Nothing left huh? Let me try and educate you then
I was going to leave this topic alone assuming it had died, but alas it has not, and your ignorance is too great to keep me quiet.
In your last reply to me you said the following:
Thats called raising taxes. Taxes are lowered and you want to raise them. Taxes are wealth redistribution as they take from those that have more to give to those that have less. Wealth redistribution= socialism.
Thank you clarifying the obvious, but you failed to reply to what I said. If things are allowed to go as they are our government will be running a surplus in tax money. That means by 2011 they will be bringing in more money than they are spending and thus can put that extra money towards paying down the national debt. Raising taxes as you suggested to pay for bloated healthcare programs that would be run by the government would end all that. Hillary's program is estimated at $110 billion, but thats not what it will really cost. A similar program suggested by John Kerry during his failed presidential campaign was estimated at costing $1.5 trillion over 10 years. Signifigantly more than hillary's own estimate. Lets not also forget the democrats who tried to expand the SCHIP program by raising taxes on cigarrettes. The one major problem with it is to pay for its true cost we would need more Americans smoking than those that already smoke to pay for this program. Will you pledge to smoke a pack a day for the children?
Again, raising taxes on any group of Americans is taking money from them to give to those who do not deserve it. That is WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION. Anyone who has studied Macroeconomics knows that taxes are considered transfer payments, that means they are not treated as in increase in our national output, but taking from one group of people to give to another.
I would much rather my money to go to pharmacuetical and insurance companies who will take their profits and invest it in places that will ultimatly end up with me recieving better care. The freemarket system so far has provided us with the best healthcare system in the world, and your the one trying to ruin it for us all.
If you don't understand the Republican version of tax cuts (and you are not alone), maybe this will help explain it:
50,000 people went to a baseball game, but the game was rained out. A refund was then due.
The people in the $75 seats get back $175.
Because the funds collected are not sufficient to pay the extra $100-per-ticket for the $75 seatholders and the $12-per-ticket refund processing fees, the team borrows the money to cover the shortfall.
They then announce that the only way they can make a profit and pay back the debt is to attract more $75 ticket buyers back to the ballpark, and thus begin offering them incentives such as free baseball jerseys and massages. They subcontract out the purchasing and distribution of the jerseys and the operation of the massage center to friends of the team owner, paying 40% more than if they ran the services themselves, claiming that the real cost savings are in not increasing an already bloated team bureaucracy.
When the $75 tickets do not sell like hotcakes, they borrow $500,000 to commission a study on what will attract more $75 ticket buyers. The study is performed by a marketing firm the team's general manager used to work for, takes 3 years, and runs $300,000 over budget. The final answer is that the $75 ticket buyers want a private entrance to the park so they don't have to mingle with the $10, $25, and $50 ticket buyers.
The team borrows $3.5 million to construct the private entrance. They give a no-bid contract to a contractor who is a good friend of the team's owner. The contractor proceeds to use shoddy materials and undocumented, undertrained workers who are paid minimum wage. Not surprisingly, the completed entrance fails its safety inspection by the city.
The team sues, claiming the city's safety regulations are too restrictive and unfriendly to business. They lose the suit when the jury takes a trip to see the new entrance and two jury members are struck by falling bricks, knocked loose by the vibrations from a passing truck.
The team starts a bidding process and gets a new contractor to tear down the unsafe entrance and rebuild it to code with properly trained workers, griping about the costs all the way. They borrow money to pay the lawyers who lost their suit against the city, and borrow money to pay the new contractor, but because the first contractor was a good friend of the team owner, he is never sued over his shoddy work or all the money it cost the team.
Finally, a year and a half behind schedule and $4.5 million over budget, the new private entrance is completed and passes inspection. The $75 seat holders start returning in a trickle, but it becomes a flood when the team offers free beer and hotdogs in the luxury area.
With all the $75 seats filled, the team is still losing money because their profit margin on those seats is slim after all the free beer, free hotdogs, team jerseys, and massages. The team determines that the only way to become profitable is to convert the $50 area to $75 seats. Though the profit margins are slim, they state they'll make it up in volume.
They borrow another $14 million to renovate the $50 seat area to bring it up to par with the $75 seats.
Still failing to make a profit, they raise the $10 seats to $35 and the $25 seats to $55, plus increase concession stand prices in the former $10 and $25 areas by 20%.
After all this, the team still isn't making a profit. They now owe their creditors an amount greater than four times their annual revenues, and continue to borrow money to subsidize the giveaways to the buyers of the most expensive tickets, hoping against hope that this will turn things around.
Now do you understand? If not, please contact President Bush so he can tell you that questioning his actions presents a divided front to America's enemies and as such only emboldens them. So sit down and shut up before your questions force Homeland Security to change the threat level to a sort of teal with purple flecks in it. Are you trying to cause another 9/11?
and let both parties seemingly sing a different tune from one another but in fact it's the same old song. Wile one party sing it at one tempo the other party sings it at another. Depending on the verse, it comes down to just who is singing the faster tempo at the time. In the end it's all the same and so are the end result.
1
