The Official Obama debate thread.

[GarfieldJL]

Alright, then what about the ones right above the poverty line? The ones who are forced to live on minimum wage, and stuggle with a failing economy. They are still subjected to taxes, and I'm sure they can barely survive these days.

 

The people that pay taxes should get a tax cut, the people that don't shouldn't get a check cause it isn't a tax cut then, it is welfare.

 

And? A bit of socialistic practices is necessary when economic deregulation spirals out of control. Oh, and communism and socialism are two totally different things, far too often associated as one and the same.

 

And if you looked who caused it, you'd see it was Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and others of the Democrat party, just the media lied as usual. Republicans were actually trying to get the problem fixed. I had posted about this back before the election.

 

Since when? People will always aspire to get as much money as they can, no matter what the circumstances.

 

Since the fact all the extra money will be taken away because you apparently don't deserve it cause you make over X amount a year. Where is the incentive? That's the problem with socialism.

 

Next I'm expecting to see an attack on either the 1st Amendment or the 2nd Amendment. The difference between Republicans and Democrats is simple, the Republicans are content to winning an election, the Dems want to win and then destroy all opposition and voices of criticism.

[jrrtoken]

And if you looked who caused it, you'd see it was Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and others of the Democrat party, just the media lied as usual. Republicans were actually trying to get the problem fixed. I had posted about this back before the election.

There is no point to blame anymore, and that fact that you always seem to blame it one "them" is will get people nowhere.

Since the fact all the extra money will be taken away because you apparently don't deserve it cause you make over X amount a year. Where is the incentive? That's the problem with socialism.

You are describing a purely socialistic economy, which will never happen in the US. The US will always remain a capitalism, what matters is whether the government will institute a policy of supply-side economics as seen during Reagan, which is essentially extremely capitalist, or whether it will institute more of a mixed economy, similar to the UK.

Next I'm expecting to see an attack on either the 1st Amendment or the 2nd Amendment. The difference between Republicans and Democrats is simple, the Republicans are content to winning an election, the Dems want to win and then destroy all opposition and voices of criticism.

Just when I thought we were talking about the economy, your blatent, pointless monologue explaining the evils of the Democrats and the liberals pops up yet again. As GO-TO once said, "How droll."

[GarfieldJL]

There is no point to blame anymore, and that fact that you always seem to blame it one "them" is will get people nowhere.

 

There is when they are the ones that lined their pockets from it and are in charge of Government Committees responsible for the oversight.

 

You are describing a purely socialistic economy, which will never happen in the US. The US will always remain a capitalism, what matters is whether the government will institute a policy of supply-side economics as seen during Reagan, which is essentially extremely capitalist, or whether it will institute more of a mixed economy, similar to the UK.

 

Explains why 11 Democrats and every single Republican in the House of Representatives voted against the "stimulus" package.

 

Just when I thought we were talking about the economy, your blatent, pointless monologue explaining the evils of the Democrats and the liberals pops up yet again. As GO-TO once said, "How droll."

 

Let's see here, money to go to ACORN, trying to silence conservative commentators, for criticizing the Democrat bill, excuse me but the issue isn't just the economy, it's a free speech issue, among other things.

[Web Rider]

I was thinking more of a Chicago style Politician, cause there are a few liberals out there that I'm sure are not corrupt.

Yeah because Obama is totally using his mob connections and fake congressmen to get things done. Get a grip.

 

True, but even those in upper range saw a tax reduction, while those at poverty level got nothing. That is absolutely not fair.

You can't give back money to people who never gave you money in the first place.

[mimartin]

Just a reminder:

5. Repeatedly posting the same thing: This refers specifically to repeating the same point over and over in a way that becomes irritating, without an attempt to clarify a point or to contribute to the conversation. This should not be construed to mean that you are required to answer someone else's questions. If it's the same argument and doesn't contribute to the discussion, the post may be edited or deleted, and the poster may receive an infraction.[/Quote]

Per Jae’s reminder the other day and my deletion of someone’s post for this violation, we will be enforcing this rule. I had hoped both incidents made it clear that this rule will be enforced. Continued repeating the same argument will not be tolerated. If someone did not accept the argument the first time, they are not likely to change their minds with it being repeated over and over. Either accept that fact and move on or find different evidence they will accept. However, there is no rule in Kavar or this forum that they have to agree with you.

