Does President Obama play too much Golf?

[phan52]

Originally Posted by dave67az

Okay, you didn't find a reference so I found one for you.

Unfortunately it shows you were wrong on the $200-million-per-day thing.

http://www.factcheck.org/2010/11/ask-factcheck-trip-to-mumbai/

It's not really that hard to find.

BTW, Sean Hannity does not approve of this message.

[zipazoid]

I think the President's heard enough -

http://www.regretsy.com/2012/09/10/barack-obama-is-tired-of-your-shit/

[David in FL]

[quote name="dave67az" url="/t/54663/does-president-obama-play-too-much-golf/378#post_ 1. The dollars someone receives from an investment are worth just as much as the dollars I get from my job, so why do investors get to pay only 14% on Capital Gains? 2. Obviously the very poor who barely make enough to pay for rent and groceries can't quite pay the same percentage as other people.  3. Personally I would love a flat tax.  You'd have standard "cost of living" deduction and everything left over (disposable income) would be taxed at a flat rate across the board. 4. You shouldn't have a freedom to be on Welfare simply because you choose not to work. 5. You show that you can't handle personal responsibility when you choose not to get health insurance.  [/quote] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Because we want to encourage investment, it benefits everyone. Your education benefitted you alone. 2. They may be able to pay the same percentage , certainly not the same amount. The FairTax provides an interesting option utilizing a prebate to address basic needs. 3. Similar to the prebate I referenced above, and I agree. 4. I agree 100% 5. This is your miss. The fact that someone doesn't choose to carry medical insurance does not mean that they cannot and should not be held personally responsible for their decision should they become ill. Individual freedom coupled with personal responsibility for the decisions that we do make is a cornerstone on which our country was built. We either fundamentally believe that or we don't. We can't, nor should we, pick and choose when it should or shouldn't apply. With the exception of the medical insurance piece, it sounds as if we look at most things more alike than I first thought though. Can we agree that people that avail themselves of healthcare must be held accountable for paying for it, without mandating HOW they do so?

[phan52]

5. This is your miss. The fact that someone doesn't choose to carry medical insurance does not mean that they cannot and should not be held personally responsible for their decision should they become ill.

Individual freedom coupled with personal responsibility for the decisions that we do make is a cornerstone on which our country was built. We either fundamentally believe that or we don't. We can't, nor should we, pick and choose when it should or shouldn't apply.

With the exception of the medical insurance piece, it sounds as if we look at most things more alike than I first thought though. Can we agree that people that avail themselves of healthcare must be held accountable for paying for it, without mandating HOW they do so?

So, if something catastrophic happens, how do you propose they pay pay for it? Pound of flesh?

[dave67az]

Originally Posted by David in FL

[quote name="dave67az" url="/t/54663/does-president-obama-play-too-much-golf/378#post_

1. The dollars someone receives from an investment are worth just as much as the dollars I get from my job, so why do investors get to pay only 14% on Capital Gains?

2. Obviously the very poor who barely make enough to pay for rent and groceries can't quite pay the same percentage as other people.

3. Personally I would love a flat tax.  You'd have standard "cost of living" deduction and everything left over (disposable income) would be taxed at a flat rate across the board.

4. You shouldn't have a freedom to be on Welfare simply because you choose not to work.

5. You show that you can't handle personal responsibility when you choose not to get health insurance.

[/quote]

1. Because we want to encourage investment, it benefits everyone. Your education benefitted you alone.

2. They may be able to pay the same percentage, certainly not the same amount. The FairTax provides an interesting option utilizing a prebate to address basic needs.

3. Similar to the prebate I referenced above, and I agree.

4. I agree 100%

5. This is your miss. The fact that someone doesn't choose to carry medical insurance does not mean that they cannot and should not be held personally responsible for their decision should they become ill.

Individual freedom coupled with personal responsibility for the decisions that we do make is a cornerstone on which our country was built. We either fundamentally believe that or we don't. We can't, nor should we, pick and choose when it should or shouldn't apply.

