Come on, be serious most private sector lawyers I know are better paid than Feds and it does not take account of the fact that there is less income disparity is Govt and you will find the top rate was 90%. Where did you work? It seems to me, however you look at it, taxes were high soc sec was secure, we sent men to the moon, we built the highways and we regulated. I told you USS Forrestal
It's too bad that she made a better case for health care reform than Obama. Obama and pelosi really screwed that up and that's why it's doesn't go far enough. But we're for from finished. When people lose jobs through no fault of their own, they lose coverage. If something happens when they get sick during that time, they die or go bankrupt. The public option allows those in a financial bind basic coverage. We can fund it if we weren't going to war every 5 minutes.
It all comes down to progress vs. regress, those who have no problem with killing millions of other people vs. those who want to take care of their own people, it's working toward the future vs. nostalgic longing for an idealized past. When all is said and done, it's about the people trying to drive further down the road against the people who want to gun it in reverse.
Yes testimony from an unbiased source. She's hot though. Wonder what part of $14T debt and $1.4T deficit she doesn't understand? Have 'progressive' policies actually progressed society or simply made it more dependent and complacent? How's that war on poverty working for ya? Forty years, $2T and we have MORE poverty - keep up the good work progressives! Thank goodness morons like Grayson are OUT.
@dospesentas Hmmm, let me see if we voted for an increase in Fed income tax for the top 1%, finished with all foreign overseas foreign military commitments and got tough on the contractors, we would have no more deficit. Besides when Reagan lowered taxes catastrophe resulted, read what David Stockman had to say recently on Salon.
@Meade556 Top 1% pay 40%, bottom 50% pay 0% - FAIR? DOUBLING top rate to 70% yields $218B (IRS - latest stats.). Ending Iraq/Afhg. military operations (including contractors) yields $155B; actually less because soldiers still get paid, fed and housed until the end of enlistment (Cong. Rsch. Svc. 3/29/11) That yields $373B. The current deficit = $1.4T Sorry, you're over a Trillion $ short. "When the rich are taxed into poverty and China stops lending who will pay for your dependent society?"
@dospesentas Hardly. Ending all foreign overseas commitments will save $160 billion. Closing loopholes, and increasing to 50% would bring in an extra one trillion, at least. Besides bottom 50 have payroll tax and bottom 50% no longer pay Fed income tax because this "New Economy" of Reagan, Clinton and Bush gave them bad jobs. Getting tough on contractors across the board, including firing all mercs and "consultants" and regulating manufacture more will save another $300 bil. At least.
@Meade556 My numbers are straight from the Congressional Research Service and IRS. You said "Fed income tax", do you even understand 'payroll tax' & where it goes? 'bring in an extra one trillion" Do you really believe you can DOUBLE income taxes by shaking down the top 1% and closing loopholes? Amazing! TOTAL DOD budget's $780B; save almost half by getting "tough on contractors/consultants etc." LOL! Stop looking in the rear view mirror and making laughable claims - spendings the problem.
@dospesentas Mine are from the IRS. If Fed income tax was raised to 50% loopholes closed and the number of IRS enforces increased, the DOD contractors and wars, as well as the rest of the other 7.2 million so called "private sector" people employed by the govt had to take a pay cut down to Federal levels and the USDA stopped reinforcing the failure of Pesticides, herbicides and what not, you could have a balanced budget. Shaking them down. They have 25% of the GDP!! They'll be fine.
@Meade556 Not the U.S. IRS. A 15% increase on the top 1% and loophole removal, won't DOUBLE I-tax revenues. If you take ALL the income of the top 1% it won't close the deficit. You pose simplistic, uninformed, neophyte solutions common to liberals who blame the 'rich' and 'corporations' and don't understand reality. When you tax businesses, they raise prices (and move jobs) it's called inflation. Squeezing 1.4T out of the 'rich' and 'corporations' will do one thing; put us in a depression.
@dospesentas Oh yes the US IRS. A 15% in the top 1% and loophole removal would add another $1.1 trillion to revenues. Let Obama tax cuts expire and giving the IRS more field enforcers would bring in another $300 billion, suddenly cuts become a lot less painful. BTW we decreased taxes in the 80s and they still outsourced. Taxes were high in the 40s, 50s and 60s I don't remember any outsourcing. You are also wrong in your economics. It is not the 1% who can ever drive any economy
@Meade556 ALL personal income taxes receipts total about $1T. Raising the top rate from 35 to 50% and closing some loopholes (the biggest 'loopholes' are mortgage interest and child credits) won't DOUBLE the income tax revenue. SHOW ME HOW! We didn't have a GLOBAL ECONOMY in the 40's-60's. I Never said 1% drove the economy. I'm not against enhanced revenues, but EVERYONE should be a stakeholder not just a few. We need LESS IRS Gestapo, not more - the thought is SCARY.
@dospesentas Just south of $900 billion. Raising top income tax, considering they have more than $3.5 trillion of it, closing loopholes and letting Obama taxcuts expire would at the very least bring in another trillion, if not more. I never said it would double revenues. Globalization is an excuse for outsourcing. In countries where a lot fewer jobs were outsourced, such as France and Germany their economies have done better. There are fewer IRS inspectors than in 2001, so we need more.
@Meade556 Yeah, take their money, screw them, they only pay 40% of the taxes now; how dare they be successful - I'm jealous. Let's make a law that no one can make more than $100k/yr no matter how hard they work or have better ideas and the government takes the rest to give to those who weren't as 'LUCKY' - PROBLEM SOLVED COMRADE! Screw freedom and property rights - to each according to their need, from each according to their ability.
@dospesentas It is not success to pay someone lower wages, terminate their pension, and make them work longer hours, finally firing a good deal many of these people and reporting it as a profit. If a company does that, it is in economic terms eating itself so it is not successful. I do not resent some people having more money than others. I just simply don't think so many of these people can justify their wages.
@Meade556 Yeah, all those EVIL successful people have done those things - let's not just take their money, let's take their LIVES! I wonder who exactly do they need to "JUSTIFY their wages" to? Isn't that a violation of personal rights, privacy and the tenants of a FREE market - and FREEDOM in general? Who do we empower to pass judgment on who is making too much? COMRADE
@dospesentas I told you they aren't successful. It is not their business for most of them. I empower their shareholders and their employees to stand up and shout "WE HAVE HAD IT!" these people crash the economy and pay themselves bigger bonuses, bigger salaries, robbing their firm of investment capital, it is anybody's business.
@Meade556 You clearly don't understand business. Workers are free to quit, shareholders appoint boards who determine executive pay, private owners are FREE to decide what they pay THEM-SELF in THEIR business. 'Crash the economy' - HOW? That's stupid, it's not my job to school you, but read: "The 1977 Community Re-investment Act" that opened the door to risky lending and "The 1999 Financial Services Modernization Act" that repealed Glass Steagall. GOVERNMENT actions that fostered the 'crash'.
@dospesentas Spare me the 'its Govt's fault' tripe its nauseating. Let me remind you that the 1999 act was the result of many, many years of Financial lobbying in Washington, it is the political system, not Govt. Most Feds opposed it. Besides the Politicals would not do the 1999 act on their own iniative becaue it benefited a very specific group of people. Anyway even with the repeal a crash was not inevitable, the crash resulted when financial officers failed to perform their societal function.
@dospesentas Also most CEOs do not own the businesses they work at. In most self-owned businesses exec vs worker income disparity is far lower in businesses where the chief of the business does not in fact own but simply manages it. Workers also do not want to quit their job because they lose health coverage and usually have no prospect of better employment in the modern American economy. Don't assume because I am a leftist that I am stupid, we tend not to be.
@dospesentas Is there any evidence that CEOs have become hundreds of times more productive than their workers since the 1970s. I have no problem with CEOs drawing $1 million salaries, considering the risk, experience and skill that they should, repeat should have, it would be fair. 11.8 million? Especially when their pay gets raised for firing people en masse no way.
@Meade556 You don't seem to get it - it's THEIR business. Who are YOU to pass judgment on PRIVATE businesses and determine what is fair? Sounds like central-control talk - last time I checked we live in a FREE country under a FREE ENTERPRISE economic system.
@dospesentas Well since they need people producing things for them and doing most of the work it is a really stupid idea to overvalue the top honcho and then to undervalue the underlings. Generals would not be worth a damn without masses and masses of underlings, and those subordinates need to be well looked after and part of that is clamping down on exec pay.
@Meade556 Private entities have RIGHTS and FREEDOM to make choices. Where is the authority to 'clamp down on exec pay' - you live in an alternate reality. You demonstrate a strong socialist belief system, central control and diminished freedom. In your world, the successful are lucky, rich dolts who exist to fund your 'fairness' and bureaucracy. Hate to break it to you that's not how the world works and if that did become the status quo there would be no 'successful'.
@dospesentas There is this simple right, among others. Excessive exec pay robs a firm of investment capital, especially since there is zero proof that these people are hundreds of times more productive than the workers who actually execute the work that is needed for a company to prosper. In my world the service sector exists to provide a societal function, to service society in a variety of ways, not for society to serve it.
@Meade556 WHO CARES!! IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. FAIR!!! Who determines that? YOU? Here's a piece of good advice: Stop worrying about others who are more successful that you and get off your butt and make something of yourself - Stop pining for 'government' to come in and penalize PRIVATE citizens to make the world fit YOUR interpretation of 'FAIR'. This is a FREE MARKET CAPITALIST COUNTRY - if you don't like it, MOVE TO CUBA and see just how great YOUR 'fair' system works.
@dospesentas The shareholders should care, society cares. It is my business when they pay themselves those wages and cannot justify them. "Retention bonuses" please! These are the same people who initiated failed policies and still proclaim their genius. Excuse me if I value the Govt official who did nothing but turn up to work, work as hard as he could, everyday for other people, for a modest salary.
@Meade556 IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. You whine about 'fairness' - life isn't fair, watch any wildlife film and see how nature works. The government you so admire is NOTHING, without the funding from the businesses you attack. Think about that. Latest gov. vs. private sector pay studies show that gov. workers make MORE than private sector - can you tell me WHO pay's the salary of the gov. worker? It's unsustainable.
@dospesentas Taxes are fees, and any private company must have people paying it money or it can pay nothing the same with Govt and those studies are absolute nonsense. They compare Feds to the entire private sector, Fed office workers at that. They do not compare Fed office workers to Private Sector Office workers, so don't come at me with this agitprop nonsense. I take this debate seriously and would ask that you reciprocate.
@Meade556 Again with the ignorance of business. People paying companies do it by CHOICE they're called CUSTOMERS, people who pay taxes do it by compulsion under fine, imprisonment or seizure of their property. Where do TAXPAYERS get their money?
Obviously you haven't read the studies - or don't understand them. How can you seriously debate when you don't understand the reality that GOVERNMENT makes NOTHING and completely depends on those whom you attack? This is a truth you deny.
@dospesentas There is a reason why they must be compelled, if the world were all companies, practically no services would be provided as there would be every interest in no service being provided to maximize profit, so for the sake of our safety and our livlihoods taxes are good. If a person did not pay their fees to an insurance company the same would happen. I have read the studies and again it does not compare Fed office workers to private sector office workers.
@Meade556 Do you not understand ANYTHING about business? The ideal is a true free market, absent of government intrusion - it was once like that. You whine about outsourcing - think regulation has a hand in it? A hundred years ago we didn't have an income tax. You pay you get - don't pay don't get. Companies who take money and don't provide goods/services don't last long. Clearly you DIDN'T read the studies - look at USA Todays it examines and compares by job/occupation.
@dospesentas Ha ha ha. The greatest periods of prosperity were in periods of high taxation and high regulation, at the apogee of the liberal concensus. Sure those companies don't last long, when Govt is on the beat, when Govt is not or does not exist that model breaks down. I looked at the USA Today article it uses the figures for low level private sector office workers. I don't think Goldman Sachs or other big firms like that were included.
@Meade556 Might want to check your facts on that. I believe you'll learn the governments budget as a percentage of GDP and level of regulation was a fraction of today. I've worked in regulation and it's a ever growing nightmare web of nonsense that even bureaucrats charged with enforcement don't fully understand. The survey is of the MAJORITY of positions - I don't think the government's too big in investment banking. What survey did YOU read - reference it? What fleet/ship were you on?
@dospesentas Besides I encourage you to look at the site "The State of Working America" Even in the "nasty old days" of Liberalism the top 10% drew more of the proceeds of growth, proportionally, than did the bottom 90% but the bottom 90% got a large portion of the prosperity, measure what has happened, not just from the site, but from what we have heard and seen since 1981.
