• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ohio voters reject Republican-backed union limits

Whine? Don't think so, but at least we do have a real healthcare issue here in the US.

There is no real abused rich people here in the US.

They pay vasts amounts of taxes. In fact, so do the middle class. Tell me, why do you think the government takes as much as it does from people? I will give you a hint, things like UHC and favors for people. You know,for people that like to whine about nothing having things, you know, like you.

BTW, as we pay more for health care than nearly any nation in the world, who do think pays for it now?

Our care is just paid for at its real value. Those other countries control the price of their product and have horrible short comings as a result. Second, if we didn't have horrible policies on the books and 100+ years of the government raising the price of care that raise with idiotic actions all of which raise the price of care to this very day.
 
Nearly? We pay more than any other nation, period. And we pay double what most industrialized countries pay per capita. It boggles my mind that some people defend our system.

Who actually does that often? There is a difference between not wanting government control and defending how it is. In fact, they might hate how it is because of control that is there now that is raising price. Ever think of that? You didn't, did you? No, you just think that if I'm against what you want, that clearly I'm defending how it is now. A bit sad.
 
They pay vasts amounts of taxes. In fact, so do the middle class. Tell me, why do you think the government takes as much as it does from people? I will give you a hint, things like UHC and favors for people. You know,for people that like to whine about nothing having things, you know, like you.

We don't have UHC, so they aren't taking it for that. But yes, taxes pay for ****. No one denies that. But, we pay now. Right now. And we pay more than other countries, for less. Not sure why you think that is good. But do always keep in mind my argument: we need to cut spending and increase revenue. To do this, we should also clarify where we spend money. Health care is one of the places I think we should. That's just an argument. Not crying at all. Not saying poor anyone.




Our care is just paid for at its real value. Those other countries control the price of their product and have horrible short comings as a result. Second, if we didn't have horrible policies on the books and 100+ years of the government raising the price of care that raise with idiotic actions all of which raise the price of care to this very day.

On that, you're completely wrong about. You pay for others, and with no mechanism to monitor how much you pay over what was used. Those countries have better access. Do better overall, despite some problems, than we do. And I suspect, if we really tried, we could do even better. ;)
 
Nearly? We pay more than any other nation, period. And we pay double what most industrialized countries pay per capita. It boggles my mind that some people defend our system.

I try not to deal in absolutes, as it would only take one example to prove me wrong. ;)
 
Who actually does that often? There is a difference between not wanting government control and defending how it is. In fact, they might hate how it is because of control that is there now that is raising price. Ever think of that? You didn't, did you? No, you just think that if I'm against what you want, that clearly I'm defending how it is now. A bit sad.

Virtually everyone who has health insurance does that year after year. You may not see the whole tab if your employer provides insurance, but rest assured that you ARE paying for it in the form of lower wages and other benefits.

Government is not driving up the price of medical care: private industry is. That's just how it is. In any case, I wasn't addressing you specifically.
 
We don't have UHC, so they aren't taking it for that. But yes, taxes pay for ****. No one denies that. But, we pay now. Right now. And we pay more than other countries, for less. Not sure why you think that is good. But do always keep in mind my argument: we need to cut spending and increase revenue. To do this, we should also clarify where we spend money. Health care is one of the places I think we should. That's just an argument. Not crying at all. Not saying poor anyone.

Your argument never did make any sense the first time I heard it from Obama himself. You don't need more revenue, you need to cut spending. There is no reason someone should be taxed as much as people are taxed in this country. None. We need to slash government(not all once you understand) and move on, but what you actually want will not eliminate the debt, and will just take more money from people to provide favors for people just because they can't buy a service or a business does the government a reach around. All you want is dependence and that is it.


On that, you're completely wrong about. You pay for others, and with no mechanism to monitor how much you pay over what was used. Those countries have better access. Do better overall, despite some problems, than we do. And I suspect, if we really tried, we could do even better. ;)

Better access means almost nothing. It does not in any way reflect the care given. You didn't even say I was wrong either. The care is more available because the government gives it away with others money and its only cheaper because the price is controlled which is why those problems exist. You don't want to admit that the benefits are the cause of the problems, do you?
 
Last edited:
Not remotely the same thing. Negotiating for working conditions and pay is much more specific, with different interests. So, no I don't buy your premise in the slightest. Sorry.

