The United States can not afford universal Healthcare

think how your life would be if there were no businesses, only greedy global corporations

I am defending Capitalism, greedy Global Corporatism is the threat to Capitalism

 

It's not "fallacies". I worked with many of these folks, in a job that I created for myself selling electronic cigarettes to convenience stores and gas stations. With the exception of management and owners, most of the people I dealt with made $7-10 per hour. If they'd held those jobs for many years, maybe a few bucks more.

And virtually every one of them was sporting the latest and greatest iPhone or Android phone in their pockets. I've seen it with my own two eyes on literally hundreds of occasions.

How did they end up in dead-end jobs in sometimes their 30s, 40s, even beyond? Poor choices. How did they end up with those expensive phones? More poor choices, since a good many of them were on the dole, and had other, more important things they should have been spending their money on, instead of ours.

It's not necessarily universally true, but for a large percentage of those with financial problems, it started with poor choices in high school. The biggest one being not graduating at all, but not showing up, not applying yourself, screwing off and somehow managing to graduate unable to read or write, the potential list goes on and on. Maybe having a kid, two even, by 17.

I'd bet money I don't have if you did a root cause analysis on 40-year-olds who are in the "working poor", you'd find for an overwhelming majority of them, the problems started in (or perhaps even before) high school. Obviously, we do not have time machines, so there's no re-do's, but most of those mistakes can be mitigated by some of the suggestions I've already made repeatedly. Get a GED, learn how to paint, or drywall, or program, or any one of ten-thousand different things that will get them out of that dead-end 7-11 job that's more appropriate for teenagers working part-time than for single middle aged adults with multiple kids.

But instead of insisting they do such things, or forcing them to by making their alternative homelessness and starvation, we give them free stuff instead, keeping them dependent on the government teat for the rest of their lives.

 

Actually, I'm perfectly aware of that. Even products that are marketed as "Free Shipping" are not free, it's just the shipping costs are embedded into the product price. But what does that have to do with anything?

 

That just because someone may use roads, and other thing not very much, doesn't mean they don't greatly benefit from them.

 

Unless there is a matter transporter we don't know about, everybody uses the roads, directly, or indirectly. From the moment you leave your home and go to church, go get groceries, take you wife to a nice fancy dinner, have food or goods delivered to your home that is more than a few pounds, and so forth, you are using the roads. Hence your argument is not logical at all.

Yes and no. Working poor can include a sinjgle mother, divorced, and raising two kids because the father abondended them, cheated on her and refuses to take care of the kids through child support. Not exactly her fault in that situation, is it? More likely the fault of the father who refuses to pay child support or chose to cheat on her. A majority of the working poor are immigrants and thus are starting fresh in a new land, with new opportunities, because they could no longer live in their home country for one reason or another beyond their control. Then you have excons who have paid their debt to society, made amends, trying to go the straight path; yet society as a whole still punishes them because they cannot get a good paying job because of their past.

 

There is no real difference between what you call "greedy Global Corporatism" and you wanting a raise from your job.

 

Take it up with the person who brought it up son. It wasn't me.

 

sure there is, excessive foreign outsourcing and excessive foreign imports are killing capitalism

 

You're making no sense at all. Virtually everyone uses roads to an extent, even those who don't own cars and never leave their homes. When they get food delivered, or a TV from Amazon (or Best Buy, or whatever), even to say, a large, heavy tractor, part of the cost associated with that purchase go to cover the costs, be it the existing gas taxes (and whatever other tax subsidies that are necessary), or to a true pay-as-you-go weight/mile tax. It might only be $.00004 for a single apple to hundreds of dollars for something I'm trying to purchase, which is a motorized wheelchair. For that tractor it could be thousands.

But even that person with no car who never leaves their house pays for using those roads, it's just indirect and only sometimes enumerated.

 

"So, you think it's perfectly fair and appropriate to charge people who AREN'T using roads (or are using them less) to pay the costs for those who are? Do you think "the working poor" should pay less for a loaf of bread, pair of shoes, or cell phone by having more wealthy individuals pay a portion (or all) of their bills for those things?"

should people pay less tax per dollar, because they earned more dollars

should people pay less sales tax because they spent more dollars

 

You're right! Of course, I've already conceded and explained that in numerous posts, including the very last one I made in this thread, so there's no point discussing it further.

There are exceptions to every rule, but this is a particularly bad example. The reason for that is because if a deadbeat dad is not meeting his obligations, the Courts can and will garnish his wages in a NY minute. I can also point out that if your hypothetical mother has no skills herself, she too can fix that by following the advice I've given in this thread more times than I care to count.

