posted
House Bill Comes In At $1 Trillion, Undermines GOP Talking Points Today, three separate House committees — Ways and Means Committee, Energy and Commerce Committee, Education and Labor Committee — released a single health care reform bill, the American Affordable Healthy Choices Act. The bill establishes “a mandate for most legal residents to obtain insurance, significantly expand eligibility for Medicaid, and set[s] up insurance “exchanges” through which certain individuals and families could receive federal subsidies to substantially reduce the cost of purchasing that coverage.” According to an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office, the legislation would cost $1 trillion over 10 years and cover 94 percent of Americans (97% if you don’t count the undocumented).
As Jonathan Cohn reports, “between savings and a new surtax on the wealthy, the bill pays for itself. In other words, it won’t inflate the deficit.” Five hundred billion comes from savings in Medicare and Medicaid and “the rest comes from a surtax on the richest 1.5 percent.”
Most importantly, the CBO coverage tables undermine the conservative claim that a public option would eliminate private insurance and erode employer-sponsored coverage. The House bill actually increases the number of people who receive coverage through their employer by 2 million and shifts most of the uninsured into private coverage. By 2019, 30 million individuals would purchase coverage from the Exchange, but only 9-10 million Americans (or approximately 1/3) would enroll in the public option, the rest would enroll in private coverage.
A more detailed discussion will soon follow, but here is a table of provisions and the estimated savings:
Provisions Sexy Facts CBO Score Over 10 Years Individual Mandate Individuals who don’t purchase coverage would pay tax equal to 2.5% of modified adjusted gross income. Exceptions: dependents, nonresident aliens, living outside of US, prisoners, religious conscience objectors will bring in $29 billion Large Employer Mandate Provide coverage or pay fee equal to 8% of the average wages. Part-time employees can receive benefits from employer, or can seek coverage in Exchange, which will be partly financed by Employer. will bring in $163 billion Small Employers Businesses with payrolls that do not exceed $250,000 exempt from employer responsibility. > $250,000, payroll penalty * 2%. Rises to 8% for firms with payrolls > $400,000. Small business tax credit available. will cost $53 billion (tax credits) Medicaid Expansion 133% FPL Medicaid reimbursement rates for primary care providers grow to 100% of Medicare rates by 2012. will cost $438 billion Subsidies between 133 - 400% FPL on sliding scale In the first two years, an affordable credit eligible individual may use an affordability credit only with respect to a basic plan. will cost $773 billion Public Option Medicare rates for 3 years w/ 5% bonus for physicians that participate in Medicare and the public plan. The Secretary will loan the public plan $2,000,000,000 for start-up funds. The public plan can negotiate drug prices from the start. Provider participation is voluntary – Medicare providers are presumed to be participating unless they opt out. 10% cheaper and would enroll 9-10 million people Insurance Regs Guarantee issue, modified community rating (2:1), no rescissions Cap of annual out-of-pocket spending, $5,000 for individuals, $10,000 for families – Financing About half will come from savings within the system, the other half will be financed through a surtax on the rich. $350,000 - $500,000: 1% tax on modified adjusted gross income. $500,000 - $1,000,000: 1.5% tax on modified adjusted gross income. $1,000,000 plus: 5.4% of modified gross income –
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise. Posts: 3827 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can...whats that got to do with what we are talking about?
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
"Repeal that [welfare] law, and you will soon see a change in their manners. ... Six days shalt thou labor, though one of the old commandments long treated as out of date, will again be looked upon as a respectable precept; industry will increase, and with it plenty among the lower people; their circumstances will mend, and more will be done for their happiness by inuring them to provide for themselves, than could be done by dividing all your estates among them."
Posts: 1802 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SeekingFreedom: Ben Franklin:
"Repeal that [welfare] law, and you will soon see a change in their manners. ... Six days shalt thou labor, though one of the old commandments long treated as out of date, will again be looked upon as a respectable precept; industry will increase, and with it plenty among the lower people; their circumstances will mend, and more will be done for their happiness by inuring them to provide for themselves, than could be done by dividing all your estates among them."
interesting application of a Ben quote.
do you know where it comes from? are you sure that the context is correct?
it's a long article but it might be enlightening to others, it was to me, so i'll post the whole thing:
On the Price of Corn, and Management of the Poor
For the LONDON CHRONICLE.
To Messieurs the PUBLIC and CO. I am one of that class of people that feeds you all, and at present is abus'd by you all; -- in short I am a Farmer.
By your News-papers we are told, that God had sent a very short harvest to some other countries of Europe. I thought this might be in favour to Old England; and that now we should get a good price for our grain, which would bring in millions among us, and make us flow in money, that to be sure is scarce enough.
