Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(US Supreme Court) NewsFlash Supreme Court rules that Obamacare is constitutional. The bland mask that is Mitt Romney's face twitches with something called "emotion"   (supremecourt.gov) divider line 3337
    More: NewsFlash, obamacare, supreme courts, Mitt Romney, supreme court ruling  
•       •       •

14923 clicks; posted to Politics » on 28 Jun 2012 at 10:27 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»


Want to get NewsFlash notifications in email?

3337 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | » | Last
 
2012-06-28 04:53:11 PM  

gimmegimme: oh_please: Mrtraveler01: oh_please: Mrtraveler01: You know, this talking point really bothers me.

People are upset that since more people will be covered, people will have to wait longer for treatment.

So does that mean these same folks were ok with the private sector rationing care based on cost and perfectly fine if the people who couldn't afford treatment whitered off and died?

What kind of sick farks do we have in this country anyway?


Gosh, you must have forgotten to highlight what I said in the rest of my post, about how we need to do something about the current situation, and this decision certainly isn't the end of the world.

It wasn't directed at you.

it was just something I've noticed on Fox News and throughout different comment sections.

You just reminded me of how selfish and stupid that talking point sounded. It wasn't directed solely at you.

So you just took the part of my post that was relevant to what YOU wanted to talk about, and was ripe for a scathing response?

"I know, I'll take this little piece of what this guy said, and then I'll stand up for TRUTH AND JUSTICE!"

I apologize if I'm having trouble keeping up; that's always a trouble in a thread like this. But it seems to be your position that we need to "do something." A similar and similarly practical philosophy was espoused by this gentleman:

[i794.photobucket.com image 500x295]

[thepennilessfoodie.files.wordpress.com image 635x346]

[www.justpressplay.net image 500x250]


Sorry, I have no idea who that dude is.

All I'm saying is this is going to be interesting. Do we need to reform the healthcare system? YES! Is this a step in the right direction? Maybe. TBH, I'm behind it, but what I was saying earlier is don't claim this as a victory, because there are a lot of things that could bite us in the ass later, especially the SCOTUS judging this as a "tax".
 
2012-06-28 04:53:27 PM  

I would like to quote my favorite Chief Justice Roberts' quote. It's so appropriate here:

IT'S THE SETTLED LAW OF THE LAND!


/btw, just to piss the right off even more, Roberts was talking about Roe v. Wade. Hee hee hee
 
2012-06-28 04:54:41 PM  

qorkfiend: netweavr: People without children should (and do) pay higher taxes...

I won't debate that people without children do pay higher taxes, but what argument do you have as to why they should pay higher taxes?


Obama's broken lots of promises that one you mentioned, gitmo, government transperncy, debt, etc. . . most people are going to be alright with that.
 
2012-06-28 04:54:46 PM  

flamingboar: So the question is, is it a tax or is it not a tax?

/seriously, I cannot find one unbiased source about this.


Originally, it was not. Today, the Supreme Court deemed it as a sorta-kinda one.

It's mostly an argument in semantics, so it's rather pointless to try to pin it down.
 
2012-06-28 04:55:21 PM  
The Daily Show and Colbert Report tonight is going to be epic.
 
2012-06-28 04:56:06 PM  
I think Roberts saw the writing on the wall: If he went with the conservatives, he put the court on an incredibly dangerous trajectory. Ultimately, the conservatives on the court are looking to dismantle the past 100 years of jurisprudence with regard to expanded Federal Government power. Frankly, I don't disagree that a lot of it should be dismantled, but for the Supreme Court to go down that path was to engage in direct warfare with the other two branches of Government. What would become of the court then?