With the exception of the medical insurance piece, it sounds as if we look at most things more alike than I first thought though. Can we agree that people that avail themselves of healthcare must be held accountable for paying for it, without mandating HOW they do so?

1.  Sorry, but you're wrong.  My investment not only benefits my employer, it also benefits anyone who utilizes my employer and anyone who invests in my employer.  So you're telling me that working for my employer and my investment in them isn't worth as much as someone who simply buys shares of my employer's stock?  Seriously?

2.  If I make 20,000 a year and housing and food for my family costs $20,000 per year, you're saying I can afford to pay 20% of my income?  So I guess I should just live in 80% of a house?  Are you so removed from hardworking people who live paycheck to paycheck that you don't understand that they can't afford to pay that 20% and still feed and house their families?

3.  This is why my "disposable income" flat tax works.  But for the people who can barely afford to pay for housing and food (we're NOT talking about people who are still able to pay for cable TV and cell phones, by the way...we're talking people who actually are POOR) there is not extra 20% that they can afford to pay.

4.  Thanks.  I was hoping you'd stop acting as though I'm one of these people who thinks that it's okay to be a leech.

5.  How do you suggest we hold people who don't buy insurance responsible for the costs to society?  And if you can answer that, then maybe we can come to an agreement.

[Joakim]

Originally Posted by dave67az

Do you have a reference?  Maybe that would help.

A military official also told Fox News the warship claim was inaccurate. The official knew of no such plans and said, besides, a carrier strike group typically has 10-12 ships at most.

Ben Rhodes, deputy national security adviser for strategic communication, stressed at a briefing last week that those precautions that are being taken are all rooted in security concerns.

[Joakim]

Originally Posted by phan52

It's not really that hard to find.

BTW, Sean Hannity does not approve of this message.

Dave and Phan,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMzle1FnqOI

[dave67az]

Originally Posted by Joakim

Dave, You put up a clear and coherent opinion, UNTIL the last statement. I did not choose to get plowed into my car by some Frickin idiot that was texting at 75 miles an hour on my way to work.

However, what you don't realize is that going through disability, while not working, you are placed on Cobra Insurance that at that time was discontinued after one year.

Then you are on your own with the independant insurance prices I stated above. Maybe your not familiar with how little amount of money you get by being on disability and the diffulties while trying to raise a family while your permanately injured.

How much does the military pay if injured while in service? Do they discontinue your insurance?

This is exactly why we need to ensure that everyone has insurance.  Because people can't choose not to get sick or injured.  Not possible.  Nor is it possible for them to know, no matter how much money they have, that they will be able to cover their medical bills.  Again, part of this is because medical costs have been artificially inflated.  And don't forget that just because a person THINKS they can afford to pay cash for any medical care they need doesn't mean they truly can.  Clearly people make bad decisions and think that they are invincible which is why some people would choose NOT to get car insurance if it were an option.  The reason we don't allow them to drive without insurance is because we know better.

I realize exactly what it's like going through disability, and I also know the exact amounts that people get for their disabilities both through the military and through SSDI.  My mom retired from the Social Security Administration several years ago and I talked to her often about her job growing up.  My sister has worked for the State of Missouri doing disability claims for 20 years (as well as being a medic in the Army National Guard) and is an officer for the National Association of Disability Examiners.  I've helped prepare Medical Examination Boards while in the military and can tell you exactly what gets paid and what doesn't (and no, not all disabilities get paid and many of them will get you kicked out of the military without benefits).

You're right, some people can't afford insurance.  But there are systems in place for folks with disabilities to provide medical care.  UNFORTUNATELY the approval process, because of so many scam artists out there, makes it difficult for some truly needy people to get the care they need.  I wish the system worked better, but as long as there is money to be received, there will be scam artists who try to "use" the system and get something they don't deserve.

I do see where you're coming from, and trust me I know exactly the difficulties you're going through, but until something is done to get the "leeches" out of THAT system, the red-tape required for people to get their claims isn't going anywhere.