@Meade556 Yes that's why the standard of living now is so much higher - BMW anyone? The FREE market is what it is, if people don't want to work somewhere they have the FREEDOM to move on. If a business owner wants to pay himself a billion dollars a second and he has the money it's HIS business not yours. Who appointed you GOD? Stupid crybaby 'it ain't fair' websites are a waste of time. If these losers spent more time applying themselves they would do less whining.
@dospesentas The living standard for most people has declined. Move on to where? With what money. Leave America? It is not the land of opportunity for them becaue they were not born rich, were employees and don't matter? A business man paying himself a billion dollars could never justify it as most businesses struggle make a profit of that much in a year and everyone from the employees to the shareholders would not be happy.
@Meade556 You appear to know very little about business and the free market. Ever start a successful business? Create jobs and make a payroll? Your comments demonstrate a neophyte understanding of such things. 'Born Rich' ! Most business owners were NOT born rich that's an excuse for YOUR failure. I wasn't and have owned several successful businesses. My brother; the same. My son-in-law started a successful business two years ago in the middle of the crash, his dad is a school teacher.
@dospesentas You use the past tense on your businesses, what that says I am not sure but it does not look good. How do you know what I do? Where I work? Who I am? What I have done? Many people who run their businesses as a co-op instead of for themselves do very well, because of the positive morale it instils in people. I am not saying every business should be a co-op, just note that often its ideas, while not perfect, really are not bad at all.
@dospesentas So, since they are the ones who directed economic policy and iniated measures that crashed the economy, yes they, and not those they misled should bear the brunt for their failure. I am not jealous, have you never considered the possibility that there might be people in the top1% who think this way, who miss the America of the middle class that has been destroyed?
@Meade556 BULLSHIT! Stupid GOVERNMENT policies crashed the economy beginning with Jimmy Carter and his crusade against 'redlining' - in search of your precious 'fairness'. We see how that worked out. Government is a NON-PRODUCING, PARASITE that depends completely on the FREE MARKET. The middle class is alive and well in America. You don't seem to get the concept of FREEDOM and FREE market capitalism. I'll bet you love parasitic labor unions too - the guys who brought you OUTSOURCING!
@dospesentas This is wrong. We have been emasculating Govt before 1981 and before then we were doing just fine. Every service sector job, Govt included could be counted as a parasite on the backs of people who pay them fees, but since I know you don't want to work in a NATURAL economy on a giant collective farm and neither do I, i suggest you hold your tongue. Labor unions fought desperately against outsourcing, govt and business failed them. GE, GM were both profitable businesses.
@dospesentas There was no reason for outsourcing, none, zero, and if the business was losing money it is more likely that there was a lack of innovation and not because of safety standards or labor unions, but since this wasn't happening it does not hold. Middle class alive and well PLEASE! What do you call the teachers having their rights attacked in Wisconsin the 2 million white collar Federal workers? Upper class? RIch?
@Meade556 You never answered my questions: HAVE YOU OR DO YOU OWN A BUSINESS WITH EMPLOYEES? HAVE YOU EVER MADE A PAYROLL? I'll bet you have always been in a little government job or working for someone else. IF YOU HAVEN'T BEEN THERE, THEN DON'T ACT LIKE YOU KNOW. You blow a lot of liberal/socialist smoke but I wonder just how much real experience you have in actual job creation. YOUR GOVERNMENT PRODUCES NOTHING - IT'S A PARASITE. 'their rights' lol - show me where they have those 'rights'.
@dospesentas You have neither confirmed no denied my accusation and since this is Youtube and identities are protected, you would not tell me your name, address, Alma mater, if I demanded it of you, why should I answer such a question. Especially since you obviously demonstrate a lack of political science knowledge. Liberalism and Socialism are not the same thing. In any case if Govt employees have it so good, why aren't you one?
@Meade556 Nice dodge attempt, I think it answers the questions about your business experience.
I'll answer your first question last: Because I have skills and talent. Actually, I have worked in government - as a legislative consultant on environmental regulation. I also owned a company that was a major provider of data processing services to government.
You jump to conclusions based on little information - yes, lib/soc IS different, but the general mindsets and fallacies are the same.
@dospesentas I have never worked for Uncle, the pay is too low. Fine, so you have worked for Govt and as a contractor, then don't get high and mighty on me. YOU ARE NOT DYNAMIC. Uncle Sam gave you a bunch of money to do something very limited and it could have been done by the Govt, well done, true innovation and success. So it is you, who is the parasite. Don't lecture me on Socialism when the Govt was underwriting the expenses for your company.
@Meade556 Again you jump to conclusions and make comments on ignorance. Government was a fraction of our overall business/income and we did work that the government tried and FAILED to do. Parasitic? Hardly, unlike compulsory taxes, they had a choice to use our services and came to us for our expertise.
How about that military service? You talk trash - were you there? NO! You trash private businesses and their management - have you done it? NO! How many co-ops in the Fortune 1000?
@dospesentas None that I know of, but since small businesses are what now drive job creation our economy, it makes no difference as to the validity of my argument. I work in the private sector non-contractor, what I do in it is none of your business. As to what you just said, I doubt it. Contracting is nothing more than the ultimate scheme to make the taxpayers' fund a charity for unimaginative businessmen. US Navy eight years.
@Meade556 I don't care what you do and never asked - I asked if you had started or owned a business that hired employees and made a payroll. Contracting is the acquisition of goods and services that the government is unable to provide themselves - FYI it's common practice in all facets of business. Ah, a fellow navy man, what unit/ship were you on?
@dospesentas U.S.S. Forrestal, after the fire fortuneatly. The Govt could provide those services itself. Data processing? The Govt could have done that itself. Left to the Civil Service they would have done that. Its just job creation because Uncle hands out a wad of money counts as private sector employment, so politicians get to claim their policies have created nice jobs. Don't bash Uncle he paid your salary, it is you who is ungrateful
@Meade556 Again commenting on what you don't know. They did try it themselves and FAILED, we corrected the issues and then competed with the internal divisions in several agencies/commissions. A study launched by the Speakers office, concluded we offered the services cheaper and with guaranteed results. We reduced their costs by almost 20% and paid our OWN benefits. We EARNED every dime and provided superior services at lower cost and I should be greatful? NONSENSE Sorry I'm signing off.
@dospesentas This argument is used consistently by you lot who call yourselves dynamic and private sector, while the real private sector is in the non-world of Govt contracting. I'm sure you did get a nice report even if you did not do anything, because it would give a chance for more pork. Since you have commented on things YOU know nothing about, to and including my occupation and since Uncle paid your salary you have no right to sign off.
@Meade556 STOP STEREOTYPING! For the most part they don't (a few nut cases might) -- it's the losers who believe those things and pray for government to 'equalize' things so they are 'fair'. You come from a mindset that thinks there should be a central-control making laws and regulations to intrude on people's private lives to instill other's 'values'. This country didn't become great by holding back free enterprise and passing out welfare - it's a recipe for losers.
@dospesentas I must ask you to stop being hysterical, you will tear yourself apart from your convulsions. I have seen enough successful co-op businesses to know that when people of my mindset gather together, and work hard towards a common goal, the result is good. Besides I believe in freedom, you don't. I believe I have the freedom to have clean drinking water, safe food, breathable air, you do not. And as to your hysteria about Welfare I have three words: The New Deal
@Meade556 Here, again you speak in error about that which you have no knowledge of. No one who believes in freedom believes in more government intrusion, control and bureaucracy - that's the antithesis of freedom. Read some G. Orwell. How many co-ops in the Fortune 100? 500? 1000? - I rest my case. NEW DEAL!! LOL Yeah watch the wheels fly off that pile of socialist nonsense! MEMO TO MEADE556 - I't's unsustainable. All that you believe in, depends on that, which you attack - I R O N I C
@dospesentas You miss the point it defends my freedoms and with analytical skills like that, it is no wonder the economy is in a mess. 1984 is a warning against an elite having too much power. The Inner Party and the way it functions, especially given that 15% of Oceania's society are Party members is meant to signify that the Middle Class and the Upper Class are the Party. The Inner Party is merely exploiting the labor of the Outer Party and the Proles. At least read some books.
@Meade556 Golly so you read 1984 - Just ask Winston Smith if it takes a MAJORITY to have command and control. The 'parties' ARE is your beloved GOVERNMENT - which you pine to empower with more IRS 'agents' to intrude into peoples business. Seems you read and retained, but missed the message. Here's some more reading for you; Atlas Shrugged and Fahrenheit 451 - read them while you still can - COMRADE. How many co-ops in the fortune 100 again?
@dospesentas Winston Smith would agree with me. It is not Govt itself that is evil, George Orwell was a Socialist, but the way it is run in that society serves only to perpetuate an elite, not the idea of Govt. In Atlas Shrugged, the model she describes as nonsense. If the world really were run by John Galt, society would collapse. Every man for himself, just working for himself, IS ANARCHY. One man and his gun vs another.
@dospesentas Furthermore I do not dispute the right of business to exist, I merely say that Corporations as creatures of the State are chartered to bring about societal good, not to make a few individuals obscenely wealthy at the expense of those who pay fees to the company and the investment capital of the firm. The only welfare hog in this discussion is you. I believe fervently in Capitalism, but on the Rooseveltian Liberalist model. The 1950s and 60s were real bad I suppose? Don't even try.
@Meade556 As someone who has actually OWNED and RUN corporations, your claim is BULLSHIT! Societal good lol! Clearly you don't understand business. Again - IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS! No, you don't believe in OR understand capitalism. MODEL!! Yet another display of ignorance.
@dospesentas Corporations would not exist the minute Govt revoked its charter. The East India Company was not formed by the British so its owners could make money, it had a purpose. So I do understand capitalism, business and its purpose. People would stop giving you any money the minute they thought corporations existed solely for the profit of their owners.
@dospesentas If we had the number they requested we could bring in about another $300 billion, then you just the wars and the contractors and suddenly you have a budget surplus, problem solved, crisis averted and besides the crisis of debt everyone is speaking of will not occur until at least 2040, besides keep government stimulus flowing is more important now than balancing the budget, but the measures i propose would do both.
@Meade556 What do you do with the hundreds of thousands of contractors, soldiers and employees in peripheral companies / suppliers / vendors who will be laid off. Yeah, stimuless that's the answer the government (who produces NOTHING) can just send out money to make jobs - brilliant. You need to write the president right now and give him the solution - he'll be sure to have a second term with that great idea.
@dospesentas I am not proposing to throw a single person out of work, I just propose to make those contractors accept the same salaries as Federal workers. As for Mercs I could not give two you know whats for them, they murdered civilians through their cowardice and incompetence. They disgraced the United States and the Military had to take the fall for their bad behavior.
@Meade556 Yeah, let's have the government set everyones salary and tell people what they can make - COMRADE. We don't need any stinking FREE market or FREE enterprise - GOVERNMENT can make us a great Utopian power - just look at the USSR. I like how you paint ALL mercenaries as murderers, cowards and incompetents - great display of bigotry and stereotyping.
@dospesentas I never said that and we do not have a free market, just free enterprise. What we have is bad enough already, nobody wants a free market at least not a human being. Given Timisor square and these people randomly shot Iraqi civilians and the units they trained were less proficient than ones trained by soldiers and the fact that Mercenaries serve the highest bidder, yes I do regard all of them, rightly as such. Besides you have stereotyped me and yours has no basis.
@Meade556 So all two hundred thousand mercenaries were involved in your supposed incident? YOU'RE STEREOTYPING. YOU weren't there, but are quick to condemn hundreds of thousands of people for something you frankly, have ZERO first hand experience of. You're PREJUDICED. NOTE: The majority of your so called 'mercenaries' are former members of the U.S. armed forces, most of whom served with distinction and decoration.
@dospesentas Why did they go private? Why was Timisor square a mercenary operation? Why are these decorated people largely failing at their jobs? Why do we even employ mercenaries? Shouldn't soldiers or Government officials be doing the work they do? It would cost us less.
@Meade556 I wasn't there so don't have first hand information to comment - WERE YOU THERE? Most are NOT failing at their jobs. Contractors allow us to have scalable forces that can be terminated at will - they're comprised of many top ex-military members with superior expertise. You make a lot of talk on the subject - WERE YOU EVER IN THE MILITARY? Have YOU been to IRAQ? Have YOU worked with contractor forces? If not then you are just blowing smoke based on second hand info. and opinion.
@dospesentas Most are, they are expensive, more expensive than when they were working for uncle as they are private sector, it is for profit and the way any society is oriented these people would not leave working for Uncle if the pay and benefits for Uncle were better. I have family members in the Military and to them contractors are SCUM. They do as little work as possible so there is always more work for them to do. They have to do it. They have to justify their wages and they can't.