Instead, Roberts suggested something I can't really disagree with: Given the wide reach of our tax laws, the Individual Mandate penalty isn't really anything exceptional. But within that argument there is a seed of dissent against those very tax laws in the first place. Roberts wasn't even subtle about the implication that he was doing his duty in upholding the law, no matter how horrible or disastrous he though the law was in the first place. I think his always-strategic mind hopes that he can do more good by playing the helpless public servant, and allowing the backlash to do the job of moving us against such laws in a less precarious fashion than forcing his court to move into the line of fire. Time will tell if he was right.
 
2012-06-28 04:56:58 PM  

TheNewJesus: Hopefully in the next 4 years we can get a handle on the corporate hijacking of politicians and do something about the brain dead guppies that believe anything their elected officials tell them.


I would venture to say that this goal should be the #1 priority of the American people.
 
2012-06-28 04:57:59 PM  

Ninja_Pancakes: OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG
OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG
OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG
OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG
OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG

I'm not even american and I'm amazed they let it stand!


Look, I don't expect you or anyone else will notice this in a thread this large and busy. But it's not shocking at all. The problem with healthcare in this country is not that some people don't have insurance. The real problem is that the entirety of both the medical and insurance industries are utterly corrupt juggernauts. A massive for-profit vampire squid that moves more money every year than half the countries in the world combined. My father had to have a few shots for cancer treatment back in January. $1,200 for each shot. Each. Shot. That is farking BS, but that's what the hospital charged because they knew they'd have my dad's $100 out of pocket and probably another $700-$800 from the insurance company with no questions asked. They write off the other $400-ish and that's probably still 20x the actual monetary cost of the drug. Forcing everyone to buy insurance (or at least penalizing them if they don't) does not actually fix the problem. It really makes it worse by forcing even more people to participate in this utterly corrupt system, thus ensuring it will never get fixed.

I am surprised by the 5-4 decision. I really expected something more like 7-2, because at the end of the day this law is a huge giveaway to Big Insurance and Big Pharma on a recurring annual basis. What neocon Supreme wouldn't love that?
 
2012-06-28 04:58:00 PM  

JDAT: [www.catholicvote.org image 640x425]


i.imgur.com
 
2012-06-28 04:58:10 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: Must be hard living you life of fear and paranoia.


No better time in the history of the world for the Average Joe than right now and I'm just some slightly above Average Joe.

And I'd be a lot more optimistic with a little less Big Gubmint.
 
2012-06-28 04:58:16 PM  

technocrat: qorkfiend: netweavr: People without children should (and do) pay higher taxes...

I won't debate that people without children do pay higher taxes, but what argument do you have as to why they should pay higher taxes?

Obama's broken lots of promises that one you mentioned, gitmo, government transperncy, debt, etc. . . most people are going to be alright with that.


Considering Congress wouldn't let him close Gitmo, how is that breaking a promise?
 
2012-06-28 04:58:20 PM  

Tyrone Biggums: jst3p: Am I a bad person because, in my opinion, the best part about this is the fact that I can use it to stir up the Right Wing nutjobs in the cubes near me? Today is going to be fun.

Yeah, my boss was over crying about it a while ago.


You should be crying because you've got such a farkin' idiot for a boss.
 
2012-06-28 05:00:12 PM  

ialdabaoth: I'm not entirely comfortable with the idea of dividing humanity into "those who deserve to live" and "those who don't," but if I had to, then I'd start off with something pretty easy like "Has he ever murdered anyone?" and maybe work my way up to more subjective criteria like "What has she done to make the world a better place?"

I'm not sure how else to answer your question, but you asked, so enjoy.

So... here's my confusion, then. If we're uncomfortable with the idea of someone's "deservedness" to live having anything to do with how much money they own, why do we allow our legal and political system to create exactly that outcome, over and over again?

- Rich people don't end up on death row; poor people do.
- Rich people don't have to worry about malnutrition; poor people do.


You smell more and more like a troll with each post, but I'll play a little longer.

If you're talking about the death penalty, I'm opposed to capital punishment, so I'm not sure how your argument is supposed to work on me.

