Article on Socialized Medicine

[KB21]

I wonder how you can explain that, under Clinton, we had the highest unemployment rate the country has seen since Jimmy Carter was president?

[Diesel]

Warren Buffett, the country's second-richest man, recently wrote an article saying his average income tax rate was only 17.7 percent, while his secretary paid a rate of 30 percent. In the 2004 election, it was revealed that John Kerry (the richest man ever to run for president) and his wife only paid an average income tax rate of 12 percent, far less than most middle-class Americans.

The truth is KB... The Rich are not those making 200,000.. The rich are those who are making over 500,000 per year. They are not being taxed as heavily as the middle class.

Moreover, there are far many more middle class people paying 30% than there are rich paying 33%.

People making $60,000 paid a larger share of their 2001 income in federal income, Social Security and Medicare taxes than a family making $25 million, the latest Internal Revenue Service data show. And in income taxes alone, people making $400,000 paid a larger share of their incomes than the 7,000 households who made $10 million or more.

When you are rich, you get tax breaks... and the benefit of tax cuts... This is documented...

click click here

[frosgrim]

Quote:

---

I wonder how you can explain that, under Clinton, we had the highest unemployment rate the country has seen since Jimmy Carter was president?

---

KB, I don't know where you are getting your stats from but the highest unemployment rates since Carter was in 1982 under Reagan wiht an annual adjusted rate of 9.71. Reagan's lowest rate was 5.29 in 1989. After George H. Bush took office the rate climb to a high of 7.49 in 1992. Under Clinton it feel every year from a high of 6.91 in 1993 to 3.97 in 2000. After G.W. Bush took office the rate climb to a high of 5.99 in 2003. The average unemployment rate during the Clinton era was 5.20 and under G.W. Bush it is 5.29. Thus, unemployment actually was lower in the Clinton years than in the G.W. Bush years. Additionally, under Carter the average rate was 6.77. Under Reagan it was 7.54, and under G.H. Bush it was 6.3.

I compiled these stats from data downloaded from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Therefore, your suposition is flawed that Clinton made things worse for Americans. In fact, the Clinton years represented one of the greatest economic expansions in history.

In regards to socialized of privatized medicine, its a long debate, but one of the things that grabs my attentnion is the amount of GNP that is spent on health care. The US is on track to spend something like 30% of GNP on health care by 2050. Right now I believe we are age something like 12 to 18 percent. Other Western countries spend about 8 percent on health care. This is a crisis for our economey as health care costs are drag expenditures not productive ones. This, to me, is one of the central pieces to the argument for some sort of federal oversight or price control on health care costs.

The expansion of costs is the result of multiple issues including doctors investing in expensive diagnostic machinery, hospitals going to a for profit status, and increases in insurance overhead, and probaly some profit taking by the insurance industry. Malpractice is hard to gauge as a cost inflator. Insurance companies want us to belive that is the case, but other data indicate the costs are actually a marginal effect.

In regards to is health care a universal right? I believe, in a participatory government like the U.S., health should be included in our rights as humans. Why should we as a people let people suffer? I have worked with groups in the Amazon rain forest that take care of each other to a much greater extent than we, the richest nation in the history of humanity, do. In general, health care for ourselves is critical to our general well-being and our social cohesion. Unhealthy people by definition are not as contributing to our society as health ones. Whether this be in economics, society or in polotics, health is key to a fucntioning nation. Much like education, high levels of health promote a better economy, a better society, and more participation in governance. I hope everyone can agree that these are goals that are nobel and necessary.

[Diesel]

Good points...

I titter on the health care. I think it should be accessible to all at a reduced price, but if there is a fiscally conservative way to make it free to all without abuses I would be for it.

I agree 100% that in this participatory government, we have certain rights... Period. It bothers me that the government takes money from my pay before I see it. I guess that was put in to defeat any objection to what the government does. I disagree with the 16th amendment "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

However, because we're forced to give, we should have some inalienable rights. Access to Healthcare should be one.

[Eddielives]

Okay. I am growing weary of this. That website, ctj.org is full of anti-bush rhetoric. It is NOT a reliable source of un-biased information. Try using sources who truly have no agenda Diesel and you will see that you are just flat out wrong.

[Diesel]

I also quoted you the wall street journal.

Hell, you can go to any source on the bush tax cuts and they all show the exact same thing. By 2010, the rich benefits the most from tax cuts. It's the same trickle down theory laid out by Reagan.. that Daddy Bush said wouldn't work!

