The Medicare voucher program

[Hlleonard]

Unless someone has been watching too much MSNB (All Al Sharpton all the time) and fallen hook line and sinker for Democrat class warfare BS, it is hard for me to see how a person could make the statements you did in your post I responded to.

I'm not rich, and grew up dirt poor so I have nothing against lower income or middle class people. The so called rich are paying roughly 70% of the federal taxes in America, while a full 50% of the population pays nothing. In fact lower income people can get a federal tax 'refund' of way more than they paid in to begin with.

What would you have the government do to narrow the wealth gap?

--
I believe the post you are referring to was in response to a question by Mr. waterdog "I can't imagine the shape this country would be in without strict rules and regulations" , there are third world countries all over the planet and I believe a signpost of most of those is a lack or at least a limited middle class which was the point of my response to him... In those countries, there is very little concern for the safety and well being of the folks in the lower class as more is always better and if you happen to be in the upper class, the only place to get more is from the lower class folks... I have no doubts about the wealthy paying the lions share of the taxes collected by the federal government nor do I doubt your statement about the number of folks who pay no taxes, I'm not sure why we give folks the credits you referred to which is way beyond the taxes taken out of their weekly wages during the year (child tax credits, earned income credits) but if you set all that aside and concentrate on the middle class, which using your numbers pay 30% of the tax dollars collected, not a math mathematician or financial annalist but it seems to me like a dollar earned by the middle class is taxed heavier than a dollar earned by either of the other two classes of folks, it looks to me like a reduction in the middle class will result in less dollars in the tax till with no tax cuts of any kind... I believe a loss of the middle class will move us to a place nobody in our country wants to go... I'm not sure I would do anything regulatory to move wealth from the upper class to the middle class which seems to be what you inferred, that might be called socialism or something like that, but deregulation within the government seemed to cause what is referred to as the boom and bust in the housing market and as a result, the rich got richer and the rest suffered the consequences... The only way to preserve the middle class is through better pay days and not worse ones... Trade unions were the best friend the middle class had and I don't know if there is anything that can replace those.

[Devils Horse]

--
I believe the post you are referring to was in response to a question by Mr. waterdog "I can't imagine the shape this country would be in without strict rules and regulations" , there are third world countries all over the planet and I believe a signpost of most of those is a lack or at least a limited middle class which was the point of my response to him... In those countries, there is very little concern for the safety and well being of the folks in the lower class as more is always better and if you happen to be in the upper class, the only place to get more is from the lower class folks... I have no doubts about the wealthy paying the lions share of the taxes collected by the federal government nor do I doubt your statement about the number of folks who pay no taxes, I'm not sure why we give folks the credits you referred to which is way beyond the taxes taken out of their weekly wages during the year (child tax credits, earned income credits) but if you set all that aside and concentrate on the middle class, which using your numbers pay 30% of the tax dollars collected, not a math mathematician or financial annalist but it seems to me like a dollar earned by the middle class is taxed heavier than a dollar earned by either of the other two classes of folks, it looks to me like a reduction in the middle class will result in less dollars in the tax till with no tax cuts of any kind... I believe a loss of the middle class will move us to a place nobody in our country wants to go... I'm not sure I would do anything regulatory to move wealth from the upper class to the middle class which seems to be what you inferred, that might be called socialism or something like that, but deregulation within the government seemed to cause what is referred to as the boom and bust in the housing market and as a result, the rich got richer and the rest suffered the consequences... The only way to preserve the middle class is through better pay days and not worse ones... Trade unions were the best friend the middle class had and I don't know if there is anything that can replace those.

Actually, as I understand it, the housing collapse was caused by the likes of Barney Franks and Chris Dodd who changed fannie and freddy loan terms. 5% or even 0 down, and serious relaxation of credit worthiness. Seriously under qualified buyers got into tons of toxic loans, and those loans got sold around till nobody would buy them anymore. So the housing collapse had little to do with DE regulation, and much to do with vote pandering by congresspeople.

BTW, the Obama administration is still (very quietly) pushing the lending practices that got the collapse rolling to begin with.

I didn't know trade unions were gone. Don't they make up a large portion of Democrat financial support and voter base? If they are dead, then the party they support has not done a very good job for them have they? Also, there are those who believe unions have inflated wages/benefits to the point where companies move manufacturing operations out of the country to remain competitive.

When I started at he company I'm at, there were 40+ manufacturing facilities in the US, but our competitors were already mostly off shore. Now we have maybe 10 facilities in the US, and most of those are for product distribution.