@Meade556 O.K. so we've established that you HAVE NOT owned a business and WERE NOT in the military. The opinion of your relatives are only that and it's impossible for them to know all 100,000+ contractors, last but not least their BOSSES seem to like it and I think they know a little more on the subject.
@dospesentas I have neither confirmed nor denied military service or being a business owner. It is not your business. You don't know who I am. You don't know what I do. What I have established is that I have at the very least two members of my family in the Military and they get to know at least, from inevitable contact, 50 contractors. They are SCUM, getting better paid than Feds do, both on the taxpayer dime.
This poor girl has been brain washed to believe that the government can fix their issues. Here analogies for the public option are ridiculously absurd. Thank God Alan Grayson was voted out. Time to get a real job for the vile, hate spreading loser Grayson.
@cpm199 Lemme see: The Govt can fix things. The New Deal for example. $68.4 billion was the GDP in 1932, and the GDP in 1937 was $98 billion. Give me the Govt over the private sector anyday. I have only seen peace and prosperity when the Govt has control over the Private Sector.
Obviously her mother was not doing a "tremendous job if she got fired" I have no problem if individual states want to pass a health care bill but why should everyone be forced to be in it. I haven't been to a doctor in 5 years and I'm fine don't have health Insurance and Ive never been to the emergency room. Also how do you know she was a republican for all we know she could be a paid actress.
We've just had 10 years of HUGE tax cuts for the top 1%. Their incomes have gone up record amouonts. How has that worked out for the rest of the economy? When were the Bush tax cuts supposed to start creating jobs hmmm?
@sinistar99 Let's see here. You believe Police and Fire Protection is a RIGHT. I demonstrated you were WRONG. You believe the "General welfare" is about the people. I demonstrated you were WRONG. I demonstrated that printing money, paving roads and providing a Navy are powers of the FED GOV as demonstrated in the GW clause. Could you point to anything you've been right about? Anyplace you've made a coherent point?
Let the fucken wealthy pick up the bill they have been stealing from us for way too long, the mega wealthy suck and one of these day's they will be held accountable for the stealing they do through taxes, health insurance and plenty more these mega wealthy are mostly paracites living off the working men and woman of this country.
The gov't option is meant to regulate ins. comp. and doctors in order to bring costs to a reasonable level while providing health care for all. You could easily have found it on google. Commerce clause: "to regulate commerce . . . among the several states." Also, the Supreme Court has granted the power to regulate to the Fed. Gov't. Its very simple, like I have said. Why wouldn't you sacrifice money (not freedom) to help your fellow citizens? It sounds more like greed than a political position.
@properbeatz Making someone participate in the FREE MARKET is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. It is not within the realm of the Commerce clause. That is NONSENSE.
Greed is wanting what others have. NOT wanting to keep what is yours. And you have all the freedom you spend your money as you see fit.. The Government takes donations. No one is stopping you. You shouldn't invade the Liberty of others to do what they want.
@evolutionist101 If you wouldn't participate in the tax system you wouldn't be subject to crime and punishment. (Doesn't make sense) Our tax system REQUIRES us to pay into it. We can be jailed if we don't participate. That system controls costs for us all by investing in roads that would be impossible to build otherwise. I'm not buying that lame argument. It is not a matter of liberty. You are just a cheap and greedy LITTLE man. BTW, the money is the peoples, not yours. COMMUNIty!
@evolutionist101 How is that not within the realm of the commerce clause? All regulation stems from that clause. It can be bent and twisted any way you want it to be. That dismissive statement sounds like your entire argument: Weak but works on 12 y/o. "That's nonsense. That pony was meant for me daddy." Progress wins. Every time. Everyone deserves access to the latest health care. Like you said it would probably benefit everyone and increase the quality of life. The only part left: greed.
@properbeatz YOU are the one BENDING and TWISTING it. The Money belongs to the INDIVIDUAL. NOT the COMMUNITY. The FED GOV does not get the power to FORCE you to participate in the FREE MARKET. You simply imply a power that DOES NOT EXIST. Ever hear of individual freedom? It goes with the FREE MARKET.
Who said anything about NOT paying taxes? You're just trying to use it for UNCONSTITUTIONAL matters.You simply have no idea what you're talking about. You'd make Karl Marx happy. Not the Founders.
@evolutionist101 Again the constitution does not say that we have a free market system. If we are going purely by the constitution, than the free market shouldn't be included. My point? Any lawyer can bend the constitution. So in that sense, we're all screwed and have been for quite a while.
The idea: All American's need health care. (Like we need water)
The current sit: Millions do not. Costs are ridiculous. (Sherm. Anti-trust.)
The act: We all participate and we see a red. in all aspects.
@properbeatz The Constitution doesn't have to say we have a free market for it to exist. It doesn't say anything about Economic Choices of the people. So I don't even know why you think you made a point. The Constitution however, prevents the FED GOV from forcing to buy anything. It doesn't list it as a power of the FED GOV. Therefor, it is reserved to the States, or the people.
True, ANY lawyer can TRY to bend the Constitution...but it says what it says. All you have to do is know how to read.
@evolutionist101 We don't have a stable economy because our wealth is unequally balanced. Achieving that balance is crucial to the sustainability of our economy, as well as economies all across the world that rely on our system. As a nation, our main priority is the preservation of the lives of our citizens at any cost (not our liberty! I know. You've said that word 1000 times.) What system would you propose? Obama attempted to include the free market via the mandate. How would you go about it?
@properbeatz Their will never be total balance in a free market. It's a pipe dream. Our balance comes from "liberty". (there's that word again) No where in the Constitution does it state a "main priority". Everything is important equally. And everything that is important...is listed. I propose that we allow people to save money(tax free) for medical reasons.I propose we open up the free market and allow all 50 States to sell insurance nationwide. A New Yorker can buy insurance from Oregon..cont
@evolutionist101 It is not their money. They earned it in our society, on our roads, and on the backs of the working class. Like the family who has nothing but provides everything for their kids so that their kids may one day take care of the family. We invest, succeed, and fail. The successes we incur are used to elevate the ones around us to a higher point so that they may one day enjoy the comforts of a more relaxed lifestyle.
@properbeatz My point of the analogy was to show that being forced to buy ANYTHING is Un-American. I disagree that the European and Canadian models are anywhere near perfection. They have scaled back due to extreme costs. Also, why do their Politicians come to America for any Major Medical Procedures?
Question:If you purchase a vehicle with cold hard cash, is tat vehicle really yours? Or does it still belong to the Car Company? My point is.....CONTINUED
@evolutionist101 Because in America if you are rich you come first and if you're poor nobody cares about you.
A portion oft the money that was earned in this country belongs to the people of this country. That is not a flawed mentality. That is the tax system.
If it were confiscation then yes I would agree. But it is a re-balancing. The tax rates in the early 1900's were 80% and jobs were still being created. It is a disillusion that raising taxes will all of a sudden make the rich move to
@properbeatz I'm not speaking of the tax system. It sounds like you are saying that if you purchase an item from a company, even after the exchange of goods, that money is still yours and they should give that money back. That is a flawed mentality. That's like saying a car company can come back and drive YOUR when they need it. I mean..they made it...right? Or is it now PRIVATE PROPERTY? Raising taxes of corporations does NOT promote job growth. It is simple Economics.
@evolutionist101 OK if you purchase an item from a company that's an item YOU paid for the roads it was shipped on --likely YOU paid for at least some of the R&D to create YOU paid to teach the consumers and employees of that company to read the label and YOU helped build the complex system of commerce that company used to create it so yes YOU deserve some of that money bac,k. That company didn't do it all alone without help from the society it operates in.
@properbeatz The more competition between insurance company's, the cheaper it will be. Will the system be perfect? Nope. We can make little tweaks at a time. Question: What if Obama attempted to open the Free market via a mandate that said: "You MUST purchase a car from any dealership you wish! Otherwise you will be fined and put in jail!"
If your view of the commerce clause is correct. What would stop the FED GOV from doing that?
@evolutionist101 That is like saying you must buy paper towels from any store you wish. It really doesn't interfere with anyone's right.
There is no perfect system, but the European and Canadian models are very close to perfection. Why wouldn't you be in favor of an amendment that would help our nation as a whole? The rich don't like to give up their wealth, but they seem to forget that the overabundance of wealth they acquire at a certain point must be shared.
@properbeatz According to you, since I have an 8 year old car, the FED GOV has the right to require me to buy another car so I can pay taxes on it!!! I mean......where does it say we have a free market Economy? It's community money!! Right? Jeez....
@evolutionist101 Forcing individuals to buy health care would be a bit harsh if it weren't for the rebates associated with ones participation. In the end, there really is no disadvantage... Except to the rich who will finally have to go back to their earning levels many years ago.
@properbeatz "In the end, there really is no disadvantage... Except to the rich who will finally have to go back to their earning levels many years ago."
and what do you think will happen to the jobs? What incentive do they have to hire anyone/expand the company, when being taxed to death? Create more government jobs maybe? That doesn't generate wealth.
@evolutionist101 I understand your point about mandates. Requiring is a bit harsh. What about a socialized medical system like Canada or Europe? Are you opposed to that? Taxing the upper 1% wouldn't hinder job growth. It would actually prevent a stagnant economy (like the one we have now.) The top 1% don't spend money, they save it. We have consistently been lowering taxes for the rich for 80 years. Those actions have produced today's economic disaster. If you give Am. more, we will spend more.
@properbeatz Yes. I would oppose ANY socialized medical system. It's simply not allowed by the Constitution on the Federal level. If you wish to Amend the Constitution to allow it...so be it. I must be consistent. I simply have no right to take money from the top 1%. It it their money. Do I think the filthy, stinking rich should give more of their money away? Yes, but not at the point of a gun. I will not empower the government to confiscate the wealth of others.
@evolutionist101 In this country, the poor have given up what little they have for many years. Now, it is the rich mans turn to pick up the slack so that the poor may rise above, but the rich are fighting it every step of the way. I understand that no one should be forced, but the situation has gotten to a point where it has become impossible to "go peacefully". Compromising with them leads to one place: The rich getting richer, and the poor getting poorer. I'm tired of working and them reaping.
@properbeatz once the exchange of capital takes place(including goods for goods) it is no longer YOURS. Once you buy something....that's it!! It's done. The vehicle(or ANY good) belongs to YOU and the money belongs to the SELLER. You have to get over this flawed mentality that the money is still yours. This "situation" you speak of has always existed. It hasn't reached ANY point. The confiscation of wealth and property is Un-American.
@properbeatz 47% of American households did not paying FED Income taxes this year.You saying that's fair?
Answer to your questions:
1)First we need to gut the Expense of the FED GOV. They already have too many UNconstitutional bureaucracy's that cost BILLIONS upon BILLIONS. Make the FED GOV stay within the limits of the Constitution and there would be no reason to "generate" more capital.
2)I would not restructure healthcare with a FED GOV. option.(State issue) We don't have a right Healthcare.
@evolutionist101 We don't have a right to healthcare? Then why do we have a right to police or fire protection? Or do we? And those Americans don't pay FED income tax because the top 1% has 80% of the wealth in this country. They CAN'T pay income tax because after the HS companies raised their rates 400%, they pay more of their income in taxes and fees by far than the top 1% --that's what isn't fair. Cons should just donate to the very wealthy if they're so worried about their tax burden.
@sinistar99 NO. We don't have a right to Police or Fire Protection. If you did, you could sue them for not protecting your safety or your property. You should read more.
@evolutionist101 You know you don't have to pay tabs on your car that's completely volountary right? Just don't drive it on public roads! If you want to enjoy all the benefits of this society without paying for them then YOU'RE the one stealing and you're the one who's unAmerican.
@sinistar99 You stated-----"You know you don't have to pay tabs on your car that's completely volountary right? Just don't drive it on public roads! If you want to enjoy all the benefits of this society without paying for them then YOU'RE the one stealing and you're the one who's unAmerican."
That made so little sense...I simply can't respond to it. You may need to clarify.
We need to back up in time and see the bigger picture. Being Progressive is not a problem solver. Being Progressive is serving some one elses agenda. Please review the USA's past. Being Progressive does not serve the USA well.
This is the idea: when you take the middleman (millionaire officers, their extravagant offices, and private jets) out of the equation, the cost to every citizen in the country drops drastically. We spend 16% of our GDP on health care. Yet we still have millions of uninsured citizens whereas Norway spends 8.9% and manages to cover every citizen fully. My question: What is wrong with a system that covers all for less?
