Global Warming News

[BobRip]

Loren49,




I do not see our military operations as a government subsidy of oil companies. If that were the case, we would invade Venezuela for their breech of contract with the major oil companies.

So I just do not buy your claim that the government is subsidizing the oil companies.

Ken

Ken, what I would like is a policy to reduce our use of non-renewable resources and foreign energy sources. I think that paying for the war with a tax on oil would go a long way to head us in this direction. It would also reduce the chance we would get into wars. Right now the war will be paid for by our children and our lower retirement income. If Americans were told that oil would have a $2/gallon tax on it to pay for the war, before the war started, I think we would not have a war. I hope this does not get erased. I may be getting political. Actually it's just economics.

 

[FallbrookFarmer]

FallbrockFarmer- I take it as a compliment that you were not surprised I am a teacher but 25 years ago when I was a dairy farmer with a small farm and a high school diploma I would have done the same research. I try to do some research in order to make a post based on something other than what talk show hosts are saying. Just because the same few errors in conclusions or questionable statements are repeated many, many times does make them more valid. Maybe in the same light I should let you know that I am very concerned that you were not bothered by the Glen Beck comparison. I have a good idea of what Glen Beck does and is and he is not helping us to work on problems. He's laughing all the way to the bank.
I believe that you have no clue concerning the work I did as a teacher to try to help students. I retired when I did (at 59) because I couldn't take the frustration of unhelpful parents and the government involvement for political gain. (there are many good parents and students)

Concerning your faith in the framers of the Constitution: I'm sure you're aware that it went into effect in 1788 when New Hampshire ratified it. (the 9th state to do so. From 1791 (Bill of Rights) through 1992 there were 27 amendments to the Constitution. Seems that some wise men had the wisdom and desire to adjust what you seem to think was written in stone to cover all possibilities forever. As the times changed this framework needed adjustments. Let we see - the framers allowed ownership of humans and women couldn't vote. Actually the greatest early use of the filibuster was by some southern democrats to try to prevent votes on race issues.

My healthcare costs have gone up 8 to 9% per year over the past 2 years. At that rate the amount doubles every 8 to 9 years (rule of 72). If I would reach age 78 the cost of my coverage would be $48000. Actually if medicare was not there to cover the most expensive years the premiums would clearly be much more expensive. Our current system is unsustainable. Note that the current obstructionists who want to start of, did nothing significant over the past 8 years when they had the power. I assume you will use Social Security and Medicare when you see fit (if you don't it tells me how wealthy you are) I'm not asking for an answer.


Loren

Congratulations on retiring at 59, The same age that I did.
As to Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh or for that matter, Chris Matthews, If they are laughing all the way to the bank, God Bless. If someone can sell themselves or a product that somebody else wants.... Well that's called capitalism. And I'm all for it
And I guess I'll bite and ask what it is that you "have a good idea of what (he) does"
I think that he and other talk show hosts/pundits offer a
alternative to the main stream media that increasingly takes a liberal/progressive take on most issues.
I also congratulate you on being a teacher, probably one of the least appreciated occupations. I also think that a lot of teachers are underpaid. That said I also think that a lot of teachers are incompetent.(No I am NOT referring to you)
My point being, as was my earlier non surprise about your occupation was ,that most teachers, being members of unions share a liberal/progressive philosophy on issues.
Per the Constitution, I agree that the framers were ingenious enough to see the need for alteration and change. But and hopefully you will agree that underpinning all was a limited government. Not one that became the dispenser of favors/benefits that one group paid for while the other enjoyed the benefits.
Again You and I agree on HMOs etc. very costly, not very effective. Market competition would lower costs and provide better benefits. I would further posit that if Medicare/Medicaid were not there the price of health care would not be as expensive as it is, hence my rant regarding the government becoming even more involved in health care.
I find it interesting that you mention the "last 8 years of
obstructionism" Let me check my facts, but I think that the Democrats took over Congress in 2006, I know its just a coincidence, but isn't about the time that our current crisis began? Just asking.
And I don't mind sharing, No I won't take Social Security or Medicaid. I am covered by VA.
And as to whether I am wealthy or not, I also had a government job 25 years ago, that I quit and became an
independent businessman, and have done well.
As my father(the union local president) told me "you'll never get rich working for somebody else" I took his words to heart.