But the wisdom of Government forbad the exportation.
Well, says I, then we must be content with the market price at home.
No, says my Lords the mob, you sha'n't have that. Bring your corn to market if you dare; -- we'll sell it for you, for less money, or take it for nothing.
Being thus attack'd by both ends of the Constitution, the head and the tail of Government, what am I to do?
Must I keep my corn in barn to feed and increase the breed of rats? -- be it so; -- they cannot be less thankful than those I have been used to feed.
Are we Farmers the only people to be grudged the profits of honest labour? -- And why? -- One of the late scribblers against us gives a bill of fare of the provisions at my daughter's wedding, and proclaims to all the world that we had the insolence to eat beef and pudding! -- Has he never read that precept in the good book, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn; or does he think us less worthy of good living than our oxen?
O, but the Manufacturers! the Manufacturers! they are to be favour'd, and they must have bread at a cheap rate!
Hark-ye, Mr. Oaf; -- The Farmers live splendidly, you say. And pray, would you have them hoard the money they get? -- Their fine cloaths and furniture, do they make them themselves, or for one another, and so keep the money among them? Or do they employ these your darling Manufacturers, and so scatter it again all over the nation?
My wool would produce me a better price if it were suffer'd to go to foreign markets. But that, Messieurs the Public, your laws will not permit. It must be kept all at home, that our dear Manufacturers may have it the cheaper. And then, having yourselves thus lessened our encouragement for raising sheep, you curse us for the scarcity of mutton!
I have heard my grandfather say, that the Farmers submitted to the prohibition on the exportation of wool, being made to expect and believe, that when the Manufacturer bought his wool cheaper, they should have their cloth cheaper. But the deuce a bit. It has been growing dearer and dearer from that day to this. How so? why truly the cloth is exported; and that keeps up the price.
Now if it be a good principle, that the exportation of a commodity is to be restrain'd, that so our own people at home may have it the cheaper, stick to that principle, and go thorough stitch with it. Prohibit the exportation of your cloth, your leather and shoes, your iron ware, and your manufactures of all sorts, to make them all cheaper at home. And cheap enough they will be, I'll warrant you -- till people leave off making them.
Some folks seem to think they ought never to be easy, till England becomes another Lubberland, where 'tis fancied the streets are paved with penny rolls, the houses tiled with pancakes, and chickens ready roasted cry, come eat me.
I say, when you are sure you have got a good principle, stick to it, and carry it thorough. -- I hear 'tis said, that though it was necessary and right for the M ------ y to advise a prohibition of the exportation of corn, yet it was contrary to law: And also, that though it was contrary to law for the mob to obstruct the waggons, yet it was necessary and right. -- Just the same thing, to a tittle. Now they tell me, an act of indemnity ought to pass in favour of the M ------ y, to secure them from the consequences of having acted illegally. -- If so, pass another in favour of the mob. Others say, some of the mob ought to be hanged, by way of example. -- If so, ------ but I say no more than I have said before, when you are sure that you have got a good principle, go thorough with it.
You say, poor labourers cannot afford to buy bread at a high price, unless they had higher wages. -- Possibly. -- But how shall we Farmers be able to afford our labourers higher wages, if you will not allow us to get, when we might have it, a higher price for our corn?
By all I can learn, we should at least have had a guinea a quarter more if the exportation had been allowed. And this money England would have got from foreigners.
But, it seems, we Farmers must take so much less, that the poor may have it so much cheaper.
This operates then as a tax for the maintenance of the poor. -- A very good thing, you will say. But I ask, Why a partial tax? Why laid on us Farmers only? -- If it be a good thing, pray, Messrs. the Public, take your share of it, by indemnifying us a little out of your public treasury. In doing a good thing there is both honour and pleasure; -- you are welcome to your part of both.
For my own part, I am not so well satisfied of the goodness of this thing. I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. -- I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer. There is no country in the world where so many provisions are established for them; so many hospitals to receive them when they are sick or lame, founded and maintained by voluntary charities; so many alms-houses for the aged of both sexes, together with a solemn general law made by the rich to subject their estates to a heavy tax for the support of the poor. Under all these obligations, are our poor modest, humble, and thankful; and do they use their best endeavours to maintain themselves, and lighten our shoulders of this burthen? -- On the contrary, I affirm that there is no country in the world in which the poor are more idle, dissolute, drunken, and insolent. The day you passed that act, you took away from before their eyes the greatest of all inducements to industry, frugality, and sobriety, by giving them a dependance on somewhat else than a careful accumulation during youth and health, for support in age or sickness. In short, you offered a premium for the encouragement of idleness, and you should not now wonder that it has had its effect in the increase of poverty. Repeal that law, and you will soon see a change in their manners. St. Monday, and St. Tuesday, will cease to be holidays. SIX days shalt thou labour, though one of the old commandments long treated as out of date, will again be looked upon as a respectable precept; industry will increase, and with it plenty among the lower people; their circumstances will mend, and more will be done for their happiness by inuring them to provide for themselves, than could be done by dividing all your estates among them.