How about we take all the money we've been giving to these international bankers for nothing and use that for health care. Our health care systems would be budgeted in the trillions.
I noticed you said "right to life" I have to assume them you're against abortion? Where does the Constitution state anything about freedom from poverty?
I like the description of the video. TRANSLATION: This is Katrina Walker, a former Republican voter that once enjoyed the thought of individual liberty, until she had a personal experience!!!
Maybe now you can help that asshole Grayson move his office furniture out of DC? Funny, I think if you spent more time actually HELPING your mother, than you do wasting money on flowers, and LYING on You Tube (If you've ever been a Republican, toots, then I'm Soupy Sales!). Get comfortable with the minimum wage, bimbo, cause that's what you'll be earning till you're eighty...........
After the dirty tricks and lies that Grayson pulled in this election, yeah we really believe this story. The American people are wise to these crooks and in 2012 we will finish the job.
Alan, the house has called you back in session this week...
Now clean out your desk !!!! YOUR FIRED ~~~!!!!!!!!
America wants your political career to....DIE QUICKLY !!!!!
Hlaaah...Haaaaa.....haaa...Blahhh...Haaaa......political career to....DIE QUICKLY....Hlaaaa.....HAAAAA....... Pzsttttttttttttt...... PISS ON GRAYSON.
Obamacare is not the answer. The insurance for our company employees just went up 35%, that is for a typical family it went from $12,000.00 a year to $19,000.00 a year. Why? Obamacare. The insurance companies plainly said they are now paying for free benefits under Obamacare that their insurance customers don't get. Just as everyone that actually read the bill said, it's raising cost, it's killing benefits, it's destroying private insurance, and it WILL lead to rationing.
Very well said! I your youtube on my blog under "Wall of Fame."
I created piggybankblog com for all those who have been abused by Bank of Destroying America's potentially irregular, fraudulent and simply abusive home loan modification. I was inspired by your youtube to put a section for move your money campaign.
You watch CNN and Rachel Maddow and you're a "former Republican? "People get sick because of profits?" Nice try, bimbo. You're mother probably lost her job (if she ever had one) cause she's a lazy incompetent who faked injuries so she could stay home and drink.
Fucking little bitch is a traitor. You have sided with terrorists. Who cares if you faggot mother is poor. I'm doing just great, it's a dog eat dog world, get used to it or fuck off.
I wonder why Sean "Don't Waterboard me, Bro'!" Hannity, Flush, Bully O'Reilly, or any of these other loud mouths didn't bring him in to their studios. Could it be that they don't WANt a guy in their studios who could kick their ass and looks to have already put on the boots to do it?
@angela1894 All liberals lie, just watch one of Alan Grayson videos for proof of that! The only way Grayson got elected is because the majority of his constituents here in Florida are seniors, half blind and mostly deaf. Much like the majority that voted for obama/biden.
@angela1894 Why so angry? Do you resent the fact that education cures conservativism? I too used to be a Republican. I voted for Bush in '04. What happened? I educated myself, and stopped buying into the false dichotomy that the GOP has created
@evolutionist101 You've got a problem. "Socialism" is both a utilitarian (The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few) and humanitarian ideology. The essence of it (do unto others as you you would have them do unto you) is at the heart of virtually every form ofreligion and spirituality developed by human culture The way of the right: "Every man for himself" isn't even a legitimate ideology, it's a barbaric impulse that sinks beneath the dignity of the lowliest social animals on earth.
@evolutionist101 Indeed, I do love liberty! The needs of the many will be present, regardless of whether you would wish away them or not. However, A society that ignores the needs of its citizens is not in any way free - it is a grim and despotic oligarchy of the wealthiest, devoid of the even the most elemental liberties: equality, the right to life, and freedom from poverty.
@ousamequin I never said anything about ignoring the needs of others. I said the FED GOV has no business nor the power granted to it by the Constitution to force others to pay for someone else.
@evolutionist101 the needs of the many aren't being forced upon "us" by the government, We the people ARE the many! I'd like to know who you mean by "us" btw - the wealthiest 1 %? the corporate elite? Those who get more than $250,000 in income a year? Wall Street Bankers? Are you one of them? Perhaps you are. I don't know about you, but my health insurance options suck!
@ousamequin you just proved my point. You're a collectivist. You don't believe in INDIVIDUAL liberty. This is a representative republic. NOT a Democracy. The majority just doesn't get what it wants. I'm a 100k short of 250k. I'm far from being wealthy. As for your health insurance options...why should I be responsible for your life?
@evolutionist101 Because we live in a civilized society? Maybe that has something to do with why we help each other. And I honestly don't care that rich people don't want to pay taxes. WE THE PEOPLE with a MAJORITY will elect officials that make you pay 85% taxes (like it was in the early 1900's). So pffffftttt!!!! There's nothing you can do about it! Rich loser.
@properbeatz Who said rich people don't want to pay taxes? BTW. You need to learn a little about the Constitution. The MAJORITY doesn't just get what it wants. This is a representative republic. NOT a DEMOCRACY. The MAJORITY has to abide by the Constitution. Tell you what. I don't care if poor people don't want to pay taxes. They need to contribute. Since when is it "CIVILIZED" To have the FED GOV to FORCE you to help someone? I don't expect a response...you're ignorant.
@evolutionist101 No. I'm actually quite intelligent. I'm sorry you're so cold and callous though. Good luck! Oh, and we'll still win in the end. Can you say French revolution-like civilian rebellion? Oh and we're not forcing. You can move to... Oh wait... Every modernized nation other than us has socialized medicine (not to mention a much smaller, almost nonexistent, debt.) and social welfare programs that would make us look like barbarians (like the one I'm addressing in this comment.) Peace
@properbeatz Why am I cold and callous? Is it because I wish to give freely as I choose without the force of Government? You obviously revile Liberty. You obviously support no rule of law and hate our Constitution. BTW. Since you have so many wonderful and caring Nations to choose from...please feel free to participate there.
There is nothing barbaric about Liberty. Read up on it..it may help.
@evolutionist101 This is the idea: when you take the middleman (millionaire officers, their extravagant offices, and private jets) out of the equation, the cost to every citizen in the country drops drastically. We spend 16% of our GDP on health care. Yet we still have millions of uninsured citizens whereas Norway spends 8.9% and manages to cover every citizen fully. My question: What is wrong with a system that covers all for less?
@properbeatz Here's the deal. We don't have a RIGHT to healthcare. We simply do not have a RIGHT to someone elses labor. No where in the Constitution does the FED GOV have the power to create Healthcare. This is a State issue. If a state wishes to create healthcare, it is well within the limits of the Constitution.
Name one Federal Bureaucracy that actually starts out at one cost and NEVER increases. It is a fantasy to believe cost will go down.
@evolutionist101 That is quite possibly the worst and most cliche excuse that rich people use to get out of paying their share. If you make 1mil/yr, they should take 800,000 in taxes. You still have a nice chunk and people who can't find work will share in the wealth. What you elites truly believe is this twisted idea that poor people don't want to work or better themselves. It's really sad. Do you know why they didn't write a health care provision into the constitution?
@properbeatz 80%!? You're insane. Share the wealth? You and Karl Marx can go share. Keep you hands of of other peoples money. It is the "elites" that think they can do better with MY money. As for the "general welfare" It only speaks of the "general welfare" of the U.S., NOT THE PEOPLE. The General welfare is defined by the 18 enumerated powers in the Constitution. THAT IS ALL. Anything else(like healthcare) would be a State issue.
@evolutionist101 Because the founders didn't know about these predatory insurance companies. They assumed that if a person were to fall on ill health that person would be taken care of. (remember, this is before becoming a doctor was extremely profitable.) They expected "the general welfare" of its citizens to include their health. A simple system that would eliminate a lot of waste on the side of the indiv. as well as the gov't and cover every citizen without question is the best solution.
@properbeatz Please tell me where anyone would get the incentive to work if the FED GOV confiscated 80% there wealth? Where would the jobs come from? The FED GOV? The FED GOV doesn't produce wealth!! The Private sector DOES!! What you're trying to tell me is our Founding Fathers would want BIG GOV and HIGH TAXES. When in fact, they believed in quite the OPPOSITE. Explain what a "predatory insurance company" is. They sell a service. You can choose to buy.....OR NOT.You have no RIGHT to healthcare
@evolutionist101 But just wait. When you're old and dying with no one to care for you and all of your money has been spent on a nursing home but you still have a few more years to go so they float you around til you die, then you can truly know how it feels to be without. I will have $1200 (including interest) in debt that I have absolutely no intention to ever pay back from that single hospital visit. Every person has the right to health care via Hippocratic oath jackass.
@evolutionist101 Let me put this into perspective: I started working at a job in June of 2009. I had to wait until January of 2010 to apply for health insurance. The day I signed up for it my hand that had been burned with hot oil (a cooking injury of pure accident that occurred at my house many days before) began to throb and emit pus. I went to the hospital. Since my insurance hadn't kicked in, I now owe $900 (just principal). All they did: Wash it, bandage it, then gave me a script.
Come on, be serious most private sector lawyers I know are better paid than Feds and it does not take account of the fact that there is less income disparity is Govt and you will find the top rate was 90%. Where did you work? It seems to me, however you look at it, taxes were high soc sec was secure, we sent men to the moon, we built the highways and we regulated. I told you USS Forrestal
Meade556 7 months ago
It's too bad that she made a better case for health care reform than Obama. Obama and pelosi really screwed that up and that's why it's doesn't go far enough. But we're for from finished. When people lose jobs through no fault of their own, they lose coverage. If something happens when they get sick during that time, they die or go bankrupt. The public option allows those in a financial bind basic coverage. We can fund it if we weren't going to war every 5 minutes.
funkbrother216 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
the truth will be known to more americans daily
stairs021 9 months ago
It all comes down to progress vs. regress, those who have no problem with killing millions of other people vs. those who want to take care of their own people, it's working toward the future vs. nostalgic longing for an idealized past. When all is said and done, it's about the people trying to drive further down the road against the people who want to gun it in reverse.
MagnesDrachen13 11 months ago
good points...
agent1up 11 months ago
Yes testimony from an unbiased source. She's hot though. Wonder what part of $14T debt and $1.4T deficit she doesn't understand? Have 'progressive' policies actually progressed society or simply made it more dependent and complacent? How's that war on poverty working for ya? Forty years, $2T and we have MORE poverty - keep up the good work progressives! Thank goodness morons like Grayson are OUT.
dospesentas 11 months ago
@dospesentas Hmmm, let me see if we voted for an increase in Fed income tax for the top 1%, finished with all foreign overseas foreign military commitments and got tough on the contractors, we would have no more deficit. Besides when Reagan lowered taxes catastrophe resulted, read what David Stockman had to say recently on Salon.
Meade556 7 months ago
@Meade556 Top 1% pay 40%, bottom 50% pay 0% - FAIR? DOUBLING top rate to 70% yields $218B (IRS - latest stats.). Ending Iraq/Afhg. military operations (including contractors) yields $155B; actually less because soldiers still get paid, fed and housed until the end of enlistment (Cong. Rsch. Svc. 3/29/11) That yields $373B. The current deficit = $1.4T Sorry, you're over a Trillion $ short. "When the rich are taxed into poverty and China stops lending who will pay for your dependent society?"
dospesentas 7 months ago
@dospesentas Hardly. Ending all foreign overseas commitments will save $160 billion. Closing loopholes, and increasing to 50% would bring in an extra one trillion, at least. Besides bottom 50 have payroll tax and bottom 50% no longer pay Fed income tax because this "New Economy" of Reagan, Clinton and Bush gave them bad jobs. Getting tough on contractors across the board, including firing all mercs and "consultants" and regulating manufacture more will save another $300 bil. At least.
Meade556 7 months ago
@Meade556 My numbers are straight from the Congressional Research Service and IRS. You said "Fed income tax", do you even understand 'payroll tax' & where it goes? 'bring in an extra one trillion" Do you really believe you can DOUBLE income taxes by shaking down the top 1% and closing loopholes? Amazing! TOTAL DOD budget's $780B; save almost half by getting "tough on contractors/consultants etc." LOL! Stop looking in the rear view mirror and making laughable claims - spendings the problem.
dospesentas 7 months ago
@dospesentas Mine are from the IRS. If Fed income tax was raised to 50% loopholes closed and the number of IRS enforces increased, the DOD contractors and wars, as well as the rest of the other 7.2 million so called "private sector" people employed by the govt had to take a pay cut down to Federal levels and the USDA stopped reinforcing the failure of Pesticides, herbicides and what not, you could have a balanced budget. Shaking them down. They have 25% of the GDP!! They'll be fine.
