OT: Michael Moore's Sicko

Discussion of music production, audio, equipment and any related topics, either with or without Ableton Live
Brock Landers
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 7:35 pm

Post by Brock Landers » Fri Jun 15, 2007 5:31 am

American health insurance companies are horrible.

Blue Cross Blue Shield for instance will only cover 9 of my 13 inches; saying the other 4 inches is abnormal and does not fit in their health plan. What a freakin joke.
I am a star. I am a big bright shining star.

fortycoats
Posts: 30
Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2006 10:24 pm

Post by fortycoats » Fri Jun 15, 2007 5:37 am

Wishbone wrote: Its JUST A coincidence that as Ireland became less socialist that the countries economy starting doing so well.
hehe the socialist era was a nightmare

i think you meant to say this



Its JUST A coincidence that as Ireland offered massive tax breaks to U.S corporations that the countries economy starting doing so well.

Wishbone
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2007 6:11 pm

Post by Wishbone » Fri Jun 15, 2007 7:09 am

Here's how taxes should work. TREAT EVERYBODY EQUALLY. No matter what pay X%. You make a million you pay X%. You make 20,000, pay X%. You have a farm, you're own LLC? Doesn't matter pay x%.

Half the problem is the ridiculous ways you can get around taxes. We have a ENTIRE profession dedicated to sorting out the tax code, thats how ridiculous it is.

Also, you simply can't tax the rich because they are the rich. It creates disincentive for them to make more money. You're not going to work a lot harder if you know that a great portion of your hard work is going to go to the government. This is shown in something called the Laffer Curve. Even though there is no economic benefit for the progressive tax, you still shouldnt have it because its unfair. Obviously, its tough to feel bad for the rich, I can understand that (kind of), however if you truly believe people should be treated equally under the law, then the progressive tax is unlawful.


Actually having an income tax was illegal in the USA a while back.

chrysalis33rpm
Posts: 1020
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 9:56 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by chrysalis33rpm » Fri Jun 15, 2007 10:01 am

Wishbone wrote: What are the 3 biggest fiscal problems we are facing in this country?
Social Security
Medicare/Medicaid
Education

What are the 3 most government controlled sectors of business
Social Security
Medicare/Medicaid
Education
Wishbone, you really must add that rather expensive war in IRAQ to the top of this list...unless you think that Iraq is not a problem we are facing "in this country". Then you can add "military" to the second list, where it fits in perfectly. (The military consumes about 50% of all discretionary funding approved by Congress. Its books are in such bad shape that an audit of where the money is actually being spent cannot even be performed. http://www.sensiblepriorities.org/budget_analysis.php)

Image

There are plenty of big brains on both sides of the philosophical divide here, I wouldn't go on implying that all Nobel prize winning economists agree with you, while people who don't are just dummies, and worse, socialists...

That said, I do find the idea of a flat rate tax intriguing...it might save everybody but the lawyers and accountants a whole lot of money!

There is an arguement which is perfectly plausible for taxing the rich more; it goes like this: the rich have many, many, advantages that others don't have. They use these advantages to secure their future and that of their children, naturally. This excludes others who don't have these advantages, making access to quality education, food, health care, and lifestyle more difficult if not impossble. This disparity is unfair. Thus, balancing out the disparity through income redistribution can be seen as entirely justified.

Then, you will say, but what about the poor who have become rich through a lifetime of hard work? Is it fair to take that away? Maybe not. I don't have the answer. I just want to point out that it's an extremely complicated question which has occupied the lives of many very bright people throughout history, and to just take the position that government management is bad, and privatization good, flat tax for all! is rather simplistic.

On the original topic of the thread, I haven't seen Moore's movie yet, but it would be a mistake for anyone to think that in France, for instance, healthcare is free. It is not. I pay every time I go to the doctor, I pay into an obligatory (public/privately held I believe) insurance company at what I feel are reasonable rates, and they reimburse me although not quite as much as I'd like, especially for dentistry. Most people carry some form of additional private insurance to make up the difference between what the obligatory insurance covers and the true cost of health care. The out of pocket expenses are significant but not nearly as much as they would be in the USA, from what I understand.

Taxes in France suck...I will say nothing more except that there is an annual tax on television sets here... 8O

tacvbo83
Posts: 167
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 12:36 am

Post by tacvbo83 » Fri Jun 15, 2007 2:26 pm

Wishbone wrote:Here's how taxes should work. TREAT EVERYBODY EQUALLY. No matter what pay X%. You make a million you pay X%. You make 20,000, pay X%. You have a farm, you're own LLC? Doesn't matter pay x%.