If you're not talking about the death penalty, then you've lost me completely, sorry.

As for malnutrition, yes, I'd like to live in a society where nobody suffers malnutrition. I'm happy to pay taxes to support food stamps or some similar program so everyone gets enough food. That might be why people call me a liberal.

What was your point again?
 
2012-06-28 05:01:28 PM  
www.famousquotesabout.com
 
2012-06-28 05:01:41 PM  

drgloryboy: Sabyen91: drgloryboy: zipdog: Derek Force: So does this or does this not mean I have to wait in the ER for 3 hours because its filled with non-insured people who have the flu or a splinter?

Yes

This will mean you will be waiting for six hours because now everyone will at least have Medicaid insurance that no primary care doctors will take. This means 20 million more people will be going to the ER for both non-emergent concerns and for emergent conditions that they normally wouldn't have gone to the ER before the mandate for fear of going bankrupt. As an ER doc I will no longer be required to provide government mandated charity care as we as a nation will pay for those unable to afford insurance and will require those who can afford insurance to have it. Looks like I won't be having a problem staying busy at work.

I refuse to believe you are a doctor. Ohhhh, ER doctor. Actually, this means more people will be able to go to their family doctor rather than rely on the ER.

Medicaid doesn't pay well and most family docs don't accept it. Take the pepsi challenge and randomly call some doctors offices in your area and ask them if they accept medicaid insurance.


Community health centers, how do i shot web?
 
2012-06-28 05:02:12 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: technocrat: qorkfiend: netweavr: People without children should (and do) pay higher taxes...

I won't debate that people without children do pay higher taxes, but what argument do you have as to why they should pay higher taxes?

Obama's broken lots of promises that one you mentioned, gitmo, government transperncy, debt, etc. . . most people are going to be alright with that.

Considering Congress wouldn't let him close Gitmo, how is that breaking a promise?


Please don't cloud the issue with facts.

Obama said he would pull the troops from Iraq and put them in Afghanistan. He did.

Obama said he would end the 15 month tours with no down time in between. As far as I know, he did.

Obama said he would...oh forget it...I'm just going to enjoy this joyous day of shoving it to people who want to make themselves rich by bleeding poorer people.
 
2012-06-28 05:03:12 PM  

L82DPRT: Khellendros: Are you arguing Obamacare bends the cost curve down and the initial cost claims were accurate?

No.

You should have stopped right there.


So you're done? You've come to the realization that your linked "facts" are concocted slander and BS designed to push a political agenda, and you were a dupe to try to use them to prove your point?

Or maybe you'll link to a Bill O'Reilly study that shows that income tax is destructive to the working man, or maybe a Pat Buchanan expose to convince people of the trickle-down economic effect.
 
2012-06-28 05:03:25 PM  
So what you're saying is that Medicaid (paid for by the federal government) will require you to justify paying for procedures? Isn't that what's called fiscal responsibility

Living in New York you obviously have no clue what rural healthcare is about. Without our clinic, patients will have to drive 50-100 miles to get lab work or x-rays done. Medicaid is a state funded program here. We don't have the problem with "Fiscal Responsibility" your state obviously does. Obamacare is structured to be a blanket set of rules to apply to ALL healthcare. Too much control is putting your healthcare in the hands of a computer program instead of the practitioners that actually deal with real life situations.
 
2012-06-28 05:03:43 PM  
I think Republicans might be so miffed because they're reading this as "single-PRAYER system".

/Romneyprayer is run by the state... presumably Utah
 
2012-06-28 05:04:26 PM  
25.media.tumblr.com
 
2012-06-28 05:04:38 PM  
Say it's a bad law, fine. Saying it's the end of the country just makes you look like a farking idiot though.
 
2012-06-28 05:04:45 PM  

FlashHarry: derpdeederp: Personally, I think it morally wrong to take money from one group of people to pay for anothers benefits

so i assume you oppose social security on these grounds, too. and the military. let's not forget about the military. and schools (i don't have kids, so why do i have to pay property taxes!)