[Joakim]

Originally Posted by dave67az

Again, part of this is because medical costs have been artificially inflated.  And don't forget that just because a person THINKS they can afford to pay cash for any medical care they need doesn't mean they truly can.  Clearly people make bad decisions and think that they are invincible which is why some people would choose NOT to get car insurance if it were an option.  The reason we don't allow them to drive without insurance is because we know better.

You're right, some people can't afford insurance.  But there are systems in place for folks with disabilities to provide medical care.  UNFORTUNATELY the approval process, because of so many scam artists out there, makes it difficult for some truly needy people to get the care they need.

My brother in law sells hand splints, knee and ankle splints to nursing homes. He charges 3-4 times his cost to patients that mostly don't or can't use them or terminal, the doctors don't know or care, they get their perks from him during holidays. This goes through Medicare and he is a middle man himself. These are the types of things are prevalent throughout Medicare expenses. I've caught a doctor treating my mom and charged 10X the amount of epidural to Medicare, until I turned him in. I had  insurance the other driver didn't.

This HAS to be fixed to make insurance affordable to all walks of life. Disability pays just above the limited amount to qualify for Medical (denied),

[dave67az]

Originally Posted by Joakim

My brother in law sells hand splints, knee and ankle splints to nursing homes. He charges 3-4 times his cost to patients that mostly don't or can't use them or terminal, the doctors don't know or care, they get their perks from him during holidays. This goes through Medicare and he is a middle man himself. These are the types of things are prevalent throughout Medicare expenses. I've caught a doctor treating my mom and charged 10X the amount of epidural to Medicare, until I turned him in. I had  insurance the other driver didn't.

This HAS to be fixed to make insurance affordable to all walks of life. Disability pays just above the limited amount to qualify for Medical (denied),

I agree!  Don't you think a LOT of these inflated prices are because of the frivolous lawsuits though? We let people sue for "pain and suffering" and then put dollar amounts on it in the tens of millions of dollars in some cases.  Seriously?  So we let these people do this and the consequence is higher malpractice insurance costs.  Medical equipment and drug manufacturers have to pay massive amounts for liability insurance and they have no choice but to pass on those costs to us.  The system is BROKEN.

I can't remember the specifics of McCain's plan from a few years ago, but I remember I liked it.  Something like that, combined with a TRICARE-like contractor, in my opinion, would be the surest ways to have a near-immediate affect on the costs of both delivering and receiving healthcare.

And you're right about the billing fraud.  My wife works at Phoenix Children's Hospital as an accountant and I can assure you the things she catches are amazing.  Some of them are outright fraudulent.  Most are just stupid people who don't know what they're doing.  But some are just trying to get more money for their department.  Luckily they do have audits on a regular basis so they do catch most of them, but there's still some that get away with it for a while.

[David in FL]

1.  Sorry, but you're wrong.  My investment not only benefits my employer, it also benefits anyone who utilizes my employer and anyone who invests in my employer.  So you're telling me that working for my employer and my investment in them isn't worth as much as someone who simply buys shares of my employer's stock?  Seriously? 2.  If I make 20,000 a year and housing and food for my family costs $20,000 per year, you're saying I can afford to pay 20% of my income?  So I guess I should just live in 80% of a house?  Are you so removed from hardworking people who live paycheck to paycheck that you don't understand that they can't afford to pay that 20% and still feed and house their families? 3.  This is why my "disposable income" flat tax works.  But for the people who can barely afford to pay for housing and food (we're NOT talking about people who are still able to pay for cable TV and cell phones, by the way...we're talking people who actually are POOR) there is not extra 20% that they can afford to pay. A4.  Thanks.  I was hoping you'd stop acting as though I'm one of these people who thinks that it's okay to be a leech. 5.  How do you suggest we hold people who don't buy insurance responsible for the costs to society?  And if you can answer that, then maybe we can come to an agreement.