Half the problem is the ridiculous ways you can get around taxes. We have a ENTIRE profession dedicated to sorting out the tax code, thats how ridiculous it is.

Also, you simply can't tax the rich because they are the rich. It creates disincentive for them to make more money. You're not going to work a lot harder if you know that a great portion of your hard work is going to go to the government. This is shown in something called the Laffer Curve. Even though there is no economic benefit for the progressive tax, you still shouldnt have it because its unfair. Obviously, its tough to feel bad for the rich, I can understand that (kind of), however if you truly believe people should be treated equally under the law, then the progressive tax is unlawful.


Actually having an income tax was illegal in the USA a while back.

You are right in some points but don't tell me that because Paris Hilton is rich, she has worked harder than me. The idea that the rich work harder is not completly true. For an overall state of well being, the rich should be taxed just alittle bit more to semi-balance the gap and have a good life in general as a nation. The rich have more than enough money and the poor need just to have enough for their needs which in exchange will decrease crime and increase living standards.

lesterdiamond
Posts: 696
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2005 3:24 am

Post by lesterdiamond » Fri Jun 15, 2007 2:32 pm

Tone Deft wrote:
lesterdiamond wrote:he is really deceptive in how he presents information and proves his points, he does a lot of bending and holding back of information that would allow the viewer to see things in a completely different light

he makes a tunnel for you to look through
A documentary about how the car industry fucked up Detroit.
A documentary about gun control in the US not being 'in control'.
A documentary that the Bush administration is s-h-a-d-y.

Pretty straightforward obvious subjects.

Could the healthcare industry in the US be totally fucked up, omfg what a stretch! <sarcasm emoticon>. Wait to see the movie before judging.
i agree with his positions but i can't support his films, the subjects are straightforward but he's not, 32 percent of people know that :wink:

I didn't mean to say that the subject overall is a stretch, he stretches the facts. listening to him whine for and hour and a half gets tiring. he could make films and not thrust himself into the spotlight but he does :roll:

judging by his previous work, i don't need to see it, he even made the movie about the bush administration personally relevant to himself, rather than finding a really good story out there that would have a greater impact on the average viewer he went to Flint to find a woman who lost her son in the war

I know he's trying to show the impact on less fortunate people in this country, in smaller towns. Flint is a really bad spot to be in but when he continues to make everything about Flint, he loses credibility in my book, not that anyone should think twice about what I think, to me he is a joke, why make a movie with you all over it, let the subject be the star of the film

Someone should film a documentary about Moore filming a documentary, he'd like that

Wishbone
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2007 6:11 pm

Post by Wishbone » Fri Jun 15, 2007 5:33 pm

chrysalis33rpm wrote:
Wishbone, you really must add that rather expensive war in IRAQ to the top of this list...unless you think that Iraq is not a problem we are facing "in this country". Then you can add "military" to the second list, where it fits in perfectly. (The military consumes about 50% of all discretionary funding approved by Congress. Its books are in such bad shape that an audit of where the money is actually being spent cannot even be performed. http://www.sensiblepriorities.org/budget_analysis.php)
discretionary spending is a drop in the bucket compared to mandatory. Second of all we are talking about ALL defense spending in that graph, not just "the war in Iraq" you can't clump the two together. I think if you look at the LEAST amount of waste of money, its probably in defense spending. Because we aren't giving it to a burocracy full of govt. employees. We make the private market compete for our business.

Honestly one could easily make the argument that spending more money on health care is hurtful. There has been a documented inverse relationship between input (money spent) and output (there are several ways to measure this, not sure which one they used).


There is an arguement which is perfectly plausible for taxing the rich more; it goes like this: the rich have many, many, advantages that others don't have. They use these advantages to secure their future and that of their children, naturally. This excludes others who don't have these advantages, making access to quality education, food, health care, and lifestyle more difficult if not impossble. This disparity is unfair. Thus, balancing out the disparity through income redistribution can be seen as entirely justified.
Unfair? You mean unequal? You give kids school vouchers, and the playing field is even. What you are talking about is a taxation out of jealousy. The rich have more and the poor don't too bad.