Actually, I view social security being paid for by everyone, or at least those of us with incomes, so Im fine with that. Im also open to a healthcare system based on a flat tax system like social security. I just think its wrong to focus taxation on the wealthiest to get benefits for others, I think the costs should be spread across all of society. Taxing the wealthy is a cope out, I would be fine paying the extra 10% of my income to pay for healthcare for myself and my fellow citizens.

The military, beyond being to large, is based on a progressive taxation system so the wealthier of us are paying the majority of that as well. Im kind of mixed on this since the wealthier benefit more from the military (protecting resources, shipping lanes, trade agreements) even though everyone has some benefit. Personally, it would be nice to have a more democratic society where we all have a more equal cost and say in society.

A big peeve of mine is the focus on making the wealthy pay their "fair share". It just seems illogical, since they seem to pay the majority of the income taxes. I believe that when government decides to provide a public good that it should be paid for by the public, not a minority of the public. If you dont make any money, you wouldnt owe anything of course. Just my personal opinion.
 
2012-06-28 05:04:48 PM  

Doctor Funkenstein: There is going to be some epic butthurt that is about to commence.


Shiat, now I have to go get more popcorn.
 
2012-06-28 05:04:57 PM  

Job Creator: Aikidogamer: farkerofDOOM: I see your point. But seriously. What is the big deal. I'm still trying to figure out what all the wharrgarbl is about. You either choose to get insurance or you choose to pay the tax. Big whoop.

The point is this:

Taxes usually require some action to become applicable. Mere living is the action now. It sets a dangerous precedent.

lolwut?


Income tax requires income. One could have a stash of money and spend it. There would be no income. Technicly it is avoidable. Wheel/car tax? Don't buy a car. Real estate tax? Don't buy a home. After today...chose not to buy insurance? We are going to tax you 2% of your income or a flat fee, whichever is more because you did not buy the product we wanted you to and you exist. Nevermind there are some good reasons not to buy.

Ergo, you live so you are taxed.
 
2012-06-28 05:06:15 PM  

Dog Welder: netweavr: Weaver95: I see the GOP is already taking up the mantra of 'taxes/deception' as their rapid response propaganda reply to this decision on obamacare.

/shrug

Worked for Clinton in 1992.

Clinton also said he wasn't going to raise taxes, then raised taxes, and got re-elected in 1996.

*head asplode*


Clinton's approval rating after 1st term > Obama's approval rating after 1st term

/context
//it matters
 
2012-06-28 05:06:17 PM  

Gyrfalcon: Doctor Funkenstein: There is going to be some epic butthurt that is about to commence.

Shiat, now I have to go get more popcorn.


I might have to get some of the real good stuff when I get home? Suggestions people?
 
2012-06-28 05:06:47 PM  
I simply cannot wait for Obama's win in November. It will take the butthurt from the 10 it's at now right up to 11. Hopefully they'll reach critical mass and disappear into a cloud of derp.
 
2012-06-28 05:06:50 PM  

Dorf11: "The supreme court upheld Obama Care. That's it. I'm moving to Canada!"


BWAGAHGAHGAHGAHGAHGAHGAHGAH.!!!!
 
2012-06-28 05:07:41 PM  

R.A.Danny: Say it's a bad law, fine. Saying it's the end of the country just makes you look like a farking idiot though.


NO IT'S THE END OF THE WORLD!!!

And we won!
 
2012-06-28 05:07:48 PM  
ModernPrimitive01: So having children is the only way to build upon mankind's knowledge? What if I decided not to have kids but instead focus on curing cancer, writing a beautiful symphony, or an amazing novel? That is lasting knowledge for the good of humanity. I'm putting back into the system and other people's children can build from my knowledge. If I had a kid, I may not have the time or resources to do any of those things.

netweavr: If everyone did that, then society ends. I'm not telling you what you personally need to do with your life, I'm justifying society's subsidizing of child-rearing.