Excuse me, Messrs. the Public, if upon this interesting subject, I put you to the trouble of reading a little of my nonsense. I am sure I have lately read a great deal of yours; and therefore from you (at least from those of you who are writers) I deserve a little indulgence. I am, your's, &c. ARATOR.
posted
it's funny how poeple like to yank one paragraph out of a broader context and then apply someones name to it to make it have more impact.
Ben was railing against the Industrialists, the Bankers, and the House of Lords, not the poor.
take note:
This operates then as a tax for the maintenance of the poor. -- A very good thing, you will say. But I ask, Why a partial tax? Why laid on us Farmers only? -- If it be a good thing, pray, Messrs. the Public, take your share of it, by indemnifying us a little out of your public treasury. In doing a good thing there is both honour and pleasure; -- you are welcome to your part of both.
Ban Franklin 1766
Bens suggestion IS how the US Ag system works now, and has worked since some time after the Civil War . Except that our foolish GOP led Congress and President Clinton signed and ratified the WTO Treaty in 1995 and much of our Ag supplementals are not "legal" under the treaty.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so. Posts: 6949 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lockman: I believe the cost figure has risen to 1.5 trillion and the bill hasn't even been seen yet.
Can you say SOCIALISM.
The ultimate goal of socialist's is to make citizens more and more dependant on their government. Once citizens recieve an entitlement they are resistant to give it up, it all sounds good until it's finally realized that you've lost control of your freedom to better yourself.
Politicians are building a base of people that don't pay federal income taxes yet recieve benefits off the backs of those that are productive. Once 60-70% of the people are basically dependant upon the government for their basic neededs, they have a built in voter block that will vote for the socialistic idealism just to get their stuff.
Free medical insurance, free food, free housing, just let the government do it all for you. That is until they decide you don't need something and then you realise your screwed.
-------------------- Let's Go METS!!! Posts: 3317 | From: CT | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
The more successful you are the more money you are going to pay for illegal immigrants. 12 million waiting for it right now.
Oh here is a question for you Obama lovers. If 45 or 50 million people are uninsured, and all of the sudden taxes go up and they get free health care where are the doctors that are going to take care of them? We are on a shortage of doctors already. Waiting lists anyone?
NINE MONTH WAIT IN BRITAIN FOR ARTHRITIS TREATMENT:
A 9-month wait for arthritis treatment: Delay can mean a lifetime of agony for victims
-------------------- It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so. Posts: 6949 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Republicans Respond To HELP Bill Passage By Lying About The Bill Today, the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee (HELP) passed health care reform legislation that extends coverage to all Americans, protects employer-based coverage, lowers the growth of health care spending, and contains a public health insurance option. Despite the fact that the committee accepted 160 Republican amendments and spent 13 days and more than 60 hours debating the legislation during mark-up, no Republicans voted for the final bill.
Throughout the mark-up process, Republicans delayed progress by offering nonsensical amendments, eliminating affordability measures for middle class families, offering non-starter alternatives, and arguing that the committee should terminate its hearings. Responding to today’s vote, the HELP committee Republicans reiterated their claims that the bill would add to the deficit, leave millions without coverage, push Americans out of their current insurance plans, and lead to greater unemployment with choreographed repetition. Watch a compilation:
Unfortunately, repeating talking points doesn’t make them true. Below is a fact check of Republican claims:
CLAIM: The bill will contribute trillions of dollars to the national deficit.
FACT: The budget framework requires a deficit-neutral health care reform bill, and the Democrats have pledged to fully finance coverage expansion from savings within the system and new sources of revenue. The Senate Finance Committee is responsible for financing the measure.
CLAIM: Force millions of Americans out of their current coverage.
FACT: According to CBO’s comprehensive analysis of the HELP committee bill, the legislation increases the number of Americans with private insurance and strengthens the employer-based system of coverage (as a result of the employer-mandate an extra 1 million Americans will have employer-sponsored coverage by 2017).
CLAIM: 34 million Americans will remain uninsured.