You want everyone to get to the finish line at the same time, I want everyone at the starting line at the same time

Its not really a complicated question at all. The rich should be treated fairly like everyone else. If they inherited the money. Good for them, they are lucky, really lucky, but if you are poor and you value your success by comparing it to those people than you have already lost. You can't take away their money just to make the others feel better.
And I am not saying this because im some heartless rich dude, who hates the poor. I'm not, I am saying this because once you start trying to take money away from one group and give it to another, its has a overall large negative effect.
If there is a poor kid that doesn't have money, he should be able to have a voucher to go to a school of his choice. If he works hard and gets good grades in grade school he can go to a good high school of his choice. If he works hard he gets a scholarship and goes to a good college. The point is in the free market, you choose what life you lead.
If he becomes rich, he has deserved the right to give that money to his kids, so they dont have to go through what he did. Thats the reward for working hard.


What we should be focused on is liberty, not equality.

tacvbo83
Posts: 167
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 12:36 am

Post by tacvbo83 » Fri Jun 15, 2007 7:35 pm

Wishbone wrote:
chrysalis33rpm wrote:
Wishbone, you really must add that rather expensive war in IRAQ to the top of this list...unless you think that Iraq is not a problem we are facing "in this country". Then you can add "military" to the second list, where it fits in perfectly. (The military consumes about 50% of all discretionary funding approved by Congress. Its books are in such bad shape that an audit of where the money is actually being spent cannot even be performed. http://www.sensiblepriorities.org/budget_analysis.php)
discretionary spending is a drop in the bucket compared to mandatory. Second of all we are talking about ALL defense spending in that graph, not just "the war in Iraq" you can't clump the two together. I think if you look at the LEAST amount of waste of money, its probably in defense spending. Because we aren't giving it to a burocracy full of govt. employees. We make the private market compete for our business.

Honestly one could easily make the argument that spending more money on health care is hurtful. There has been a documented inverse relationship between input (money spent) and output (there are several ways to measure this, not sure which one they used).


There is an arguement which is perfectly plausible for taxing the rich more; it goes like this: the rich have many, many, advantages that others don't have. They use these advantages to secure their future and that of their children, naturally. This excludes others who don't have these advantages, making access to quality education, food, health care, and lifestyle more difficult if not impossble. This disparity is unfair. Thus, balancing out the disparity through income redistribution can be seen as entirely justified.
Unfair? You mean unequal? You give kids school vouchers, and the playing field is even. What you are talking about is a taxation out of jealousy. The rich have more and the poor don't too bad.

You want everyone to get to the finish line at the same time, I want everyone at the starting line at the same time

Its not really a complicated question at all. The rich should be treated fairly like everyone else. If they inherited the money. Good for them, they are lucky, really lucky, but if you are poor and you value your success by comparing it to those people than you have already lost. You can't take away their money just to make the others feel better.
And I am not saying this because im some heartless rich dude, who hates the poor. I'm not, I am saying this because once you start trying to take money away from one group and give it to another, its has a overall large negative effect.
If there is a poor kid that doesn't have money, he should be able to have a voucher to go to a school of his choice. If he works hard and gets good grades in grade school he can go to a good high school of his choice. If he works hard he gets a scholarship and goes to a good college. The point is in the free market, you choose what life you lead.
If he becomes rich, he has deserved the right to give that money to his kids, so they dont have to go through what he did. Thats the reward for working hard.


What we should be focused on is liberty, not equality.


May I ask what school you went to? Could it possibly be the University of What The Fuck? Are you an intern at Fox News? Are you related to Ann Coulter or Bill O'Reiley? Are you even in college yet? Are you just confused? Seems you have not understood my comments because I wrote the answers/examples to all your posts after my comments.

fortycoats
Posts: 30
Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2006 10:24 pm

Post by fortycoats » Fri Jun 15, 2007 9:26 pm

Wishbone wrote:I think if you look at the LEAST amount of waste of money, its probably in defense spending. Because we aren't giving it to a burocracy full of govt. employees. We make the private market compete for our business.
didn't they misplace over 2 trillion dollars in 2001?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/ ... 5985.shtml

M. Bréqs
Posts: 1479
Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2005 6:02 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Post by M. Bréqs » Fri Jun 15, 2007 11:26 pm

Personally I like the idea of a flat income tax. The tax form should be a single page with two calculation on it:

Enter how much you made last year_______________
Multiply by X%_____________________
Subtract $Y________.
Send us the remainder. If negative, we'll send you 1/12th of that ammount every month for the next year.

No shelters, no loopholes, nothing. X would be set each year by the executive / legislative government, Y would be the official poverty line for that household (calculated by state and number of dependants).