Yes it is, they have a voice to democratically elect legislators, who can help decide what the pay and benefits are for state employees.
 
Yes it is, they have a voice to democratically elect legislators, who can help decide what the pay and benefits are for state employees.

Again, not the same. Eveyone gets to vote for their representatives, but the private sector also gets to negotiate their contracts. Penalizing government workers, and give them no say in their specific employment? No, your aguement simply doesn't hold up. This is different from an election. It's a specific negotiation.
 
Virtually everyone who has health insurance does that year after year. You may not see the whole tab if your employer provides insurance, but rest assured that you ARE paying for it in the form of lower wages and other benefits.

I'm well aware, so what? One of the problems that government created is that they have put another wall in front of you and the doctor and taken more control from you as a consumer by pushing healthcare coverage to be provided by employers.

Government is not driving up the price of medical care: private industry is. That's just how it is. In any case, I wasn't addressing you specifically.

Are you aware why the insurance company uses the profit model it uses today? Why care got more expensive for seniors and the poor after they picked it up and why that lead to Medicare? Answer those questions if you want.
 
Again, not the same. Eveyone gets to vote for their representatives, but the private sector also gets to negotiate their contracts. Penalizing government workers, and give them no say in their specific employment? No, your aguement simply doesn't hold up. This is different from an election. It's a specific negotiation.

A specific negotiation, which the employees are in a monopoly, where they can hold the public hostage to their demands.
When I can legally stop paying taxes to support these workers, when they strike, I'll support their right to unionize.

Until then, I do not.
It is an unethical, unfair relationship.
The unions have become rent seeking bodies in this area.
 
Your argument never did make any sense the first time I heard it from Obama himself. You don't need more revenue, you need to cut spending. There is no reason someone should be taxed as much as people are taxed in this country.

There's actually a very good reason for all the spending: most people like what it buys and would rather see taxes go up than see, e.g. Medicare and Social Security cut.

People in this country are taxed at a lower rate than people in most civilized countries.
 
Your argument never did make any sense the first time I heard it from Obama himself. You don't need more revenue, you need to cut spending. There is no reason someone should be taxed as much as people are taxed in this country. None. We need to slash government(not all once you understand) and move on, but what you actually want will not eliminate the debt, and will just take more money from people to provide favors for people just because they can't buy a service or a business does the government a reach around. All you want is dependence and that is it.

You need both. That's what I do. When the need is there, I work more and I cut spending. The logic is sound. You can't cut enough spending to handle this alone. Nor can you increase revenue enough. The only logical approach is to do both. You kid yourself otherwise.

Better access means almost nothing. It does not in any way reflect the care given. You didn't even say I was wrong either. The care is more available because the government gives it away with others money and its only cheaper because the price is controlled which is why those problems exist. You don't want to admit that the benefits are the cause of the problems, do you?

Allow me to repeat;

Boo said:
On that, you're completely wrong about


You should examine single pay systems more carefully. There is little to nothing given. It is paid for. And some have some controls, others less so. Many are two teired, with the ability to pay for privately and to buy your own insurance. What is assured is minimal and adequate care. The rich can still buy more. Our actual care is not significantly better, overall or even for the rich, who get damned good care everywhere.
 
A specific negotiation, which the employees are in a monopoly, where they can hold the public hostage to their demands.
When I can legally stop paying taxes to support these workers, when they strike, I'll support their right to unionize.

Until then, I do not.
It is an unethical, unfair relationship.
The unions have become rent seeking bodies in this area.

They are not a monopoly. No one is held hostage anymore than with any other such service. Tax dollars are not targeted to specific government jobs, but we have shut the government down from time to time.

Employees, government or private, have the right to negotiate collectively, and they should have that right.
 
is he willing to do the hard work they did? envy has no place in a discussion like this

You should go back and read the post you replied to.... MINE - in which i discussed INHERITED WEALTH... not those who deserved it through the very hard work and labor you mentioned. Here it is for you

Hard work!?!?!? Sacrifices!???!? Perhaps for some. The deserving. But for others the real question is how can Boo go back in time and select his parents based on the wealth they have and will pass onto him?

Again, there is no point in your telling Boo to do what they did to get rich because he cannot go back in time and pick a set of wealthy parents... Mumsy and Daddykins who will dress him in silk diapers and have him changed by the upstairs maid while both sip a drink at the private country club.