FACT: Since the HELP committee does not have jursidiction over Medicaid expansion, its bill officially covers an additional 20 million Americans. Republicans claim that 34 million would be left uninsured by subtracting that 20 million from the 54 million who are projected to be without coverage by 2019. However, if we assume Medicaid expansion — which the Senate Finance Committee will include in its health care bill — reform would expand coverage to 20 million additional Americans, covering nearly 97% of all legal Americans by 2019.
CLAIM: Employer mandate will tax employers and make people lose their jobs.
FACT: The bill exempts small businesses from the mandate and even offers them a credit to help make providing coverage more affordable. The madante for large employers will help pay for health care reform and, rather than resulting in “massive job losses” as Republicans claim, actually preserves the employer system of coverage. Real life experiences with employer mandates in Hawaii and Massachusetts have found no evidence of reduced employment.
As GOP pollster Frank Luntz conceded during a recent interview with the New York Times Magazine, Republicans will label the Democratic reform effort a “government takeover” of health care, regardless of the actual legislation. They are more interested in obstructing health care reform than they are in engaging in a bipartisan compromise. A new strategy memo by GOP consultant Alex Castellanos, for instance, suggested that “it is crucial for Republicans to slow down what it calls ‘the Obama experiment with our health.’” Comments 0 SharePermalink
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise. Posts: 3827 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
Thanks for posting the letter from Franklin. My book listed the reference but I hadn't had time to look it up yet.
As for your interpretation of the letter, I have to depart on one point. I agree that this was directed at the unequal laws that restriced one area of commerce 'for the greater good' while allowing others advantages that weren't 'fair.'
However, I still feel the words I quoted were indeed directed toward government-run welfare. I will have to get another quote from Franklin on the subject when I get home, but here are a couple I did find online as to his attitude as well as one from your posted letter.
From the letter:
I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. -- I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.
From online:
To be thrown upon one's own resources is to be cast into the very lap of fortune, for our faculties then undergo a development and display an energy of which they were previously unsusceptible. - Benjamin Franklin
If you would be wealthy, think of saving as well as of getting. - Benjamin Franklin
I will get the other quotes from Ben on this when I get home. The 5000 Year Leap has a whole chapter on the Father's attitudes toward Federal Welfare programs.
Posts: 1802 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
"To relieve the misfortunes of our fellow creatures is concurring with the Deity, 'tis Godlike, but if we provide encouragements for Laziness, and supports for Folly, may it not be found fighting against the order of God and Nature, which perhaps has appointed Want and Misery as the proper Punishments for, and Cautions against as well as necessary consequences of Idleness and Extravagancy. Whenever we attempt to mend the scheme of Providence and to interfere in the Government of the World, we had need be very circumspect lest we do more harm than Good."
quote:Originally posted by CashCowMoo: did you see the chart in my link? OMG
The more successful you are the more money you are going to pay for illegal immigrants. 12 million waiting for it right now.
Oh here is a question for you Obama lovers. If 45 or 50 million people are uninsured, and all of the sudden taxes go up and they get free health care where are the doctors that are going to take care of them? We are on a shortage of doctors already. Waiting lists anyone?
NINE MONTH WAIT IN BRITAIN FOR ARTHRITIS TREATMENT:
A 9-month wait for arthritis treatment: Delay can mean a lifetime of agony for victims
quote:Originally posted by Lockman: I believe the cost figure has risen to 1.5 trillion and the bill hasn't even been seen yet.
Can you say SOCIALISM.
The ultimate goal of socialist's is to make citizens more and more dependant on their government. Once citizens recieve an entitlement they are resistant to give it up, it all sounds good until it's finally realized that you've lost control of your freedom to better yourself.
Politicians are building a base of people that don't pay federal income taxes yet recieve benefits off the backs of those that are productive. Once 60-70% of the people are basically dependant upon the government for their basic neededs, they have a built in voter block that will vote for the socialistic idealism just to get their stuff.
Free medical insurance, free food, free housing, just let the government do it all for you. That is until they decide you don't need something and then you realise your screwed.
Like everyone, I wanted to succeed. I dreamed of becoming a famous medical research scientist; I dreamed of working indefatigably to discover something which would be used to help humanity, but which signified a personal triumph for me. I was, as we all are, a child of my environment.
After graduation, due to special circumstances and perhaps also to my character, I began to travel throughout America, and I became acquainted with all of it. Except for Haiti and Santo Domingo, I have visited, to some extent, all the other Latin American countries. Because of the circumstances in which I traveled, first as a student and later as a doctor, I came into close contact with poverty, hunger and disease; with the inability to treat a child because of lack of money; with the stupefaction provoked by the continual hunger and punishment, to the point that a father can accept the loss of a son as an unimportant accident, as occurs often in the downtrodden classes of our American homeland. And I began to realize at that time that there were things that were almost as important to me as becoming a famous researcher or making a significant contribution to medical science: I wanted to help those people.