1. Your investment was in yourself.. Had you failed school, your investment would have failed and you would have paid the price....and your employer would never have heard of you. 2/3. If you make $20k and are paying $20k you may be living beyond your means. But we agree, there needs to be some prebate, or deduction for the basic requirements. 4. You're welcome, I shoulda known that that wasn't likely given your military service! 5. The same way you hold anyone accountable. They sell the flat screen, or turn off the cable, or work it off scrubbing floors (which also helps to reduce healthcare costs) etc.... Patients also get the best quality healthcare that they can afford, not necessarily the absolute best available. Again....there are consequences to making the decision not to purchase adequate insurance. As you said, this is America and we're not going to turn anyone away if we can't swipe a credit card or confirm insurance, but that doesn't mean that they get a free pass. You're absolutely right.....too many leeches expect just that!

[newtogolf]

The income from your job gets taxed as income.  If I take the money from my job and invest it and you take the money from your job and take vacations and buy golf clubs why should I be taxed twice at the same rate for managing my money better?

That's the issue at hand, you want people to invest their money and there needs to be an incentive to do so otherwise everyone will pull their money out of stocks and banks.  Do you know what happens when people pull their money out of banks and stocks?  Maybe that's why you're pro-Obama you don't understand how capitalism works.

Originally Posted by dave67az

Well guess what...the money I make from my job was the result of an education investment that I paid taxes on.

Investments that GENERATE INCOME are no different than jobs.  Money is money.  For some egotistical corporate-type to think that his "investment" should be worth more than my "investment" is pretty arrogant.  We've BOTH paid taxes on the path to our success.

What...now you're going to tell me that the money I've spent along the way to get to the level of success I currently have isn't worth as much as some brat who got his from a trust fund?  Really?

[Joakim]

Originally Posted by dave67az

I agree!  Don't you think a LOT of these inflated prices are because of the frivolous lawsuits though? We let people sue for "pain and suffering" and then put dollar amounts on it in the tens of millions of dollars in some cases.  Seriously?  So we let these people do this and the consequence is higher malpractice insurance costs.  Medical equipment and drug manufacturers have to pay massive amounts for liability insurance and they have no choice but to pass on those costs to us.  The system is BROKEN.

I can't remember the specifics of McCain's plan from a few years ago, but I remember I liked it.  Something like that, combined with a TRICARE-like contractor, in my opinion, would be the surest ways to have a near-immediate affect on the costs of both delivering and receiving healthcare.

And you're right about the billing fraud.  My wife works at Phoenix Children's Hospital as an accountant and I can assure you the things she catches are amazing.  Some of them are outright fraudulent.  Most are just stupid people who don't know what they're doing.  But some are just trying to get more money for their department.  Luckily they do have audits on a regular basis so they do catch most of them, but there's still some that get away with it for a while.

I concur. There are constant ads in California to join tort lawsuits against pharmacutical companies. The sad thing is that the lawyers get all the money, the claimants get a pitance.

A Childrens hospital may be a little more ethical than a Hospice House. Gotta go now, Have a good day.

[dave67az]

Originally Posted by David in FL

1. Your investment was in yourself.. Had you failed school, your investment would have failed and you would have paid the price....and your employer would never have heard of you.

2/3. If you make $20k and are paying $20k you may be living beyond your means. But we agree, there needs to be some prebate, or deduction for the basic requirements.

4. You're welcome, I shoulda known that that wasn't likely given your military service!

5. The same way you hold anyone accountable. They sell the flat screen, or turn off the cable, or work it off scrubbing floors (which also helps to reduce healthcare costs) etc.... Patients also get the best quality healthcare that they can afford, not necessarily the absolute best available. Again....there are consequences to making the decision not to purchase adequate insurance.

As you said, this is America and we're not going to turn anyone away if we can't swipe a credit card or confirm insurance, but that doesn't mean that they get a free pass. You're absolutely right.....too many leeches expect just that!