 

[Loren49]

FallbrockFarmer- I do not dispute the right of Beck and Limbaugh to make a good living but I feel that what they say at times is too inflammatory. Its fine when it is just entertaining or informing people of another point of view. I feel that these guys fuel too much distrust and are not adding much to an intelligent discussion that could result in constructive change. At times they seem to fan the fires of discontent with half truths.


I stand corrected on the makeup of Congress. (posted below) But I still feel that significant health care reform was not and is not in their plans. What would you suggest was done by Congress in 2007-2008 that caused the meltdown and unless it was in agreement with the President it would have taken 60 votes in the Senate. Greed, make believe banking and lack of governmental oversight fueled the meltdown. Who's the cause ? - probably all of us a little.


pdated 5 January 2009

Year Congress President Senate (100) House (435)
2009 111th D D - 55*** D - 256
2007 110th R D - 51** D - 233
2005 109th R R - 55 R - 232
2003 108th R R - 51 R - 229

Do you feel that the VA should not exist? I know they have serious issues but they also have a tough assignment with the number and range of injuries.
An interesting thing I just found as I googled "Medicare Administrative Costs" is that most (about 90%) of the first 3 pages (30 sites) were trying to discredit medicare. I spent some time about a year ago looking up the same thing and could quickly find data. There were still challenges to medicare but they did not displace as they do now. I believe this is a result of the current political climate and the effort to kill reform. The administrative costs for Medicare on the surface appear to be much less than for private. I would project that most of the hidden costs of Medicare would not expand if the program were expanded to cover from 55 years and up.
I understand that a few of the industrialized countries with universal health care do it through the private sector but I don't know the details. They are a little more expensive but still much less than us.
I strongly believe that the current pressure on business to provide health coverage for employees is very detrimental to the growth of business. (especially for small and beginning companies) We have to find a better way.


I understand your generalization of teachers but in rural NNY which has voted Republican forever the makeup of my school doesn't fit your stereotype. I would guess it is 75% or more on the conservative side. I know that I've heard many complaints when the Union endorsed a given candidate. On the pay scale - my max was about $49000 after 15 years. Note that in NYS a masters degree is required along with a number of other hoops to jump through. This was by far the best income I earned over the years. From my experience in this area most of the teachers I have worked were dedicated and caring. I could not in good conscience classify any as incompetent. The Superintendents I worked under were tough. I can't speak for teachers in the "failing" schools but it appears that the support in many of those schools is lacking. How can much be accomplished if attendance rate is 50% and there is no support of discipline or from home? If we were to put our top teachers in that environment they would not succeed unless there was a major change in the support system. There is way too much politics in education - we are way too easy in our student evaluation and requirements. We don't have as many A students as many would like to think. (more opinion)


Preamble to Constitution-
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

I feel that "promote the general Welfare" could be interpreted to cover whatever level of healthcare that would do that. It does not say small government - my hope is for effective government.

I appreciate the rationale discussion,
Loren
(not to start anything but it was -24F in Watertown, NY yesterday - coldest in the lower 48 states)

 

[Loren49]

Ken,
A description of oil subsidy is below (does not include military)

Source-
Oil industry subsidies for dummies | Cleantech Group

"Greenpeace believes Europeans spend about $10 billion or so (USD equivalent) annually to subsidize fossil fuels. By contrast, it thinks the American oil and gas industry might receive anywhere between $15 billion and $35 billion a year in subsidies from taxpayers.

Why such a large margin of error? The exact number is slippery and hard to quantify, given the myriad of programs that can be broadly characterized as subsidies when it comes to fossil fuels. For instance, the U.S. government has generally propped the industry up with:

Construction bonds at low interest rates or tax-free
Research-and-development programs at low or no cost
Assuming the legal risks of exploration and development in a company's stead
Below-cost loans with lenient repayment conditions
Income tax breaks, especially featuring obscure provisions in tax laws designed to receive little congressional oversight when they expire
Sales tax breaks - taxes on petroleum products are lower than average sales tax rates for other goods
Giving money to international financial institutions (the U.S. has given tens of billions of dollars to the World Bank and U.S. Export-Import Bank to encourage oil production internationally, according to Friends of the Earth)
The U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve
Construction and protection of the nation's highway system
Allowing the industry to pollute - what would oil cost if the industry had to pay to protect its shipments, and clean up its spills? If the environmental impact of burning petroleum were considered a cost? Or if it were held responsible for the particulate matter in people's lungs, in liability similar to that being asserted in the tobacco industry?
Relaxing the amount of royalties to be paid (more below)"