 

If you would like to report this rules violation, please include where the argument is repeated from in the remarks.

[mur'phon]

PastramiX:

Then tax only the wealthy, the real ones who deserve to be taxed for their massive amounts of wealth. As far as I'm concerned, the poor are still getting poorer while the rich are still getting richer, which is completely backwards, IMO.

 

Define wealthy, too often higher tax for the wealthy end up being higher tax for those who have two jobs.

 

And? A bit of socialistic practices is necessary when economic deregulation spirals out of control.

 

When regulation (not just deregulation) spirals out of controll, I'd say that re-regulation should be the focus.

While I agree the U.S could use some more socialist policies in general, and even more during a downturn, I'm afraid that the "downturn socialism" end up permanently.

 

Since when? People will always aspire to get as much money as they can, no matter what the circumstances.

 

But there is a point where you value the time you "waste" working more than the extra cash gained from working.

 

GarfieldJL

Raising taxes and digging yourself deeper into a hole won't help the economy recover.

 

Last time I checked there wasn't much tax raising in the pipe, Yes, that'll probably change when the economy recovers, but that's unlikely to be for a while.

 

There needs to be some changes but trying to punish the rich (and a lot of them gained wealth through legitimate and ethical means), just discourages people from trying to be the best they can be.

 

If you raise the taxes too high (and in the wrong places), then yes, I agree with you. I do however believe there is room for a fair bit more (after the economy recovers). Still, keep in mind the opportunities for the less well off that can be created by increased tax revenues. In my mind people should, as far as possible, be given the same opportunities to be the best they can be, if that is worth sacrificing a few other peoples opportunities is up to each to decide.

 

The people that pay taxes should get a tax cut, the people that don't shouldn't get a check cause it isn't a tax cut then, it is welfare.

 

But for stimulus purposes they work exactly the same way, so I don't see the problem here. This of course asumes that most of the extra wellfare spending is only for the recession.

 

Since the fact all the extra money will be taken away because you apparently don't deserve it cause you make over X amount a year. Where is the incentive?

 

The incentive is that it's a higher percentage that you loose, you still earn, besides, there are more ways to tax than through income.

 

Explains why 11 Democrats and every single Republican in the House of Representatives voted against the "stimulus" package.

 

Or maybe it was because they all knew it would be passed anyway, and decided that they might as well vote against to improve their chances of re-election.

[jonathan7]

Explains why 11 Democrats and every single Republican in the House of Representatives voted against the "stimulus" package.

 

I was under the impression that if a Bill passed the majority of people had voted for it? Or maybe that's me being naive.

[Web Rider]

But there is a point where you value the time you "waste" working more than the extra cash gained from working.

 

The backwards-bending curve of labor. That's what overtime was invented for, heck, what vacations and days off were invented for.

[GarfieldJL]

I was under the impression that if a Bill passed the majority of people had voted for it? Or maybe that's me being naive.

 

If you study the voting breakdown and the bill, you'd know that not even a single Republican voted for it, Obama is now trying to get a Republican Senator out of the Senate so he can be replaced so the Dems have complete control.

 

If the bill was a good bill there would have been Republicans voting for it, but it is nothing more than Nancy Pelosi's spending spree on Left-Wing agenda.

 

The backwards-bending curve of labor. That's what overtime was invented for, heck, what vacations and days off were invented for.

 

And what would be the point of overtime which is 150% of your normal pay per hour, if you get taxed extra for it so you don't see a significant increase in what you earn.

[jrrtoken]

Define wealthy' date=' too often higher tax for the wealthy end up being higher tax for those who have two jobs.[/quote']It can be debatable, but those earning more than $250,000 annually are considered part of the higher-class.

When regulation (not just deregulation) spirals out of controll, I'd say that re-regulation should be the focus.

While I agree the U.S could use some more socialist policies in general, and even more during a downturn, I'm afraid that the "downturn socialism" end up permanently.