That is not ENVY - it is REALITY.
 
I'm well aware, so what? One of the problems that government created is that they have put another wall in front of you and the doctor and taken more control from you as a consumer by pushing healthcare coverage to be provided by employers.

I agree that the same deductions should be available to individuals, but I don't think it would make much difference. Employers can negotiate better prices than individuals. Private insurers, private doctors, private hospitals, private pharma companies: the private sector is why our medical care costs are high relative to nationalized systems.

Are you aware why the insurance company uses the profit model it uses today? Why care got more expensive for seniors and the poor after they picked it up and why that lead to Medicare? Answer those questions if you want.

Instead of fishing, why don't you just make your argument?
 
that sort of comment just oozes class envy. it also is indicative of someone who has failed to achieve and is upset with that fact

Turtle... I was dearly hoping that this whole ENVY thing had been disposed of.... but you continue to bring it up again and again rather than mount any rational intellectual argument against the points raised by others here.
Those who are quick to levy this phony charge need to read this and memorize parts of it dealing with the right wing nonsense about ENVY.

Wall Street Isn't Winning It's Cheating | Matt Taibbi | Rolling Stone

In this part, the ridiculous charge of ENVY is crushed and flushed, crashed and trashed, snipped and ripped, and generally destroyed beyond recognition. Please allow it a decent burial.

The idea that masses of people suddenly discovered a deep-seated animus/envy toward the rich – after keeping it strategically hidden for decades – is crazy. Where was all that class hatred in the Reagan years, when openly dumping on the poor became fashionable? Where was it in the last two decades, when unions disappeared and CEO pay relative to median incomes started to triple and quadruple? The answer is, it was never there. If anything, just the opposite has been true. Americans for the most part love the rich, even the obnoxious rich. And in recent years, the harder things got, the more we've obsessed over the wealth dream. As unemployment skyrocketed, people tuned in in droves to gawk at Evrémonde-heiresses like Paris Hilton, or watch bullies like Donald Trump fire people on TV. Moreover, the worse the economy got, the more being a millionaire or a billionaire somehow became a qualification for high office, as people flocked to voting booths to support politicians with names like Bloomberg and Rockefeller and Corzine, names that to voters symbolized success and expertise at a time when few people seemed to have answers. At last count, there were 245 millionaires in congress, including 66 in the Senate.

And we hate the rich? Come on. Success is the national religion, and almost everyone is a believer. Americans love winners. But that's just the problem. These guys on Wall Street are not winning – they're cheating. And as much as we love the self-made success story, we hate the cheater that much more. In this country, we cheer for people who hit their own home runs – not shortcut-chasing juicers like Bonds and McGwire, Blankfein and Dimon.

The charge of ENVY is leveled by the intellectually dishonest who at once want to congratulate themselves with a pat on the back the way a high school girl does when she whines that "you only hate me because I am beautiful" . It is a self given compliment that is intended to boost ones own ego and stroke ones own self image while cowardly running away from the actual issues raised in a discussion about economics and the growing disparity between income groups in this nation.

Turtle, you are an Ivy League educated attorney. Discuss this issue with all your training and skills and dispense with this lazy self-congratulating shortcut once and for all please.



Read more: Wall Street Isn't Winning It's Cheating | Matt Taibbi | Rolling Stone
 
from Henrin

You don't need more revenue, you need to cut spending.

While I was born in 1949, I never thought I would live long enough to see the day when some people - out of their own self imposed ideological blindness - would deny the simple lesson you earn in the first week of a high school accounting course - that there are two sides to a balance sheet and that both must be dealt with in balancing the books.

The fact that we have reached this nadir is a vivid demonstration of how far some extremists have fallen down the rabbit hole and are about to pass Alice and the Mad Hatter any moment now. And that is beyond sad and does not portend well for our nation.
 
Your argument never did make any sense the first time I heard it from Obama himself. You don't need more revenue, you need to cut spending. There is no reason someone should be taxed as much as people are taxed in this country. None. We need to slash government(not all once you understand) and move on, but what you actually want will not eliminate the debt, and will just take more money from people to provide favors for people just because they can't buy a service or a business does the government a reach around. All you want is dependence and that is it.

