|
|
 |
|
#41
02-26-2007, 06:12 PM
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Why don't you tell us about the context of the quote? Why don't you relate the setting where she made the comment? Why? Because you just don;t know and don't care to try. You'd rather just forward some secondhand blather that you read instead of thinkong for yourself. 
|
|
#42
02-26-2007, 09:34 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
B, thank you for posting the quote correctly so I could actually google it (take note, Timm; that's one of the things that makes him so fun to debate with- he does his homework.
 ).Here's the context, from the AP report: <<Headlining an appearance with other Democratic women senators on behalf of Sen. Barbara Boxer, who is up for re-election this year, Hillary Clinton told several hundred supporters – some of whom had ponied up as much as $10,000 to attend – to expect to lose some of the tax cuts passed by President Bush if Democrats win the White House and control of Congress. "Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you," Sen. Clinton said. "We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." >> I'm sure you'll all be shocked, shocked to hear that I don't really have any issue with rolling back some of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. If it cuts the deficit and helps pay back the enormous cost for Bush's little experiment in nation-building, fine. What, so the super-wealthy (who were the ones who benefited most from the tax cuts) get five luxury houses instead of six? Cry me a river. Props to Clinton for actually telling it straight to the rich people it would affect. Hey, if they can afford $10,000 to hear her speak, they can afford to see the tax cuts rolled back. Next, Timm? Again, Bababooyee, thank you for taking the time to post the quote correctly. Much appreciated. 
__________________
Gentlemen! We're burning daylight! Riders up! -Bill Murray
|
|
#43
02-27-2007, 09:51 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Well, European nations made national health care a priority, and for all the things we criticize about their national health plans, they spend less, per person, than we do on health care AND they have lower infant mortality rates and longer life spans than the USA. Can you imagine buying a car that gets less milage, breaks down sooner and paying more for it than any other car? And yet we do that with our health plan because we're not interested in the common good. Pol Pot's genocide was racially-based more than class-based, Bababooyee. He went for the the Cambodian Muslims (the Cham) first, then the ones of Vietnamese descent, and then, I believe, onto the military, professionals and intellectuals (or as Timm would call them, the Democrats. Sorry Timm, I'm going to be teasing you about the "liberals think they're smarter than everyone else" for a long time. ). My stepmom's first husband was Cham, and in the military and was one of the first ones to be executed.And I think comparing progressive taxation to a mass murderer is really tasteless. I'll be sure to pass along your thoughts to my stepmom and ask her whether she thinks the tax cuts on the rich being repealed compare to the four years she spent in a labor camp. Very classy, B.
__________________
Gentlemen! We're burning daylight! Riders up! -Bill Murray Last edited by GenuineRisk : 02-27-2007 at 10:34 AM.
|
|
#44
02-27-2007, 02:25 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Working for the common good leads to the end of slavery, women's suffrage, labor rights and minimum wages. Along with national health care, though we're not there yet. Having been in Cambodia a few years back, the divide between rich and poor is very great- there's no progressive taxation, you see. The rich run the government and are as corrupt as can be. We went to lunch with a very wealthy lady-- she was very nice-- and she has full-time bodyguards to protect her because, as a wealthy person in a very poor country, she's not safe walking by herself. It's not a nice feeling, eating lunch with armed bodyguards standing near you. That's the flip side not believing society owes something to the poor, B. Their fellow citizens are starving and their lives are at risk from said starving people. Some of us don't think gated communities are an ideal living circumstance, you know. But then maybe you favor aristocracies, which is what the kind of economic system you want leads to. Worked out very well for the Tsar, didn't it? So you're claiming that religion and ethnicity had nothing to do with the genocide in Cambodia? Is that what you're claiming?
__________________
Gentlemen! We're burning daylight! Riders up! -Bill Murray
|
|
#45
02-27-2007, 07:00 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Here's a quote for you,GR, that covers the liberal thinking he's smarter than the average person. Hillary Clinton in her book "I've always been a Yankee fan"...We just can't trust the American people to make those kinds of choices...Govt has to make those choices for people! page 20....speaking to Dennis Hastert in 1993 discussing her expensive, disastrous tax-payer funded healthcare plan. I hope this post is up to your standards.
|
|
#46
02-27-2007, 08:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
i always get uncomfortable when there is a comparison made between the u.s. and european countries, some of which are heading towards bankruptcy faster than you can spell the word, due to incredibly liberal welfare--germany for instance, in which new mothers get a year off, new fathers get six months-paid the whole time.
__________________
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all. Abraham Lincoln
|
|
#47
02-28-2007, 11:19 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Again, I fail to understand the conservative insistance that something must be entirely right or entirely wrong, as I think that only happens in a fantasy land. Europe has got some serious trade-offs for their social safety nets- high unemployment and immigration being among them. But they have better literacy, longer life spans, lower child mortality, better child care and their citizens are guaranteed vacation. It comes down to choices- which do you think is more important? We have low unemployment. We also have a huge gap between rich and poor, a mess of a health care system and no guaranteed child care. Of course we need to compare ourselves to other systems- if they're doing something better, maybe we can figure out a way to do it, too, and if they're doing it worse, then we can avoid their mistakes. But, we're a young country, and, like a lot of young folks, awfully stubborn.