Clearly it is all "back door" support. The possible military portion is a whole different question but can be and is defended if you care to do some research or use logic. I believe it is pretty well accepted that there is some portion of our military and government policy used to keep foreign oil flowing. The amount is the real debate. I feel you used faulty logic (Venezuela example). (Just because a person does not steal from me does not mean they are not a thief)

Loren

 

[LMTC]

Preamble to Constitution-
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

I feel that "promote the general Welfare" could be interpreted to cover whatever level of healthcare that would do that. It does not say small government - my hope is for effective government.

I appreciate the rationale discussion,
Loren
(not to start anything but it was -24F in Watertown, NY yesterday - coldest in the lower 48 states)

Despite whatever you feel, the preamble is just that...a preamble. These generalities are profoundly limited by the tenth amendment..."The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Since health care, and a zillion other things, are not prohibited by the Constitution to the States, it, and these zillion other things, "are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Not the federal government. The general welfare statement is just that....a general statement. It cannot, in light of the tenth amendment, be used as the blanket permission that so many want to use it for (ok, so some judicial activists have ignored this for decades, but in a rational world the tenth amendment is quite clear). The preamble does not delegate power(s); it simply states the reason(s) for the writing of the Constitution.

 

[dave1949]

Ken, what I would like is a policy to reduce our use of non-renewable resources and foreign energy sources. I think that paying for the war with a tax on oil would go a long way to head us in this direction. It would also reduce the chance we would get into wars. Right now the war will be paid for by our children and our lower retirement income. If Americans were told that oil would have a $2/gallon tax on it to pay for the war, before the war started, I think we would not have a war. I hope this does not get erased. I may be getting political. Actually it's just economics.

What a radical you are

We have been messing around in oil producing countries from their first oil well on. CIA or State Dept. or military, wrapping our global policies around the issue, one way or another. To deny the cost of this is putting on a pair of blinders. Putting the price of it on the commodity at the end consumer level makes sense to me. We can never put a value on the moral issues that go along with it.
Dave.

 

[Loren49]

LMTC - do you suggest that the States regulate the air waves - FCC- not mentioned in Constitution. How about internet regulation - or no regulation. How about interstate highways and airports? How about drug regulation? My point is things have changed since 1780. Certainly even this Supreme Court disagrees with much of your interpretation. Medical regulation by States only is unworkable and its clear that the framers of the constitution did not consider the issue as it basically did not exist in its current form. Few things government regulates are mentioned specifically in the Constitution as they did not exist but are covered under "general welfare" or "defence" statements.

I understand that small government seems better, but none doesn't work. What specific government programs can we decrease or eliminate. Who then regulates or should it be unregulated. I agree there a lots of wastes but the problem is in the details. Blanket statements seldom accomplish much. Its tough to actually pick something and work for a change.

Loren

 

[IH3444]

UN climate change panel based claims on student dissertation and magazine article - Telegraph

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/space/article7009735.ece

 

[Gator6x4]

FallBrookFarmer Stated:

"And I don't mind sharing, No I won't take Social Security or Medicaid. I am covered by VA.
And as to whether I am wealthy or not, I also had a government job 25 years ago, that I quit and became an
independent businessman, and have done well.
As my father(the union local president) told me "you'll never get rich working for somebody else" I took his words to heart."

I think Medicare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_(United_States))came into being because Insurance Companies were dropping coverage on seniors after they reached a certain age or have a major illness and then charging some ungodly amount to provide basic coverage. My mother who was battling ovarian cancer was one of the people who enjoyed this Market Based System of providing Insurance coverage.

Your choice on the not accepting Medicare when you reach age 65. You will automatically have Medicare Part A deducted from your Social Security. You will have to apply for Part B and the Drug Coverage. The penalties for not accepting at 65 are very-very high if you later decide to take Part B so be aware of that.

I also carry a card that entitles me to Health Care and other benefits at any VA Medical Facility operated by the USA. The Health care offered in my opinion is not on par with that obtainable in the private sector, so I do not use VA Medical Services. I did try to call one time and after three days of not being able to reach a person to ask a question I decided my choice to avoid the VA for medical services was a good one. My co-pay on insurance I carry in addition to Medicare A&B has increased on the average of 6% per year for the last several years. My wife's co-pay jumped 38% in 2010 over 2009.