~Ernesto "Che" Guevara - August 19th, 1960
-------------------- Let the world change you... And you can change the world.
Ernesto "Che" Guevara de la Serna Posts: 4669 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by retiredat49: Here are a couple of direct quotes from one this boards most hypocr...err...I mean "compassionate" posters...
"it's every man for himself right now"
"We all think about ourselves and our families before we ever think about the other guy"
Hint: Look up
Wow, a liar and a hyprocrite who can't ignore me like he said he would lol You couldn't even last a week at your promise... face it you need me to make your miserable retired life complete...
And btw Ole retired one with alzheimer's, I will care for me and my family first and then worry or help others. Just like every single American including a proud and pro-American such as yourself who wants Americans employed by foreign companies to lose their jobs.
And be so lucky that you have the luxury to take for granted what you and your family have and others don't Ole retired one:
Cow, Do you really believe that the uninsured are just lying on the couch and taking aspirin when they get ill? No, they go to doctors too when they get sick or hurt. Where are the doctors that are taking care of them right now? They are in the emergency room which costs the taxpayer two to three times what a visit to a family practice physician costs.
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SeekingFreedom: Franklin:
"To relieve the misfortunes of our fellow creatures is concurring with the Deity, 'tis Godlike, but if we provide encouragements for Laziness, and supports for Folly, may it not be found fighting against the order of God and Nature, which perhaps has appointed Want and Misery as the proper Punishments for, and Cautions against as well as necessary consequences of Idleness and Extravagancy. Whenever we attempt to mend the scheme of Providence and to interfere in the Government of the World, we had need be very circumspect lest we do more harm than Good."
in order to understand Franklins intentions? you must consider that England was just beginning the worlds industrial revolution at the time.
he also says in the same letter I have often observed with wonder, that Temper of the poor English Manufacturers and day Labourers which you mention, and acknowledge it to be pretty general.
they were THE colonial powerhouse. their monetary policy was completely focused on cheap labor and cheap commodities and they used their military to strictly enforce their policy.
the "good" Germans of thrift and hard work he mentions? how many German colonies (of that time)come to your mind? none to mine, i am sure they must have had some tho...
the question is important. it goes to a differnt mindset from top to bottom.
there is no doubt that lazy people are always a part of society and always a very minor problem to be dealt with.
the REAL problem Ben was addressing was that as a farmer he was chosen to be abused by the govt.
he clearly states that his product was not only NOT protected by the govt but that his product was singled out for price controls to maintain low wages.
NOBODY, not even the "liberals", wants to encourage people to be lazy. this is the paper tiger the "conservatives" have set up to scare the populace.
what's really going on is that in good times? we maiantain an economy with 5% unemployment.
we also ALWAYS have another 5% underemployed and than we have another much larger group of "working poor". Walmart has in fact become the largest retailer in the world by maintaining a workforce of the working poor.
In tennessee alone Wal mart had some 100,000 employees on medicaid just a couple years ago.
sure, lazy people stay in those jobs and non-lazy people use those jobs to show what they got and move up the ladder.
here's the problem. those jobs are very profitable to the company. the company is getting something without paying for it's full value. we as a society have decided that health care is not only very valuable but that it is critcal that everyone have it.
Walmart was not providing it, but was getting fulltime work out of these people while the rest of society was paying the bill.
all this money that it's going to cost? as BIG says we ALREADY pay it. it's just hat it's hidden from us by the hospitals in excess fees.
have you ever actually had aprocedure at a hospital? i have excellent coverage and the hospitals still send me these strange bills demanding money. it often comes directly from collection agencies, i never see a bill from the hosp, the first time it comes to me it come from a collection agency.
on followup, which i always do before i pay, i have always gotten these bills torn up. i cannot imagine how many people just pay them.
double billing? this is going on every day. i have no way of judging how many people pay the double bills, but i suspect it's alot because these four and five page bills cost at least 5$ to send out even with automation.
lazy people should not be encouraged to be lazier. i wish that was the worst of our problems. it ain't
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
Without going into debates over context and definitions of quotes....Don't you think that using the words of a man (great political leader that he was) who died in 1790 is a little off for this topic when you consider that the first income tax wasn't collected in America until 1863? The country has evolved just a tad from the 12 states that contained all of Ben's America. (Rhode Island became the 13th about a month and a half after Franklin died.)