[frosgrim]

Regarding tax cuts, if you go outside of the neo-con economist circles, tax cuts for the rich are generally considered a bad long-term solution. Trickle down is repeatedly shown not to promote growth amongst the middle class. Growth amongst the middle class, however, is shown to be one of the greatest predictors of the robustness of an economy and a prerequesit for economic expansion. Look at the writings of Angus Magnuson for an excellent review of this material. By the by he's a neo-classical economist and extremely well respected by economists around the world. If my old laptop was still working I could forward you pdfs, but the motherboard is fried and I haven't been able to retrieve data yet.

[Diesel]

Tax Cuts for the rich, generally widen the gap between the rich and the middle class. Making the middle class larger, the lower class larger, and the rich richer.

[frosgrim]

Quote:

---

Tax Cuts for the rich, generally widen the gap between the rich and the middle class. Making the middle class larger, the lower class larger, and the rich richer.

---

I think you mean tax-cuts for the upper levels of income tend to squeeze the middle-class, and increase the income gap between the the upper levels and the middle and lower income levels.

[Eddielives]

"Neo-con"

"Daddy-Bush"

Buzz words for those who have an agenda and no intention on having a meaningful dialogue. Anyone who throws the term neo-con around especially has exposed themselves as having nothing meaningful to say. You probably refer to repubs as Nazis and facists on a regular basis too. How is it possible to take you seriously?

Like it will do any good but here goes.

You will notice than when Bush took office, as when any president takes office, he is having to clean up any messes left by the previous administration while establishing his own administration. After a short period of a raise in unemployment, which could easily be attributed to the previous president's administration due again to the simple fact that the new administration hasn't had time to do much yet and a terrorist attack to deal with, unemployment has steadily gone down in Bush's term in office.

That economic boom was also under a republican led Congress. Hate to say it but Congress makes many more important decisions regarding the direction this country is taking than does the president. So giving Clinton all the credit is patting him on the back a bit too much. Yet you may remember I did give Clinton credit for his overall work w/ the economy. YOu see, I can say that without any hesitation because it's true. That's called being objective. I have no agenda.

As for health care as a human right frosgrim, I want you to explain why a doctor should render his services to someone who has nothing to offer him simply because you think they don't deserve to suffer. Also, hospitals won't turn down anyone because they already can't. YOu're thinking w/ your heart and not w/ your brain. A free society cannot function that way w/out destroying the individual spirit in those who seek to achieve as much as they can. You're just like Diesel in this respect. You just see the upper class as greedy and having more than they need. So let's force them at the point of a gun to give up what they have earned and give it to someone else just because no one deserves to suffer. That is just ridiculously anti-freedom and flat out against what this country is all about. You and Diesel both have this idea that America should become a country where everyone should have access to to the same stuff. That's called communism. I believe in the individual, not the collective. You see everything in groups. I see individuals. YOu think government makes this country great. I think individuals make this country great.

So continue to attempt to make people like me out as loving to see people suffer. Continue to cherry pick your data to try and influence those who don't see the big picture. It's just playing on peoples ignorance and their emotions. You both would make great politicians. I'll continue to keep the spirit of rugged individualism, hard-work, freedom and accountability as my ideals.

[frosgrim]

Quote:

---

"Neo-con"

"Daddy-Bush"[

Buzz words for those who have an agenda and no intention on having a meaningful dialogue. Anyone who throws the term neo-con around especially has exposed themselves as having nothing meaningful to say. You probably refer to repubs as Nazis and facists on a regular basis too. How is it possible to take you seriously?

---

There are many ways to answer your position here, but let me take the highest road possible. I am using a self-identification term. Those who support trickle-down economic theory actually call themselves Neo-cons, or New Conservatives. This term has been picked up by many people and it now has a pejorative meaning in common conversation, but when you talk about economic theory, neo-con is a recognized term. Thus, I am not making the "Nazi" reference, never have and never will in relation to economic theory, which is what I was talking about. You inserted your own "agenda" Eddie.

Quote:

---

Like it will do any good but here goes.

You will notice than when Bush took office, as when any president takes office, he is having to clean up any messes left by the previous administration while establishing his own administration. After a short period of a raise in unemployment, which could easily be attributed to the previous president's administration due again to the simple fact that the new administration hasn't had time to do much yet and a terrorist attack to deal with, unemployment has steadily gone down in Bush's term in office.

