The death penalty only satisfies the weak and cowardly and is only deftly supported by the nervously scared.
I like the top-tax chart.
Keep it simple. (Something I'm not good at.)
Disparity costs more in policing for one thing, so, who should pay -- the poorer or the richer?
Mega salaries too often come with borrowing schemes that fall apart on the taxpayer dollar. That's why 90% was a good idea after the great depression.
Too much money corrupts people. The idea was that loopholes would be for things that would help the country, not just the wage-setter.
If the rich getting tax breaks worked to give jobs then jobs would have been plentiful during both Bush terms and not during Clinton's. Instead, it was the opposite.
There are things we need to buy for government. Police, courts, military, roads, elections, ... Not raising taxes on the rich means we keep borrowing to pay for what we need.
An economy on borrowing may look good, but it's not. That's why both Clinton and Obama slowly lowered, lowered and lowered, the yearly deficits during their terms in office from the Republicans' raised deficits.
That is: when we ask for a website, we should receive it, then, when we ask.
We, as a people, usually only have one connection to the net from our house.
That means the company delivering those websites to our house can try to squeeze more money from us to give to themselves. We could buy more than one net connection from our house, but that would cost us double if not more than double. So, they figure they can charge us, more, just not quite double -- double what they currently charge.
So, those companies want to tell their computers, not to deny, just to slow down the delivery of certain websites.
Then they tell us that we need to pay more to get faster service. And, they tell the website people that they have to pay more to get their website to us faster. See how they can try to collect money at both ends? Money they do not really deserve.
So, the companies spend extra money trying to tell the computers to slow us down, then those same companies tell us that what they really need to do is to make bigger connections between themselves and the big websites, and that is why it will cost more. Then, the companies spend a little more money and go to Congress to make it legal for them to slow us down for more money, er, ah, in order to provide better service from certain websites. And, they give the Congress-critter more money to run again and they do not run another Congress-critter-would-be against him in the next election who will take their money for slowing our net access.
Once it is legal, then all the companies join in and they all slow service and they all collect extra monies...
But, we, us, at home no longer even have a choice of a second connection to the net that will give us fast service when we ask. Even if we pay double, triple, and so forth.
In the future, since we have no real choices between connections from the net to our homes. The price will go up. Some websites may be slowed further. Someday, they will try to stop some websites altogether. Why do you need to research that candidate? Look at how responsive this candidate is.
Net neutrality. Because, when we ask, we should receive.
Last estimate is that we pay as a nation $7200 per year per capita, or 2.4T$/year. The countries offering full coverage to everyone are paying from under $3000 to under $4000 per year.
What needs to change is the mindset that giving everyone health care makes health care better and actually lowers the price of health care to be less than the price of giving just some people health care.
Next, you make a false comparison, so common to the right wing. You compare our federal taxes with their federal taxes, apples to apples, but, theirs includes oranges: health care, retirement, property taxation, local and state costs which are expensive. Just because we take these off our income BEFORE we calculate our percentage does not mean that we do not earn our keep, nor that our percentage should be lower. Nor, because we choose not to include our other taxations from state, county, city, utilities, et. al. into the federal number, that we do not pay these taxing items. Put these and the rest of the items into the calculation of what we EARN, count the taxing items as taxes and THEN COMPARE apples and oranges to apples and oranges. I have found we pay MORE AND GET LESS.
Your "second" point is that we would CHANGE rationing. Well, rationing is rationing. And change can be good.
We're not there yet. We still only see so far into the stars, those elusive strings are still only a theory, and what lies beyond each remains mystery, so in the mean time, it would be travesty not to entertain delight in young eyes: Enjoy the magic.
It would all be the fault of the liberals in Congress that put us in the position we're in such that these problems eventually happen.
A few golf photo ops to show how confident he is in his planning.
At the third gulf gusher, Jay Leno would joke about getting a quantity discount on cleanups. McCain would say how regrettable it is, but not as regrettable as that tie you're wearing. ADD CANNED LAUGH TRACK.