It's possible, though I heavily doubt it. The US has had its long history of shutting up and crucifying any socialists, so I doubt that there will be any sort of "economic revolution" that will be totally socialistic.

[The Doctor]

And what would be the point of overtime which is 150% of your normal pay per hour, if you get taxed extra for it so you don't see a significant increase in what you earn.

 

If you're making over $250 000 a year, you can live without the fraction of your income derived from overtime. No one, repeat, no one needs that kind of money.

[EnderWiggin]

If you study the voting breakdown and the bill, you'd know that not even a single Republican voted for it

 

Means only that the republicans were being obstinate, nothing more.

 

Obama is now trying to get a Republican Senator out of the Senate so he can be replaced so the Dems have complete control.

 

Source please, and stop being sensationalist. To say that they would have complete control would be false and you know it.

 

_EW_

[Web Rider]

And what would be the point of overtime which is 150% of your normal pay per hour, if you get taxed extra for it so you don't see a significant increase in what you earn.

 

The backward-bending curve of labor only deals with companies and their employees. The concept is that you a person will only work for so long based on their wages and what they're doing. At some point, the extra income that they would make from working more hours is less valuable than the time the worker could be spending doing other things.

 

So, "overtime" is an incentive to get workers to work more, in a nutshell, making extra hours more valuable to work.

 

Taxes only affect the workers decision if the income difference is great enough.

[mur'phon]

If the bill was a good bill there would have been Republicans voting for it, but it is nothing more than Nancy Pelosi's spending spree on Left-Wing agenda.

 

Read the bill, it actually have a fair bit of tax cuts and other conservative godies in it. Add that the reps have nothing to loose by voting against it since they knew they couldn't prevent it from pasing through, and I'm inclined to believe that it was more about being able to vote against an unpopular bill without any risk.

 

It's possible, though I heavily doubt it. The US has had its long history of shutting up and crucifying any socialists, so I doubt that there will be any sort of "economic revolution" that will be totally socialistic.

 

Neither do I, but keep in mind that social spending is hard to cut back on, if it goes too far now, I don't envy the politicans faced with the bill at a time where he from an economic point of view should scale back.

[SRF_Vader]

If you're making over $250 000 a year, you can live without the fraction of your income derived from overtime. No one, repeat, no one needs that kind of money.

 

Who are you to tell someone what they need and dont need? Isnt that what we call tyranny? And that's what socialism is based in. Dictating what people are allowed to have. That is not freedom. That is not what our country was founded on.

 

 

Source please, and stop being sensationalist. To say that they would have complete control would be false and you know it.

 

_EW_

 

Actually, he's right. 1 (or two) more Senators that are democrat, and the democrats *will* have complete control. Because the republicans will not only no longer be capable of fillibustering, but even if every single republican senator votes "no", the bill would still pass. That's generally seen as "Complete Control". Especially with a democrat also in the White House, and the predicted shift in favor of left-wing ideology in the Judicial branch once a few more start retiring.

 

Please use the "Edit" function if you want to add to a post, please don't double post. If you want to quote multiple people you can use the "multi-quote" found in the bottom right hand corner of each post. -- j7

[The Doctor]

Who are you to tell someone what they need and dont need? Isnt that what we call tyranny? And that's what socialism is based in. Dictating what people are allowed to have. That is not freedom. That is not what our country was founded on.

 

It's not a matter of telling someone what they need or don't need. It's not tyranny, or anything like that. It's an indisputable fact: no one needs $250 000 a year - especially now, when there are hard working, every day people forced into unemployment and bankruptcy by circumstance alone. You cannot rationally or even intelligently attempt to deny this. It's a fact, plain and simple, and no amount of name calling, accusations, or denial can change that.

 

Your country (and I stress your, as it is not my country), was founded on the concepts of equal rights and opportunity for all. In times when it simply isn't possible for everyone to have the same chances as everyone else, do the ideals of your nation not demand some form of socialist policy, if only temporarily? When circumstance robs some of the chance to make a living, should not circumstances be purposely altered to shift opportunity back to those being robbed of said chance? Just something to think about.

