• Friendly reminder: The politics section is a place where a lot of differing opinions are raised. You may not like what you read here but it is someone's opinion. As long as the debate is respectful you are free to debate freely. Also, the views and opinions expressed by forum members may not necessarily reflect those of GBAtemp. Messages that the staff consider offensive or inflammatory may be removed in line with existing forum terms and conditions.

Romney vs. Obama

who will/would you vote for?

  • Barack Obama

    Votes: 158 76.0%
  • Mitt Romney

    Votes: 50 24.0%

  • Total voters
    208
Status
Not open for further replies.

Lacius

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
May 11, 2008
Messages
18,099
Trophies
3
XP
18,334
Country
United States
I'm getting pretty tired of the phrase "end Medicare as we know it." It presupposes that Medicare, as it currently exists, is an efficient, well-managed, self-sustaining program that is good for both providers and insured, and that there is no need for reform. Personally I think it is a socialist abomination, but now that seniors are dependent on the teat and planning their retirements around it, we'll probably never be able to get rid of it. It's a societal cancer, just like most democratic entitlement programs.
Fortunately for our discussion, we can compare a United States with Medicare to a United States without Medicare:

Before Medicare's creation, only half of older adults had health insurance, with coverage often unavailable or unaffordable to the other half. Older adults had half as much income as younger people and paid nearly three times as much for health insurance. Medicare also spurred the integration of thousands of waiting rooms, hospital floors, and physician practices by making payments to health care providers conditional on desegregation.
http://en.wikipedia....Program_history

So no, people aren't dependent on Medicare because they plan their retirements around it; they're dependent on Medicare because there was (and is) a need for it. Quite honestly, I don't see how one can argue that Medicare is a "societal cancer" unless one also believes that the United States is a country that casts aside its poor, elderly, disabled, and other vulnerable populations and tells them to fend for themselves. As high as health care costs are for the elderly, a United States without Medicare is pretty impractical and unfair for those who wouldn't be able to afford health care. I know you don't think this, but since it's unarguable that Medicare allows many elderly people to have health coverage when they wouldn't have it otherwise, it sounds to me like you're saying that the elderly are a "societal cancer."

I also don't think we're a country that should allow people to die from lack of health insurance because they happen to be poor, have a preexisting condition, etc, and the best way to do that would be government-run quality health care for all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person

Hanafuda

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2005
Messages
4,445
Trophies
2
XP
6,845
Country
United States
The fact that we still stick to the doctrine of long dead men from roughly 250 years in the past baffles me. Nowadays we live in such a radically different world that saying "The Founding Fathers wouldn't have liked that!" is just plainly dated. In 250 years we've gone from 13 measly colonies to one of (if not the greatest) super power the world has ever known. We've spread across to 50 states, adopted and outlawed slavery, been in (and won) two world wars, put a man on the moon, and created the most devastating weaponry in history. We shouldn't always assume the Founding Fathers wrote a timeless classic.

And we've done all that under that "old" Constitution. It always amazes me how young people tend to assume the old to be somehow ignorant of the human condition, and the dead even more so. But human nature is and always shall be one of the only things we can depend on, and the Constitution was written in full contemplation of human nature. Technology and the march of time only change the ways in which some people go about doing things, but it doesn't change what we do.

Also I should add that despite what I've had to say in my last few posts, I'm not a heartless bastard who thinks the poor shouldn't get help. I donate to charities of my choosing, and will even be donating a car later this year to my state's Heritage for the Blind. I just don't think government should be the source and solution. I feel this way for the same reason I think abortion should be legal, gay marriage should be legal, and the 'war on drugs' should end - because government shouldn't be managing and controlling every aspect of our lives. That's the whole point of the Bill of Rights - government must be limited and kept in check to preserve liberty. Anyway, these are more philosophical considerations than practical ones - but Franklin was correct when he said, "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Would you say every CEO, every politician, everyone of wealth is smarter, works harder, and does more important things? The people who mine coal and work in factories are what make our country work. Yes, we need a structure for distributing them, but the base of the country is often those of lower income in dead end jobs. We couldn't live without food from farmers, we couldn't have power without coal and whatever we use, we couldn't drive to work without gas.

I think money is an irrelevant object. The fact that we use worthless paper currency to judge someone's worth is ridiculous. The fact that one human being gets put above another because of circumstances is ridiculous. Those that hold back society will filter out. But someone who was already born without no future shouldn't be suffering while someone born of privilege gets a free ride to continue privilege.

Well, you're kinda dodging the point that some jobs are simply worth more and deserve to be compensated better than others, but when it comes to massive hoarded wealth and inheritance, I'm pretty sympathetic to where you're coming from. So this is the thing ... I watched that whole "Occupy" fiasco some months ago, knowing all along what it would devolve into and fizzle in the end, but every day I was waiting and hoping for someone in that movement to "get it" and make it heard loud and clear - so listen up cuz I'm going to let the cat out of the bag ...