Meade556 7 months ago
@Meade556 Not the U.S. IRS. A 15% increase on the top 1% and loophole removal, won't DOUBLE I-tax revenues. If you take ALL the income of the top 1% it won't close the deficit. You pose simplistic, uninformed, neophyte solutions common to liberals who blame the 'rich' and 'corporations' and don't understand reality. When you tax businesses, they raise prices (and move jobs) it's called inflation. Squeezing 1.4T out of the 'rich' and 'corporations' will do one thing; put us in a depression.
dospesentas 7 months ago
@dospesentas Oh yes the US IRS. A 15% in the top 1% and loophole removal would add another $1.1 trillion to revenues. Let Obama tax cuts expire and giving the IRS more field enforcers would bring in another $300 billion, suddenly cuts become a lot less painful. BTW we decreased taxes in the 80s and they still outsourced. Taxes were high in the 40s, 50s and 60s I don't remember any outsourcing. You are also wrong in your economics. It is not the 1% who can ever drive any economy
Meade556 7 months ago
@Meade556 ALL personal income taxes receipts total about $1T. Raising the top rate from 35 to 50% and closing some loopholes (the biggest 'loopholes' are mortgage interest and child credits) won't DOUBLE the income tax revenue. SHOW ME HOW! We didn't have a GLOBAL ECONOMY in the 40's-60's. I Never said 1% drove the economy. I'm not against enhanced revenues, but EVERYONE should be a stakeholder not just a few. We need LESS IRS Gestapo, not more - the thought is SCARY.
dospesentas 7 months ago
@dospesentas Just south of $900 billion. Raising top income tax, considering they have more than $3.5 trillion of it, closing loopholes and letting Obama taxcuts expire would at the very least bring in another trillion, if not more. I never said it would double revenues. Globalization is an excuse for outsourcing. In countries where a lot fewer jobs were outsourced, such as France and Germany their economies have done better. There are fewer IRS inspectors than in 2001, so we need more.
Meade556 7 months ago
@Meade556 Yeah, take their money, screw them, they only pay 40% of the taxes now; how dare they be successful - I'm jealous. Let's make a law that no one can make more than $100k/yr no matter how hard they work or have better ideas and the government takes the rest to give to those who weren't as 'LUCKY' - PROBLEM SOLVED COMRADE! Screw freedom and property rights - to each according to their need, from each according to their ability.
dospesentas 7 months ago
@dospesentas It is not success to pay someone lower wages, terminate their pension, and make them work longer hours, finally firing a good deal many of these people and reporting it as a profit. If a company does that, it is in economic terms eating itself so it is not successful. I do not resent some people having more money than others. I just simply don't think so many of these people can justify their wages.
Meade556 7 months ago
@Meade556 Yeah, all those EVIL successful people have done those things - let's not just take their money, let's take their LIVES! I wonder who exactly do they need to "JUSTIFY their wages" to? Isn't that a violation of personal rights, privacy and the tenants of a FREE market - and FREEDOM in general? Who do we empower to pass judgment on who is making too much? COMRADE
dospesentas 7 months ago
@dospesentas I told you they aren't successful. It is not their business for most of them. I empower their shareholders and their employees to stand up and shout "WE HAVE HAD IT!" these people crash the economy and pay themselves bigger bonuses, bigger salaries, robbing their firm of investment capital, it is anybody's business.
Meade556 7 months ago
@Meade556 You clearly don't understand business. Workers are free to quit, shareholders appoint boards who determine executive pay, private owners are FREE to decide what they pay THEM-SELF in THEIR business. 'Crash the economy' - HOW? That's stupid, it's not my job to school you, but read: "The 1977 Community Re-investment Act" that opened the door to risky lending and "The 1999 Financial Services Modernization Act" that repealed Glass Steagall. GOVERNMENT actions that fostered the 'crash'.
dospesentas 7 months ago
@dospesentas Spare me the 'its Govt's fault' tripe its nauseating. Let me remind you that the 1999 act was the result of many, many years of Financial lobbying in Washington, it is the political system, not Govt. Most Feds opposed it. Besides the Politicals would not do the 1999 act on their own iniative becaue it benefited a very specific group of people. Anyway even with the repeal a crash was not inevitable, the crash resulted when financial officers failed to perform their societal function.
Meade556 7 months ago
@dospesentas Also most CEOs do not own the businesses they work at. In most self-owned businesses exec vs worker income disparity is far lower in businesses where the chief of the business does not in fact own but simply manages it. Workers also do not want to quit their job because they lose health coverage and usually have no prospect of better employment in the modern American economy. Don't assume because I am a leftist that I am stupid, we tend not to be.
Meade556 7 months ago
@dospesentas Is there any evidence that CEOs have become hundreds of times more productive than their workers since the 1970s. I have no problem with CEOs drawing $1 million salaries, considering the risk, experience and skill that they should, repeat should have, it would be fair. 11.8 million? Especially when their pay gets raised for firing people en masse no way.
Meade556 7 months ago
@Meade556 You don't seem to get it - it's THEIR business. Who are YOU to pass judgment on PRIVATE businesses and determine what is fair? Sounds like central-control talk - last time I checked we live in a FREE country under a FREE ENTERPRISE economic system.
dospesentas 7 months ago
@dospesentas Well since they need people producing things for them and doing most of the work it is a really stupid idea to overvalue the top honcho and then to undervalue the underlings. Generals would not be worth a damn without masses and masses of underlings, and those subordinates need to be well looked after and part of that is clamping down on exec pay.
Meade556 7 months ago
@Meade556 Private entities have RIGHTS and FREEDOM to make choices. Where is the authority to 'clamp down on exec pay' - you live in an alternate reality. You demonstrate a strong socialist belief system, central control and diminished freedom. In your world, the successful are lucky, rich dolts who exist to fund your 'fairness' and bureaucracy. Hate to break it to you that's not how the world works and if that did become the status quo there would be no 'successful'.
dospesentas 7 months ago
@dospesentas There is this simple right, among others. Excessive exec pay robs a firm of investment capital, especially since there is zero proof that these people are hundreds of times more productive than the workers who actually execute the work that is needed for a company to prosper. In my world the service sector exists to provide a societal function, to service society in a variety of ways, not for society to serve it.
Meade556 7 months ago
@Meade556 WHO CARES!! IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. FAIR!!! Who determines that? YOU? Here's a piece of good advice: Stop worrying about others who are more successful that you and get off your butt and make something of yourself - Stop pining for 'government' to come in and penalize PRIVATE citizens to make the world fit YOUR interpretation of 'FAIR'. This is a FREE MARKET CAPITALIST COUNTRY - if you don't like it, MOVE TO CUBA and see just how great YOUR 'fair' system works.
dospesentas 7 months ago
@dospesentas The shareholders should care, society cares. It is my business when they pay themselves those wages and cannot justify them. "Retention bonuses" please! These are the same people who initiated failed policies and still proclaim their genius. Excuse me if I value the Govt official who did nothing but turn up to work, work as hard as he could, everyday for other people, for a modest salary.
Meade556 7 months ago
@Meade556 IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. You whine about 'fairness' - life isn't fair, watch any wildlife film and see how nature works. The government you so admire is NOTHING, without the funding from the businesses you attack. Think about that. Latest gov. vs. private sector pay studies show that gov. workers make MORE than private sector - can you tell me WHO pay's the salary of the gov. worker? It's unsustainable.
dospesentas 7 months ago
@dospesentas Taxes are fees, and any private company must have people paying it money or it can pay nothing the same with Govt and those studies are absolute nonsense. They compare Feds to the entire private sector, Fed office workers at that. They do not compare Fed office workers to Private Sector Office workers, so don't come at me with this agitprop nonsense. I take this debate seriously and would ask that you reciprocate.
Meade556 7 months ago
@Meade556 Again with the ignorance of business. People paying companies do it by CHOICE they're called CUSTOMERS, people who pay taxes do it by compulsion under fine, imprisonment or seizure of their property. Where do TAXPAYERS get their money?
Obviously you haven't read the studies - or don't understand them. How can you seriously debate when you don't understand the reality that GOVERNMENT makes NOTHING and completely depends on those whom you attack? This is a truth you deny.
dospesentas 7 months ago
@dospesentas There is a reason why they must be compelled, if the world were all companies, practically no services would be provided as there would be every interest in no service being provided to maximize profit, so for the sake of our safety and our livlihoods taxes are good. If a person did not pay their fees to an insurance company the same would happen. I have read the studies and again it does not compare Fed office workers to private sector office workers.
Meade556 7 months ago
@Meade556 Do you not understand ANYTHING about business? The ideal is a true free market, absent of government intrusion - it was once like that. You whine about outsourcing - think regulation has a hand in it? A hundred years ago we didn't have an income tax. You pay you get - don't pay don't get. Companies who take money and don't provide goods/services don't last long. Clearly you DIDN'T read the studies - look at USA Todays it examines and compares by job/occupation.
dospesentas 7 months ago
@dospesentas Ha ha ha. The greatest periods of prosperity were in periods of high taxation and high regulation, at the apogee of the liberal concensus. Sure those companies don't last long, when Govt is on the beat, when Govt is not or does not exist that model breaks down. I looked at the USA Today article it uses the figures for low level private sector office workers. I don't think Goldman Sachs or other big firms like that were included.
Meade556 7 months ago
@Meade556 Might want to check your facts on that. I believe you'll learn the governments budget as a percentage of GDP and level of regulation was a fraction of today. I've worked in regulation and it's a ever growing nightmare web of nonsense that even bureaucrats charged with enforcement don't fully understand. The survey is of the MAJORITY of positions - I don't think the government's too big in investment banking. What survey did YOU read - reference it? What fleet/ship were you on?
dospesentas 7 months ago
@dospesentas Besides I encourage you to look at the site "The State of Working America" Even in the "nasty old days" of Liberalism the top 10% drew more of the proceeds of growth, proportionally, than did the bottom 90% but the bottom 90% got a large portion of the prosperity, measure what has happened, not just from the site, but from what we have heard and seen since 1981.
Meade556 7 months ago
@Meade556 Yes that's why the standard of living now is so much higher - BMW anyone? The FREE market is what it is, if people don't want to work somewhere they have the FREEDOM to move on. If a business owner wants to pay himself a billion dollars a second and he has the money it's HIS business not yours. Who appointed you GOD? Stupid crybaby 'it ain't fair' websites are a waste of time. If these losers spent more time applying themselves they would do less whining.
dospesentas 7 months ago
@dospesentas The living standard for most people has declined. Move on to where? With what money. Leave America? It is not the land of opportunity for them becaue they were not born rich, were employees and don't matter? A business man paying himself a billion dollars could never justify it as most businesses struggle make a profit of that much in a year and everyone from the employees to the shareholders would not be happy.
Meade556 7 months ago
@Meade556 You appear to know very little about business and the free market. Ever start a successful business? Create jobs and make a payroll? Your comments demonstrate a neophyte understanding of such things. 'Born Rich' ! Most business owners were NOT born rich that's an excuse for YOUR failure. I wasn't and have owned several successful businesses. My brother; the same. My son-in-law started a successful business two years ago in the middle of the crash, his dad is a school teacher.
dospesentas 7 months ago
@dospesentas You use the past tense on your businesses, what that says I am not sure but it does not look good. How do you know what I do? Where I work? Who I am? What I have done? Many people who run their businesses as a co-op instead of for themselves do very well, because of the positive morale it instils in people. I am not saying every business should be a co-op, just note that often its ideas, while not perfect, really are not bad at all.
Meade556 7 months ago
@dospesentas So, since they are the ones who directed economic policy and iniated measures that crashed the economy, yes they, and not those they misled should bear the brunt for their failure. I am not jealous, have you never considered the possibility that there might be people in the top1% who think this way, who miss the America of the middle class that has been destroyed?
Meade556 7 months ago
@Meade556 BULLSHIT! Stupid GOVERNMENT policies crashed the economy beginning with Jimmy Carter and his crusade against 'redlining' - in search of your precious 'fairness'. We see how that worked out. Government is a NON-PRODUCING, PARASITE that depends completely on the FREE MARKET. The middle class is alive and well in America. You don't seem to get the concept of FREEDOM and FREE market capitalism. I'll bet you love parasitic labor unions too - the guys who brought you OUTSOURCING!
dospesentas 7 months ago
@dospesentas This is wrong. We have been emasculating Govt before 1981 and before then we were doing just fine. Every service sector job, Govt included could be counted as a parasite on the backs of people who pay them fees, but since I know you don't want to work in a NATURAL economy on a giant collective farm and neither do I, i suggest you hold your tongue. Labor unions fought desperately against outsourcing, govt and business failed them. GE, GM were both profitable businesses.