For instance, X could be 36%, Y could be $16,000. Then, a family of four (mom n' pop with two kids) making $100,000 per year would pay $20,000. A single mom on minimum with three kids would pay nothing, and get some moolah instead.

This could only work if it were the ONLY tax for the nation however.

Then, whenever government wants to increase spending, make it MANDATORY to balance the budget. The only number the govt would have to play with would be the percentage. Ta-Daaa, unreasonable demands for government expense would be obvious to all taxpayers, all of whom are treated equally, less a pitiful ammount. Taxpayers could easily see exactly what portion of their tax goes to pay interest on national debt, exactly what portion on military stuff, exactly what portion of THEIR tax goes to foreign aid, etc. Simple.

What could be wrong with that? It ensures that the rich pay their share, the poor aren't overburdened, and doesn't disfavour anybody...

Wishbone
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2007 6:11 pm

Post by Wishbone » Fri Jun 15, 2007 11:41 pm

tacvbo83 wrote: May I ask what school you went to? Could it possibly be the University of What The Fuck? Are you an intern at Fox News? Are you related to Ann Coulter or Bill O'Reiley? Are you even in college yet? Are you just confused? Seems you have not understood my comments because I wrote the answers/examples to all your posts after my comments.
A top 50 school.

But, I saw your comments, I included them in my retort, and did not misquote you or misrepresent your views in any way. For example, you said its a complicated issue. I said it was not. I gave a reasonable and logical argument of why the answer is quite clear. Therefore, your comments on whether I am confused are rather unjustified.

I am not saying there isn't waste in the military or the iraq war, I know that there is, its the government, and there is always going to be waste. No way to get around that. Thats my argument. And one can make the argument of whether to spend money on Iraq, thats something else, that goes beyond economics because you simply aren't looking for the best and efficient way to produce a good, you have a greater concern of national security.

However, if you concentrate on the industries that the government controls, they are all doing miserably.

Usually the liberal argument is that to go with the free market is to hurt the poor. However, if you look at our public school system, its more segregated, both racially and economically then it would under school vouchers. This has been proven my taking figures from places that do have vouchers like Milwaukee, and then comparing it to the normal public schools. If you look at social security it is also racially biased against blacks. Their average life span is lower than a white persons, yet they work for approximately the same amount of years. So they don't get as much money when the retire, because on average they die earlier. But instead of letting them do what they want with their money, we have to let the govt. choose for them.

You cannot paint me as a person that disregards the poor. If its anyone its you guys accusing me of that. I want to give these people the choice to spend their money where they want, save it how they want, and send their kids to school where they want. Why do you guys think they shouldn't have that choice?
Last edited by Wishbone on Fri Jun 15, 2007 11:55 pm, edited 4 times in total.

tacvbo83
Posts: 167
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 12:36 am

Post by tacvbo83 » Fri Jun 15, 2007 11:43 pm

M. Bréqs wrote:Personally I like the idea of a flat income tax. The tax form should be a single page with two calculation on it:

Enter how much you made last year_______________
Multiply by X%_____________________
Subtract $Y________.
Send us the remainder. If negative, we'll send you 1/12th of that ammount every month for the next year.

No shelters, no loopholes, nothing. X would be set each year by the executive / legislative government, Y would be the official poverty line for that household (calculated by state and number of dependants).

For instance, X could be 36%, Y could be $16,000. Then, a family of four (mom n' pop with two kids) making $100,000 per year would pay $20,000. A single mom on minimum with three kids would pay nothing, and get some moolah instead.

This could only work if it were the ONLY tax for the nation however.

Then, whenever government wants to increase spending, make it MANDATORY to balance the budget. The only number the govt would have to play with would be the percentage. Ta-Daaa, unreasonable demands for government expense would be obvious to all taxpayers, all of whom are treated equally, less a pitiful ammount. Taxpayers could easily see exactly what portion of their tax goes to pay interest on national debt, exactly what portion on military stuff, exactly what portion of THEIR tax goes to foreign aid, etc. Simple.

What could be wrong with that? It ensures that the rich pay their share, the poor aren't overburdened, and doesn't disfavour anybody...

You're exactly right. A flat tax with a certain percentage and no cap at all. if you make $20,000, 30% goes to tax, if you make a billion, 30% tax. That is fair because spending power should become proportional this way. To make an example of other people posting here not getting the point, you think bill gates is paying tax on all his billions. HELLZ NO, cause of the cap.

sweetjesus
Posts: 8803
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 3:12 pm
Location: www.fridge.net.au
Contact:

Post by sweetjesus » Tue Jun 19, 2007 4:03 pm

M. Bréqs wrote:Personally I like the idea of a flat income tax. The tax form should be a single page with two calculation on it:

Enter how much you made last year_______________
Multiply by X%_____________________
Subtract $Y________.
Send us the remainder. If negative, we'll send you 1/12th of that ammount every month for the next year.