If you want there to be a real change in the imbalance of wealth, if you want the kinds of change to happen that you thought you were voting for when you voted for Obama, then stop worrying about taxing income. Instead, tax individual wealth. Making 'the rich' (i.e. over 250k/yr) pay a higher income tax rate will only crush small businesses and result in higher prices for consumers, as the big corporate retailers and manufacturers compensate for the higher tax burden on their income. Instead, impose a flat percentage tax on every individual's personal wealth over (for example) 2 million. Romney's worth 250 million? Bill Gates is worth 61 billion? Fine, we'll take 20% of that this year. And next year, we'll take 20% of what's left. And so on.

I wonder if the Democratic Party would get behind that?
 

BlueStar

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2006
Messages
4,092
Trophies
0
Location
UK
XP
691
Country
If you want there to be a real change in the imbalance of wealth, if you want the kinds of change to happen that you thought you were voting for when you voted for Obama, then stop worrying about taxing income. Instead, tax individual wealth. Making 'the rich' (i.e. over 250k/yr) pay a higher income tax rate will only crush small businesses and result in higher prices for consumers, as the big corporate retailers and manufacturers compensate for the higher tax burden on their income. Instead, impose a flat percentage tax on every individual's personal wealth over (for example) 2 million. Romney's worth 250 million? Bill Gates is worth 61 billion? Fine, we'll take 20% of that this year. And next year, we'll take 20% of what's left. And so on.

I wonder if the Democratic Party would get behind that?

UK Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg proposed something similar recently

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/consumertips/tax/9515557/Lib-Dems-will-continue-to-push-for-Nick-Cleggs-wealth-tax-says-Vince-Cable.html
 

Foxi4

Endless Trash
Global Moderator
Joined
Sep 13, 2009
Messages
30,815
Trophies
3
Location
Gaming Grotto
XP
29,768
Country
Poland
Taxing individual wealth goes againts reason. In essence, you're taking away 20% of someone's savings just to take 20% of the exact same savings next year - you're taxing a citizen two times for the same thing - it's the court equivalent of breaking the Double Jeopardy rule. You can't punish people for being successful or for being responsible with their savings. By the way, I hope that those "20%" were just a joke - no debit account brings that kind of profits on a yearly basis - in essence, an account holder would gain aprox. 5% yearly from the bank and then lose 20% yearly due to tax - I don't have to tell you that this leads to "closing accounts and putting money in socks", right?

Tax evasion would skyrocket, it sounds like an incredible mess to me. Now, don't get me wrong - I'm all for equality and change, but what if someone's income suddenly rapidly drops? What if I'm "worth" XYZ dollars while making ABC dollars yearly and suddenly lose my job? I'm not magically worth "less" - I have the same wealth, I'm just not making any income, however I'd be taxed as if I were.

I don't think it's a well-balanced solution at all, even if it "looks good" on paper. If you don't want businesses to run straight out of your country and your people to start literally hiding their savings on over-shore accounts, I suggest that you leave "accomodated wealth" alone.
 

Lacius

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
May 11, 2008
Messages
18,099
Trophies
3
XP
18,334
Country
United States
Also I should add that despite what I've had to say in my last few posts, I'm not a heartless bastard who thinks the poor shouldn't get help. I donate to charities of my choosing, and will even be donating a car later this year to my state's Heritage for the Blind. I just don't think government should be the source and solution.
I understand that you're not a "heartless bastard," but depending on good people like you who donate to charities doesn't exactly solve the problems that so-called entitlement programs solve. There isn't exactly a viable alternative other than letting the poor, elderly, etc. fend for themselves.

Making 'the rich' (i.e. over 250k/yr) pay a higher income tax rate will only crush small businesses and result in higher prices for consumers, as the big corporate retailers and manufacturers compensate for the higher tax burden on their income.
Actually, allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire for those making more than $250,000 a year, which is what you seem to be referring to, would have little to no effect on small businesses. Something like 97% of small businesses would be unaffected by allowing those particular tax cuts to expire, according to nonpartisan congressional estimates.

Instead, impose a flat percentage tax on every individual's personal wealth over (for example) 2 million. Romney's worth 250 million? Bill Gates is worth 61 billion? Fine, we'll take 20% of that this year. And next year, we'll take 20% of what's left. And so on.
Doesn't that mean the government could potentially take from someone more than he or she makes per year?
 

Hanafuda

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2005
Messages
4,445
Trophies
2
XP
6,845
Country
United States
Hey, I'm not seriously suggesting that - I just said it was the solution to the complaint about the imbalance of wealth. You can raise income taxes all you like, it won't do anything about the 1% sitting on hundreds of millions/billions while the rest of us make just enough to get our kids educated and into the same crappy jobs we worked at till retiring.
 

Foxi4

Endless Trash
Global Moderator
Joined
Sep 13, 2009
Messages
30,815
Trophies
3
Location
Gaming Grotto
XP
29,768
Country
Poland
Hey, I'm not seriously suggesting that - I just said it was the solution to the complaint about the imbalance of wealth. You can raise income taxes all you like, it won't do anything about the 1% sitting on hundreds of millions/billions while the rest of us make just enough to get our kids educated and into the same crappy jobs we worked at till retiring.
You do realize that those wealthy families most likely weren't always wealthy - one of them down the line was a good businessman and created his/her empire through hard work, right? Y'know, following the American Dream?