This is why society and government are good things: division of labor. Some people are scientists and engineers and discover new things. Some people are parents and teachers so that society will continue to the next generation. Some people are artists, athletes, and entertainers to make life enjoyable. Everyone benefits in the long run.

It's much like the old Rebellion Against the Stomach fable.
 
2012-06-28 05:08:20 PM  
Of course, the requirement for the States to expand Medicaid to everyone was overturned, so at least the Republicans have that.

/Facepalm.jpg
 
2012-06-28 05:08:35 PM  
24.media.tumblr.com
 
2012-06-28 05:08:47 PM  

penetrating_virga: cameroncrazy1984: penetrating_virga: Obama: You insurance companies must now offer X.
Insurance CEO: Raise all premiums to pay for X (and add an extra margin for my bonus!)


What a splendid healthcare "fix." A true victory for all!

Problem: 80% of revenue must be used for healthcare.

Sounds like quite an encouragement to keep healthcare costs low... right?


Nope the opposite. Hospitals will charge more and insurance will have less of a reason to negotiate down. 20% of a bigger thing can be more than 30% of a smaller thing if the maths are right.
 
2012-06-28 05:09:00 PM  

Corvus: In my city ER's are closing left and right from people who can't afford to pay their bills. People without insurance use them as free clinics.


That's because the GOP worked hard to shut down the real free clinics. ERs aren't allowed to turn anyone away, so it's the only option for poor people. In the conservative world view it's better to force poor people to wait until they're dying to get health care, and then spend thousands of dollars to heal them, than it is to give them preventitive care at a fraction of the price.
 
2012-06-28 05:09:19 PM  

Khellendros: L82DPRT: Khellendros: Are you arguing Obamacare bends the cost curve down and the initial cost claims were accurate?

No.

You should have stopped right there.

So you're done? You've come to the realization that your linked "facts" are concocted slander and BS designed to push a political agenda, and you were a dupe to try to use them to prove your point?

Or maybe you'll link to a Bill O'Reilly study that shows that income tax is destructive to the working man, or maybe a Pat Buchanan expose to convince people of the trickle-down economic effect.


When dothe scheduled cuts in Medicare and to Doctors compensation kick in?
 
2012-06-28 05:10:13 PM  

Silly Jesus: I haven't seen this question asked / answered yet...but I may have missed it.

People are making a point of saying "now all those morans who get free care from the ER are going to have to pay for it (in the form of this mandatory healthcare thingy)
", but those people who abuse the ER are also pretty much guaranteed to be part of the 40% of the country that doesn't pay federal income taxes...so how will this tax fit into that? Will it be the only one that they pay? Won't they just continue to pay no taxes?


Quiet, you! There's end-zone dancing to do. Your pesky logic - it troubles us not!

Seriously, do you believe the folks who support this actually think this stuff through?
 
2012-06-28 05:11:22 PM  

Klippoklondike: I don't like Obamacare for the the simple fact that I must have health insurance. I think the problem with health care costs should be solved by looking at the HEALTH CARE COSTS


You are virtually certain to seek health care sometime in the next few years.
If you have no insurance health care will be provided to you anyway, and the provider must increase the prices they charge those of us who DO pay in order to cover the cost. As a result, our insurance providers must increase our premiums and/or decrease our benefits, which is one of the main drivers of high health care costs. And which is exactly what the bill is designed to solve.
 
2012-06-28 05:11:31 PM  

Aikidogamer: Job Creator: Aikidogamer: farkerofDOOM: I see your point. But seriously. What is the big deal. I'm still trying to figure out what all the wharrgarbl is about. You either choose to get insurance or you choose to pay the tax. Big whoop.

The point is this:

Taxes usually require some action to become applicable. Mere living is the action now. It sets a dangerous precedent.

lolwut?