 

Also, you seem to be making the all-too-common mistake of confusing socialism with communism. Before you try labeling me as a tyrannically minded communist, do some research, please. There's a considerable difference.

[Jae Onasi]

It's not a matter of telling someone what they need or don't need. It's not tyranny, or anything like that. It's an indisputable fact: no one needs $250 000 a year - especially now, when there are hard working, every day people forced into unemployment and bankruptcy by circumstance alone. You cannot rationally or even intelligently attempt to deny this. It's a fact, plain and simple, and no amount of name calling, accusations, or denial can change that.

 

What if they're taking care of a medically fragile family member with a tremendous amount of medical expenses? What if someone in their family has Alzheimer's and they want to put their loved one into the best facility they can find, which costs a lot of money? What if they have several kids in college at the same time, even if it's in state tuition? What if one of their close family members died and they became the parents of the now-orphaned children? What if they have all these things going on at the same time? I can easily see where someone would need that kind of money for very legitimate reasons, and it would not be frivolous or unnecessary.

 

I'm going to be in the position of having older parents at the same time as kids going through college. I have no clue how I'm going to afford to afford to help them all and put away sufficient funds for retirement, all at the same time. I sure don't want the gov't telling me how much I can make or not make, or how huge of a cut they're going to take because they think that it's unacceptable to make above a certain amount.

[Web Rider]

It's not a matter of telling someone what they need or don't need. It's not tyranny, or anything like that. It's an indisputable fact: no one needs $250 000 a year - especially now, when there are hard working, every day people forced into unemployment and bankruptcy by circumstance alone. You cannot rationally or even intelligently attempt to deny this. It's a fact, plain and simple, and no amount of name calling, accusations, or denial can change that.

I suppose that depends on what you think a person's "needs" are.

 

Your country (and I stress your, as it is not my country), was founded on the concepts of equal rights and opportunity for all. In times when it simply isn't possible for everyone to have the same chances as everyone else, do the ideals of your nation not demand some form of socialist policy, if only temporarily? When circumstance robs some of the chance to make a living, should not circumstances be purposely altered to shift opportunity back to those being robbed of said chance? Just something to think about.

No, not really, I think we should help those people achieve, but not by just handing them things. That teaches them nothing and the next time we hit a bump, they'll be right back to where they are now. Job training, college, but honestly, that kind of thing should be for anyone who wants it, not just the poor, I'm pretty middle class, but I have no job, only my family is helping me, and getting a job right now is like squeezing water from a stone.

 

Also, you seem to be making the all-too-common mistake of confusing socialism with communism. Before you try labeling me as a tyrannically minded communist, do some research, please. There's a considerable difference.

Personally, if you're going to be tyrannical about it, just do it. Don't pussyfoot about with fancy names and nice words, just wield your iron fist and smash it into the face of everything and everyone that stands in your way. It's much simpler, much more efficient than only being so controlling, to simply be completely controlling.

[EnderWiggin]

Actually, he's right. 1 (or two) more Senators that are democrat, and the democrats *will* have complete control. Because the republicans will not only no longer be capable of fillibustering, but even if every single republican senator votes "no", the bill would still pass. That's generally seen as "Complete Control". Especially with a democrat also in the White House, and the predicted shift in favor of left-wing ideology in the Judicial branch once a few more start retiring.

 

I'm aware of what he meant, thanks. It still is sensationalist. And I'd also like to point out that the number of current justices appointed by a GOP president = 7 while the number of justices appointed by a Democrat president = 2. So let's just think a little bit before we start running around screaming 'Complete Control' and 'Iron Fist'.

 

Thanks in advance.

 

_EW_

[Adavardes]

What if they're taking care of a medically fragile family member with a tremendous amount of medical expenses? What if someone in their family has Alzheimer's and they want to put their loved one into the best facility they can find, which costs a lot of money? What if they have several kids in college at the same time, even if it's in state tuition? What if one of their close family members died and they became the parents of the now-orphaned children? What if they have all these things going on at the same time? I can easily see where someone would need that kind of money for very legitimate reasons, and it would not be frivolous or unnecessary.

