Obama: Legalize illegals to get them health care

[HAL 9000 96]

Oh man you guys got me in the insults department. I think i'll go cry my eyes out now.

I can't write off someone as irrelevant? I believe I just did. The insults are what is irrelevant. No skin off my back, just irrelevant. HAL rarely makes an intelligent post. Its always, here I'm smarter you're dumb, go do your homework. As i said, irrelevant.

That must be a prerequisite when applying for the Libbies for Obama club (i mean commies for Christ).

One truck write off isn't going to break the IRS. Though it should be done honestly you're right.

So we've gone from taxing the rich and big corporations, now to changing the topic to small business owners and what crooks they are. You guys sure jump all over the place. And yet you still work for the guy..

You don't get what I'm talking about from the example?

I do get what you're talking about, I'm just saying we're jumping around. I'd be happy to talk about it and hear your points of view without the insults. Yes we've all done it, but there seems to be a disproportionate amount coming from you two. Cue Hal's next regurgitated whine comment. It doesn't bother me, just makes me less apt to see your point of view. And since you wouldn't see mine anyway (and you'll blame it on me calling you a liberal) i'm not sure why i try, but here i am.

Joseph -

You have to look at the percentage of the taxpayers income that is being taxed - not the percentage (or taxation rate) that is being paid. This is where the smoke is when you read most arguments crying about the wealthy paying 'exorbitant' percentages.

It's pretty simple when you think about it really. It is estimated at present that 95% percent of the wealth in this country is held by 5% of the population. You said earlier that these persons pay - what - 50% of the tax taken in?

If those numbers are correct, it clearly indicates that taxation is not proportional.

Who is paying that other 45%?

It isn't the lower class, or the middle class either. The top 50% pay 97%. That comes from the IRS. Ok fine.. Now just explain how making it 100% will eliminate the poor, and give more wealth to those below.

Because you're not paying attention to the actual dollar for dollar influx of income tax that would originate in such a non-detrimental increase on the very rich, and as I stated, the actual administration of said funds.

Ok. I'll compromise. We tax the @#^&{}amp; out of the rich, but lets forget socialized medicine.

It isn't on the table now, so keep it within rational bounds if possible.

And as it has been stated, it isn't taxing the sh!t out of anyone. If that was they case they wouldn't be rich anymore would they??

[Joseph & Ana 0]

Oh man you guys got me in the insults department. I think i'll go cry my eyes out now.

I can't write off someone as irrelevant? I believe I just did. The insults are what is irrelevant. No skin off my back, just irrelevant. HAL rarely makes an intelligent post. Its always, here I'm smarter you're dumb, go do your homework. As i said, irrelevant.

That must be a prerequisite when applying for the Libbies for Obama club (i mean commies for Christ).

One truck write off isn't going to break the IRS. Though it should be done honestly you're right.

So we've gone from taxing the rich and big corporations, now to changing the topic to small business owners and what crooks they are. You guys sure jump all over the place. And yet you still work for the guy..

You don't get what I'm talking about from the example?

I do get what you're talking about, I'm just saying we're jumping around. I'd be happy to talk about it and hear your points of view without the insults. Yes we've all done it, but there seems to be a disproportionate amount coming from you two. Cue Hal's next regurgitated whine comment. It doesn't bother me, just makes me less apt to see your point of view. And since you wouldn't see mine anyway (and you'll blame it on me calling you a liberal) i'm not sure why i try, but here i am.

Joseph -

You have to look at the percentage of the taxpayers income that is being taxed - not the percentage (or taxation rate) that is being paid. This is where the smoke is when you read most arguments crying about the wealthy paying 'exorbitant' percentages.

It's pretty simple when you think about it really. It is estimated at present that 95% percent of the wealth in this country is held by 5% of the population. You said earlier that these persons pay - what - 50% of the tax taken in?

If those numbers are correct, it clearly indicates that taxation is not proportional.

Who is paying that other 45%?

It isn't the lower class, or the middle class either. The top 50% pay 97%. That comes from the IRS. Ok fine.. Now just explain how making it 100% will eliminate the poor, and give more wealth to those below.

Because you're not paying attention to the actual dollar for dollar influx of income tax that would originate in such a non-detrimental increase on the very rich, and as I stated, the actual administration of said funds.

Ok. I'll compromise. We tax the @#^&{}amp; out of the rich, but lets forget socialized medicine.

It isn't on the table now, so keep it within rational bounds if possible.

And as it has been stated, it isn't taxing the sh!t out of anyone. If that was they case they wouldn't be rich anymore would they??

Thats the point isn't it?