Honestly...considering the devastating epidemics of smallpox and yellow fever that were ravaging the population at the time don't you think it is possible that if Ben had understood 'germ theory' (discovered in 1880 by Louis Pasture and Robert Koch) and transmission methods instead of believing that sicknesses were spontaneously generated he might just have been interested in the idea of healthcare for all Americans? The good of the common man was kinda his niche.
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
In New England they once thought Black-birds useless and mischievous to their corn, they made Laws to destroy them, the consequence was, the Black-birds were diminished but a kind of Worms which devoured their Grass, and which the Black-birds had been used to feed on encreased prodigiously; Then finding their Loss in Grass much greater than their saving in corn they wished again for their Black-birds.
killing the bugs was harder.
Ben saw thru the veil of the here and now.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:NOBODY, not even the "liberals", wants to encourage people to be lazy. this is the paper tiger the "conservatives" have set up to scare the populace.
As I'm sure you'd guess, Glass, I have to disagree. This is what I consider a core problem with the direction our society is headed. As far back as Rome, pacifying the people has always entailed making them reliant on the 'System.' The 'bread and circus' used by the Romans was just as useful in keeping certain people in power as Welfare and Public TV is today. Keep people fed and entertained and they will let you do just about anything you want.
The 'Universal Medical Coverage' is yet again another 'bread' tossed to the masses. We are once again offering something for 'nothing'. Even if you take the(what is the last quote, 50 million?) uninsured and assume a quarter of that is of voting age. You have an almost guaranteed voting block of 12.5 million votes come election time that know on what side of the bread their toast is buttered. Do you honestly believe that this hasn't entered the calculations of those proposing the bill?
Taking from one group, no matter how 'fair' is seems to give to another was counter to many of the founding father's intents.
Samuel Adams:
"The Utopian schemes of leveling [re-distribution of wealth] and a community of goods [central ownership of the means of production and distribution], are as visionary and impractical as those which vest all property in the crown. [These ideas] are arbitrary, despotic, and, in our government, unconstitutional."
John Adams:
"The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. Property must be secured or liberty cannot exist."
James Madison:
"Government is instituted to protect property of every sort....This being the end of government, that alone is not a just government,...nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest."
These and several more that I could quote show that the Father's never intended (and truly spoke out against) FORCED charity and redistributing the wealth to its 'rightful owners.'
Posts: 1802 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
Without going into debates over context and definitions of quotes....Don't you think that using the words of a man (great political leader that he was) who died in 1790 is a little off for this topic .... The good of the common man was kinda his niche.
No, I actually think his wisdom is absolutely needed in our time. It is no more 'outdated' than a great many other teachers' words.
Sun Tzu is still studied by everyone from the military of many nations to business men and women in a great variety of sectors. Why? Because it was Sun Tzu's grasp of the human nature and basic principles like supply lines (support) that are eternal. Specific weapons may change specific tactics but War is War.
Religions around the world hold the teachings of men dead from several centuries to a couple of millennia to be eternally valid in regard to human nature and responsibilities.
The saying of the Buddha and other Eastern teachings are heralded by many westerners (like myself) to hold great wisdom even though we don't consider ourselves part of those 'paths.' The wisdom and insight are universal.
Ben Franklin and the other Father's were truly wise and enlightened men who brought together some of the greatest teaching and philosophies of the centuries to make this nation. From Locke to Montesquieu to Polybius, they took the nuggets of wisdom and made them one complete tapestry that is our Constitution. Their insight is needed so much more now that we have come so far from what they created.
Posts: 1802 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, July 15, 2009 4:20 PM PT
Congress: It didn't take long to run into an "uh-oh" moment when reading the House's "health care for all Americans" bill. Right there on Page 16 is a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal.
When we first saw the paragraph Tuesday, just after the 1,018-page document was released, we thought we surely must be misreading it. So we sought help from the House Ways and Means Committee.
It turns out we were right: The provision would indeed outlaw individual private coverage. Under the Orwellian header of "Protecting The Choice To Keep Current Coverage," the "Limitation On New Enrollment" section of the bill clearly states:
"Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day" of the year the legislation becomes law.
So we can all keep our coverage, just as promised — with, of course, exceptions: Those who currently have private individual coverage won't be able to change it. Nor will those who leave a company to work for themselves be free to buy individual plans from private carriers.
...
The public option won't be an option for many, but rather a mandate for buying government care. A free people should be outraged at this advance of soft tyranny.
Washington does not have the constitutional or moral authority to outlaw private markets in which parties voluntarily participate. It shouldn't be killing business opportunities, or limiting choices, or legislating major changes in Americans' lives.