No shelters, no loopholes, nothing. X would be set each year by the executive / legislative government, Y would be the official poverty line for that household (calculated by state and number of dependants).

For instance, X could be 36%, Y could be $16,000. Then, a family of four (mom n' pop with two kids) making $100,000 per year would pay $20,000. A single mom on minimum with three kids would pay nothing, and get some moolah instead.

This could only work if it were the ONLY tax for the nation however.

Then, whenever government wants to increase spending, make it MANDATORY to balance the budget. The only number the govt would have to play with would be the percentage. Ta-Daaa, unreasonable demands for government expense would be obvious to all taxpayers, all of whom are treated equally, less a pitiful ammount. Taxpayers could easily see exactly what portion of their tax goes to pay interest on national debt, exactly what portion on military stuff, exactly what portion of THEIR tax goes to foreign aid, etc. Simple.

What could be wrong with that? It ensures that the rich pay their share, the poor aren't overburdened, and doesn't disfavour anybody...

i dont even care what this thread is about... im now just disappointed at your choice of a signature mbreqs.

didnt think you were the type to try to add to the propaganda.

Angstrom
Posts: 14745
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 2:22 pm
Contact:

Post by Angstrom » Tue Jun 19, 2007 4:54 pm

I think tax payments should have a little section on them so you can say what proportion of your money goes to what activities. You fill in whatever takes your fancy.

x subsidizing strip clubs for the disabled - %20
x pedestrianization of city centers - %50
x weird architecture - %25
x basic mathematical education - %10

whatever your income, I think the idea that your money goes to activities you don't agree with is the issue that gets most people riled up.

I specialise in ill-thought-out policies. It seems no bar to a career in government.

tacvbo83
Posts: 167
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 12:36 am

Post by tacvbo83 » Tue Jun 19, 2007 6:11 pm

Wishbone wrote:
tacvbo83 wrote: May I ask what school you went to? Could it possibly be the University of What The Fuck? Are you an intern at Fox News? Are you related to Ann Coulter or Bill O'Reiley? Are you even in college yet? Are you just confused? Seems you have not understood my comments because I wrote the answers/examples to all your posts after my comments.
A top 50 school.

But, I saw your comments, I included them in my retort, and did not misquote you or misrepresent your views in any way. For example, you said its a complicated issue. I said it was not. I gave a reasonable and logical argument of why the answer is quite clear. Therefore, your comments on whether I am confused are rather unjustified.

I am not saying there isn't waste in the military or the iraq war, I know that there is, its the government, and there is always going to be waste. No way to get around that. Thats my argument. And one can make the argument of whether to spend money on Iraq, thats something else, that goes beyond economics because you simply aren't looking for the best and efficient way to produce a good, you have a greater concern of national security.

However, if you concentrate on the industries that the government controls, they are all doing miserably.

Usually the liberal argument is that to go with the free market is to hurt the poor. However, if you look at our public school system, its more segregated, both racially and economically then it would under school vouchers. This has been proven my taking figures from places that do have vouchers like Milwaukee, and then comparing it to the normal public schools. If you look at social security it is also racially biased against blacks. Their average life span is lower than a white persons, yet they work for approximately the same amount of years. So they don't get as much money when the retire, because on average they die earlier. But instead of letting them do what they want with their money, we have to let the govt. choose for them.

You cannot paint me as a person that disregards the poor. If its anyone its you guys accusing me of that. I want to give these people the choice to spend their money where they want, save it how they want, and send their kids to school where they want. Why do you guys think they shouldn't have that choice?


More like top 50 of the last 50 possible. At least not last ok. You still don't get the big picture. If poor, choose to spend what money? The banks money so they will be in debt forever paying ridiculous interest rates? Doing that with schools will just seperate things even more. (segregation to the fullest) The future will open your eyes. Maybe you are really trying to understand things and have the best intentions for poor people, but you need a lot more knowledge. Saying you are from a top 50 school proves even more how bad education is since you are suppose to have good common sense. I guess if you were rich, the way you think would be common sense for you but you said you're not. (look at it this way, you think like MOST of the rich! : )

I will leave it at that.

Post Reply