 

Socialised economy? Government regulation? Universal/Socialised medicine?

 

Yeah, pretty sure socialist policy pokes holes in every argument you provided. Besides, you're giving rare cases to justify an argument that applies to most 250k+ earners who just spend all their money on **** they don't need.

[The Doctor]

I suppose that depends on what you think a person's "needs" are.

No, it doesn't.

 

No, not really, I think we should help those people achieve, but not by just handing them things. That teaches them nothing and the next time we hit a bump, they'll be right back to where they are now. Job training, college, but honestly, that kind of thing should be for anyone who wants it, not just the poor, I'm pretty middle class, but I have no job, only my family is helping me, and getting a job right now is like squeezing water from a stone.

I don't know if you're aiming for sympathy or what, but please don't patronise me - your story is by no means unique. I'm also jobless in the lower middle class, in a city that relies on factory labour for 80% of the population - there are literally no jobs to be found here at the moment. But I don't really see what that has to do with anything, to be honest.

 

And what do you expect college and job training will do, really? The core of the problem isn't lack of ability, it's lack of jobs to be trained for. You can train 5000 people to work a Toyota plant; but with no plant to send them to, doing so is less than pointless. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but Obama hasn't proposed giving the money he gathers from the 250k tax increase directly into the hands of the lower class. As far as I know he plans on pumping it into public programs and the nationalisation of healthcare, no?

 

Personally, if you're going to be tyrannical about it, just do it. Don't pussyfoot about with fancy names and nice words, just wield your iron fist and smash it into the face of everything and everyone that stands in your way. It's much simpler, much more efficient than only being so controlling, to simply be completely controlling.

Don't know if you're directing those statements directly at me or not, but if you are, I'm sorry you see me that way. But if standing up and speaking my mind is tyrannical, then I guess you'd be guilty of the same thing, no? Again, there's nothing tyrannical about either my statements or the way they were delivered. If you were speaking about the people my statements were in reference to (ie the above-stated difference between Socialism and Communism), and you're referring to socialists as "pussy-foot communists", then I'm going to have to be quite offended.

 

As for Jae's comments, Adavardes surmised any response I would have had rather succinctly.

[Jae Onasi]

Socialised economy? Government regulation? Universal/Socialised medicine?

 

Yeah, pretty sure socialist policy pokes holes in every argument you provided. Besides, you're giving rare cases to justify an argument that applies to most 250k+ earners who just spend all their money on **** they don't need.

The Doctor was saying NO one needs 250k per year as an absolute. I was pointing out situations where SOME one might actually require that, and all I had to do with that argument is show that there are cases that do require a high amount of salary to meet basic needs--rarity is irrelevant to disproving that absolute. Even in countries with socialized medicine you still have to pay for some things. Caring for kids and aging parents at the same time at home is not free or subsidized by the government, either--it costs money to feed, house, and clothe everyone, drive them to doctor appointments or assorted other places, and so on. Before you call these cases rare, I would recommend checking out info on the sandwich generation--my generation is called that for good reason, and it is definitely not rare. On top of that, by the time I retire, Social Security, if it isn't bankrupt by then, will be so depleted I'll be lucky if I get a dime a month--finding alternative sources to replace social security is a requirement, not an option anymore. So far, health care in this country is not free, higher education is not free, and retirement funds by the gov't is disappearing at an alarming rate. Socialist programs may be an answer, but how is the gov't going to pay for it?

[Web Rider]

No, it doesn't.

Yes, it does. A hundred years ago, $25k was gobs of money for a year. If you said back then "nobody needs more than $25k", you would now be faced with the harsh reality, that YES, people need more than 25K.

 

Even so, saying "Oh, No more than $250k" takes nothing of the economy into account. Sure, bread may be 5 dollars a loaf, but what if it was 20? If everything was 5 times more expensive(ie: the dollar was worth 1/5th of it's current value), 250K would not be very much.

 

As other people have presented arguments, some people need to support extended family, some people have many children. Are you going to say now that because we're not allowed to have $250k a year, we can't have ill family? We can't have large families?