It took just 16 pages of reading to find this naked attempt by the political powers to increase their reach. It's scary to think how many more breaches of liberty we'll come across in the final 1,002.
Posts: 1802 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SeekingFreedom: The saying of the Buddha and other Eastern teachings are heralded by many westerners (like myself) to hold great wisdom even though we don't consider ourselves part of those 'paths.' The wisdom and insight are universal.
Buddhism is by far not rooted in materialism. They do not ask for money nor do they look to make it like other religions. They practice what they preach imo.
This whole healthcare issue should not be about money or is not only about $$. But as always Americans only talk about the "buck". Really it should be about compassion because it's a disgrace that 45 million or so people are uninsured while in other countries all are insured. And please spare me the long waiting list lines in other Universal Medicine systems. It is better to be waiting on a line (if that is true) then to not be allowed to wait on any line because of lack of insurance. At least that is hope.
Can you imagine what it is like to have cancer and no insurance? or any other crippling disease? It is not about being "lazy" in this case. Healthcare costs have gotten out of control in this country (and spare me the illegal immigrant as an excuse because more factors then just that are the cause)that 45 million people in the worlds so called "wealthiest nation" cannot afford healthcare. Have you ever thought about that for once and not your f*cking wallet? And you wonder why the world see's us as a Money Culture.
As for your buddhism reference and how you admire their "wisdom" of which I think your admiration is BS because if you did you wouldn't think with your wallet and be more compassionate:
"Compassion for others (as opposed to self)is one of the central teachings of Mahayana Buddhism. In this connection I would like to quote a verse which conveys the message:
If you are unable to exchange your happiness
For the suffering of other beings,
You have no hope of attaining Buddhahood,
Or even of happiness in this present life."
His Holiness The Fourteenth Dalai Lama - 1963
-------------------- Let the world change you... And you can change the world.
Ernesto "Che" Guevara de la Serna Posts: 4669 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The 'bread and circus' used by the Romans was just as useful in keeping certain people in power as Welfare and Public TV is today. Keep people fed and entertained and they will let you do just about anything you want.
wow, you see Public TV as entertainment? or do you mean TV in general?
TV makes alot of people alot of money, that's why we have it. I'm sure the circus in Rome was a huge money maker. The Romans made most of their "profits" by invading other countries and stealing everything in sight, but they did have an economy too...
i totally disagree that Romans fed people and put on the shows to make them compliant.
they fed people because hungry people revolt, they steal. theft costs a lot more than just the loss of property.
Hungry people cannot work. The Romans owned slaves (lots of slaves) that they fed and put to work.
Do we put on pro football baseball and Nascar to make people compliant? no, we do it because it is good business.We do it for profit.
do we give out welfare to make people do what the govt wants? no, we do it because they need help and it improves the economy in times of trouble.
sure there are a few lazy people in society who will never amount to anything.
as to the founding fathers? they planned a revolution based on the idea that they would not be taxed without representation.
John Adams:
"The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. Property must be secured or liberty cannot exist."
it costs alot of money to make sure anarchy and tyranny do not commence. the peopl that have more they need protecting should pay more to protect it.
it's just like most insurance policies, the more coverage you need? the more you pay.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Insurance is paid voluntarily, Glass. This 'surtax' is nothing more than robbery under the guise of law. Many 'rich' donate great amounts to charities because they know that it is good social science to do so. Some do it for personal legacy reasons, but regardless of the reason, charity does exist.
Bill Gates(for all the demonization he has endured, warranted or not) and his wife are great examples of this.
The United States with all of it's wealth (which some have shown belongs to a 'small' group) has the HIGHEST amount of charitable giving anywhere in the world.
Why?
Remember, this isn't the government mandated welfare\social security stuff. This is voluntary donations.
Here is the way I and many other look at it:
Government to RICH: Hey, we need to bump your tax rate up another couple of points.
RICH: What? Why?
Gov: Because we promised all these programs funding and don't have the money to fulfill our commitments.
RICH: So? Go get more from China.
Gov: Already did. Still need more.
RICH: So, put the programs on hold that you can't afford. That bridge in AK or the Toad Tunnel don't need to be done now.
Gov: Sorry, we'll loose voters as well as votes in Congress for other programs if we don't fund them.
RICH: So, what happens when we're out of money like you?
Gov: We'll keep working our way down the ladder. It'll be 'fair' when we take their money too.
Posts: 1802 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
With all due respect, your 'taxation without represenation' is a red herring. I'm not against ANY taxes. I've never said anything of the sort. I AM against abusive taxes that are nothing more than political games.