1.  Had my investment failed, you're right I would have paid a price.  And if your investment failed you would have paid a price.  But if we BOTH succeed and we BOTH get income from our investments BOTH of those incomes should be treated equally dollar for dollar.  We should BOTH pay the same percentage of taxes.  Not more, not less.  The incentive in investing money is that if you are smart about it, you'll generate income.  That income is enough of an incentive, just as it's the incentive to furthering your college education.  To think that people wouldn't invest if they didn't have the tax break is to ignore history.  Some of the biggest periods of economic growth in this country came at times when capital gains were taxed the same as any other income (or certainly more than the current 14%).  People still invested then.  So where's the data that shows that people don't invest unless you give them a tax break?  It's a nice theory, but I've yet to see any evidence.

2/3.  It almost sounds like you're saying that there is always affordable housing no matter how little you make.  I so wish this were the case.  It is not.  Nor does the cost of food for a family of three change just because you're making very little money.  You can only cut back so far.  Once you eliminate all luxuries, you're forced to pay whatever it takes to keep your family clothed and fed.  There aren't options for the poor like there are for the rich.  And there are quite a few people who are living beyond their means simply because they can't find work that pays more, and NOT because they waste money on things they don't need.  The problem is MANY people think that cell phones, cigarettes, cable TV, high speed internet, etc.

5.  Here's the problem.  When people who don't have $500,000 worth of assets generate that much of a medical bill, you can't take enough from them to make up for it.  That math just doesn't work.  Someone has to pay.  There's only a few places to get that money from.  Healthcare organizations can raise rates on everyone to make up for the losses to the deadbeats, forcing insurance companies to raise rates because of the cost passed on by the healthcare providers, forcing everyone to pay for it out of their own pocket (which is not unlike the current method) or the people who are really causing the problem (the ones without insurance) can be penalized to recoup the costs (as is the plan).  So what happens when the person generates those medical bills from a heart attack and then dies?  Who pays the bill using your method?  You say there are consequences of not getting insurance, but that's simply not reality.  There are NO consequences currently for not getting insurance, other than only qualifying for care that's medically necessary to keep another leech alive.  This, to me, is wrong.

Originally Posted by newtogolf

The income from your job gets taxed as income.  If I take the money from my job and invest it and you take the money from your job and take vacations and buy golf clubs why should I be taxed twice at the same rate for managing my money better?

That's the issue at hand, you want people to invest their money and there needs to be an incentive to do so otherwise everyone will pull their money out of stocks and banks.  Do you know what happens when people pull their money out of banks and stocks?  Maybe that's why you're pro-Obama you don't understand how capitalism works.

I'm so lost with this comment.  You shouldn't be taxed higher than me.  You should be taxed the same percentage as anyone else.  No exceptions.  Doesn't matter if you win the lottery, or whether you worked for a steel mill.  Income is income.

I'm also lost with the "pro-Obama" crap.  Where the hell did you get this from?  Oh, wait, you're one of those guys that likes to label anyone who says anything supportive of a politician as supporting EVERYTHING he believes in, aren't you?

Again, the incentive for investing is an increased income.  The Capital Gains tax was raised before and it did NOT cause some mass of people pulling their money out of the stock market as you suggest.  We heard the same garbage when Reagan was president and he proved that Capital Gains tax breaks are NOT the driving force of the market.

Read this:

Leonard Burman, who teaches economics at Syracuse University’s Maxwell School, presented a graph at the joint hearing that plotted capital gains tax rates against economic growth from 1950 to 2011. He found no statistically significant correlation between the two. This was true even if Burman built in lag times of five years. After several economists took him up on an offer to share his data, none came back having discovered a historical relationship between the rates and growth over those six decades. “I certainly did throw the gauntlet down for the true believers,” says Burman. “If they found the relationship, they’re saving it for a special time.”

Here's a link if you want the full story.  I'm assuming you'll trust BusinessWeek as a knowledgeable source on investing?  Maybe?

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-10-03/low-capital-gains-taxes-may-not-help-the-economy

[newtogolf]

I was taxed at the same level as you the first time.  I shouldn't be taxed again at the same rate because I chose to invest my money and you chose to spend it.

You have been very "pro-Obama" in this thread, so if you're not, I apologize.

Capital gains is a tax on money that's already been taxed once.