Meade556 7 months ago
@dospesentas There was no reason for outsourcing, none, zero, and if the business was losing money it is more likely that there was a lack of innovation and not because of safety standards or labor unions, but since this wasn't happening it does not hold. Middle class alive and well PLEASE! What do you call the teachers having their rights attacked in Wisconsin the 2 million white collar Federal workers? Upper class? RIch?
Meade556 7 months ago
@Meade556 You never answered my questions: HAVE YOU OR DO YOU OWN A BUSINESS WITH EMPLOYEES? HAVE YOU EVER MADE A PAYROLL? I'll bet you have always been in a little government job or working for someone else. IF YOU HAVEN'T BEEN THERE, THEN DON'T ACT LIKE YOU KNOW. You blow a lot of liberal/socialist smoke but I wonder just how much real experience you have in actual job creation. YOUR GOVERNMENT PRODUCES NOTHING - IT'S A PARASITE. 'their rights' lol - show me where they have those 'rights'.
dospesentas 7 months ago
@dospesentas You have neither confirmed no denied my accusation and since this is Youtube and identities are protected, you would not tell me your name, address, Alma mater, if I demanded it of you, why should I answer such a question. Especially since you obviously demonstrate a lack of political science knowledge. Liberalism and Socialism are not the same thing. In any case if Govt employees have it so good, why aren't you one?
Meade556 7 months ago
@Meade556 Nice dodge attempt, I think it answers the questions about your business experience.
I'll answer your first question last: Because I have skills and talent. Actually, I have worked in government - as a legislative consultant on environmental regulation. I also owned a company that was a major provider of data processing services to government.
You jump to conclusions based on little information - yes, lib/soc IS different, but the general mindsets and fallacies are the same.
dospesentas 7 months ago
@dospesentas I have never worked for Uncle, the pay is too low. Fine, so you have worked for Govt and as a contractor, then don't get high and mighty on me. YOU ARE NOT DYNAMIC. Uncle Sam gave you a bunch of money to do something very limited and it could have been done by the Govt, well done, true innovation and success. So it is you, who is the parasite. Don't lecture me on Socialism when the Govt was underwriting the expenses for your company.
Meade556 7 months ago
@Meade556 Again you jump to conclusions and make comments on ignorance. Government was a fraction of our overall business/income and we did work that the government tried and FAILED to do. Parasitic? Hardly, unlike compulsory taxes, they had a choice to use our services and came to us for our expertise.
How about that military service? You talk trash - were you there? NO! You trash private businesses and their management - have you done it? NO! How many co-ops in the Fortune 1000?
dospesentas 7 months ago
@dospesentas None that I know of, but since small businesses are what now drive job creation our economy, it makes no difference as to the validity of my argument. I work in the private sector non-contractor, what I do in it is none of your business. As to what you just said, I doubt it. Contracting is nothing more than the ultimate scheme to make the taxpayers' fund a charity for unimaginative businessmen. US Navy eight years.
Meade556 7 months ago
@Meade556 I don't care what you do and never asked - I asked if you had started or owned a business that hired employees and made a payroll. Contracting is the acquisition of goods and services that the government is unable to provide themselves - FYI it's common practice in all facets of business. Ah, a fellow navy man, what unit/ship were you on?
dospesentas 7 months ago
@dospesentas U.S.S. Forrestal, after the fire fortuneatly. The Govt could provide those services itself. Data processing? The Govt could have done that itself. Left to the Civil Service they would have done that. Its just job creation because Uncle hands out a wad of money counts as private sector employment, so politicians get to claim their policies have created nice jobs. Don't bash Uncle he paid your salary, it is you who is ungrateful
Meade556 7 months ago
@Meade556 Again commenting on what you don't know. They did try it themselves and FAILED, we corrected the issues and then competed with the internal divisions in several agencies/commissions. A study launched by the Speakers office, concluded we offered the services cheaper and with guaranteed results. We reduced their costs by almost 20% and paid our OWN benefits. We EARNED every dime and provided superior services at lower cost and I should be greatful? NONSENSE Sorry I'm signing off.
dospesentas 7 months ago
@dospesentas This argument is used consistently by you lot who call yourselves dynamic and private sector, while the real private sector is in the non-world of Govt contracting. I'm sure you did get a nice report even if you did not do anything, because it would give a chance for more pork. Since you have commented on things YOU know nothing about, to and including my occupation and since Uncle paid your salary you have no right to sign off.
Meade556 7 months ago
@Meade556 STOP STEREOTYPING! For the most part they don't (a few nut cases might) -- it's the losers who believe those things and pray for government to 'equalize' things so they are 'fair'. You come from a mindset that thinks there should be a central-control making laws and regulations to intrude on people's private lives to instill other's 'values'. This country didn't become great by holding back free enterprise and passing out welfare - it's a recipe for losers.
dospesentas 7 months ago
@dospesentas I must ask you to stop being hysterical, you will tear yourself apart from your convulsions. I have seen enough successful co-op businesses to know that when people of my mindset gather together, and work hard towards a common goal, the result is good. Besides I believe in freedom, you don't. I believe I have the freedom to have clean drinking water, safe food, breathable air, you do not. And as to your hysteria about Welfare I have three words: The New Deal
Meade556 7 months ago
@Meade556 Here, again you speak in error about that which you have no knowledge of. No one who believes in freedom believes in more government intrusion, control and bureaucracy - that's the antithesis of freedom. Read some G. Orwell. How many co-ops in the Fortune 100? 500? 1000? - I rest my case. NEW DEAL!! LOL Yeah watch the wheels fly off that pile of socialist nonsense! MEMO TO MEADE556 - I't's unsustainable. All that you believe in, depends on that, which you attack - I R O N I C
dospesentas 7 months ago
@dospesentas You miss the point it defends my freedoms and with analytical skills like that, it is no wonder the economy is in a mess. 1984 is a warning against an elite having too much power. The Inner Party and the way it functions, especially given that 15% of Oceania's society are Party members is meant to signify that the Middle Class and the Upper Class are the Party. The Inner Party is merely exploiting the labor of the Outer Party and the Proles. At least read some books.
Meade556 7 months ago
@Meade556 Golly so you read 1984 - Just ask Winston Smith if it takes a MAJORITY to have command and control. The 'parties' ARE is your beloved GOVERNMENT - which you pine to empower with more IRS 'agents' to intrude into peoples business. Seems you read and retained, but missed the message. Here's some more reading for you; Atlas Shrugged and Fahrenheit 451 - read them while you still can - COMRADE. How many co-ops in the fortune 100 again?
dospesentas 7 months ago
@dospesentas Winston Smith would agree with me. It is not Govt itself that is evil, George Orwell was a Socialist, but the way it is run in that society serves only to perpetuate an elite, not the idea of Govt. In Atlas Shrugged, the model she describes as nonsense. If the world really were run by John Galt, society would collapse. Every man for himself, just working for himself, IS ANARCHY. One man and his gun vs another.
Meade556 7 months ago
@dospesentas Furthermore I do not dispute the right of business to exist, I merely say that Corporations as creatures of the State are chartered to bring about societal good, not to make a few individuals obscenely wealthy at the expense of those who pay fees to the company and the investment capital of the firm. The only welfare hog in this discussion is you. I believe fervently in Capitalism, but on the Rooseveltian Liberalist model. The 1950s and 60s were real bad I suppose? Don't even try.
Meade556 7 months ago
@Meade556 As someone who has actually OWNED and RUN corporations, your claim is BULLSHIT! Societal good lol! Clearly you don't understand business. Again - IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS! No, you don't believe in OR understand capitalism. MODEL!! Yet another display of ignorance.
dospesentas 7 months ago
@dospesentas Corporations would not exist the minute Govt revoked its charter. The East India Company was not formed by the British so its owners could make money, it had a purpose. So I do understand capitalism, business and its purpose. People would stop giving you any money the minute they thought corporations existed solely for the profit of their owners.
Meade556 7 months ago
@dospesentas If we had the number they requested we could bring in about another $300 billion, then you just the wars and the contractors and suddenly you have a budget surplus, problem solved, crisis averted and besides the crisis of debt everyone is speaking of will not occur until at least 2040, besides keep government stimulus flowing is more important now than balancing the budget, but the measures i propose would do both.
Meade556 7 months ago
@Meade556 What do you do with the hundreds of thousands of contractors, soldiers and employees in peripheral companies / suppliers / vendors who will be laid off. Yeah, stimuless that's the answer the government (who produces NOTHING) can just send out money to make jobs - brilliant. You need to write the president right now and give him the solution - he'll be sure to have a second term with that great idea.
dospesentas 7 months ago
@dospesentas I am not proposing to throw a single person out of work, I just propose to make those contractors accept the same salaries as Federal workers. As for Mercs I could not give two you know whats for them, they murdered civilians through their cowardice and incompetence. They disgraced the United States and the Military had to take the fall for their bad behavior.
Meade556 7 months ago
@Meade556 Yeah, let's have the government set everyones salary and tell people what they can make - COMRADE. We don't need any stinking FREE market or FREE enterprise - GOVERNMENT can make us a great Utopian power - just look at the USSR. I like how you paint ALL mercenaries as murderers, cowards and incompetents - great display of bigotry and stereotyping.
dospesentas 7 months ago
@dospesentas I never said that and we do not have a free market, just free enterprise. What we have is bad enough already, nobody wants a free market at least not a human being. Given Timisor square and these people randomly shot Iraqi civilians and the units they trained were less proficient than ones trained by soldiers and the fact that Mercenaries serve the highest bidder, yes I do regard all of them, rightly as such. Besides you have stereotyped me and yours has no basis.
Meade556 7 months ago
@Meade556 So all two hundred thousand mercenaries were involved in your supposed incident? YOU'RE STEREOTYPING. YOU weren't there, but are quick to condemn hundreds of thousands of people for something you frankly, have ZERO first hand experience of. You're PREJUDICED. NOTE: The majority of your so called 'mercenaries' are former members of the U.S. armed forces, most of whom served with distinction and decoration.
dospesentas 7 months ago
@dospesentas Why did they go private? Why was Timisor square a mercenary operation? Why are these decorated people largely failing at their jobs? Why do we even employ mercenaries? Shouldn't soldiers or Government officials be doing the work they do? It would cost us less.
Meade556 7 months ago
@Meade556 I wasn't there so don't have first hand information to comment - WERE YOU THERE? Most are NOT failing at their jobs. Contractors allow us to have scalable forces that can be terminated at will - they're comprised of many top ex-military members with superior expertise. You make a lot of talk on the subject - WERE YOU EVER IN THE MILITARY? Have YOU been to IRAQ? Have YOU worked with contractor forces? If not then you are just blowing smoke based on second hand info. and opinion.
dospesentas 7 months ago
@dospesentas Most are, they are expensive, more expensive than when they were working for uncle as they are private sector, it is for profit and the way any society is oriented these people would not leave working for Uncle if the pay and benefits for Uncle were better. I have family members in the Military and to them contractors are SCUM. They do as little work as possible so there is always more work for them to do. They have to do it. They have to justify their wages and they can't.
Meade556 7 months ago
@Meade556 O.K. so we've established that you HAVE NOT owned a business and WERE NOT in the military. The opinion of your relatives are only that and it's impossible for them to know all 100,000+ contractors, last but not least their BOSSES seem to like it and I think they know a little more on the subject.
dospesentas 7 months ago
@dospesentas I have neither confirmed nor denied military service or being a business owner. It is not your business. You don't know who I am. You don't know what I do. What I have established is that I have at the very least two members of my family in the Military and they get to know at least, from inevitable contact, 50 contractors. They are SCUM, getting better paid than Feds do, both on the taxpayer dime.
Meade556 7 months ago
This poor girl has been brain washed to believe that the government can fix their issues. Here analogies for the public option are ridiculously absurd. Thank God Alan Grayson was voted out. Time to get a real job for the vile, hate spreading loser Grayson.
cpm199 1 year ago
@cpm199 Government can solve problems. The New Deal. GDP in 1932? $68.4 billion. GDP in 1938? $98 billion. Give me the Govt over these fools any day.
Meade556 7 months ago
@cpm199 Lemme see: The Govt can fix things. The New Deal for example. $68.4 billion was the GDP in 1932, and the GDP in 1937 was $98 billion. Give me the Govt over the private sector anyday. I have only seen peace and prosperity when the Govt has control over the Private Sector.
