Hmm, where to begin. I believe i will respond to each point...
1) First, who cares about "Republicanism"? I have no idea what that is. Conservatism is what matters. Conservatism hasn't been around for ages. The first 2 years of Bush administration had a 50/50 Congress. The Republicans (with Cheney tiebreaker) were extremely nice to the Socialists and gave them equal power in committees. There were only 4 years of a truly Republican gov't in which the economy flourished. The final 2 years of "Republicanism" were with a Socialist controlled Congress, hence the dramatic downfall we see today. Now, I know that the Socialists prefer a king to rule, but in our gov't, its really Congress that has the power.
2) Nothing in my "revolt" constitutes being a tax cheat. Perfectly legal to declare more dependents on a W4, just have to keep that money available for April 15th. Actually, I'd go ahead and file extensions and wait to pay it in September.
Now, who is the genius?Comment Posted By John Galt On 1.03.2009 @ 12:48
I tend to agree that the Tea Parties will basically be totally ineffective. After all,there is no risk to anyone involved. Without risk, no reward should be expected. The original Tea Party members snuck aboard ships and took other people's property and dumped them overboard, at great risk to themselves. That is the type of endeavor that causes others to take notice and possibly examine the reasons for the protest.
Personally, I'd prefer a different type of protest. One that starts off quite silently but its effects could be profound. Protesters should alter their W-4s to show several more dependents than are currently listed (this is quite legal). The gov't would end up taking less tax money each week and would probably get quite flustered in not receiving as much cash on a regular basis. Folks would have to make sure that they keep that money put away to pay it on April 15th (just to keep things legal). However, if there was to be a true tax revolt in the nation, those that kept more of their money each week would be in an excellent position to truly contribute to the endeavor. Personally, I'd love to see the IRS attempt to go after 20-30 million people for taxes owed on April 15th because of declaring extra dependents on a W4.Comment Posted By John Galt On 1.03.2009 @ 12:26
Surabaya Stew said:
"Don’t even pretend that most of us save for retirement!"
WHAT!!!! There is no excuse to put away a few bucks a week once you start working. If the Fed didnt take almost 14% of your salary away from you for a bogus retirement fund, you would have even tons more money to invest. The Fed's rate of return for retirement is about 2% and can be less than zero in many cases. Just imagine also if you could will that 14% to your offspring. The future generations would be wealthier. If a person is too dense to put that money into retirement and would instead party with it, I dont feel I should subsidize that person anymore.
What does paying for big items over time have to do with federal retirement or healthcare? Are you implying the fed should provide you with a house and car as well?
The reason the States do better than other nations on some things is precisely because the fed does not control 100% of healthcare (yet). Once the fed does, its all over, we will fall just like Europe. You think we pay a lot for healthcare now, we will pay more once the takeover is complete. It happens to every single item the fed gets its hands on. The only thing is all the costs will be hidden and just taken away in taxes, but it will cost more.
The issue with healthcare is NOT it being unavailable to people with little money. That is result of the true problem. The true problem is the COST. Totally federalizing healthcare WILL NOT lower the costs. It will increase them due to mismanagement, corruption, and political favoritism. HSA's get the control of healthcare back to the individual. That WILL lower costs. I would prefer to have a few years hardship and ensure the future survival of my country than take a free ride today at the expense of my progeny.
I'm a charitable person. I give quite a bit every week. I fail to see why I should subsidize even further for someone that is unwilling to give anything back. Sure, I know many people receiving assistance do work hard, but with every federal giveaway, more and more people simply decide to live off the government. After all, if healthcare, education, welfare, retirement are all giving to someone for nothing, why work? One can live easy and sit at home and eat Fritos and watch Oprah every day.Comment Posted By John Galt On 21.06.2008 @ 13:41
Surabayu Stew wrote:
"Sorry to get off topic so much, but I really can’t get worked up about oil refineries. Obama or McCain won’t do much about it no matter what they say."
It really isnt too much off topic. Both the healthcare issue and the refinery issue really stems from the same point. What should the federal government be in charge of? I believe most of us in this forum would like to see the fed stay Constitutionally bound (as they are supposed to). I like to take a simple view of things...If the federal government is truly better at spending the wealth of the economy better than the people are, then the Fed should take every single cent of our paychecks. Hey, if they spend things better, why not? If the fed is not as efficient as the people, then they should be limited to only providing the services that are explicity called forth in the Constitution so as not to have an adverse effect on economic growth.