Let's forget investment, let's just say I put my money in the bank and earn 1% interest while you spend your.  Why should I pay the same percentage of taxes on the money that I've already been taxed on the first time I earned it.  People should be rewarded for saving money, if more people did it and didn't spend recklessly less seniors would need others to pay for their healthcare and food when they retired.

You analogy about education doesn't fit.  You needed an education to get a job, and you didn't pay taxes on your education.

If you haven't noticed, this isn't the 80's.  We're about to fall into the worst recession this country has ever seen, but no Obama and Romney don't want you to know this.  First step will be a substantial rise in inflation, because eventually the other countries will adjust to the fact that Obama's been printing money like crazy and our dollar is going to get de-valued.

Banks are failing and being sued by our government, who has already had to hand them billions of dollars to keep them running.   You can't point to the 80's, 90's or even 2000 and tell me about what works and what doesn't.  It's a new economic time, read a book called "Aftershock" if you want a preview to what this county is going to face in the next 5 - 10 years.  Banks and businesses will need investors capital if we're going to get through it.

Originally Posted by dave67az

I'm so lost with this comment.  You shouldn't be taxed higher than me.  You should be taxed the same percentage as anyone else.  No exceptions.  Doesn't matter if you win the lottery, or whether you worked for a steel mill.  Income is income.

I'm also lost with the "pro-Obama" crap.  Where the hell did you get this from?  Oh, wait, you're one of those guys that likes to label anyone who says anything supportive of a politician as supporting EVERYTHING he believes in, aren't you?

Again, the incentive for investing is an increased income.  The Capital Gains tax was raised before and it did NOT cause some mass of people pulling their money out of the stock market as you suggest.  We heard the same garbage when Reagan was president and he proved that Capital Gains tax breaks are NOT the driving force of the market.

[David in FL]

5.  Here's the problem.  When people who don't have $500,000 worth of assets generate that much of a medical bill, you can't take enough from them to make up for it.  That math just doesn't work.  Someone has to pay.  There's only a few places to get that money from.  Healthcare organizations can raise rates on everyone to make up for the losses to the deadbeats, forcing insurance companies to raise rates because of the cost passed on by the healthcare providers, forcing everyone to pay for it out of their own pocket (which is not unlike the current method) or the people who are really causing the problem (the ones without insurance) can be penalized to recoup the costs (as is the plan).  So what happens when the person generates those medical bills from a heart attack and then dies?  Who pays the bill using your method?  You say there are consequences of not getting insurance, but that's simply not reality.  There are NO consequences currently for not getting insurance, other than only qualifying for care that's medically necessary to keep another leech alive.  This, to me, is wrong.

So you seem to believe in some form of personal responsibility in everything except medical care..... Let me ask it this way. For those who are now magically covered by Obamacare, when they incur medical expenses, how do those expenses get paid? Where does the money come from?

[Mr. Desmond]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

Capital gains is a tax on money that's already been taxed once.

Okay, I did not want to enter this thread again,and I do not enter to criticize, but to discuss, expand, or perhaps add to understanding.

1. The capital gains tax is a tax on gains you've earned on capital assets (as defined by the IRC Code). That money may have originated from capital that has been taxed several times or not taxed at all - you may have invested capital you received as a gift (that is not income), when you earned it as salary, or it may be capital gains that you earned in the market several times. It may also be tax savings you received from capital losses.

The point is the government has defined net capital gains as income. The government is also the entity that establishes the rate of taxation on capital gains and from wages, salaries, etc. The rates may be the same or different, depending on the objectives of the government and how it wants to motivate investment.

Let's forget investment, let's just say I put my money in the bank and earn 1% interest while you spend your(s).  Why should I pay the same percentage of taxes on the money that I've already been taxed on the first time I earned it.  People should be rewarded for saving money, if more people did it and didn't spend recklessly less seniors would need others to pay for their healthcare and food when they retired.