Income tax requires income. One could have a stash of money and spend it. There would be no income. Technicly it is avoidable. Wheel/car tax? Don't buy a car. Real estate tax? Don't buy a home. After today...chose not to buy insurance? We are going to tax you 2% of your income or a flat fee, whichever is more because you did not buy the product we wanted you to and you exist. Nevermind there are some good reasons not to buy.

Ergo, you live so you are taxed.


This already exists and no one was complaining with the many, many other taxes that work in this fashion. For example: those who do not have children are taxed more. Simply for being alive. Imagine that. Every exemption you can claim on your taxes work in exactly the same way.

This is neither radical nor new. And if you look pre-2008 you will find almost all of your current Republicans in favor of this mandate as being "personally responsible." The only real source of this manufactured outrage is that Republicans didn't get to present it to the national scale first.
 
2012-06-28 05:11:32 PM  
i242.photobucket.com
 
2012-06-28 05:11:44 PM  

heap: Lord Dimwit:
So he finally he crossed that line between everyday villainy and cartoonish super-villainy?

let's put it this way - i have 40 cakes, and i'm hiding them.


Forty cakes? That's as many as four tens.

That's terrible
 
2012-06-28 05:11:55 PM  
Im not sure about this. I can see how it would reign in the medical costs, and losses due to people unable to pay. But I'm not really clear on "not a tax..but you pay it to the IRS". Um..that's a tax. They can call it what they want, it's a tax.
 
2012-06-28 05:12:14 PM  

derpdeederp: A big peeve of mine is the focus on making the wealthy pay their "fair share".



I guess it stems from how a tax can "hurt" a family or not. If you make just enough to pay federal income taxes then a 3% increase, no matter what that money is to be used for, hurts. If you're in the top 5% and your rate goes up 3% your accountant just looks for more loopholes and deductions. Even if none are found, that you aren't already taking, it doesn't hurt you. It doesn't even affect you in the slightest.

It's like when the GOP rants about how high our corporate tax rate is compared to the rest of the world. They don't talk about how corporations in other countries are either paying a livable wage, paying into a national health care system, or both. So they pay a lower tax rate because of all of the other things they do pay for. We should hear that part when the right starts talking shiat about tax rates...
 
2012-06-28 05:12:46 PM  

Fluorescent Testicle: JDAT: [www.catholicvote.org image 640x425]

[i.imgur.com image 625x502]


We are going to need to commission a new painting. It should be a scene on the front lawn of the White House. Obama, in black robes, sits at a death panel along with recent Liberal Presidents such as Regan and Clinton. Al Gore should be on there too just because socialiam. Obama is giving two thumbs down to a mother holding a tiny baby. In the background former presidents cry in anguish. Obama is using the Constitution as a coaster for his beverage. Should be a big seller!
 
2012-06-28 05:14:34 PM  

KarmicDisaster: Fluorescent Testicle: JDAT: [www.catholicvote.org image 640x425]

[i.imgur.com image 625x502]

We are going to need to commission a new painting. It should be a scene on the front lawn of the White House. Obama, in black robes, sits at a death panel along with recent Liberal Presidents such as Regan and Clinton. Al Gore should be on there too just because socialiam. Obama is giving two thumbs down to a mother holding a tiny baby. In the background former presidents cry in anguish. Obama is using the Constitution as a coaster for his beverage. Should be a big seller!


Sounds like a great theme for a photoshop contest.
 
2012-06-28 05:14:39 PM  

Fluorescent Testicle: A libertarian is just a Republican that likes to smoke weed.


You realize that is a direct quote from Limbaugh, right?
 
2012-06-28 05:15:07 PM  

pwhp_67: derpdeederp: A big peeve of mine is the focus on making the wealthy pay their "fair share".


I guess it stems from how a tax can "hurt" a family or not. If you make just enough to pay federal income taxes then a 3% increase, no matter what that money is to be used for, hurts.