If they are illegal aliens then not only are their problems their problems, the proper solution is to send them back to whence they came. It is not, or at least it should not be, our society's problem to take care of the dregs of some other society. Generally speaking to immigrate legally you must demonstrate that you have the financial resources to take care of yourself and, if you have one, your family, so that would not apply.

That is something they should have thought about before they became cons in the first place. The most serious black-mark on my record is a speeding ticket, and I'm guessing the same is probably true for you. For me, at least, this did not happen in a vacuum. While there were times in my life that knocking over a liquor store or robbing a bank could have benefited me, I chose not to. For people who went the other road, well, they made their own beds, and now they have to lie in them.

I would not, however, object to an idea like allowing minor felonies to be discharged from someone's record, depending on the crime itself, the amount of time since it's happened, and perhaps other factors, like getting that almighty GED I keep talking about. If some random 30-year-old is still dealing with a stupid joyride he did at the age of 18 and 1 day that was a felony, they should have a way out. OTOH, anyone guilty of any sort of intentional homicide, naw, screw them. They probably shouldn't even be out of prison in the first place.

 

No. But they shouldn't pay more, either, if we absolutely must have an income tax, it should be a flat rate above a floor like the poverty rate.

Again, no. The sales tax should apply equally to all taxable goods, regardless of how much any particular individual spends.

Having answered your questions, I'm not sure of the relevance, particularly considering what you quoted from my prior post.

 

never said that should pay more, I said they should pay the same tax per dollar for EVERY dollar they earn too

 

So you want criminals to keep committing crimes. Got it.

 

There is nothing to take up.
I merely posted straight up numbers.

 

Strawman, LMAO

 

“What does that really mean when they say that Florida has the lowest rate in the country?” Dr. David Cutler, a family medicine physician at Providence Saint John’s Health Center in Santa Monica, California, told Healthline.

“Because Florida only reports those positive cases among people who are full-time residents of Florida. So, if your full-time residence is in Ohio, and you have a condo in Miami Beach and you go down there and you get COVID, you’re not a case in Florida. You’re not even a case in Ohio. You’re nothing, and that’s why I don’t put a lot of impact on that Florida case rate.”

But even if we do take the case rate at face value, we probably shouldn’t weigh it very strongly, says Dr. Purvi Parikh, an adult and pediatric allergist and immunologist with Allergy & Asthma Network.

“I do not think their overall caseload affects the current infection rate. That depends on the spread of disease, vaccinations, and other factors,” Parikh told Healthline. “There was a time a few months back where they had a very high infection rate, with ICUs and hospitals at capacity, while other areas of the country had low infection rates.”

One factor that might account for the current low case rate is that COVID-19 has already touched many Floridians.

The state has seen more than 60,000 deaths from the coronavirus, the third-highest in the nation behind Texas and California.

It also had the third-highest total number of COVID-19 cases — 3.6 million — again behind Texas and California.

Florida also is among the top 10 states in per capita death rates from COVID-19, at 281 deaths per 100,000 people. Its rate is higher than Texas and California.

On the other hand, more restrictive Hawaii has the second-lowest death rate in the country, at just 67 per 100,000 people, higher than only Vermont.

“Florida’s warmer weather may help in that people are outdoors more to avoid spread,” Parikh suggested. “Also, Florida is less densely populated in certain areas, which also helps.”

But much like comparing California and Florida, which took different approaches to pandemic mitigation but at one point had similar per capita case rates, there are probably too many variables to be able to clearly identify why different approaches between these states had similar results.

“If you’re only manipulating one variable, [per capita case rate] might tell you something, but where there are so many variables of whether you’re masking or vaccinating or not, schools open or not, businesses requiring documentation of vaccines, or not — I think it’s really hard to tell which of those variables is impactful,” Cutler said.

“And when you just identify them by state, it just becomes purely political. It’s about where those people lived. And I’m not sure that that has much bearing whatsoever.”
https://www.healthline.com/health-n...19-case-rate#The-high-cost-of-a-low-case-rate

 

So you are claiming the U.S. didn't lock down other than essential workers?

You're right!

 

"Global corporations" are businesses.

 

Since most health insurance premiums are paid by employers, it is nice of you have people paying more taxes so employers get to reduce costs. We need LESS government, not more. Much much less.

 

Do you realize that corporations, global or otherwise, are all businesses?

 

Corporatism vs Capitalism, local business are losing

which means the American worker is losing, the jobs are being shipped overseas

 

Yes, so? He's still not talking about business in general.

 

The topic is universal health care.

 

"Capitalism" has its destruction inherent in it. This is why "capitalism" cannot long continue without moderating influences. There are aspects to that economic system that are fine and others that are not constructive in the long run. Good sense, as always, should prevail. Making "capitalism" into some quasi-religious faith is entirely mistaken.