2. Once again, it is your opinion, not shared by all, that savings should be rewarded at lower rates. Presently, the government does not agree with you. Maybe they will later. You are also making the assumption that people spend money recklessly. Some do, some don't. As to interest, the government wants to reward those who invest in municipal bonds with tax-free interest. Apparently, they want investment in municipalities.

If you haven't noticed, this isn't the 80's.  We're about to fall into the worst recession this country has ever seen, but no Obama and Romney don't want you to know this.  First step will be a substantial rise in inflation, because eventually the other countries will adjust to the fact that Obama's been printing money like crazy and our dollar is going to get de-valued.

3. The above was the BIG story after Obama was elected. It's been almost 4 years. When is this going to occur? And I think the Federal Reserve is the entity manipulating the currency, not Obama.

Banks are failing and being sued by our government, who has already had to hand them billions of dollars to keep them running.   You can't point to the 80's, 90's or even 2000 and tell me about what works and what doesn't.  It's a new economic time, read a book called "Aftershock" if you want a preview to what this county is going to face in the next 5 - 10 years.  Banks and businesses will need investors capital if we're going to get through it.

4. B of A was sued because of Countrywide's practices that helped precipitate the great recession. The Bank made the error of acquiring Countrywide. If we do not have gentle regulation/oversight of Banks and Wall St, we probably will have another fallout - many think we are headed that way. The people who helped trigger the recession have succeeded with GOP assistance, to stop or hinder regulation. Thanks for the book recommendation - Aftershock.

5. Most of the time, people have issues with taxing wealth accumulated at death, but not capital gains, interest, etc.

6. The tax code does not make sense; it is not meant to make sense any longer (for the most part). It is meant to raise revenue, be used as a social tool, and generate investment in certain industries favored by the government, etc.

There are entitlements everywhere in the Code - entitlements to the relative poor, entitlements to the wealthy in terms of special deductions, credits, etc. given to business entities to spur investment; the mortgage deduction is given to spur investment in the real estate industry and home ownership; Oil and gas is allowed to deduct drilling costs instead of capitalizing them; rates are progressive so that those who can afford to pay more, do pay more, etc. It's all over the Code and its special interests. IOW, let's try not to make sense of something that is, for the most part, nonsensical.

[dave67az]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

I was taxed at the same level as you the first time.  I shouldn't be taxed again at the same rate because I chose to invest my money and you chose to spend it.

You have been very "pro-Obama" in this thread, so if you're not, I apologize.

Capital gains is a tax on money that's already been taxed once.

Let's forget investment, let's just say I put my money in the bank and earn 1% interest while you spend your.  Why should I pay the same percentage of taxes on the money that I've already been taxed on the first time I earned it.  People should be rewarded for saving money, if more people did it and didn't spend recklessly less seniors would need others to pay for their healthcare and food when they retired.

You analogy about education doesn't fit.  You needed an education to get a job, and you didn't pay taxes on your education.

If you haven't noticed, this isn't the 80's.  We're about to fall into the worst recession this country has ever seen, but no Obama and Romney don't want you to know this.  First step will be a substantial rise in inflation, because eventually the other countries will adjust to the fact that Obama's been printing money like crazy and our dollar is going to get de-valued.

Banks are failing and being sued by our government, who has already had to hand them billions of dollars to keep them running.   You can't point to the 80's, 90's or even 2000 and tell me about what works and what doesn't.  It's a new economic time, read a book called "Aftershock" if you want a preview to what this county is going to face in the next 5 - 10 years.  Banks and businesses will need investors capital if we're going to get through it.

I'm a critical thinker.  I use logic for this.  When illogical claims are made I speak up, with the HOPE that those who made the illogical claim will realize that they were being illogical and see that, with the use of logic and critical thinking, maybe they didn't have all the facts in the first place (I know, I'm an idiot for thinking I can change people who refuse to see logic, but I guess I also give people too much credit sometimes).  I do this for ANY illogical claims, regardless of what political party they support.  This bias that causes everyone from one side to hate everyone on the other side and to disagree with EVERYTHING that they say is completely and utterly illogical.  When you can't see how illogical it is to simply discount everything that someone says before you even study the facts, you are beyond hope.  The fact that you label people who engage in critical thinking and fact analysis just because they disagree with your "subjective dollar figures" tells me that you're most likely one of these people.