Go to any Emergency Room, count the number of people present and if you asked you will find the majority present do not have any type insurance coverage. Medical services are being provided by the tax payer. Another illustration on this is the Medical Emergency in Haiti. People needing long hospital treatment were being placed in Hospitals in Florida. The taxpayers of Florida are being forced to shoulder and assume the finanacial burden of providing medical care of Foreign Nationals. Do the people of Florida now have taxes increased to pay for medical problems impacting another Country?

We as taxpayers are providing insurance coverage for approximately 10 plus million children in the US because parents cannot or will not provide coverage. State Children's Health Insurance Program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Our tax dollars will only go so far. Our current system of providing medical care is rapidly approaching the window of being unaffordable except for the very-very rich. I do not have the answer on how to correct the inbalances that are currently occurring, nor do I have a plan, but I do know that maintaining the "Status Quo" will not suffice. I also know that if something is not done we as a nation will fail because of the way our current health care plan is being operated.

It is reported that the US will borrow 46 cents of every dollar it spends in 2010. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2248835/posts We all try to operate within our budget, think about borrowing 46 cents of every dollar you spend and paying interest on that money. How long do you think it would take you to become destitute and homeless. Thomas Jefferson said, "When you take from those who will and want to work and give to those that will not, the Demoracy will fail" This applys to things other than monetary compensation.

 

[keegs]

To add to Gator's position...our fiscal situation, already in serious trouble due to the Medicare and Medicaid obligations was made dramatically worse by four policies: The tax cuts, the unfunded Medicare part D and to a lesser degree Medicare advantage plans, the unfunded wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the deregulation of the financial sevices industry.

 

[FallbrookFarmer]

Good Morning to all,
Wow I guess I shouldn't have gone to sleep. Let me attempt a couple of the responses:
Loren49;
I think that you agree with me in that GOOD teachers are underpaid. $49K is not adequate compensation for a teacher who actually motivates and teaches their students(If I may digress, Had a teacher back in High School in Chicago, Mr. Henry, that actually had us leather jacket wearing hoodlums listening to and actually enjoying classical music, Another wonderful teacher was an instructor at Northwestern whose day job was as editor for the local CBS affiliate, who would rip apart your work, but when you got an A on a paper, you were really proud, and you knew that really were doing good work) On the other hand we had teachers who told us "we dont care if you sleep , just try not to snore". And increasingly I see incompetent teachers being kept in jobs due to union rules
As to inflammatory language try this:
When governments become destructive of the rights of people, It is the DUTY of the people to alter or abolish it
Obvious paraphrasing, but you get the point
I think that I would just point you to what LMTC said in response to all lot of of the rest.
In terms of the current crisis, to be fair, IMHO has its roots further back, when the government began forcing banks to make loans to people who were not financially qualified to receive those loans.
Dave 49. Just a question, but do you know where the first oil well was? I think that we can innovate ourselves out of dependency of foreign oil. If we would just encourage people to do so by reducing the cost of doing business, a large part of which is tax and malpractice insurance/lawsuits.
Gator6X4 Sorry to hear about the lack of quality in your local VA facility. Now, that is an issue that I would like Congress investigate and correct .
As to insurance companies dropping patients, I would reiterate, if you introduce more market competition, you would not have a problem finding affordable quality insurance.
And why will you find the "majority of people in eemrgency rooms" lacking insurance is the fact that the government mandates that they must care for anyone who walks in the door.
I trust doctors more than I trust politicians. I would be fine if a hospital refused somebody who walked into an ER with a cold and wanted some free drugs/care. I believe me I saw plenty of that when I was a cop. People calling for an ambulance because they didn't want to pay for a taxi, etc.etc.etc. Ad naseum.

 

[FallbrookFarmer]

LMTC - do you suggest that the States regulate the air waves - FCC- not mentioned in Constitution. How about internet regulation - or no regulation. How about interstate highways and airports? How about drug regulation? My point is things have changed since 1780. Certainly even this Supreme Court disagrees with much of your interpretation. Medical regulation by States only is unworkable and its clear that the framers of the constitution did not consider the issue as it basically did not exist in its current form. Few things government regulates are mentioned specifically in the Constitution as they did not exist but are covered under "general welfare" or "defence" statements.