U.S. tax burden at lowest point in years - UPI.com

Economist's View: The U.S. Tax Burden Relative to Other Countries

Let's see: tax burden is historically low in the post-WW2 era AND we have the second-lowest tax burden in the developed world.

So neither history nor the present world hold true that Americans are over-taxed.
 
They are not a monopoly. No one is held hostage anymore than with any other such service. Tax dollars are not targeted to specific government jobs, but we have shut the government down from time to time.

Employees, government or private, have the right to negotiate collectively, and they should have that right.

Incorrect, both police and firefighting are service monopolies.
Schooling, is nearly a monopoly, although there are private alternatives.
The public is required to pay taxes for these services, regardless.

Public employees, most especially those involved in the service monopolies, should not have a right to collectively bargain.
What about those who want the right to bargain individually, but are denied based on the union employer relationship?
 
While I was born in 1949, I never thought I would live long enough to see the day when some people - out of their own self imposed ideological blindness - would deny the simple lesson you earn in the first week of a high school accounting course - that there are two sides to a balance sheet and that both must be dealt with in balancing the books.

You want to balance the book by keeping things around you shouldn't. That is what you are doing. Don't try this crap on me.

The fact that we have reached this nadir is a vivid demonstration of how far some extremists have fallen down the rabbit hole and are about to pass Alice and the Mad Hatter any moment now. And that is beyond sad and does not portend well for our nation.

You really think I have any power? I'm twenty nine years old and a libertarian. I'm as powerless as a disclawed kitten in this regard.
 
The blowhard kasich lost...the dirtbags numbers are in the 20s....I used to really like Kasich when he was a congressman even though I wasnt in his district...I thought he had common sense and was intelligent and he was NOT THIS TEAPARTY FAR RIGHT ARSEWIPE that he morphed into...he jumped on the far rigth lets murder the working class train...

So, you would rather support an agenda that raises taxes on the middle class, in order to keep unions alive?
 
economic reality is going to bust unions. unions create artificially high wages for workers Global trade destroys that artificial wage scale

Why are wages for workers "artificially high" while CEO salaries rising 300% or so since 1990 in NOT artificially high?
 
U.S. tax burden at lowest point in years - UPI.com

Economist's View: The U.S. Tax Burden Relative to Other Countries

Let's see: tax burden is historically low in the post-WW2 era AND we have the second-lowest tax burden in the developed world.

Since WW2 you say? What was the income tax originally? Seven percent. What was it promised to never go higher than 10%. What is it highest rate now? What was the growth like in 1950? How many great inventions came about? When did advancement speed back up again? Those rates you were talking about were not good for growth in the private sector. Why exactly do you think that over time the government has done more and more to advance technology? One because they wanted to(biggest reason) and two because in part because they destroyed the market.

So neither history nor the present world hold true that Americans are over-taxed.

You don't consider that the rest of the world is over taxed? Tell me if you want, why should people get half or more than half of their income taken by government(all government state and fed) You know why we tax so much? Because you want things. Things have to get paid for obviously so you need to tax people to make them happen. If the government was just doing its job the rates would be in the single digits, but you want them to do everything else. That costs money that takes money out of the market and out of peoples hands. If we were actually trying to be a republic like we were designed to be and not trying our best to be democracy that is nothing but wolves eating sheep we would use our government to protect rights and liberties, but we use it to provide favors for some with money of others, just like a democracy would do. Its a bit of shame we can't respect each other and be a republic. If we did you wouldn't be even complaining about how rich people are either. Shame really.
 
Last edited:
Something just occurred to me here.

The Far Right loves, loves, loves to trumpet about how important it is for the majority to rule, for 50%+1 to have the final word on any political decision. Yet when such a decision doesn't go their way, all hell breaks loose. Evidence: this thread.
 
You want to balance the book by keeping things around you shouldn't. That is what you are doing. Don't try this crap on me.



You really think I have any power? I'm twenty nine years old and a libertarian. I'm as powerless as a disclawed kitten in this regard.

I majored in political science in college. I taught government for over 33 years. I have no idea what you are talking about and i suspect that neither do you with this statement

You want to balance the book by keeping things around you shouldn't. That is what you are doing..

Lewis Carroll could have written that. On second thought scratch that as Carroll was a much superior writer.

As to you being a impotent libertarian - the American people are lucky.
 
Back
Top Bottom