Meade556 7 months ago
Obviously her mother was not doing a "tremendous job if she got fired" I have no problem if individual states want to pass a health care bill but why should everyone be forced to be in it. I haven't been to a doctor in 5 years and I'm fine don't have health Insurance and Ive never been to the emergency room. Also how do you know she was a republican for all we know she could be a paid actress.
Rook3800 1 year ago
We've just had 10 years of HUGE tax cuts for the top 1%. Their incomes have gone up record amouonts. How has that worked out for the rest of the economy? When were the Bush tax cuts supposed to start creating jobs hmmm?
sinistar99 1 year ago
@sinistar99 Let's see here. You believe Police and Fire Protection is a RIGHT. I demonstrated you were WRONG. You believe the "General welfare" is about the people. I demonstrated you were WRONG. I demonstrated that printing money, paving roads and providing a Navy are powers of the FED GOV as demonstrated in the GW clause. Could you point to anything you've been right about? Anyplace you've made a coherent point?
evolutionist101 1 year ago
Let the fucken wealthy pick up the bill they have been stealing from us for way too long, the mega wealthy suck and one of these day's they will be held accountable for the stealing they do through taxes, health insurance and plenty more these mega wealthy are mostly paracites living off the working men and woman of this country.
s46d45m17 1 year ago
Katrina Walker is smart and gorgeous. She should be a politician. I would watch CSPAN.
gturmindright 1 year ago
The gov't option is meant to regulate ins. comp. and doctors in order to bring costs to a reasonable level while providing health care for all. You could easily have found it on google. Commerce clause: "to regulate commerce . . . among the several states." Also, the Supreme Court has granted the power to regulate to the Fed. Gov't. Its very simple, like I have said. Why wouldn't you sacrifice money (not freedom) to help your fellow citizens? It sounds more like greed than a political position.
properbeatz 1 year ago
@properbeatz Making someone participate in the FREE MARKET is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. It is not within the realm of the Commerce clause. That is NONSENSE.
Greed is wanting what others have. NOT wanting to keep what is yours. And you have all the freedom you spend your money as you see fit.. The Government takes donations. No one is stopping you. You shouldn't invade the Liberty of others to do what they want.
evolutionist101 1 year ago
@evolutionist101 If you wouldn't participate in the tax system you wouldn't be subject to crime and punishment. (Doesn't make sense) Our tax system REQUIRES us to pay into it. We can be jailed if we don't participate. That system controls costs for us all by investing in roads that would be impossible to build otherwise. I'm not buying that lame argument. It is not a matter of liberty. You are just a cheap and greedy LITTLE man. BTW, the money is the peoples, not yours. COMMUNIty!
properbeatz 1 year ago
@evolutionist101 How is that not within the realm of the commerce clause? All regulation stems from that clause. It can be bent and twisted any way you want it to be. That dismissive statement sounds like your entire argument: Weak but works on 12 y/o. "That's nonsense. That pony was meant for me daddy." Progress wins. Every time. Everyone deserves access to the latest health care. Like you said it would probably benefit everyone and increase the quality of life. The only part left: greed.
properbeatz 1 year ago
@properbeatz YOU are the one BENDING and TWISTING it. The Money belongs to the INDIVIDUAL. NOT the COMMUNITY. The FED GOV does not get the power to FORCE you to participate in the FREE MARKET. You simply imply a power that DOES NOT EXIST. Ever hear of individual freedom? It goes with the FREE MARKET.
Who said anything about NOT paying taxes? You're just trying to use it for UNCONSTITUTIONAL matters.You simply have no idea what you're talking about. You'd make Karl Marx happy. Not the Founders.
evolutionist101 1 year ago
@evolutionist101 Again the constitution does not say that we have a free market system. If we are going purely by the constitution, than the free market shouldn't be included. My point? Any lawyer can bend the constitution. So in that sense, we're all screwed and have been for quite a while.
The idea: All American's need health care. (Like we need water)
The current sit: Millions do not. Costs are ridiculous. (Sherm. Anti-trust.)
The act: We all participate and we see a red. in all aspects.
properbeatz 1 year ago
@properbeatz The Constitution doesn't have to say we have a free market for it to exist. It doesn't say anything about Economic Choices of the people. So I don't even know why you think you made a point. The Constitution however, prevents the FED GOV from forcing to buy anything. It doesn't list it as a power of the FED GOV. Therefor, it is reserved to the States, or the people.
True, ANY lawyer can TRY to bend the Constitution...but it says what it says. All you have to do is know how to read.
evolutionist101 1 year ago
@evolutionist101 We don't have a stable economy because our wealth is unequally balanced. Achieving that balance is crucial to the sustainability of our economy, as well as economies all across the world that rely on our system. As a nation, our main priority is the preservation of the lives of our citizens at any cost (not our liberty! I know. You've said that word 1000 times.) What system would you propose? Obama attempted to include the free market via the mandate. How would you go about it?
properbeatz 1 year ago
@properbeatz Their will never be total balance in a free market. It's a pipe dream. Our balance comes from "liberty". (there's that word again) No where in the Constitution does it state a "main priority". Everything is important equally. And everything that is important...is listed. I propose that we allow people to save money(tax free) for medical reasons.I propose we open up the free market and allow all 50 States to sell insurance nationwide. A New Yorker can buy insurance from Oregon..cont
evolutionist101 1 year ago
@evolutionist101 It is not their money. They earned it in our society, on our roads, and on the backs of the working class. Like the family who has nothing but provides everything for their kids so that their kids may one day take care of the family. We invest, succeed, and fail. The successes we incur are used to elevate the ones around us to a higher point so that they may one day enjoy the comforts of a more relaxed lifestyle.
properbeatz 1 year ago
@properbeatz My point of the analogy was to show that being forced to buy ANYTHING is Un-American. I disagree that the European and Canadian models are anywhere near perfection. They have scaled back due to extreme costs. Also, why do their Politicians come to America for any Major Medical Procedures?
Question:If you purchase a vehicle with cold hard cash, is tat vehicle really yours? Or does it still belong to the Car Company? My point is.....CONTINUED
evolutionist101 1 year ago
@evolutionist101 Because in America if you are rich you come first and if you're poor nobody cares about you.
A portion oft the money that was earned in this country belongs to the people of this country. That is not a flawed mentality. That is the tax system.
If it were confiscation then yes I would agree. But it is a re-balancing. The tax rates in the early 1900's were 80% and jobs were still being created. It is a disillusion that raising taxes will all of a sudden make the rich move to
properbeatz 1 year ago
@properbeatz I'm not speaking of the tax system. It sounds like you are saying that if you purchase an item from a company, even after the exchange of goods, that money is still yours and they should give that money back. That is a flawed mentality. That's like saying a car company can come back and drive YOUR when they need it. I mean..they made it...right? Or is it now PRIVATE PROPERTY? Raising taxes of corporations does NOT promote job growth. It is simple Economics.
evolutionist101 1 year ago
@evolutionist101 OK if you purchase an item from a company that's an item YOU paid for the roads it was shipped on --likely YOU paid for at least some of the R&D to create YOU paid to teach the consumers and employees of that company to read the label and YOU helped build the complex system of commerce that company used to create it so yes YOU deserve some of that money bac,k. That company didn't do it all alone without help from the society it operates in.
sinistar99 1 year ago
@properbeatz The more competition between insurance company's, the cheaper it will be. Will the system be perfect? Nope. We can make little tweaks at a time. Question: What if Obama attempted to open the Free market via a mandate that said: "You MUST purchase a car from any dealership you wish! Otherwise you will be fined and put in jail!"
If your view of the commerce clause is correct. What would stop the FED GOV from doing that?
evolutionist101 1 year ago
@evolutionist101 That is like saying you must buy paper towels from any store you wish. It really doesn't interfere with anyone's right.
There is no perfect system, but the European and Canadian models are very close to perfection. Why wouldn't you be in favor of an amendment that would help our nation as a whole? The rich don't like to give up their wealth, but they seem to forget that the overabundance of wealth they acquire at a certain point must be shared.
properbeatz 1 year ago
@properbeatz According to you, since I have an 8 year old car, the FED GOV has the right to require me to buy another car so I can pay taxes on it!!! I mean......where does it say we have a free market Economy? It's community money!! Right? Jeez....
evolutionist101 1 year ago
@evolutionist101 Forcing individuals to buy health care would be a bit harsh if it weren't for the rebates associated with ones participation. In the end, there really is no disadvantage... Except to the rich who will finally have to go back to their earning levels many years ago.
properbeatz 1 year ago
@properbeatz "In the end, there really is no disadvantage... Except to the rich who will finally have to go back to their earning levels many years ago."
and what do you think will happen to the jobs? What incentive do they have to hire anyone/expand the company, when being taxed to death? Create more government jobs maybe? That doesn't generate wealth.
A free, organic economy does......
evolutionist101 1 year ago
@evolutionist101 I understand your point about mandates. Requiring is a bit harsh. What about a socialized medical system like Canada or Europe? Are you opposed to that? Taxing the upper 1% wouldn't hinder job growth. It would actually prevent a stagnant economy (like the one we have now.) The top 1% don't spend money, they save it. We have consistently been lowering taxes for the rich for 80 years. Those actions have produced today's economic disaster. If you give Am. more, we will spend more.
properbeatz 1 year ago
@properbeatz Yes. I would oppose ANY socialized medical system. It's simply not allowed by the Constitution on the Federal level. If you wish to Amend the Constitution to allow it...so be it. I must be consistent. I simply have no right to take money from the top 1%. It it their money. Do I think the filthy, stinking rich should give more of their money away? Yes, but not at the point of a gun. I will not empower the government to confiscate the wealth of others.
evolutionist101 1 year ago
@evolutionist101 In this country, the poor have given up what little they have for many years. Now, it is the rich mans turn to pick up the slack so that the poor may rise above, but the rich are fighting it every step of the way. I understand that no one should be forced, but the situation has gotten to a point where it has become impossible to "go peacefully". Compromising with them leads to one place: The rich getting richer, and the poor getting poorer. I'm tired of working and them reaping.
properbeatz 1 year ago
@properbeatz once the exchange of capital takes place(including goods for goods) it is no longer YOURS. Once you buy something....that's it!! It's done. The vehicle(or ANY good) belongs to YOU and the money belongs to the SELLER. You have to get over this flawed mentality that the money is still yours. This "situation" you speak of has always existed. It hasn't reached ANY point. The confiscation of wealth and property is Un-American.
evolutionist101 1 year ago
@evolutionist101 the Cayman Islands. Why would anyone begin to think that the rich will move out of this country once they are paying a fair tax rate.
My questions to you: 1. How would you generate capital within the Fed. Gov't without raising taxes on the rich?
2. How would you restructure health care so that we are all covered without a gov't option?
properbeatz 1 year ago
@properbeatz 47% of American households did not paying FED Income taxes this year.You saying that's fair?
Answer to your questions:
1)First we need to gut the Expense of the FED GOV. They already have too many UNconstitutional bureaucracy's that cost BILLIONS upon BILLIONS. Make the FED GOV stay within the limits of the Constitution and there would be no reason to "generate" more capital.
2)I would not restructure healthcare with a FED GOV. option.(State issue) We don't have a right Healthcare.
evolutionist101 1 year ago
@evolutionist101 We don't have a right to healthcare? Then why do we have a right to police or fire protection? Or do we? And those Americans don't pay FED income tax because the top 1% has 80% of the wealth in this country. They CAN'T pay income tax because after the HS companies raised their rates 400%, they pay more of their income in taxes and fees by far than the top 1% --that's what isn't fair. Cons should just donate to the very wealthy if they're so worried about their tax burden.
sinistar99 1 year ago
@sinistar99 NO. We don't have a right to Police or Fire Protection. If you did, you could sue them for not protecting your safety or your property. You should read more.
evolutionist101 1 year ago
@evolutionist101 You know you don't have to pay tabs on your car that's completely volountary right? Just don't drive it on public roads! If you want to enjoy all the benefits of this society without paying for them then YOU'RE the one stealing and you're the one who's unAmerican.
sinistar99 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sinistar99 You stated-----"You know you don't have to pay tabs on your car that's completely volountary right? Just don't drive it on public roads! If you want to enjoy all the benefits of this society without paying for them then YOU'RE the one stealing and you're the one who's unAmerican."
That made so little sense...I simply can't respond to it. You may need to clarify.
evolutionist101 1 year ago
Comment removed
evolutionist101 1 year ago
We need to back up in time and see the bigger picture. Being Progressive is not a problem solver. Being Progressive is serving some one elses agenda. Please review the USA's past. Being Progressive does not serve the USA well.