[HAL 9000 96]

The point that only you are making, Joe. The rest of us are stuck in this convenient place called reality.

[Heracles 417]

Ok, thanks. I see what you're saying. Its just my opinion that making a 35% tax go to 50% isn't going to end poverty or give the wealth to the middle class. To me it seems like a "Lets screw the evil rich" which they may very well be evil, but thats emotions based.

How is someone earning $10 million or $2 billion screwed if they pay a 50% tax? I just cannot see the logic of defending the mega rich when an individual does not fit that income bracket themselves.

A democracy is about numbers. At the end of the day, the poor and middle class far outnumber the rich. So you know what, dam straight they should be able to set the rules. That is what a democracy is all about. It's not about special interest, minorities, lobbyist, or the few that are mega rich. It's about what is best for the majority of people.

As I illustrated in the earlier example using the pie, currently one person is able to take nine pieces, while the other nine people get to fight over the remaining one piece of pie. That is not right. While not everyone should necessarily get one piece each, they certainly should be left fighting over the last piece; while the first person takes all nine. In other social democracies they tax this person heavily and have the appropriate employment laws (minimum wages) which ensure that no one person gets more than four or five pieces for themselves. As a result, the other nine people have six pieces to share, rather than just one.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

Ok, thanks. I see what you're saying. Its just my opinion that making a 35% tax go to 50% isn't going to end poverty or give the wealth to the middle class. To me it seems like a "Lets screw the evil rich" which they may very well be evil, but thats emotions based.

How is someone earning $10 million or $2 billion screwed if they pay a 50% tax? I just cannot see the logic of defending the mega rich when an individual does not fit that income bracket themselves.

A democracy is about numbers. At the end of the day, the poor and middle class far outnumber the rich. So you know what, dam straight they should be able to set the rules. That is what a democracy is all about. It's not about special interest, minorities, lobbyist, or the few that are mega rich. It's about what is best for the majority of people.

As I illustrated in the earlier example using the pie, currently one person is able to take nine pieces, while the other nine people get to fight over the remaining one piece of pie. That is not right. While not everyone should necessarily get one piece each, they certainly should be left fighting over the last piece; while the first person takes all nine. In other social democracies they tax this person heavily and have the appropriate employment laws (minimum wages) which ensure that no one person gets more than four or five pieces for themselves. As a result, the other nine people have six pieces to share, rather than just one.

So then I reiterate. Lets make the minimum wage 50 dollars per hour. Some of us would get pay increases. Why don't we also have a maximum wage too? This would solve everything.

[Heracles 417]

Thats the point isn't it?

You're doing a good job posting. These guys love to ambush with one to three liners.. Word of advice. Don't bother asking for any evidence either because it's not going to happen. You have a better chance of shinning light into a black hole and getting a reflection of it.

[Heracles 417]

Ok, thanks. I see what you're saying. Its just my opinion that making a 35% tax go to 50% isn't going to end poverty or give the wealth to the middle class. To me it seems like a "Lets screw the evil rich" which they may very well be evil, but thats emotions based.

How is someone earning $10 million or $2 billion screwed if they pay a 50% tax? I just cannot see the logic of defending the mega rich when an individual does not fit that income bracket themselves.

A democracy is about numbers. At the end of the day, the poor and middle class far outnumber the rich. So you know what, dam straight they should be able to set the rules. That is what a democracy is all about. It's not about special interest, minorities, lobbyist, or the few that are mega rich. It's about what is best for the majority of people.

As I illustrated in the earlier example using the pie, currently one person is able to take nine pieces, while the other nine people get to fight over the remaining one piece of pie. That is not right. While not everyone should necessarily get one piece each, they certainly should be left fighting over the last piece; while the first person takes all nine. In other social democracies they tax this person heavily and have the appropriate employment laws (minimum wages) which ensure that no one person gets more than four or five pieces for themselves. As a result, the other nine people have six pieces to share, rather than just one.

So then I reiterate. Lets make the minimum wage 50 dollars per hour. Some of us would get pay increases. Why don't we also have a maximum wage too? This would solve everything.

Dude, I had the same responses a year or so ago, all the way back to when I first posted. Ask any of these guys and you will see I was the original Joe 1.0. However, after looking at everything objectively I realized the average Joe and the poor in America get the short end of the stick. You and I know the $50 is an exaggeration. Heck I have posted a higher amount before, like $100 per hour, to make the same point.

US minimum wage per week: $290 USD [$7.25 per hour]

AUS minimum wage per week: $473 USD [$12.44 per hour] - 38 week max (anything over is considered overtime) + four week paid annual vacation + health care + 8% towards private retirement account + sick leave.