And we're not talking about the 80's and beyond, by the way.  We're talking about the LAST 60 YEARS.  No correlation whatsoever in capital gains tax rates and the rate of investment in the market.  Ever.

Capital gains is a tax on INCOME (you did see the word "gains" there, right?).  If you invest $5000 and it makes $2000, you're taxed on your INCOME ($2000).  I can't explain it any simpler than that.  If you continue to say that you're being taxed twice on the same money, it's just evidence that you lack logic and a knowledge of things like "income" and "expenses" and it's a waste of time to try to explain that to you.

As for the education thing, it's a perfect example because you aren't required to get an education to get a job.  There IS a direct correlation between education and income.  If I invest my money in education and get a better job, increasing my income, it's no different than if I had invested that money directly in a company to increase my income.  No difference.  And if my education makes me a better worker, it also benefits both the company and its investors, just as I said.  So YOU'RE profiting from my education and experience as well.  But because I wasted my money on education instead of investing it, I should have to pay 20% on the profits I received from my education while you only pay 14% on your income resulting from my increased performance.  Yeah, that seems fair.

You're a few years late on your claims of economic demise, by the way.  Just go ahead and keep buying all the gold you can, just like Glenn Beck tells you to.  I'm loving it because you keep driving up the price of my Precious Metals and Minerals fund.  lol

Originally Posted by David in FL

So you seem to believe in some form of personal responsibility in everything except medical care.....

Let me ask it this way. For those who are now magically covered by Obamacare, when they incur medical expenses, how do those expenses get paid? Where does the money come from?

I'm all for personal responsibility.  The problem is, someone has to pay for the people who don't TAKE personal responsibility.  You think people should be left alone and the money for their unplanned medical expenses will magically appear out of thin air?  You've avoided the question...when people who don't have money show up for medical care because of a heart attack, for example, who will pay the bill if they don't have enough assets to cover the expense?  How about if they die?  Who pays it then?  Unless you can answer this question, then your plan just doesn't work, as far as I can see.

I'll explain this again.  If we had a TRICARE-based model that civilians could buy into (you got that, right?  they will pay premiums for their care just as with any other healthcare insurance.) then the only money from taxpayers will be to cover the cost of care to those that are SO poor they can't afford healthcare.  Guess what...you're already paying for that.  It's called Medicare/Medicaid.  I'm not sure what you're asking here, I guess.  You act as though nobody will have insurance premiums in the future under Obamacare.  What am I missing?

A government TRICARE-like contractor that isn't profit-driven would drive down healthcare costs for everyone.  This would force other private companies to reduce costs in order to compete.

TRICARE works.  I'm betting that you still have TRICARE because you enjoy not paying what your civilian counterparts pay for health insurance, am I right?

As for Obamacare specifically, there are a lot of things that I don't like about it.  But the idea of a contracted insurance company is a terrific one and from my experience with TRICARE it's one that works quite well.  Obamacare isn't an end-all solution though.  Tort reform is a must in helping bring down costs.  And there need to be more restrictions in place for ALL social programs that either punish people severely who abuse the services, or try to fraudulently receive the services.  There are ways to do this, but there's a fear that if we get too strict we'll also increase the red-tape that the people have to go through to get the services when they truly need it (like when a family member has a stroke and now you have to quit your job to stay at home and take care of them).

I'm not really making any progress in this discussion so I think it's time to stick a fork in it.

I'm not a liberal nutjob.  But when it comes to healthcare, a profit-based healthcare model is pretty immoral.  I love capitalism, I love a free market, but that doesn't mean I have to love the fact that there are people in this country who would take every penny you own in exchange for saving your life if they could.  There are some things that shouldn't be profit-based, in my opinion.  It's immoral to tell someone they have to die because they don't have enough money when you have the ability to save their life.  The medical profession was created on ethics.  Where are those ethics now?