When the fed does take over the entire healthcare system (and unfortunately, I do believe that it will happen), healthcare wont be free. It will end up costing more than it does now. I predict within 2 years of the takeover, healthcare costs as a percentage of GDP will increase by at least 50%. The money must come from somewhere. And when the inevitable arises that the fed really cant increase taxes anymore, rationing of health care will result. It is inevitable. The problem with Americans these days is that, as a whole, we expect a quick fix to things. It took socialism 70-90 years to get to the level of problems it has created. It will take some time to actually fix things. The true solution is to allow health care spending accounts that can grow tax free and can be utilized for your normal doctors visits and tests (or any health issues). Then, all you need insurance coverage for is the catastrophic stuff. Insurance rates would drop phenomenally and more money would be available in the general economy for growth. That growth will lift ALL boats and fewer folks would actually have difficulty providing their own health care. These accounts could also be passed on to your heirs, increasing the wealth and health of our legacies. Oh, if this would be the case, I'm betting insurance companies would start offering a more a la carte coverage. For example, I have no need for STD coverage. Why should I pay for it? However, many folks in San Francisco probably do need STD coverage so they should pay extra for it for the added risk they impose in their lifestyles. This basic idea will take time to work, BUT IT WILL WORK. For those that dont have the immediate money for care, there are plenty of places where you can get truly free healthcare. The charity of this nation's people knows no bounds (well, outside of the democrats in Congress that is).
With the fed in charge of all healthcare, I'm willing to bet there will be nothing that the people will not be responsible for covering. I predict sex change operations will be covered. I predict nose jobs and facelifts will as well. After all, all it takes is a lobbyist to grease a politician and that politician slips these bogus things into a defense appropriations bill when the public isnt looking. We all know this will happen.
So, no, the Fed should not be responsible for healthcare, or refineries, or energy production, or a myriad of other things. The costs will just continue to rise until rationing, and thus NO healthcare, is the result.Comment Posted By John Galt On 20.06.2008 @ 10:55
Surabaya Stew says:
"John Galt, have you never been without insurance. Just try going without it for a while and see if your feeling don’t change. What is the point of having the best health care in the world if you can’t afford it? If not wanting to feel vulnerable to sickness when one is out of a job makes me a lefty, then so be it."
I actually have been without insurance at times and you know what, I tried to do things with my life that made it so I was less likely to need medical care. I drove more carefully, ate better, stopped drinking beer, etc. That's actually the point. The insurance industry in general is one of the leading causes of higher health care prices. When the individual no longer has to directly pay for health care, the individual no longer truly monitors the costs associated with that healthcare and when that happens, prices can easily rise. Also, when insurance is paying for the healthcare, people tend to take more risks in their life and not take as good care of themselves healthwise because they know they can always go to the doctor to get repaired. If the government takes over healthcare completely, that problem will compound because now, the individual will not even be responsible for his/her own insurance costs and have absolutely no incentive to make the right health choices in life (well, other than living longer). Its nice and all to have "free" healthcare for all, but what good is "free" if it can take 6 months or a year to get into see a doctor (as in the case in Britain and Canada). So even tho all folks in totally socialized medicine society have their bills payed for, they might not get access to a doctor when they need it. There are hundreds of stories coming out of Britain in which patients have died because they had to wait too long for healthcare. That does not happen in our country. Hospitals here will take patients in emergencies and treat them regardless of payment. There used to be a large charity hospital system in this nation as well. That is why I made the point that our system is able to care for MORE (that's as a percentage) people than any other system in the world.
So, yes, advocating a total government takeover of healthcare is being leftist (at least on that issue). Providing healthcare is not a function granted to the federal government via the Constitution. Any attempt of the fed to take over an industry that is not spelled out in the constitution (eg, military, post offices) is a total power grab by the government. And that is facism. If you want government healthcare, its simple, just start the amendment process. Let's see if its something that is truly desired by the people. By the way, the same thing goes for nationalizing the oil industry, the fed must ask for that authority thru the amendment process.
Now, if individual states wanted to provide total health insurance coverage for their citizens. Great, all the power to them. But not the fed.Comment Posted By John Galt On 19.06.2008 @ 14:10
Surabaya asks: "Does this make me a lefty?"
Well, yes it does. I dont know anything about France's water system, but to compare any private industry in France with US private industry is pretty ludicrous. No company in France can operate without 7 out of 8 of their octopus government's tentacles reaching in and controlling almost every aspect of the business.
I have yet to see any government run health care anywhere in the world operate in an efficient manner. US Healthcare provides better care for more people than any total government controlled system. That's why many Canadians pay extra to come into the US for healthcare.
Personally, I'm ready for a Mind Strike. We should be prepared to help the oil industry completely shut down the refineries when the inevitable day comes that the Fed takes them over.Comment Posted By John Galt On 19.06.2008 @ 10:14
"We should also be asking questions about Mrs. Clintonâ€™s security. How could the Secret Service let someone like Hsu within 50 yards of Hillary? Or were their objections overridden?"
John Galt muses: Perhaps this is the same SECRET SERVICE that let Jeff Gannon stay overnight at the White House and gave him a press pass without checking his credentials? And how often was Bush ridden? I mean overridden?
John Galt further muses: I know who I am but who is Jeff Gannon?Comment Posted By John Galt On 15.09.2007 @ 21:12
I don't understand, is this sarcasm?Comment Posted By John Galt On 21.12.2006 @ 15:31