---

Wrong, here are the unemployment rates since 2000:

2000 3.97

2001 4.74

2002 5.78

2003 5.99

2004 5.53

2005 5.08

2006 4.63

Easy to read and easy to understand. Unemployment went up by 2 percentage points during the current administration first 3 years in office. Thus, by your own assertion that a president should have two years, the third year is all Bushes.

Quote:

---

That economic boom was also under a Republican led Congress. Hate to say it but Congress makes many more important decisions regarding the direction this country is taking than does the president. So giving Clinton all the credit is patting him on the back a bit too much. Yet you may remember I did give Clinton credit for his overall work w/ the economy. YOu see, I can say that without any hesitation because it's true. That's called being objective. I have no agenda.

---

Again there are many ways to answer your critique but I will start with the simple one. G.W. Bush up until this year has had a Republican congress, therefore the Republican economic policies of the early 2ks must be responsible for the increased unemployment rate. Yes, Sept 11 had something to do with it, but the down turn had already started prior to the attack. Look up the numbers and you'll see that clearly.

Second, Clinton actually had a Democratic congress for his first two years in office, where he managed to massively reduce unemployment through a combination of working with neo-classical economic policies of Greenspan (a Republican by the by).

Quote:

---

As for health care as a human right frosgrim, I want you to explain why a doctor should render his services to someone who has nothing to offer him simply because you think they don't deserve to suffer. Also, hospitals won't turn down anyone because they already can't. YOu're thinking w/ your heart and not w/ your brain. A free society cannot function that way w/out destroying the individual spirit in those who seek to achieve as much as they can. You're just like Diesel in this respect. You just see the upper class as greedy and having more than they need. So let's force them at the point of a gun to give up what they have earned and give it to someone else just because no one deserves to suffer. That is just ridiculously anti-freedom and flat out against what this country is all about. You and Diesel both have this idea that America should become a country where everyone should have access to to the same stuff. That's called communism. I believe in the individual, not the collective. You see everything in groups. I see individuals. YOu think government makes this country great. I think individuals make this country great.

So continue to attempt to make people like me out as loving to see people suffer. Continue to cherry pick your data to try and influence those who don't see the big picture. It's just playing on peoples ignorance and their emotions. You both would make great politicians. I'll continue to keep the spirit of rugged individualism, hard-work, freedom and accountability as my ideals.

---

My my, you claim no agenda, yet you spell it out right here. Let me say, first off, that no one can think "just" with the brain, emotion, culture and experience influence all of our decisions. There is recent research that clearly shows that everyone has a bias and then looks for data to support those biases. The critical question is, can you step away from your biases and see how they are informing your decisions. I do not claim that I am anything close to an expert at this; however, as a scientist I try to let the data explain what is observed.

To claim I cherry picked my data is absurd. The original statement was that unemployment rates were highest under Clinton since the Carter administration. The proper data to check that are yearly unemployment rates since 1976. I looked at the Department of Labor stat warehouse and then reproduced those data here. How is that cherry picking?

Now in regards to health care as a basic human right. How is that destroying the individual? I see it as assuring the individual has the correct faculties to make informed decisions and be a productive member of society. I completely reject your assertion that I am group centered. I am very much about the individual in both my assertions here and in my academic publications. That I promote a healthy society does not mean that I reject the individual. In fact, the only way to have a healthy society is to have its constituency healthy, both physically and mentally. A nation by definition is a collective, thus we can talk about a nation as both an entity and a collectivity, but the underlying assumption is that these are gloss terms for a collection of individuals.

O.K., now into regards to me saying that the rich are greedy and selfish, etc. Where do I say that? I don't. The fact is that is that everyone is selfish and greedy, if not we wouldn't act in self-interest. This is the human primal condition. The question is can we raise above that? To assert that universal health care is communist is silly. You don't understand the reality of communism, which is the collective ownership of the means of production. You ask what can a person who can't pay for medical services has to offer a doctor? Well there are several answers. First, docs take the Hippocratic oath, which some interpret as a duty to heal when presented with a case. Some may not. Second, no is saying that doctors work pro-bono. Instead, they are saying is there a better way than what we currently have. The current system is based upon medicine for profit. I find this to be wrong. I object to it morally, but more importantly, it doesn't work economically.

Our nation's GNP is getting swallowed by health care costs. Any economist will tell you that drag costs, such as health care administrative costs, do not stimulate the economy. Yet, we are at 12 or more percent of our GNP going to those costs. This to me is the center of the logical argument. If the country is to remain financially sound, we must get a grip on health care costs. For many a nationalized system seems to be the best answer. Costs will be capatated and care will be universal. This means that money that is now being spent on health insurance will be released back into the economy, hopefully stimulating savings. Savings in turn stimulate growth and economic expansion.