There would be strong statements on how BP is paying for cleanup and how they are besieged with requests to pay for losses. Then, months later there would be stories on how BP did not pay, but those stories would never make it to a major broadcast.
Just a bunch of head shaking by keyboard warriors on DU and such, along with revelations that Goldman Sachs dumped half its BP stock three weeks prior while Halliburton bought a cleanup company, and then Halliburton poured the concrete 20 hours prior, only to subsequently make a mint with the cleanup efforts.
Of course, we the taxpayers would be footing the bill. Large companies would get huge contracts, and workers looking very Mexicanish would be seen, only from a distance, cleaning beaches and no one would question what they are paid per hour while the companies hiring them make record profits.
The debt would hit 14-trillion (instead of its current 13) with little fanfare or concern after the forth necessary bailout. The tea partiers would not exist, instead there would be more ribbons on cars touting that some people (liebruls) don't support our troops fighting hard in Iran.
Next year, the debt would be a big deal, faulting the liberals in Congress, and the Treasury department would be asked to cancel the debt held by Social Security as Social Security goes away slowly with ridiculously reduced benefits because it is no longer "self-supporting." "It wasn't a good idea from the start." Some would say.
"We always knew it would not be there." Say some nice looking retirees who look like they were once on Morgan Stanley commercials.
I guess they were right.
Those rates could increase by double-digits even if they did not need to increase. The insurance companies can legally collude.
Those people newly covered were covered anyway, and in the most expensive way that is: covered for the late in the game treatments that are extremely expensive.
When dropped from their insurance plan after losing jobs or dropped for pre-existing conditions, these people end on Medicare. Despite having the old, the dropped and the disabled, i.e. the most expensive of health care needy, Medicare functions on twice the 1.45% of salaries and yet covers those with trust funds who pay nothing.
Take a look at the last ten years. How much has it risen? 7-8% a year? 10-20% More? And, if it continues to rise, one is to blame the new bill just passed.
That's disingenuous. Had nothing been done, those rises certainly would have continued.
Will treating people sooner lower costs, will having them work rather than being on Medicare and Medicaid bring in enough, will the certainty of being paid, lower what doctors and hospitals have to charge, will covering everything lead to disband armies of clerks at insurance companies, hospitals and doctor's offices to lower the overall cost of delivering health care, will covering everyone lead to enough reduced costs of having gate keepers in front of every hospital and clinic...
I guess time will tell. But, had we continued, more and more Americans would do without health care including ourselves at this meeting to the end that no matter how poor the service and results are in Canada, Sweden, Great Britain, Denmark, Norway, Germany, Japan, and France to name a few, we'd be better off with a socialist system lest we, sitting here, die. None of those places want our system. And the idea that they come over here for our sixty year-old doctors who worked and learned here during our heyday won't last.
It is certainly possible that insurance costs will continue to rise just as it is possible they will fall. It is easy to timidly spread gloom and doom under the guise of conservatism.
Those other countries are doing well. They pay less. They pay less than half what we currently pay. They're all covered. They get more. We are not worse a people than they are. We deserve better than this for-shit system we have. We're just as good, we're just as able. We deserve as much if not more than they have. We're going to get a better system and it's not going to be because of some timid naysayers or do-nothings.
We don't pay just as much as Europeans, we pay more and get less.
For example, health care, they pay about 3K$ per capita per year while we pay 7K$ per capita per year. WE PAY MORE.
WE GET LESS.
We're not covered if we lose our job, they are.
We're not covered for pre-existing conditions, they are.
We're not covered if the insurance company denies our claim, they are.
We get to throw fundraisers for family and friends to get lifesaving health care, they don't.
And, on and on and on.
They pay less and get more.
We pay more and get less.