[DJD]

Couldn't help myself.....was watching American justice and they talked about unions during the Hoffa years. Hoffa made a deal with them to help him get elected and the payback was Hoffa gave loans to the Mafia to build hotels and casinos in Vegas. So in a way i guess the teamsters can be proud of that?? I mean millions of dollars of teamsters funds paid for that city. Banks wouldn't touch the mafia since the city was trying to rid themselves of the mafia and would not touch them with a ten foot pole on loans but the Teamsters made a deal with them to get more power. The decision wasn't made for the union guys it was for greed at the top. Not real sure how that was the best thing for the union members or middle class. Maybe because they received good returns on the loans?? Still sleeping with the devil.

To me little has changed with unions. The higher ups still use bully tactics against companies or gubment agencies to get what they want. I have nothing against any union guy and if they choose to support unions that's fine but to not see what these groups do to companies is foolish. It's bully tactics at it's finest. My buddy has 6 years before he retires from UPS and has done it right. Buying stock like crazy and will retire and wealthy man. He has been a union steward for many years so he knows the little games and tactics used by the union. He has told me many times how he could protect fools in the union by threats of a battle between the management and the teamsters. It's dirty...plain and simple. Unions had a place and maybe in some cases they still do but to me they are like the gubment....to much power and they impose their will on others...unfairly at times.

I never been union and make a great living. I chose my path via military which paid for my education and taught me how to be a man in so many ways. I gave the gubmnet 4 years of my life and they gave me a means to better myself. My point is unions are not the end all answer for success.

[Hlleonard]

Couldn't help myself.....was watching American justice and they talked about unions during the Hoffa years. Hoffa made a deal with them to help him get elected and the payback was Hoffa gave loans to the Mafia to build hotels and casinos in Vegas. So in a way i guess the teamsters can be proud of that?? I mean millions of dollars of teamsters funds paid for that city. Banks wouldn't touch the mafia since the city was trying to rid themselves of the mafia and would not touch them with a ten foot pole on loans but the Teamsters made a deal with them to get more power. The decision wasn't made for the union guys it was for greed at the top. Not real sure how that was the best thing for the union members or middle class. Maybe because they received good returns on the loans?? Still sleeping with the devil.

To me little has changed with unions. The higher ups still use bully tactics against companies or gubment agencies to get what they want. I have nothing against any union guy and if they choose to support unions that's fine but to not see what these groups do to companies is foolish. It's bully tactics at it's finest. My buddy has 6 years before he retires from UPS and has done it right. Buying stock like crazy and will retire and wealthy man. He has been a union steward for many years so he knows the little games and tactics used by the union. He has told me many times how he could protect fools in the union by threats of a battle between the management and the teamsters. It's dirty...plain and simple. Unions had a place and maybe in some cases they still do but to me they are like the gubment....to much power and they impose their will on others...unfairly at times.

I never been union and make a great living. I chose my path via military which paid for my education and taught me how to be a man in so many ways. I gave the gubmnet 4 years of my life and they gave me a means to better myself. My point is unions are not the end all answer for success.

--
Wouldn't it a better country if we did not need unions, the unions have and probably always did have baskets full of dirty laundry but the battle is being won against them, you can chat with somebody making half union wages or less and he will tell you how much he hates unions, I guess he doesn't hate food stamps as a lot of the working poor seem to rely on them to feed their family.

[DJD]

--
Wouldn't it a better country if we did not need unions, the unions have and probably always did have baskets full of dirty laundry but the battle is being won against them, you can chat with somebody making half union wages or less and he will tell you how much he hates unions, I guess he doesn't hate food stamps as a lot of the working poor seem to rely on them to feed their family.

Your right alot of people do rely on Food Stamps now. I was told more than ever in our countries history. I didn't snope that since even if it was true it's someone else fault. That's the Obama creed..."it's not my mess, I inherited it"

I'm not one of those that makes half or less than union members that I can assure you. I'm just privy to info and been a victim of their games while working in union shops as a contractor and of course hear about other wrongs unions have tried on small companies that were convinced to go union. Still have many friends in unions who are electricians, teamsters and autoworkers and not everyone agrees with the union actions.

I'm not foolish to think that people should not make a decent wage. I wish we all could work one job and if a spouse wanted to stay home and raise the kids they could but those days are gone. Is it totally the unions fault?? No way! I blame politicians who sold our country out, taxed companies to death so companies found ways around the greed of gubment. We waste waste waste our tax dollars on foolish things and the two party system blames the others and that divides the country and none of the tough decisions ever get made. All the decisions made by either party are weighed against the idea of how will that translate in voters opinion, or what elections will that cost us if we make a stand.
IMO people who don't challenge the idea that gubment is wanting to control more of our liberties and freedoms are drinking to much koolaid. We need less gubment, less intrusion and let the American spirit thrive. Instead we are getting more and more folks depending on food stamps, healthcare, education and welfare. At some point the amount of folks contributing will be out weighed by the amount of folks getting handouts. That scares the crap out of me and when that happens the people lose their voice and we get controlled just like other power hungry gubments in the past world history. It's sad to see folks excited about taking from others.......the Libs in power push that idea and look at how many folks thrive on that notion. Sad sad sad

[Devils Horse]

Your right alot of people do rely on Food Stamps now. I was told more than ever in our countries history. I didn't snope that since even if it was true it's someone else fault. That's the Obama creed..."it's not my mess, I inherited it"

I'm not one of those that makes half or less than union members that I can assure you. I'm just privy to info and been a victim of their games while working in union shops as a contractor and of course hear about other wrongs unions have tried on small companies that were convinced to go union. Still have many friends in unions who are electricians, teamsters and autoworkers and not everyone agrees with the union actions.