Freeskies 1 year ago
This is the idea: when you take the middleman (millionaire officers, their extravagant offices, and private jets) out of the equation, the cost to every citizen in the country drops drastically. We spend 16% of our GDP on health care. Yet we still have millions of uninsured citizens whereas Norway spends 8.9% and manages to cover every citizen fully. My question: What is wrong with a system that covers all for less?
properbeatz 1 year ago
shes cute
KuriVaiM 1 year ago
How about we take all the money we've been giving to these international bankers for nothing and use that for health care. Our health care systems would be budgeted in the trillions.
Scobo11 1 year ago
I noticed you said "right to life" I have to assume them you're against abortion? Where does the Constitution state anything about freedom from poverty?
evolutionist101 1 year ago
I like the description of the video. TRANSLATION: This is Katrina Walker, a former Republican voter that once enjoyed the thought of individual liberty, until she had a personal experience!!!
evolutionist101 1 year ago
Maybe now you can help that asshole Grayson move his office furniture out of DC? Funny, I think if you spent more time actually HELPING your mother, than you do wasting money on flowers, and LYING on You Tube (If you've ever been a Republican, toots, then I'm Soupy Sales!). Get comfortable with the minimum wage, bimbo, cause that's what you'll be earning till you're eighty...........
FrankeeFraud 1 year ago
Comment removed
waynerd23 1 year ago
Great points about other "public options", loved it!
REALLY sad he's not holding office, now...
But I think, and I hope, his voice will continue to be heard
THANKS SO MUCH!!
billieMadley 1 year ago 2
Katrina Walker=" Hello , I'm a former republican voter, and I stopped by Alan Grayson's office today to get some tips on how to suck cock.
Because Al is the biggest ass kissing cock sucker in Washington DC!"
ekajeht 1 year ago
This is so staged.
PawtucketPatriot66 1 year ago
@PawtucketPatriot66
After the dirty tricks and lies that Grayson pulled in this election, yeah we really believe this story. The American people are wise to these crooks and in 2012 we will finish the job.
joesphx19 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Alan, the house has called you back in session this week...
Now clean out your desk !!!! YOUR FIRED ~~~!!!!!!!!
America wants your political career to....DIE QUICKLY !!!!!
Hlaaah...Haaaaa.....haaa...Blahhh...Haaaa......political career to....DIE QUICKLY....Hlaaaa.....HAAAAA....... Pzsttttttttttttt...... PISS ON GRAYSON.
ASentinel2 1 year ago
Obamacare is not the answer. The insurance for our company employees just went up 35%, that is for a typical family it went from $12,000.00 a year to $19,000.00 a year. Why? Obamacare. The insurance companies plainly said they are now paying for free benefits under Obamacare that their insurance customers don't get. Just as everyone that actually read the bill said, it's raising cost, it's killing benefits, it's destroying private insurance, and it WILL lead to rationing.
TAMPADOC64 1 year ago
Very well said! I your youtube on my blog under "Wall of Fame."
I created piggybankblog com for all those who have been abused by Bank of Destroying America's potentially irregular, fraudulent and simply abusive home loan modification. I was inspired by your youtube to put a section for move your money campaign.
My name is John Wright and I AM FIGHTING BACK!
wright4ULG 1 year ago
She is HOTTT
briansle 1 year ago 3
You watch CNN and Rachel Maddow and you're a "former Republican? "People get sick because of profits?" Nice try, bimbo. You're mother probably lost her job (if she ever had one) cause she's a lazy incompetent who faked injuries so she could stay home and drink.
FrankeeFraud 1 year ago
@FrankeeFraud .. shit head @FrankeeFraud
you're the problem in this country, for a multitude of reasons!
Katrina Walker speaks out with concern and truth.
FrankeeFraud you're an ignorant bully, full of hate... Tea anyone?
billieMadley 1 year ago
@billieMadley Another loser who'll be making minimum wage till he dies....ladies and gentlemen, I give you dickhead extraordinaire, BILLIEMADLEY!
FrankeeFraud 1 year ago
I'd heard there was a couple of people out there happy about Healthcare.
Now we know who half of them are....
LWCProducts 1 year ago
Are you better off today than you were two years ago? HELP A DEM VOTE THEIR ASSES OUT!
mueygringo 1 year ago
Katrina I think I'm in Love with you.
hwydaddy 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Fucking little bitch is a traitor. You have sided with terrorists. Who cares if you faggot mother is poor. I'm doing just great, it's a dog eat dog world, get used to it or fuck off.
rebublicanpower 1 year ago
I wonder why Sean "Don't Waterboard me, Bro'!" Hannity, Flush, Bully O'Reilly, or any of these other loud mouths didn't bring him in to their studios. Could it be that they don't WANt a guy in their studios who could kick their ass and looks to have already put on the boots to do it?
mnjyckque 1 year ago
You're a liar. You're not a former republican. You're a liberal poser, a liberal plant. This is a completely fabricated story.. You LIE !!
angela1894 1 year ago
@angela1894 All liberals lie, just watch one of Alan Grayson videos for proof of that! The only way Grayson got elected is because the majority of his constituents here in Florida are seniors, half blind and mostly deaf. Much like the majority that voted for obama/biden.
dantheleo 1 year ago
@angela1894 Why so angry? Do you resent the fact that education cures conservativism? I too used to be a Republican. I voted for Bush in '04. What happened? I educated myself, and stopped buying into the false dichotomy that the GOP has created
el100783 1 year ago 2
I am not a member of ANY political party but Alan Grayson is one of the very few Democrats that make me lean a bit towards the left.!
Slayerfan84 1 year ago
@Slayerfan84 Don't forget Dennis Kuchinich.
SirPwn4lot 1 year ago 2
@SirPwn4lot Absolutely!
Slayerfan84 1 year ago 4
@Slayerfan84 Don't lie....you've always loved Socialism.
evolutionist101 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@evolutionist101 WTF? Look you turd ball I don't know who you are and show me proof of what you just said you lying piece of donkey shit!
Slayerfan84 1 year ago
@evolutionist101 You've got a problem. "Socialism" is both a utilitarian (The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few) and humanitarian ideology. The essence of it (do unto others as you you would have them do unto you) is at the heart of virtually every form ofreligion and spirituality developed by human culture The way of the right: "Every man for himself" isn't even a legitimate ideology, it's a barbaric impulse that sinks beneath the dignity of the lowliest social animals on earth.
ousamequin 1 year ago
@ousamequin So you're saying that the "needs of the many" should be FORCED upon us by government. Yeah...sounds like you love Liberty.
evolutionist101 1 year ago
@evolutionist101 Indeed, I do love liberty! The needs of the many will be present, regardless of whether you would wish away them or not. However, A society that ignores the needs of its citizens is not in any way free - it is a grim and despotic oligarchy of the wealthiest, devoid of the even the most elemental liberties: equality, the right to life, and freedom from poverty.
ousamequin 1 year ago
@ousamequin I never said anything about ignoring the needs of others. I said the FED GOV has no business nor the power granted to it by the Constitution to force others to pay for someone else.
evolutionist101 1 year ago
@evolutionist101 the needs of the many aren't being forced upon "us" by the government, We the people ARE the many! I'd like to know who you mean by "us" btw - the wealthiest 1 %? the corporate elite? Those who get more than $250,000 in income a year? Wall Street Bankers? Are you one of them? Perhaps you are. I don't know about you, but my health insurance options suck!
ousamequin 1 year ago
@ousamequin you just proved my point. You're a collectivist. You don't believe in INDIVIDUAL liberty. This is a representative republic. NOT a Democracy. The majority just doesn't get what it wants. I'm a 100k short of 250k. I'm far from being wealthy. As for your health insurance options...why should I be responsible for your life?
evolutionist101 1 year ago
@evolutionist101 Because we live in a civilized society? Maybe that has something to do with why we help each other. And I honestly don't care that rich people don't want to pay taxes. WE THE PEOPLE with a MAJORITY will elect officials that make you pay 85% taxes (like it was in the early 1900's). So pffffftttt!!!! There's nothing you can do about it! Rich loser.
properbeatz 1 year ago
@properbeatz Who said rich people don't want to pay taxes? BTW. You need to learn a little about the Constitution. The MAJORITY doesn't just get what it wants. This is a representative republic. NOT a DEMOCRACY. The MAJORITY has to abide by the Constitution. Tell you what. I don't care if poor people don't want to pay taxes. They need to contribute. Since when is it "CIVILIZED" To have the FED GOV to FORCE you to help someone? I don't expect a response...you're ignorant.
evolutionist101 1 year ago
@evolutionist101 No. I'm actually quite intelligent. I'm sorry you're so cold and callous though. Good luck! Oh, and we'll still win in the end. Can you say French revolution-like civilian rebellion? Oh and we're not forcing. You can move to... Oh wait... Every modernized nation other than us has socialized medicine (not to mention a much smaller, almost nonexistent, debt.) and social welfare programs that would make us look like barbarians (like the one I'm addressing in this comment.) Peace
properbeatz 1 year ago
@properbeatz Why am I cold and callous? Is it because I wish to give freely as I choose without the force of Government? You obviously revile Liberty. You obviously support no rule of law and hate our Constitution. BTW. Since you have so many wonderful and caring Nations to choose from...please feel free to participate there.
There is nothing barbaric about Liberty. Read up on it..it may help.
evolutionist101 1 year ago
@evolutionist101 This is the idea: when you take the middleman (millionaire officers, their extravagant offices, and private jets) out of the equation, the cost to every citizen in the country drops drastically. We spend 16% of our GDP on health care. Yet we still have millions of uninsured citizens whereas Norway spends 8.9% and manages to cover every citizen fully. My question: What is wrong with a system that covers all for less?
properbeatz 1 year ago
@properbeatz Here's the deal. We don't have a RIGHT to healthcare. We simply do not have a RIGHT to someone elses labor. No where in the Constitution does the FED GOV have the power to create Healthcare. This is a State issue. If a state wishes to create healthcare, it is well within the limits of the Constitution.
Name one Federal Bureaucracy that actually starts out at one cost and NEVER increases. It is a fantasy to believe cost will go down.
evolutionist101 1 year ago
@evolutionist101 That is quite possibly the worst and most cliche excuse that rich people use to get out of paying their share. If you make 1mil/yr, they should take 800,000 in taxes. You still have a nice chunk and people who can't find work will share in the wealth. What you elites truly believe is this twisted idea that poor people don't want to work or better themselves. It's really sad. Do you know why they didn't write a health care provision into the constitution?
properbeatz 1 year ago
@properbeatz 80%!? You're insane. Share the wealth? You and Karl Marx can go share. Keep you hands of of other peoples money. It is the "elites" that think they can do better with MY money. As for the "general welfare" It only speaks of the "general welfare" of the U.S., NOT THE PEOPLE. The General welfare is defined by the 18 enumerated powers in the Constitution. THAT IS ALL. Anything else(like healthcare) would be a State issue.
evolutionist101 1 year ago
@evolutionist101 Because the founders didn't know about these predatory insurance companies. They assumed that if a person were to fall on ill health that person would be taken care of. (remember, this is before becoming a doctor was extremely profitable.) They expected "the general welfare" of its citizens to include their health. A simple system that would eliminate a lot of waste on the side of the indiv. as well as the gov't and cover every citizen without question is the best solution.
properbeatz 1 year ago
@properbeatz Please tell me where anyone would get the incentive to work if the FED GOV confiscated 80% there wealth? Where would the jobs come from? The FED GOV? The FED GOV doesn't produce wealth!! The Private sector DOES!! What you're trying to tell me is our Founding Fathers would want BIG GOV and HIGH TAXES. When in fact, they believed in quite the OPPOSITE. Explain what a "predatory insurance company" is. They sell a service. You can choose to buy.....OR NOT.You have no RIGHT to healthcare
evolutionist101 1 year ago
@evolutionist101 But just wait. When you're old and dying with no one to care for you and all of your money has been spent on a nursing home but you still have a few more years to go so they float you around til you die, then you can truly know how it feels to be without. I will have $1200 (including interest) in debt that I have absolutely no intention to ever pay back from that single hospital visit. Every person has the right to health care via Hippocratic oath jackass.
properbeatz 1 year ago
@evolutionist101 Let me put this into perspective: I started working at a job in June of 2009. I had to wait until January of 2010 to apply for health insurance. The day I signed up for it my hand that had been burned with hot oil (a cooking injury of pure accident that occurred at my house many days before) began to throb and emit pus. I went to the hospital. Since my insurance hadn't kicked in, I now owe $900 (just principal). All they did: Wash it, bandage it, then gave me a script.
properbeatz 1 year ago
@evolutionist101 Does that service seem like