In sum, I believe that basic human rights should be met for all members of a society. Does that make me liberal (the most disgusting of the cuss words)? If so, then I embrace the stance. To claim that I am against individual success at to benefit the group is refuted by my above statements.

You make the claim that I want the playing field to be level for everyone. Well, yes, that would be a good thing. Why wouldn't it be? The issue is not what people are doing with their lives right now as adults, but what they have open to them during their youth. The fact is that one's economic situation tends to be generational. Are their examples of people bringing themselves up economically? Of course. At the same time there are examples of people loosing fortunes through poor decisions, bad luck, and events beyond their control. The lesson here is that individual examples don't reduce the validity of a strong trend. Ultimately, for me, the idea is that the more people we have making a good income, the better off we all are, including me and my family (which I am the most focused on). If you own your own company don't you want to have as many customers as you can possibly handle? So what is wrong with attempting to help make it so that everyone can make a good income?

You may answer that this is a social control experiment. But I counter that the status quo is also a social control experiment. That is, some people profit off the labor of others to the extent that those laboring are not reaping the full benefits of their labor. Do I advocate communism, god no. Its a neat idea, but it doesn't work due to human nature. Capitalism also doesn't work particularly well unless it is governed as it tends to degenerate into a more feudalistic state.

[Eddielives]

You're right. I do have an agenda. Everyone has an agenda so I should have stated it differently. Maybe I should have said that most of your information is stemming from a preconceived notion that the Bushes, Reagan or Repubs. in general can/could do nothing right in regards to the economy and Bill Clinton was God's gift to this country.

My point still hasn't been properly refuted that the dot com boom the main reason for economic growth under Clinton. Clinton had nothing to do with that. It would have happened under any president. So you could say that Clinton was president at the right place, at the right time. Furthermore, the economy is way too complex to say that any president was the only or main driving force behind its ups and downs. Currently, is Bush responsible for the bad mortgages that are hurting the economy, or at least the stock market in the past few weeks? I would say that years from now, you'll throw statistics in someone's face and say, see, it was under Bush's administration so it was his fault. It's more complex than that. So I do think that you and Diesel are over-simplifying the reasons for any shifts in the economy by showing those figures and expecting people to say oh yeah, that Bush didn't know what he was doing. But look at Clinton, what a guy! We need him back and everything will just be fine. Ridiculous.

I still believe that if we ever go to socialized medicine, you and all who sing it's praises now will see what a disaster it would be. Why is the quality of health care in this country the envy of the world? Why are there month long waiting lists in Canada and Europe for an MRI? Answer...because everyone is given equal access even if they have the means to pay more to get better service. Therefore, what you have is a system where nobody will have the spirit to do anymore than they have to to get by. Why bother, your hard work and achievement will only be seized from you in the form of oppressive taxation to pay for the rest of the public to have the same access. It's flat out wrong! YOu can hide behind a big heart and say that everyone deserves access to health care but you still can't convince anyone who believes in free enterprise that forcing any human being to render their services to another by law is right. It destroys the human spirit to achieve individual greatness. Let's face it. In life, there will be winners and losers. For the losers, they can seek private charity at any time for help, if they really want to help themselves. At least that is a voluntary form of wealth redistribution. And here's a little insensitivity for you. Most of the losers are losers because of their own decision making. Go find out how many of the poor in this country are poor because they choose to be. It might shock you but it's a lifestyle for alot of them. Sure, there are those who have mental illneses who just need help but I'm not going to work just to support all of the poor as if they are in their situation due to no fault of their own. I'm not going to support any government that takes my capital at the point of a gun and gives it to someone who is taking advantage of a welfare state. It's bad enough already. Philosophically, you seem to be all if favor of a communistic state, Where all is for the common good.

As for the greedy and selfish comments, I was coupling you and Diesels together a bit so, my bad if you or him didn't directly say that. It's just the impression you give off by continuing to assert the rich should just give away the fruits of their labor to take care of the poor poor pitiful poor. As if them wanting to actually keep the money they've earned is wrong or something. You both don't have to come out and say it directly for me to realize it's written between the lines.