I understand that small government seems better, but none doesn't work. What specific government programs can we decrease or eliminate. Who then regulates or should it be unregulated. I agree there a lots of wastes but the problem is in the details. Blanket statements seldom accomplish much. Its tough to actually pick something and work for a change.

Loren

Loren49:
Your throwing softballs this morning.
Internet, no government regulation=incredible growth, the ability for FREE speech, massive amounts of money being made,a forum for dummies like me to hyperventilate! What's the downside?

 

[dave1949]

FallbrookFarmer:
Dave 49. Just a question, but do you know where the first oil well was? I think that we can innovate ourselves out of dependency of foreign oil. If we would just encourage people to do so by reducing the cost of doing business, a large part of which is tax and malpractice insurance/lawsuits.


I think the first oil well may have been in PA, what I mean, obviously, is from the first oil well drilled in many foreign countries, the US/Brits/Dutch and others have been monkeying around in other peoples lives and countries. That costs something and has ongoing consequences.

I thought the US was one of the lower taxed business countries. When you look at what is actually paid, not the nominal rates. Isn't that true?

In your mind, what benefit does a business reap from paying tax?

As to malpractice insurance, we do need some sanity injected. Those awards are given generally by juries, not the government. Yes, we pay for them, but look to the real culprits - in the mirrors of America If the AMA was really fullfilling a useful role, many malpractice suits could be avoided because they would drum the incompetents out of the profession before they could maim somebody - again.

The AMA is a perfect example of how a profession could regulate itself and doesn't. So, the government and individual citizens get involved to a greater extent. They are not unique in this regard.

Some countries in Europe have defined loss charts, an eye is so much, an arm is so much, etc. That's what you get - period. They aren't particulary generous either. They are however, becoming more litigious over time.
Dave.

 

[FallbrookFarmer]

FallbrookFarmer:
Dave 49. Just a question, but do you know where the first oil well was? I think that we can innovate ourselves out of dependency of foreign oil. If we would just encourage people to do so by reducing the cost of doing business, a large part of which is tax and malpractice insurance/lawsuits.


I think the first oil well may have been in PA, what I mean, obviously, is from the first oil well drilled in many foreign countries, the US/Brits/Dutch and others have been monkeying around in other peoples lives and countries. That costs something and has ongoing consequences.

I thought the US was one of the lower taxed business countries. When you look at what is actually paid, not the nominal rates. Isn't that true?

In your mind, what benefit does a business reap from paying tax?

As to malpractice insurance, we do need some sanity injected. Those awards are given generally by juries, not the government. Yes, we pay for them, but look to the real culprits - in the mirrors of America If the AMA was really fullfilling a useful role, many malpractice suits could be avoided because they would drum the incompetents out of the profession before they could maim somebody - again.

The AMA is a perfect example of how a profession could regulate itself and doesn't. So, the government and individual citizens get involved to a greater extent. They are not unique in this regard.

Some countries in Europe have defined loss charts, an eye is so much, an arm is so much, etc. That's what you get - period. They aren't particulary generous either. They are however, becoming more litigious over time.
Dave.

As to the benefits of a business paying taxes, somebody a lot smarter than me once said "The price we pay for living in a civilized society, are taxes"
My point is that I feel that there are waaaaay too many taxes imposed at the Federal level. If one looks at Original Intent, the Fed was prohibited from collecting taxes, only fees and stamp duties, Look at the monster the federal tax system has become in less than 100 years.(OH OH I think I see the black helicopters circling outside!!)
Don't think I'll get too much disagreement in calling for lessening our dependence on foreign sources of energy.
But when you look at virtually any attempt to do that(off shore drilling, nuclear,bio diesel) who is attempting to stymie those efforts?

 

[LMTC]

LMTC - do you suggest that the States regulate the air waves - FCC- not mentioned in Constitution. How about internet regulation - or no regulation. How about interstate highways and airports? How about drug regulation? My point is things have changed since 1780. Certainly even this Supreme Court disagrees with much of your interpretation. Medical regulation by States only is unworkable and its clear that the framers of the constitution did not consider the issue as it basically did not exist in its current form. Few things government regulates are mentioned specifically in the Constitution as they did not exist but are covered under "general welfare" or "defence" statements.