The bill has provisions to lower health care costs up to 95% for those whose health care costs reach 8% or more of their total income, which pretty much solves the poor problem along with a lot of problems for the middle class with extremely problematic situations like aggressive cancer.
 
2012-06-28 05:15:28 PM  
img42.imageshack.us
 
2012-06-28 05:15:47 PM  

badLogic: KarmicDisaster: Fluorescent Testicle: JDAT: [www.catholicvote.org image 640x425]

[i.imgur.com image 625x502]

We are going to need to commission a new painting. It should be a scene on the front lawn of the White House. Obama, in black robes, sits at a death panel along with recent Liberal Presidents such as Regan and Clinton. Al Gore should be on there too just because socialiam. Obama is giving two thumbs down to a mother holding a tiny baby. In the background former presidents cry in anguish. Obama is using the Constitution as a coaster for his beverage. Should be a big seller!

Sounds like a great theme for a photoshop contest.


Wow. my spelling really sucked in that posting! I can do better.
 
2012-06-28 05:16:36 PM  

derpdeederp: FlashHarry: derpdeederp: Personally, I think it morally wrong to take money from one group of people to pay for anothers benefits

so i assume you oppose social security on these grounds, too. and the military. let's not forget about the military. and schools (i don't have kids, so why do i have to pay property taxes!)

Actually, I view social security being paid for by everyone, or at least those of us with incomes, so Im fine with that. Im also open to a healthcare system based on a flat tax system like social security. I just think its wrong to focus taxation on the wealthiest to get benefits for others, I think the costs should be spread across all of society. Taxing the wealthy is a cope out, I would be fine paying the extra 10% of my income to pay for healthcare for myself and my fellow citizens.

The military, beyond being to large, is based on a progressive taxation system so the wealthier of us are paying the majority of that as well. Im kind of mixed on this since the wealthier benefit more from the military (protecting resources, shipping lanes, trade agreements) even though everyone has some benefit. Personally, it would be nice to have a more democratic society where we all have a more equal cost and say in society.

A big peeve of mine is the focus on making the wealthy pay their "fair share". It just seems illogical, since they seem to pay the majority of the income taxes. I believe that when government decides to provide a public good that it should be paid for by the public, not a minority of the public. If you dont make any money, you wouldnt owe anything of course. Just my personal opinion.


You kinda hit the nail on the head, though - the wealthy pay more in taxes, but they also receive more benefit. The SEC is of zero benefit to me, but a stable and well-regulated stock market for IPOs is of immense value to the one-percenters. The wealthy need roads for their fleets of trucks - I just need a road for my one car.

There's also the point that money isn't the only way to "pay your fair share". I'd be fine with, say, volunteering X number of hours a week removes X% of you tax bill (up to some maximum X), or voluntarily extending your tour of duty in the military for a year means you pay no taxes that year or something like that.

Think about it - Linus Torvalds (creator of Linux) is directly responsible for literally hundreds of billions in market capitalization, but he himself isn't insanely wealthy - but some people think that he should pay more of a percentage of his income than Paris Hilton.
 
2012-06-28 05:16:46 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: technocrat: qorkfiend: netweavr: People without children should (and do) pay higher taxes...

I won't debate that people without children do pay higher taxes, but what argument do you have as to why they should pay higher taxes?

Obama's broken lots of promises that one you mentioned, gitmo, government transperncy, debt, etc. . . most people are going to be alright with that.

Considering Congress wouldn't let him close Gitmo, how is that breaking a promise?


His mouth writing checks his ass can't cash counts as breaking a promise. I'm not arguing its out of his control, I'm arguing he promised to do something and it didn't happen.

In other words, if I promise to stop the sun from rising tomorrow, I'd be a liar when dawn came through your window.
 
Displayed 50 of 3337 comments

First | « | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | » | Last

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report