Add health care, retirement, sick days, vacation days they get and we don't, disability insurance, unemployment insurance, ... to our salary and look at our real tax ... it's closer to US paying 80%. They pay 50% and get refunds for doing things in certain ways.
That's not just as much as they pay, we pay more and get less.
I imagine he reads no newspapers, rather he gets information from radio, FOX, possibly a website and emails, all of which confirm his beliefs.
It's as though a few rich families support a bunch of think tanks filled with old Nazis and their children in order to take over our wealth and power. Add retired CIA operatives in our media after running media ops in other countries, now too old for field work, wanting to earn some extra bucks while they are still able to work.
It all adds up to this kid, sure of what he knows and not knowing a thing about it.
They want to keep their private family money position protected.
They look down upon what is earned by work instead of earned by birthright.
People who earn by work are awakening. Even Bill Gates and Warren Buffet begin to realize that they themselves will be derailed if the aristocrats so wish someday. Gates and Buffet earn by work and are therefore a danger to the inheritor class' retention of power.
This inheritor class knows that on a level playing field they are not bright enough to maintain power. So, they buy the think tanks, buy the rhetoric, buy the politicians to claim things they don't do and do things that maintain more iron fisted control by the few.
Thus, Republicans claim to be for competition, but they are payed to support monopolies. They claim to anti-socialistic, yet they socialize us around bank failures. They claim single-payer health care will be bad for us when every country with it, loves it and hates what we have, and the media is payed for its rhetoric and sometimes bald faced lies. Churches are swayed by large donations with concerted media attacks.
How to fight?
Expose, to begin.
Hides retraction using rhetorical devices to just plain bad writing.
The name is Clark Hoyt, public editor, NYTimes. He needs to resign. Is this guy performing the usual NYTimes method of operation? Put a lie out there, hide it behind other people, let it bake for enough time to do damage, then hazily retract it offering that it as a non-retraction retraction, say, it doesn't matter either way or some such garbage writing that should also be retracted if not just for its haziness, but won't be, in a good time frame at least.
Isn't that how the lies about Al Gore lying were skillfully given to the public?
In the middle of the article he finally admits it, to the lie of a "gaudy guise" that did not happen as written but only while quickly jumping from general statements to details that can rhetorically confuse readers. For instance using "He" when it could mean one of two or even more people leaving the reader a sense of being unsure of what was attributed to whom especially with sentence after sentence changing the person of subject all in the same paragraph. That helps to hide the clarity people could then have as they talk at the water cooler.
People should be warned before reading such articles. No one except district attorney's office have seen the unedited videos (as long as the lying stopped at them as that would be a crime) and they found nothing wrong. So, notice the clever way the "Revisited" article says it: "entire available public record" or, in other words, the whatever the sleazy film editor says is a full transcript. Whatever full might mean to him, such as one cut that just doesn't reverse some scenes maybe? To conservatives (sic)(that should be with a large C), ACORN is VIRTUALLY a criminal organization that was guilty of... ." Then after leaving an impression of ACORN being guilty of fraud, ... you get what its SUPPORTERS think. Clever.
Makes me wonder that our newspapers, radio and TVs aren't just outlets for ex-CIA agents trying to justify their prior actions taken without realizing which guys they worked for were the bad guys before Senator Church stepped in. They never figured and still don't figure that those guys that they bonded with, that were taking risks along side of them did so to get a better spot near the top of daddy's will and would risk nearly anything to get up there and of course enhance the amount of the future inheritance at the same time.
We've become a nation of people trying to craft ways of getting money out of other people any way we can. Right down to the guy who decides which photo to run of an editor for his "revisited" article.
You reiterated my sentence with YOU TRY TO included, but then disposed of it, lost it, disappeared it, and then went off, once again, on your new subject matter. If you intend to take something at face value, at least look at the face of it!
You see, YOU are TRYING to separate the state from people's beliefs, rather than having the people separate their beliefs from the state. The difference is subtle. The difference is democratic: rule by the people, free people, versus the do-gooders ordering the state to keep people in their place with their beliefs, ordering separation, enforcing separation using government as the enforcer.