Bill Gates is one of the richest people on Earth even though I'm willing to bet that barely anyone on this very forum has a legal copy of Windows installed on their computer, unless it was pre-installed (OEM), and you know what? He started in a garage.

Apple is now the biggest US-based company, and guess what? They started in a garage too.

So how's about you stop being disgruntled and start being enterprising - there are ideas to be had and inventions to be invented. Envy of someone's success doesn't validate taking away someone's wealth, and while I agree that there are some fortunes that were made illegally, they all deserve to be "presumed innocent".
 

Lacius

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
May 11, 2008
Messages
18,099
Trophies
3
XP
18,334
Country
United States
Hey, I'm not seriously suggesting that - I just said it was the solution to the complaint about the imbalance of wealth. You can raise income taxes all you like, it won't do anything about the 1% sitting on hundreds of millions/billions while the rest of us make just enough to get our kids educated and into the same crappy jobs we worked at till retiring.
I think the issue is more about making sure people pay their fair share. I don't think anyone is seriously arguing that we punish success by excessively taxing the rich until they're middle class. The problems are, however, that:
  • The middle class is shrinking
  • People like Mitt Romney pay a tax rate of 13% because they benefit from a rigged system
  • The system is rigged to benefit the rich because of big money in politics (worsened by the Citizens United case)
  • Republicans want to give more tax breaks to the rich by increasing the burden on the poor (whether it's increasing taxes on the poor to ending spending programs that benefit the poor).
That doesn't seem very fair to me.
 

Hanafuda

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2005
Messages
4,445
Trophies
2
XP
6,845
Country
United States
Envy of someone's success doesn't validate taking away someone's wealth ...

Hey, I'm just playing devil's advocate. Tell it to this guy ...

Occupy_Wall_Street.jpg



Actually I'm surprised to see you guys backlash against that proposal (though we didn't hear yet from Guild McCommunist or smile72). You're a more reasonable bunch than I thought. But before generalizing "Republicans" as the only ones serving the rich, don't forget that Senator Kerry, Warren Buffett, the Kennedys, and all those Wall Street bankers and brokers that Obama bailed out are benefiting from that rigged tax system just as much as Romney or any other Republican. And they had a lot more to do with making the laws the way they are than Romney ever did.
 

Sterling

GBAtemp's Silver Hero
Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2009
Messages
4,023
Trophies
1
Age
32
Location
Texas
XP
1,100
Country
United States
I don't actually know enough about politics to get in on this discussion. I will be watching though.
 

LightyKD

Future CEO of OUYA Inc.
Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
5,523
Trophies
2
Age
38
Location
Angel Grove, CA
XP
5,261
Country
United States
Cant wait for the President's speech tonight! Hopefully, the release of the jobs numbers tomorrow wont derail the momentum. So far, the early reports released today are making tomorrow's release look bright.
 

smile72

NewsBot
Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2010
Messages
1,910
Trophies
0
Age
30
Location
???
XP
983
Country
Envy of someone's success doesn't validate taking away someone's wealth ...

Hey, I'm just playing devil's advocate. Tell it to this guy ...

Occupy_Wall_Street.jpg



Actually I'm surprised to see you guys backlash against that proposal (though we didn't hear yet from Guild McCommunist or smile72). You're a more reasonable bunch than I thought. But before generalizing "Republicans" as the only ones serving the rich, don't forget that Senator Kerry, Warren Buffett, the Kennedys, and all those Wall Street bankers and brokers that Obama bailed out are benefiting from that rigged tax system just as much as Romney or any other Republican. And they had a lot more to do with making the laws the way they are than Romney ever did.
You didn't hear me yet due to my lack of internet.... Read my blog. And I agree we shouldn't tax someone's personal saving it's beyond foolish. But neither should Mitt Romney pay 13% because of a super rigged tax system.
 

LightyKD

Future CEO of OUYA Inc.
Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
5,523
Trophies
2
Age
38
Location
Angel Grove, CA
XP
5,261
Country
United States
Apparently, the Romney camp is holding a series of "Victory Rallies" today...

Can't find a online source but I have been watching MSNBC since 2pm EST and they talked about it a few times.

(WARNING: Incomming Sarcasm)
"Muthafucka! How da hell you gonna throw a victory rally when election day is STILL 40+ days away?!"

Reminds me of this picture...

220px-Bush_mission_accomplished.jpg
 

Foxi4

Endless Trash
Global Moderator
Joined
Sep 13, 2009
Messages
30,815
Trophies
3
Location
Gaming Grotto
XP
29,768
Country
Poland
He's entitled to rally around the states in which projections show that he'll get the majority of votes - that's merely strenghtening his position. Most would think that visiting the states in which he has a poor chance at winning would be better, but on the other hand, it's not insane to add some aditional cover to the bases you already own.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Site & Scene News

Popular threads in this forum

General chit-chat
Help Users
  • No one is chatting at the moment.
    K3Nv2 @ K3Nv2: Sorry for accidentally bending over