 

 

I don't know if you're aiming for sympathy or what, but please don't patronise me - your story is by no means unique. I'm also jobless in the lower middle class, in a city that relies on factory labour for 80% of the population - there are literally no jobs to be found here at the moment. But I don't really see what that has to do with anything, to be honest.

I was stating that the people who's lives totally suck right now are not the only people who need help. Do I need less help? Sure, no argument. Does that change the fact that I need help? No it does not. I need money and I need a job just like everyone else. I cannot in any sense of fairness say that ONLY those who are poor need help.

 

And what do you expect college and job training will do, really? The core of the problem isn't lack of ability, it's lack of jobs to be trained for. You can train 5000 people to work a Toyota plant; but with no plant to send them to, doing so is less than pointless. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but Obama hasn't proposed giving the money he gathers from the 250k tax increase directly into the hands of the lower class. As far as I know he plans on pumping it into public programs and the nationalisation of healthcare, no?

Which in many ways, is the same, sure, it doesn't feel a capitalist powerhouse economy, but it does lighten the burden on people.

 

Don't know if you're directing those statements directly at me or not, but if you are, I'm sorry you see me that way. But if standing up and speaking my mind is tyrannical, then I guess you'd be guilty of the same thing, no? Again, there's nothing tyrannical about either my statements or the way they were delivered. If you were speaking about the people my statements were in reference to (ie the above-stated difference between Socialism and Communism), and you're referring to socialists as "pussy-foot communists", then I'm going to have to be quite offended.

If you don't think telling people what they do or do not need, how much they should or should not make, who does or does not deserve help is not tyrannical, then you need a lesson on tyranny. I'm referring to anyone who isn't willing to go the distance as "pussyfooted".

 

As Yoda says "Do, or do not. There is no try."

[The Doctor]

Yes, it does. A hundred years ago, $25k was gobs of money for a year. If you said back then "nobody needs more than $25k", you would now be faced with the harsh reality, that YES, people need more than 25K.

A hundred years from now, I'll be sure to retract my statement. Until then, it stands.

 

Even so, saying "Oh, No more than $250k" takes nothing of the economy into account. Sure, bread may be 5 dollars a loaf, but what if it was 20? If everything was 5 times more expensive(ie: the dollar was worth 1/5th of it's current value), 250K would not be very much.

You're gonna try to use what ifs as a valid argument? Yeah, ok, if prices were five times higher than they are, then sure, $250k wouldn't be as large a sum as it is now. I'll throw another what if at you in response: what if prices were one fifth what they are now (ie the dollar is worth five times its current value), and bread only cost a buck a loaf? Or hell, let's go nuts and say that a loaf of bread costs a nickel, and everything else is similarly reduced as the currency's value increases exponentially? Then $250k would be a massive number, huh?

 

As other people have presented arguments, some people need to support extended family, some people have many children. Are you going to say now that because we're not allowed to have $250k a year, we can't have ill family? We can't have large families?

And as other other people have presented, socialist programs such as a socialised economy, government regulation, Universal/Socialised medicine, and the like make this argument collapse like a poorly built house of cards.

 

I was stating that the people who's lives totally suck right now are not the only people who need help. Do I need less help? Sure, no argument. Does that change the fact that I need help? No it does not. I need money and I need a job just like everyone else. I cannot in any sense of fairness say that ONLY those who are poor need help.

You don't think the middle class will benefit from the same programs that the poor will benefit from? It's not like Obama's public healthcare plan will only cover the poor. It will cover everyone (that is, everyone who is an American citizen, one would think). Hence the term "public".

 

If you don't think telling people what they do or do not need, how much they should or should not make, who does or does not deserve help is not tyrannical, then you need a lesson on tyranny. I'm referring to anyone who isn't willing to go the distance as "pussyfooted".

No one is telling these people how much they're allowed to make. No one is telling them that once they make over $250k, all of that extra money is being taken away. An individual making $260k/year will be taxed at the same rate as someone making $450k/year, and both will still have a healthy reserve for those rare situations that Jae raised earlier - until Obama's public programs are put into action, of course, at which point they'll have an even healthier reserve. A much healthier reserve than someone making minimum wage for 38 hours as week because their boss doesn't have the money to give them 40, at which point they'd qualify for benefits; or a first year teacher making about $25-30k a year, as they and civil servants make next to nothing in the States.