When you take a people's freedom away, you will see a backlash. That backlash is in part what you see on our legal tender.
It seems for you, and your perchance 600 or some followers, that atheism means believing there is no god. Okay, have fun.
However, for others that might see it differently, the word atheist might not be owned by you and your followers -- alone.
I, for example, see, etymologically, a description of an un-theist as someone believing there is no god, and a(in its oppositional sense)-theist as someone directly opposed to a belief in a god, thereby believing that god does not exist. But, that's me. And, I don't own the word either.
Sadly, the confusion leads people to ask you about your atheism where you don't want to hear their idea of what the word means to them. It seems when different people have a different ideas on what a single word should mean that they need either to resolve that difference or quit talking to each other.
Which leads me to ask: How did they know you were, in your own wording, an atheist?
The water department gets a percentage profit on the amount of water it delivers. It gets the water for free, gets as much as it wants. Only delivers what will be paid. But, still gets its percentage, even after major expenditures.
The soda company does not get a percentage. It can have a high profit lose lots, or be in between depending on how well it sells its beverages.
Comparing these two profit systems as equals is silly.
when the water company starts giving itself huge bonuses and pay scales while still keeping the 6% profit it's allowed, it drives up the price of water.
as the water company starts to make complicated payment systems to deny water access to certain people, and uses that denial as reason to scare those people into paying higher prices for water -- the price of water goes higher and so does a 6%, or whatever percentage, straight profit percentage goes up into real money that can go into higher salaries, usually to those at the top.
This is what our health insurance companies do.
since the water controllers have done this much, spike the water to make people thirstier, needier and more scared to lose their water supply.
The water company would actually gain more by not making people satisfied, as health insurance companies can gain more by not making people well, but letting their illnesses drag on or wait until those illnesses become more costly.
I'm not accusing the health companies of spiking health care, but am pointing out that it is in their best interest not to give us health. The are in business to make profit first, not to perform some public good in front of profit.
I must say that our current health care system resembles these bad effects.
On what conservative points DON'T WE Democrats beat Republicans?
Spending? Rs spent more by going into unnecessary wars incurring what will be decades of future costs. And they took the money by borrowing more, and borrowed so much that Ds are spending now just to correct the borrowing the so-called conservative, ha!, Rs borrowed.
Borrowing? Ds not only balanced the budget, Ds, under Clinton, had a surplus.
Taxes? The percentage was higher under Clinton, BUT WE MADE MORE MONEY AND HAD MORE AFTER TAX MONEY. Only the rich who don't need any more are paying more.
Guns? Only times guns were taken was during the Katrina fiasco. Instead of sending food, water and rescuers, Rs sent troops with armaments.
Abortion? The rate of abortion goes up as people have less money, and under Rs the people get less money. The R plan of abstinence only is shown not to work and Rs keep ignoring the science of that information.
Gay marriage? Some religions allow it, some don't. Are there any things in your religion that others might not like and that you'd like them to tolerate such as not having to wear burkas, not allowing you to eat pork, giving wine to teenagers in small doses despite zero-tolerance rules?
Rs are conservative.. my left butt-cheek.
Rs only want each of US to spend more than necessary in order to receive less of what we want while their buddies collect and live off the difference.
Your folks may not know everything, but at least they're awake. You're lucky.
The ten most recent threads posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums.
Hillary Clinton Bernie Sanders battle over meaning of progressive
By Divine Discontent
The X-Files Reopens
By Divine Discontent
DU 2 Still Exists
Hillary Clinton's Glass-Steagall
Who should Sanders choose for VP?
By No Elephants
Donated to Sanders
President Bernie Fucking Sanders, Baby!!!
The ten most recommended threads posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums in the last 24 hours.
Use the tools below to keep track of updates to this Journal.
Today's Featured Forums