__________________
Gentlemen! We're burning daylight! Riders up! -Bill Murray
|
|
#48
02-28-2007, 11:30 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Bababooyee, I find it entertaining that for you, "common good" means anything evil (genocide) and "individuality" means anything good (anti-slavery). I hate to break this to you, but anti-slavery, women's lib, worker rigths, etc. were all liberal movements (I love how conservatives point to Lincoln and claim him as theirs, forgetting that in 1860, the Republican party was the liberal one). And they all essentially took power away from white man, to redistribute it among blacks, women, and lower-class workers. So this redistributing was bad and evil? But I forget, you would rather see the US an aristocracy, since you love the hereditary super-rich the way you do.
I'm sure the French aristocrats were convinced they were doing what was best for their people, right up until the moment they went to the guillotines.The middle class owes its existence to the very progressive tax rates of the first half of the last century here in the US. And as they've been chipped away, so has the middle class. I still don't see the comparison between Pol Pot and progressive taxation. He took advantage of a power vacuum created by the US destabilizing the country. I don't think progressive taxation is what gave him his start. Especially seeing as how Cambodia didn't even have income tax of any sort until the 1990's. So no, I'm not seeing your connection. Because there isn't one. Here's a link on Cambodia and personal income tax. Money (pardon the pun) quote: Even with this high exemption threshold, progressivity is low and the highest marginal rate is only 20 percent. This rate begins to apply only when income is higher than the equivalent of US$ 90,000 per year. For an annual income equivalent to US$ 100,000, the average tax rate is still below 9 percent. By any standards, this is extremely low. http://www.ocm.gov.kh/c_tax1.htm So, I apologize- Low progressivity, not none.
__________________
Gentlemen! We're burning daylight! Riders up! -Bill Murray
|
|
#49
02-28-2007, 11:38 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I think the Repubs did an excellent job taking over the argument on health care, and scaring the bejeezus out of people. And I don't think it was the crisis in 1993 that it's rapidly becoming. But Hillary was ahead of us with her push, and I'm willing to gamble before the end of my life (assuming I'm lucky enough to have a long one) I'll see a national health care system in place. For the love of Pete, Wal-Mart is advocating for it. And you don't get more anti-worker, red-state than Wal-Mart. Yes, because it will save Wal-Mart money, but fine. Once things reach a point where more conservative businesses and liberal activists are seeing the same problem, we'll start getting somewhere. But I think it'll take gov't, with its moderately paid service workers, to make it run well (the one thing no one ever accuses the Social Security administration of is inefficiency). We aren't the bravest when it comes to change, we Americans. It takes something really big, like a Great Depression, to wake us up. And I'm not buying the standard right-wing rhetoric that government is the root of all evil. (And if Wal-Mart really starts putting its money where its mouth is on pushing for national health care, I'll happily start shopping there again.) And we need to raise minimum retirement to 70. People live longer, they can work longer, as far as I'm concerned. I'm willing to.
__________________
Gentlemen! We're burning daylight! Riders up! -Bill Murray
|
|
#50
02-28-2007, 01:42 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#51
02-28-2007, 07:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
as for social security, i think it stinks that the people who never paid a dime into it get to take money out of it. i don't get back what i pay in, as i have to pay for those who never paid in. no wonder it's going broke. that's why i'm not crazy about the govt running health care-look at all the fraud and waste with medicare alone-what would happen if they ran it for everyone? i can just imagine. as for wal-mart, many of those who are eligible for health care from them, and elsewhere, don't take it. why? because they're covered elsewhere. only one-third of those eligible where i work take it-i don't, i'm covered already by my husbands company. looking at raw #'s of people who work for a company vs those who are covered doesn't explain what is really going on...if you took my company into consideration, we'd look like we didn't care to cover two thirds of our workers, when in fact they didn't sign up. it's amazing to me how many won't take coverage-i'm never sick they claim. all it takes is one time. then there's the gal who threw the whole packet in the trash when she made 90 days. two months later she's pregnant--and didn't sign up for the short term disability she was eligible for, that would have paid her while she was off on maternity leave. i think it would have taken about a buck a week out of her check. stupidity!
__________________
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all. Abraham Lincoln
|
|
#52
03-01-2007, 08:15 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
To qualify for Social Security Retirement benefits, you need 40 Social Security "credits." One credit is earned for each quarter of a year during which a worker has earned at least $780. So to be eligible to recieve ANY retirement benefit you need to have worked at least 40 quarters. Benefit eligibility for other Social Security programs including Survivor Benefits, Supplemental Security Income and Disability Income are different than for Retiremenet Income Benefits but still require a certain number of SS credits. In short, nobody is eligible to receive any benefit of any type from Social Security (aside from certain Surviving Dependents of SS eligible workers) unless they have worked long enough and have paid Social Security taxes.
|
Linear Mode