I understand that small government seems better, but none doesn't work. What specific government programs can we decrease or eliminate. Who then regulates or should it be unregulated. I agree there a lots of wastes but the problem is in the details. Blanket statements seldom accomplish much. Its tough to actually pick something and work for a change.

Loren

Yes, I do; and so does the Constitution. And yes, each state should regulate that which takes place within itself, so long as it too doesn't violate the Constitution. I don't care where the road goes....the state should regulate it within it's own boundaries. Care to show me where that power is specifically delegated to the United States (fed gov) in the Constitution?

 

[Loren49]

FallbrockFarmer- I feel the same each morning but I turn in at about 830 eastern time and get up at about 5AM so I'm on early compared. I always was a little better at softball than baseball. Looks like your pinch hitting for LMTC. (just a little humor)

Not sure that internet was a great example but note from the site and quote below that law scholars, along with the Supreme Court, who are much better versed than we are seem to be allowing some Federal Regs. Maybe in the end it will go in your direction. Let me add banking to the list - I believe that none of my list is addressed specifically in the Constitution but interstate commerce may be where they feel that the Fed Gov has the authority. I would suggest that the things the CIA, NSA, and domestic spying do are not covered specifically in the Constitution but general authority for defence is stated in the preamble just as general welfare of the people is rationale for many other things. I do not claim that these things are listed in Constitution - I may be slow but most did not exist 230 years ago. I've tried to point out that the courts have decided, many times our highest court, that these things are constitutional. We can either whine, work for change, challenge in court or accept what we can and go on. (or any combination) I doubt if we'd find one person who agreed with all Federal Regulations but I'm sure we'd never agree on which should be eliminated.

Is Regulation of the Internet Explicitly a Federal Domain? | Venture Chronicles

Home About Venture Chronicles
Is Regulation of the Internet Explicitly a Federal Domain?
Posted on March 29, 2007
Filed Under Public Policy | Comments (1)
"Because material on a website may be viewed across the Internet, and thus in more than one state at a time, permitting the reach of any particular stateç—´ definition of intellectual property to dictate the contours of this federal immunity would be contrary to Congressç—´ expressed goal of insulating the development of the Internet from the various state-law regimes. See 47 U.S.C. ﾂｧﾂｧ 230(a) and (b); see also Batzel, 333 F.3d at 1027 (noting that "courts construing ﾂｧ 230 have recognized as critical in applying the statute the concern that lawsuits could threaten the ç´*reedom of speech in the new and burgeoning Internet medium?)."

"This does appear to be a pretty important decision regarding regulation of web sites, it would seem to suggest that web sites are by their nature viewable across the entire web and therefore subject to Federal regulation and immune from state regulation that conflicts with Federal law. In other words, if Federal law regulates a specific aspect of the web, then states are pre-empted from regulating them on their own. This case applies specifically to intellectual property but it would seem reasonable that this would be used in other cases involving regulation of the web"

Federal Taxes-the main reason the tax code is so complex in trying to clarify what is deductible as a business expense (or corporate) and taxation of investments. For every regulation there is a creative way for companies with enough attorneys to find a loophole which results in new regulations. Also for the no tax on business or investments - if they pay a billion less then either our national debt or personal income taxes go up. None of the complexity would change with the mythical "flat tax" (actually it might save 5 pages)


I believe that the doctors you trust more than government (I agree) were pretty clearly in favor of a public option last summer. I know that just because you have some trust in them doesn't mean you agree with them. As an aside - our number of doctors per capita is low compared to many countries who seem to be doing better at health care. We're way low on primary care physicians (preventative care).

The pressure and expense of health insurance is a huge challenge to small business. (maybe worse than taxes - if 100% is paid its about 6-7 thousand per single employee and almost double that for family) Its killing business growth.


Loren

 

[dave1949]

As to the benefits of a business paying taxes, somebody a lot smarter than me once said "The price we pay for living in a civilized society, are taxes"
My point is that I feel that there are waaaaay too many taxes imposed at the Federal level. If one looks at Original Intent, the Fed was prohibited from collecting taxes, only fees and stamp duties, Look at the monster the federal tax system has become in less than 100 years.(OH OH I think I see the black helicopters circling outside!!)
Don't think I'll get too much disagreement in calling for lessening our dependence on foreign sources of energy.
But when you look at virtually any attempt to do that(off shore drilling, nuclear,bio diesel) who is attempting to stymie those efforts?

