dupes like you try to put it onto Unions.
You are a quisling.
The New UncleB wrote:
The question is why is it so expensive to get healthcare in America.
And the answer is the Healthcare Insurers, for profit Hospitals, and Big Pharma.
Yet dupes like you try to put it onto Unions.
You are a quisling.
Except that if it weren't for for profit hospitals and big pharma, healthcare would be like it was 75+ years ago. It'd be cheap, but if you got real sick, you'd die.
asdasdaf wrote:
The New UncleB wrote:The question is why is it so expensive to get healthcare in America.
And the answer is the Healthcare Insurers, for profit Hospitals, and Big Pharma.
Yet dupes like you try to put it onto Unions.
You are a quisling.
Except that if it weren't for for profit hospitals and big pharma, healthcare would be like it was 75+ years ago. It'd be cheap, but if you got real sick, you'd die.
Or it would be like it is everywhere else in the modern world, where we get quality healthcare and it does not bankrupt you.
The New UncleB wrote:
asdasdaf wrote:Except that if it weren't for for profit hospitals and big pharma, healthcare would be like it was 75+ years ago. It'd be cheap, but if you got real sick, you'd die.
Or it would be like it is everywhere else in the modern world, where we get quality healthcare and it does not bankrupt you.
What other countries in the world don't use the innovations of big pharma and for profit hospitals? Just because they don't have them, doesn't mean they don't reap the benefits.
Independent thinker wrote:
It's the political rhetoric used. I know this is on both sides. It drives me crazy. But by the left saying that the rich aren't paying their "fair share", or that they got "exorbitant tax cuts" is an intentionally play at emotions. Playing on emotions pits people against each other. Since the people pitted against each other are from different classes, they use the term "class warfare".
I see what you are saying, but if you look at the actual language and rhetoric that is being used, you will see that it is not equal on both sides. The rhetorical charge of "exorbitant tax cuts" and "paying your fair share" is very different than the rhetorical charge of "class warfare." We all want to be fair-minded, but when we elide real differences in the name of fairness, we are being unfair.
Independent thinker wrote:
It's the political rhetoric used. I know this is on both sides. It drives me crazy. But by the left saying that the rich aren't paying their "fair share", or that they got "exorbitant tax cuts" is an intentionally play at emotions. Playing on emotions pits people against each other. Since the people pitted against each other are from different classes, they use the term "class warfare".
deleuze wrote:
I see what you are saying, but if you look at the actual language and rhetoric that is being used, you will see that it is not equal on both sides. The rhetorical charge of "exorbitant tax cuts" and "paying your fair share" is very different than the rhetorical charge of "class warfare." We all want to be fair-minded, but when we elide real differences in the name of fairness, we are being unfair.
I think that the strength and veracity of the rhetoric depends on what side of the argument you're on. That's the problem with using emotional language. The emotional language directed at you resounds so strongly that it's hard to see how anyone else could feel differently. This is where both sides are coming from.
Two wrongs don't make a right. I wish both sides would drop the rhetoric. It works, unfortunately, so that'll never happen.
How does allowing the investing/owning class to take chunks of premiums that should be used to provide healthcare profit anyone but the profiteers?
I'll give you a hint. It doesn't.
The New UncleB wrote:
The question is why is it so expensive to get healthcare in America.
And the answer is the Healthcare Insurers, for profit Hospitals, and Big Pharma.
Yet dupes like you try to put it onto Unions.
You are a quisling.
Listen Dopey, have you read anything I've ever said on this matter? I've said all along that I'd like to break the insurance cartel, the agricultural/petrochemical lobby that creates government subsidies for high fructose corn syrup and soybean oil cheaper, which finds its way into junk food, and to create a system of incentives/disincentives to establish some personal accountability, not to mention tort reform, which would mitigate insurance cost for doctors. Obamacare does none of these things. And you conveniently forget that it was the government who put the onus of providing healthcare on employers to begin with.
We need open markets for insurance, where insurers can compete to make it more affordable, we need to break the agricultural/ethanol lobby (which can be done through serious tax reform), and we need to address the DEMAND side of the equation. The reason why "nationalized" healthcare works in much of the Western world (only it doesn't as you see Europe breaking apart before your very eyes on the back of this same union-oriented entitlement attitude) is because the highest obesity rate is in France at about 10%. In America, it's 30%+ and climbing, and those with an unhealthy BMI account for over half.