Another fact for the discussion...It's only been in the last 75 years or so that the Supreme Court has even decided that and Income based tax is even Constitutional. Prior to the Butler Case in 1936 they stated:
"No man would become a member of a community in which he could not enjoy the fruits of his honest labor and industry. The preservation of property, then, is a primary object of the social compact...The legislature, therefore, had no authority to make an act divesting one citizen of his freehold, and vesting it in another, without just compensation. It is inconsistent with the principles of reason, justice and moral rectitude; it is incompatible with the comfort, peace and happiness of mankind; it is contrary to the principles of social alliance in every free government; and lastly, it is contrary to the letter and spirit of the constitution."
Only after Butler did the Supreme Court hand the Government free reign under the guise of the General Welfare clause. Now, which is more likely? The Men closer to the actual founding of the country understood better what the Fathers intended, or latter generations just found something they missed?
Posts: 1802 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:do we give out welfare to make people do what the govt wants? no, we do it because they need help and it improves the economy in times of trouble.
That would be alot more believable if reality didn't clash so much with the principle, Glass.
Here's what I would like to hear before I could accept that.
Gov: Ok, we know time are hard right now so instead of buying Senator and Representatives votes by funding Toad Tunnels and Drunk Gay Men sex studies in Argentina, we're going to divert that money to temporary welfare\unemployed benefits and change the public school curriculum to include some form of labor training that is of any use in the private sector. That way more of our people might actually have useful skills upon leaving High School.
Posts: 1802 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:As for your buddhism reference and how you admire their "wisdom" of which I think your admiration is BS because if you did you wouldn't think with your wallet and be more compassionate:
Then it's good for me that my admiration, like many other things, isn't subject to your acceptance of nor disbelief in its existence.
Have compassion for all beings, rich and poor alike; each has their suffering. Some suffer too much, others too little.
Buddha
Do not overrate what you have received, nor envy others. He who envies others does not obtain peace of mind.
Buddha
Posts: 1802 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
that's saying you want to have the benefits of being protected by your govt without paying for it.
do you think people should be allowed to drive on the road with you and your family without insurance?
if you are defrauded? don't you expect to be able to get justice? some of us would be just fine extracting our own justice, but then there's always some other interested party on the other side that feels they need justice too. the Hatfeilds and the McCoys over and over.....
do you want your kids going to school with kids that have never seen a doctor? no immunizations ever?
Another fact for the discussion...It's only been in the last 75 years or so that the Supreme Court has even decided that and Income based tax is even Constitutional. Prior to the Butler Case in 1936 they stated
uhh? where'd you pick up that tidbit?
it's just more paper tigers.
the Constitution was amended on 2-3-1919
Amendment 16 - Status of Income Tax Clarified. proposed on July 12, 1909. Ratified 2/3/1913.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration
The amendment was specifically rejected by New Hampshire on Mar 2, 1911. It was also rejected by Arkansas prior to its subsequent ratification, and by Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Utah.
however that doesn't mean jack. it's the law of the land now.
16th Amendment In 1895, in the Supreme Court case of Pollock v Farmer's Loan and Trust (157 U.S. 429), the Court disallowed a federal tax on income from real property. The tax was designed to be an indirect tax, which would mean that states need not contribute portions of a whole relative to its census figures. The Court, however, ruled that the tax was a direct tax and subject to apportionment. This was the last in a series of conflicting court decisions dating back to the Civil War. Between 1895 and 1909, when the amendment was passed by Congress, the Court began to back down on its position, as it became clear not only to accountants but to everyone that the solvency of the nation was in jeopardy. In a series of cases, the definition of "direct tax" was modified, bent, twisted, and coaxed to allow more taxation efforts that approached an income tax.
Finally, with the ratification of the 16th Amendment, any doubt was removed. The text of the Amendment makes it clear that though the categories of direct and indirect taxation still exist, any determination that income tax is a direct tax will be irrelevant, because taxes on incomes, from salary or from real estate, are explicitly to be treated as indirect. The Congress passed the Amendment on July 12, 1909, and it was ratified on February 3, 1913 (1,302 days).
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Late last night, the House Ways and Means committee passed the Tri Committee’s health care bill, “including the creation of a new government health plan and a requirement for employers to provide insurance to their employees or contribute to its cost. The panel also voted to impose a surtax on families with incomes of more than $350,000 a year.”
Harry and Louise are back (yet again). “Now, the mellowed AARP-eligible Harry and Louise of this campaign seem more charitable and outward-directed. They even invoke the plight of the uninsured.”
The health insurance industry is preparing to run TV ads against the public option.
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise. Posts: 3827 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