The price for civilization can be quite high, and don't forget about inflation That is a good, pithy saying.

Didn't Pres. G. Washington have to get out the militia to put down the Whiskey Rebellion? Supposedly the taxes on whiskey were needed to pay off debt accumulated during the revolution. BTW, Pres. G.W. was one of the larger whiskey distillers at the time.

Call it a fee or stamp if you will , but it quacks like a tax

Is the gov't wasteful? Sure, but then so is about every other human enterprise of any complexity. To the extent that tax dollars need to be spent inorder to enforce laws and regulations, that certainly isn't the gov't's fault. People and companies could just stop doing dumb things and save us all some money.

Did any mobs show up and burn down Bernie Madoffs' penthouse apartment? No, they did not. Maybe a poor example since the SEC was apparently not only asleep at the switch, you could say they were in a vegetative state. The point is, many tax expenditures are directly related to the honesty of the nation as a whole - which seems to be lacking. There is very little social approbation directed at most of these clowns. We haven't mastered the practice of shunning someone who is three states away yet.

I doubt if the framers could foresee the complexity and far reaching nature of the business world today, or the concurrent government requirements and level of involvement. If government keeps getting more expensive while accomplishing less, from a purely 'system operations' perspective, we might suspect we have outgrown some our original government models to some degree. If that is the case, then trying ever harder to adhere to the original model will not produce a successful outcome IMO.

Dave.

 

[MikePA]

I doubt if the framers could foresee the complexity and far reaching nature of the business world today, or the concurrent government requirements and level of involvement.

The lure of contemporaneous arrogance, i.e., we've outgrown our original government model and it must 'adapt' to modern society. A euphemism for the federal government must get bigger, more powerful, take more in taxes and take away more freedom. Our problems are just so big only a big government can solve them. Pitiful and saddening. Some citizens of a once self reliant population is willing to sell their vote in order to trade independence for a spot at the government trough. A statist's view of perfection is every citizen standing, like Oliver Twist, with bowl in hand, pleading, "Please, sir, I want some more."

 

[IH3444]

"As to malpractice insurance, we do need some sanity injected. Those awards are given generally by juries, not the government. Yes, we pay for them, but look to the real culprits - in the mirrors of America If the AMA was really fullfilling a useful role, many malpractice suits could be avoided because they would drum the incompetents out of the profession before they could maim somebody - again."

Dave, part of the tort reform would also be that doctors should be protected by people who file false claims against them which may not be entirely true. Therefore the person filing, if case ruled against them, would then be liabel for the doctor's court fees, as well as their time.

I remember putting myself through college, working as a mechanic. A person whom I had done a brake job on their car, was asking how the brake job affected their turn signals. I told them that relining their brakes, and adjusting them had nothing to do with their lights. They were convinced in their own mind that I somehow was responsible for their turn signals not working a few months later. Given of course the human body is much more complicated, the same logic still applies with some people. You operated on me to remove my gall bladder, but now my liver hurts. What did you do to me in the operating room. Never, the admitance, " I've been drinking hard for 25 years, and shoveling loads of fat goo down my gullet", and now my spleen, and liver aches.

 

[dave1949]

"As to malpractice insurance, we do need some sanity injected. Those awards are given generally by juries, not the government. Yes, we pay for them, but look to the real culprits - in the mirrors of America If the AMA was really fullfilling a useful role, many malpractice suits could be avoided because they would drum the incompetents out of the profession before they could maim somebody - again."

Dave, part of the tort reform would also be that doctors should be protected by people who file false claims against them which may not be entirely true. Therefore the person filing, if case ruled against them, would then be liabel for the doctor's court fees, as well as their time.

I remember putting myself through college, working as a mechanic. A person whom I had done a brake job on their car, was asking how the brake job affected their turn signals. I told them that relining their brakes, and adjusting them had nothing to do with their lights. They were convinced in their own mind that I somehow was responsible for their turn signals not working a few months later. Given of course the human body is much more complicated, the same logic still applies with some people. You operated on me to remove my gall bladder, but now my liver hurts. What did you do to me in the operating room. Never, the admitance, " I've been drinking hard for 25 years, and shoveling loads of fat goo down my gullet", and now my spleen, and liver aches.

Good points. Probably, if you had the 'right' haircut, they would have trusted you more People do get strange ideas in their heads and nothing will dislodge them.
Dave.