Preventable type II diabetes and heart disease eat up roughly 55% of the cost of medicare, a full 1/3 attributable to diabetes alone.
Until people make better choices and have less fat and more skin in the game, there's no incentive for it to change. So the demand for medicine goes up, forcing price inflation. 60 years ago, the co-pay was half. Now, some don't even have a co-pay. Let someone else take care of my $100,000 angioplasty. I mean, when I get on a plane next to a fat person who outweighs me by 3x (but not quite big enough to have to pay for two seats), no doubt totes heavier luggage, and smokes to boot, is it fair to me that we are paying the same price for our ticket, when he/she undoubtedly causes the plane to use more fuel, not to mention the level of discomfort I have to put up with?
You don't never change your oil, watch your engine breakdown, and then take it to a mechanic, only expecting to pay a $20 co-pay to get it fixed? Some procedures, no doubt, can't be "shopped" around for, but many (most?) can. As far as Big Pharma, I'm not a huge fan, as I think allopathic medicine has severe limitations and built-in incentives to push meds, many of them unnecessary, but a full 2/3 of their top line either goes to taxes or back into R&D, from which much of the rest of the world benefits. Then they lose patent protection eventually. And why should we be subsidizing cheaper medicines in the rest of the world, because that's what we do?
Healthcare is an entirely different argument, but unions are of, for, and by themselves. Good, duped, faithful employees pay their bloated, mandatory union dues when they could probably negotiate a better deal for themselves AS A WHOLE if we would LET them, instead of having a proxy of just a few employees and union bosses.
There was certainly a time when workers had a need for unions (but there was also a time of American economic hegemony that's long gone, which is why comparisons to 1950 or even 1990 are such a ruse), and there are certainly industries that need more protections, but there are already more workers' rights than ever before. When I used to interview employees, I was always told to "give more leeway to certain groups of people" by upper management, even if they lacked a basic skillset, which most did. Think that's a way to improve productivity in a company?
I remember a friend who spent fully 50% of his time "coaching" an employee who had no business being there and eventually lost his job when he brought it to the attention of upper management. And to think I used to be liberal until I got an advanced degree in financial math and econometrics and worked in the private sector, where at least there's SOME accountability. I was able to create jobs by fostering productivity. Meanwhile, only now is government morass being scrutinized.
My wife used to work on behalf of unions, but saw that they simply created a regulatory albatross, sucked up time and money, and were truly in it for themselves, and companies were suffering, unable to hire more workers as a result of the bureaucratic constipation. Her current company is a great case in point. And we are broke. Get it? BROKE. You could tax the top 1%, 10%, or 20% who do most of the job creating and are responsible for most of the demand, and you would make a mere dent in the national debt while killing even more jobs, to say nothing of our massive off-balance sheet, "entitlement" problem. Amazing that pensions are still able to get away with north of 8% assumptions to make their plans look whole.
Why do you suppose companies are trying to flee to right to work states? South Carolina and Alabama are becoming efficient, low cost producers that can compete, but I fear that we, with the best intentions of course, will start enacting trade barriers, taxing capital and encouraging more of it to go offshore, and the "other 99%" will be left fighting for crumbs.
I don't know how old you are UncleBS, but if you are in your 50s or older, you are part of the generation that left this mess in your wake over the last three decades built on leverage. You're the group that needs to take a serious haircut. We could get back in the business of creating jobs RIGHT now, blue-collar and white collar but currently we have no interest in doing so, because you intellectual progressives have a vastly different agenda.
As far as teachers, they are terribly important, because one of the biggest issues challenging us as a country is not producing enough skilled workers. Michael Dell summed it up when he said that they had to comb the globe to find specialized skillsets but had 50,000 applications for an assembly position. It's just sad. We used to import high-skilled immigrants to obtain their PhDs and set up shop in America, providing a great many jobs. But now, we do the same thing, and 80% of them flee for the greener pastures of Malaysia, Singapore, and the like. Meanwhile, we do nothing about the illegal, low-skilled labor problem that has been burgeoning for years and sucking on the government tit.