I'm not foolish to think that people should not make a decent wage. I wish we all could work one job and if a spouse wanted to stay home and raise the kids they could but those days are gone. Is it totally the unions fault?? No way! I blame politicians who sold our country out, taxed companies to death so companies found ways around the greed of gubment. We waste waste waste our tax dollars on foolish things and the two party system blames the others and that divides the country and none of the tough decisions ever get made. All the decisions made by either party are weighed against the idea of how will that translate in voters opinion, or what elections will that cost us if we make a stand.
IMO people who don't challenge the idea that gubment is wanting to control more of our liberties and freedoms are drinking to much koolaid. We need less gubment, less intrusion and let the American spirit thrive. Instead we are getting more and more folks depending on food stamps, healthcare, education and welfare. At some point the amount of folks contributing will be out weighed by the amount of folks getting handouts. That scares the crap out of me and when that happens the people lose their voice and we get controlled just like other power hungry gubments in the past world history. It's sad to see folks excited about taking from others.......the Libs in power push that idea and look at how many folks thrive on that notion. Sad sad sad

Well said.

We're already not that far away from those on government assistance outnumbering those who are not. One word describes over-reliance on the government, socialism.

It is likely a President with a very strong bent toward socialism will be re elected this November.

[Hlleonard]

Well said.

We're already not that far away from those on government assistance outnumbering those who are not. One word describes over-reliance on the government, socialism.

It is likely a President with a very strong bent toward socialism will be re elected this November.

--
Socialism is an awfully ugly word, we have struggled for a lot of years to find a medium happy between our two forms of government and hopefully down the road we can find our way out of this mess we have gotten ourselves into... I don't believe either of these candidates can lead us down that path.

[RoadToad]

Obama is not a socialist, just ask any member of the American Socialist Party. Socialists don't bail out for-profit companies. People have thrown that word around as an epithet since the Civil War, and it has rarely come close to being true.

Here's an interesting factoid for you: The Pledge of Allegiance was written by a socialist.

[DJD]

Obama is not a socialist, just ask any member of the American Socialist Party. Socialists don't bail out for-profit companies. People have thrown that word around as an epithet since the Civil War, and it has rarely come close to being true.

Here's an interesting factoid for you: The Pledge of Allegiance was written by a socialist.

He might not be a socialist on the outside but on the inside he is a socialist Muslim..

Heres another tidbit......the democrat party was pro KKK and even been told that they started that crazy group to scare and warn the GOP to stop helping blacks with their rights and freedoms. It took the GOP vote to give blacks. Citizenship because the dems didnt want them to have equal rights.

[Devils Horse]

Obama is not a socialist, just ask any member of the American Socialist Party. Socialists don't bail out for-profit companies. People have thrown that word around as an epithet since the Civil War, and it has rarely come close to being true.

Here's an interesting factoid for you: The Pledge of Allegiance was written by a socialist.

The factoid is irrelevant.

Socialism:
A political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole

Okay, substitute government for community in the above definition. Sound familiar?

[Mean Morone]

One of our founders once said that when the people realize they can vote themselves money, it's all over. Very wise man. Another wise man once said if you don't work you don't eat.

[Devils Horse]

--
Socialism is an awfully ugly word, we have struggled for a lot of years to find a medium happy between our two forms of government and hopefully down the road we can find our way out of this mess we have gotten ourselves into... I don't believe either of these candidates can lead us down that path.

Which two forms of government are we talking about? I'm assuming you're talking about the Republican/Democrat two party system.

I'm not a learned scholar on the subject, so bear with me on this. Take a country where the national government redistributes wealth for "social justice"? That same country's government administers it's citizens' health care and forces them to buy into the system whether they want to or not? 50% of that country's people depend on the government for some form of basic need? Does the Democrat party in it's current form not openly advocate all these?

Semantics can in fact be an ugly thing, but that last paragraph sounds a lot like like socialism to me. What would you call it?

I believe step one to getting out of this mess is taking the reigns of power away from tax and spend politicians. Barack Obama is the biggest spender in history. Simple, America desperately needs him gone. We need that lying fool, Harry Reid gone just as badly.