They also received time and a half on Sunday and double time and a half on public holidays. That is what I call a fair wage. Bravo to the Aussies. You think it's breaking the bank? hell no. Aus unemployment is at 5.8%. Country first means country first, as in our people. If the mega rich don't like it they know where the door is. Many like Rupert Murdoch have left because they pay much less tax in the US. Funny that his kids prefer to live in AUS.

Edited September 23, 2009 by Booyah!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If it needs pointing out, you also have a much smaller population (roughly 1/3 the size of the UK) and a much smaller population density in Australia. Smaller numbers of people putting a load on the social services.

The US has a few years on Australia (which has only been an independent nation since 1901). See what happens when you start to experience overpopulation. Those standards will slip.

[The_Dude 1,142]

If it needs pointing out, you also have a much smaller population (roughly 1/3 the size of the UK) and a much smaller population density in Australia. Smaller numbers of people putting a load on the social services.

The US has a few years on Australia (which has only been an independent nation since 1901). See what happens when you start to experience overpopulation. Those standards will slip.

You mean when Australia becomes the southernmost province of India?

[Heracles 417]

If it needs pointing out, you also have a much smaller population (roughly 1/3 the size of the UK) and a much smaller population density in Australia. Smaller numbers of people putting a load on the social services.

The US has a few years on Australia (which has only been an independent nation since 1901). See what happens when you start to experience overpopulation. Those standards will slip.

Once Australia gained their independence from the UK, they built a system based around a fair go. Being last to setup their government, they were able to learn from the UK, Canada and the US. They basically picked the best ideas and implemented them. Their system is not about socialism but about being a fair society for all. About providing the majority of people with the chance to acquire their share of the pie.

Actually we have less government run services there than even America, but still manage to give most people a fair go. The other thing about Aus is that they do not, I repeat do not, just let anyone migrate there. While they are compassionate and take in thousands of poor people each year, they trickle them in to give them a chance to succeed. Like any successful country, they have a tight control over who migrates and who can not. Whereas the UK like the US let anyone come in and just flooded the market; which has suppressed wages for blue collar workers. To the contrary, Australian blue collar workers are amongst the highest paid in the world because they have managed to suppress the supply yet keep the demand high.

They might have one third of the population but their expenses are 100 times that of the UK. High population density is actually cheaper to cater for than a small spread out population, considering they need to build more roads, more schools, more hospitals and then maintain them of course. So it actually says something that a country with 1/3 the UK's population, yet be almost the size of the US, has such well maintained and modern infrastructure; as well as modern cities and services.

After all, it's why so many Brits holiday there or move there and stay permanently. Whereas Aussies go to London to work for a few years and then eventually return. Usually with the people they work with. I have hooked up quite a few friends from the UK with jobs in Aus. They had to pay a total $6k in visa fees to get their PR as it's not cheap to move there.

Edited September 23, 2009 by Booyah!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Right, but the system works in part due to the relatively low population (rather like Switzerland).

[Ban Hammer 14,295]

"A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul."

George Bernard Shaw.

[justashooter 430]

A democracy is about numbers. At the end of the day, the poor and middle class far outnumber the rich. So you know what, dam straight they should be able to set the rules. That is what a democracy is all about. It's not about special interest, minorities, lobbyist, or the few that are mega rich. It's about what is best for the majority of people.

somebody just failed the citizenship exam. the USA is not a democracy. it is a republic. individual voters do not enact law. representatives selected by individual voters enact law. the system was set up this way to keep control in the hands of the educated and literate. coincidentally, it also put control in the hands of the rich.

do we still beed a republican structure? is the average person educated and wise enough to enact law? not from the looks of the posting on this forum.

[Heracles 417]

A democracy is about numbers. At the end of the day, the poor and middle class far outnumber the rich. So you know what, dam straight they should be able to set the rules. That is what a democracy is all about. It's not about special interest, minorities, lobbyist, or the few that are mega rich. It's about what is best for the majority of people.

somebody just failed the citizenship exam. the USA is not a democracy. it is a republic. individual voters do not enact law. representatives selected by individual voters enact law. the system was set up this way to keep control in the hands of the educated and literate. coincidentally, it also put control in the hands of the rich.

do we still beed a republican structure? is the average person educated and wise enough to enact law? not from the looks of the posting on this forum.

Whatever it is, the system is useless as it allows a small group of elites to run the show, while everyone else remains dirt poor and is kept stupid. The middle class and poor are left to believe their guns and the military will save them. Time to shelve a system used by China amongst other 2nd and 3rd world countries and implement the 1st world democratic parliamentary system. It's the equivalent of switching from building 5 wheel cars to 4 wheels.