And the unionized grid that protects some undeserving teachers while not paying the great teachers enough is a huge part of the problem. There are many teachers that are probably worth $90,000 per year, even with two months and holidays off, but there are equally many who are worth far less or undeserving of a position altogether.
Whether charter schools deliver better results or not (in our case, it's been a phenomenal success, despite a wide demographic makeup) is kind of missing the point. There's a reason why so much demand has cropped up for them. It's called competition. But America is so soft that all we care about are "rights," not competing in this new world of tax and wage arbitrage.
The invisible hand works, if we'd only let it. To think that the last 30 years has, in any way, resembled a free, competitive market is sheer ignorance. Curiously, as we've been cutting more bloat out of government, private sector jobs have been on the rise. We've also insourced a lot of companies, so this entire "Buy America," especially when it comes to cars, is silly. Honda and Toyota are the most American car companies now when you look at it in totality (manufacturing, assembly, sales).
But we're far more interested in equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity. Greece went down the same path. Italy too. Trickle-up poverty...
Independent thinker wrote:I think that the strength and veracity of the rhetoric depends on what side of the argument you're on. That's the problem with using emotional language. The emotional language directed at you resounds so strongly that it's hard to see how anyone else could feel differently. This is where both sides are coming from.
Two wrongs don't make a right. I wish both sides would drop the rhetoric. It works, unfortunately, so that'll never happen.
I don't think we really disagree on this. I guess I'd just rather see a concrete analysis of actual rhetoric from actual sources rather than a vague complaint about a problem on both sides. I thought the example that you used didn't really demonstrate equal levels of inflammatory rhetoric, but i'm sure examples could be found.
In the end, I think the problem has something to do with the way we talk, but much more to do with the way we listen. A tactic of political warfare is to give ordinary descriptive language a rhetorical charge, which makes all rational discussion of a problem into something like warfare. This has happened with words like "tax," "liberal," "climate change," "environmentalism," "corporations," and even basic ideas like "fairness" and "justice." What do we hear when we hear these words from folks who advocate different political ideologies? Do we hear ideas or attacks?
[I understand we are way off topic here. Cheers!]
Have a listen to this interview conducted on Nov 10th. This was done yesterday. Tom Woods interview Dr. Steven Lantier, anesthesiologist & co-director of the Oklahoma Surgery Center. He explains how how his facility is able to offer medical procedures far below market rates, and what the government can learn from their example. It's fascinating.
In addition, go here as they post their prices for various surgeries. Need a hernia op? Find out how much it really costs.
http://www.surgerycenterok.com/pricing.php
Enjoy
Ahhh, price transparency... what a wonderful thing. We wouldn't be in such a mess as a country if we'd had it all along.
Sagarin.
WTF are you talking about?
So many words, so little clarity.
Take your defense of the billionaire investing class and shove it up your .. well you know where
The New UncleB wrote:
Sagarin.
WTF are you talking about?
So many words, so little clarity.
Take your defense of the billionaire investing class and shove it up your .. well you know where
As thoughtful a reply as I'd expect from you. The trolls are what make this site fun. Except you. You just drag everything down.
asdasd wrote:
As thoughtful a reply as I'd expect from you. The trolls are what make this site fun. Except you. You just drag everything down.
Yep, a predictable and very robust rebuttal that says absolutely nothing other than he doesn't know what the fukk I'm talking about, which is, in fact, accurate. Probably has no idea I firmly opposed TARP and continued Fed manipulation, as well as supporting tax reform that closes loopholes. Gotta give him credit though. I was pretty sure he was going to try to work Iran and/or Israel into this thread. There's still time...
[quote]Sagarin wrote:
[quote]asdasd wrote:
"a predictable and very robust rebuttal"
Do you never tire of your pompous pontificating?
Face the facts. You are a dupe of the owning/investing/ruling class. You have been propagandized into believing that the working people -- blue collar, white collar, working and middle class --- have too much and that the billionaires have too little.
You are a fool, a buffoon, a very loud and very empty vessel with no thoughts of his own. An overly sensitive egomaniac who calls himself "Sagarin" as if that somehow confers wisdom onto you. Have you no shame?
And I will work in Israel for you. Your brain is occupied by the owners of this world just as Israel occupies Palestine.
Told ya. It's in his DNA.