One more thing, I wonder how much of Warren Buffets money was donated to charity or used to re-invest into his businesses(which creates jobs which creates more tax revenue) or retirement accounts. All of these things are perfectly reasonable and smart avenues to take to avoid having to pay what would be his ACTUAL TAX RATE IN HIS INCOME BRACKET. But you wouldn't want to post that for people to see. It might make them think he was smart for taking advantage of every tax break he possibly could. I'll bet he still paid several million in taxes. When that secretary gets to his income bracket, she'll be bleeding from the rear and looking for every way possible to allocate her money so that she doesn't have to be pilledged by Uncle Sam.

[frosgrim]

Quote:

---

Maybe I should have said that most of your information is stemming from a preconceived notion that the Bushes, Reagan or Repubs. in general can/could do nothing right in regards to the economy and Bill Clinton was God's gift to this country.

---

Show me me where I say this. I have never stated that Clinton walked on water to paraphrase you. It is you that is making an assumption about me. I have stated clearly that outside of a small group of economists that currently hold sway in the White House and parts of the Republican party (but by no means all of it), that trickle down economics simply do not work. Or maybe the better way of putting it is that trickle-down only tends to increase the gap between the very rich and the rest of the population. If that is a goal for you, then you are welcome to it. However, this is a political manipulation of the economy to increase wealth for a few.

Quote:

---

My point still hasn't been properly refuted that the dot com boom the main reason for economic growth under Clinton. Clinton had nothing to do with that. It would have happened under any president. So you could say that Clinton was president at the right place, at the right time. Furthermore, the economy is way too complex to say that any president was the only or main driving force behind its ups and downs. Currently, is Bush responsible for the bad mortgages that are hurting the economy, or at least the stock market in the past few weeks? I would say that years from now, you'll throw statistics in someone's face and say, see, it was under Bush's administration so it was his fault. It's more complex than that. So I do think that you and Diesel are over-simplifying the reasons for any shifts in the economy by showing those figures and expecting people to say oh yeah, that Bush didn't know what he was doing. But look at Clinton, what a guy! We need him back and everything will just be fine. Ridiculous.

---

Of course an economy is more complex than a single person, however, tax codes, tariff structures, prime rates, etc are all set by the national government, therefore presidents and the congress DO have a lot to do with how an economy is functioning. Why do you think the stock market moves with the Fed rates?

In regards to G.W. Bush's economic policies. Yes, I believe they have been harmful to the economy in general. Does Bush have something to do with the sub-prime lending market, no, it is a result of changes made during the Gingrich controlled congress. That is, they set up laws that allowed this to happen. Was it good for the economy at the time, you would have to say yes. Again, you are throwing a hell of a lot more into what I said than what was actually posted. Again, just to remind you as you seem to be off course, the original statement was that Clinton had the highest unemployment rates since Carter. I simply posted that was an untrue statement using Dept of Labor figures. How is that throwing stats in someone's face, when they made the wrong assertion in the first place. If you make a statement based on statical measure, then be prepared to get a statistical answer. Again, it was you who said that unemployment dropped every year of the G.W. Bush administration (I use G.W. for clarity and not for any other reason since there have been two Bush admins during the time period we are talking about, I would do the same for the two Roosevelt admins). I called you on that because it is a wrong statement.

Quote:

---

I still believe that if we ever go to socialized medicine, you and all who sing it's praises now will see what a disaster it would be. Why is the quality of health care in this country the envy of the world?

---

The quality of care in this country is not up to any empirical measure of standard if you look at the Scandinavian countries. Thus, we are not the envy of Western world. If we do look at the developing world, then of course we are envied, but their care is crap (I have used it and it is scary to be under their care). Many Euro countries are looking at ways to tweak their systems. Some are calling for a more American system, but then they see the rising costs and the gaps in coverage and pull back. The point still stands that the current U.S. system if failing and something needs to be done to correct it. Heck, even big business is talking about going to socialized medicine using the Japanese model (which is pretty good).

Quote:

---

Why are there month long waiting lists in Canada and Europe for an MRI? Answer...because everyone is given equal access even if they have the means to pay more to get better service. Therefore, what you have is a system where nobody will have the spirit to do anymore than they have to to get by. Why bother, your hard work and achievement will only be seized from you in the form of oppressive taxation to pay for the rest of the public to have the same access. It's flat out wrong! YOu can hide behind a big heart and say that everyone deserves access to health care but you still can't convince anyone who believes in free enterprise that forcing any human being to render their services to another by law is right. It destroys the human spirit to achieve individual greatness. Let's face it. In life, there will be winners and losers. For the losers, they can seek private charity at any time for help, if they really want to help themselves. At least that is a voluntary form of wealth redistribution. And here's a little insensitivity for you. Most of the losers are losers because of their own decision making. Go find out how many of the poor in this country are poor because they choose to be. It might shock you but it's a lifestyle for alot of them. Sure, there are those who have mental illneses who just need help but I'm not going to work just to support all of the poor as if they are in their situation due to no fault of their own. I'm not going to support any government that takes my capital at the point of a gun and gives it to someone who is taking advantage of a welfare state. It's bad enough already. Philosophically, you seem to be all if favor of a communistic state, Where all is for the common good.