 

I say again: I am not tyrannical in my thinking any more than you are in yours. Stop trying to paint me as such.

 

Also, I'd like to use my own situation to debunk the argument presented by Jae, as it would seem you either have Adavardes on your ignore list, or you just missed his post refuting her claims.

 

My father makes (approximately, for the sake of privacy/discretion), $60k a year - considerably less than the $250k that Obama is targeting. My mother is not currently working. My brother, now almost 18, is beginning University in the fall, ideally (from his standpoint) at a school on the English coast - but until then, they're supporting both myself and my brother for at least the next year, and have supported us quite well for the past 18 years. I'm also beginning a University program soon, which my parents pledged many years ago to pay at least part of. My mother is in a two-year course at the local college, as well, aiming for a CFP designation. Her mother, my elderly Grandmother, lives alone, my Grandfather having passed on three years ago leaving a meager pension behind for her. We've had to assist her with moving bills (as she couldn't bear to live in the house where her soul mate suffered and died - a process we had to pay to see at home instead of at a hospital, by the way), maintenance bills on the new house, and even a portion of her new car, after her old POS from the middle ages died (making its kind officially extinct ). They have their own personal debt as well, particularly after all the work that had to be done on the house to make it livable during the Canadian winter - new furnace, complete change in the layout of the piping for said furnace, removal of the old baseboard heating system and reparation of the subsequent drywall wholes, new flooring (as the old had to be removed to access the piping which needed to be moved), and the like.

 

The point is, my parents are still financially comfortable enough to be planning a remodeling of my brother's soon-to-be-vacated room, with prospects of an August vacation to the Dominican on the horizon. I say again: no one needs more than $250k a year to make it by comfortably. Particularly after the socialised programs Obama has spoken of implementing are put into action.

[Adavardes]

So far, health care in this country is not free, higher education is not free, and retirement funds by the gov't is disappearing at an alarming rate. Socialist programs may be an answer, but how is the gov't going to pay for it?

 

... With all that money made from further taxation of individuals with incomes at or above 250K?

 

Here's the jist of why things cost so much. In a purely free-market, capitalist economy, there's no restraint on competing corporations to monopolize and compete, meaning they can make twice as much stuff at half the quality for twice the money, and still sell loads of it merely because they have almost total control over their particular niche. And, oh yes, they do, because corporations are heartless and greedy and care nothing for bleeding the people dry of every cent they have. Because the production prices are going up for consumers, prices for services also go up so they can pay for the overly-expensive corporate products they need to live. This, in turn, raises incomes to ungodly levels just so we can adhere to the price-gouging of multi-million dollar establishments.

 

Now, let's see what socialism does to remedy that.

 

It takes taxation, hard-line taxation, from the greedy companies and the individuals who simply have too much money - I'm sorry, but some individuals just have too much money - and applies that tax money to government regulation of the economy. This makes sure that prices go down considerably, and that corporate monopolies and competition (otherwise known as coporate leech behaviour) are removed from the equation so that fairness and equality can resume. Prices for products go down, and so the individuals can afford to lower the costs of their services. Most will eventually be forced down by the deflated economy, but some, medical services in particular, may still be too expensive.

 

What do you do then? Take more money from the corporations and rich upper-class (they have plenty to spare, trust me on this) and socialise medicine. Doctors no longer need their hefty salaries, and aren't getting them anymore either. There are similar programs for education and the like, programs that only require large funds, used properly, during their implimentation, amounts I believe can be easily found in the coffers of mister moneybags over there. If the programs are set in place by a capable man, such as Obama, I think that there won't be a need to continually fund them with exuberant amounts. The then balanced and controlled economy will make sure of that.

 

Add to these improvements that wealth gaps would be bridged, health would improve, education, given the right influence, would excell in quality: all things this country desperately needs. I'm sorry, but again, your argument gets holes poked in it left and right by socialist policy.