---

There are several things to deal with here, but I will focus on the dynastic effects of being poor. My own work along with a multiplicity of other investigators clearly shows that accumulation of wealth in previous generations generates wealth in later generations. In economic systems where education is a prerequisite to gainful employment, those with parents of lower education tend to produce children with low education. This effect is strong and consistent across populations and time periods. Why? The answer is too complex for me to give justice to on a message board, but the simplest answer is that high levels of human capital (education, wealth, and other ancillary capital accumulations) are transferable between generations. Thus, those with low stocks tend to produce children with low stocks.

I don't see how this dynastic effect is the fault of those children. These children then grow up knowing they are at a disadvantage, thus the cycle continues (again this is horribly simplified, but I hope you can appreciate it).

I will quickly address taxation. I take from your comments that you don't believe in any taxation? If so, I really have no chance of changing your mind about it (or anything else, but what the heck this is an interesting discussion). From my point of view, taxes are payments we all make for the greater good. Things such as roads, police and fire services, the army, the park system, over sight organizations (CDC, FDA, etc) all need money. By everyone pooling their money via taxes we get enough to pay for these services. By pooling money we actually create a more efficient system than by having a pay as you go system (how would that work for the army??). Thus, I have no problems with taxes.

In regards to the rich overpaying into the system, to a point I agree with you. The fact is the top 10% of income earners do contribute a hefty (and possibly disproportionate) amount to the tax system. Those in the 100k-200k annual income range I believe are paying the most per capita right now, but I could be wrong on this one, but lets just say I am somewhere in the ballpark for the argument I will quickly develop next. The real problem from my understanding is the amount of taxes that corporations are paying. Around 1970 corporations accounted for the majority of tax revenues in the country (around 60% if I remember correctly). Over the past 3 decades that amount has dwindled to 5%! This is where the real problem with the U.S. tax code lies. Its a combination of taxing the well off (but not ultra rich) too much, while allowing corporations off the hook. So, I hope we can find a common ground here.

Quote:

---

As for the greedy and selfish comments, I was coupling you and Diesels together a bit so, my bad if you or him didn't directly say that. It's just the impression you give off by continuing to assert the rich should just give away the fruits of their labor to take care of the poor poor pitiful poor. As if them wanting to actually keep the money they've earned is wrong or something. You both don't have to come out and say it directly for me to realize it's written between the lines.

---

I think the problem you have is that related to the above, it may very well be that you just don't like taxes, thus any assertion that we all pay into a common pot is objectionable to you.

But here is my answer to the notion that the highest income earners should keep the fruits of the labor. Yes, they should, but at the same time we should all still pay a portion of our income into a common pot to handle community needs. I like have police, garbage collection, a road system (which needs to be fixed- and I said this a week before the Minn. bridge collapse in another post here on the HS).

Am I an upper income earner? Not right now, but my degree will place me in a very comfortable income bracket. I will pay my taxes knowing that there is a common good to come out of it. What sickens me right now is the amount we pay in insurance and then co-pays on top of that. Followed by an insurance company dictating which meds are best for me. Now how the hell is that correct? (this is rhetorical and not directed at you Eddie)

Quote:

---

One more thing, I wonder how much of Warren Buffets money was donated to charity or used to re-invest into his businesses(which creates jobs which creates more tax revenue) or retirement accounts. All of these things are perfectly reasonable and smart avenues to take to avoid having to pay what would be his ACTUAL TAX RATE IN HIS INCOME BRACKET. But you wouldn't want to post that for people to see. It might make them think he was smart for taking advantage of every tax break he possibly could. I'll bet he still paid several million in taxes. When that secretary gets to his income bracket, she'll be bleeding from the rear and looking for every way possible to allocate her money so that she doesn't have to be pilledged by Uncle Sam.

---

HUH???

Please, pull back and deal with me as an individual and not lump me into a catch all category that you seem to place anyone who have more liberal ideas than you. By doing so, you may find that there is common ground on which we stand. To be this confrontational and assuming, well you know the saying...