@SC MattCongratulations on possibly cracking the top 10% for net worth.
You’ve worked your whole life to get there and @Marxist is ready to take
your money to pay for healthcare. How does that feel?If “the
rich” donated ALL of their money, this would pay for healthcare for a few
years. What happens when their money is gone? Now who pays? Everyone will pay
significantly more than they are now and you get to stand in the government line
for your trouble. No thanks.
We are Americans, we don't think long term. We don't consider the
effects of tax breaks for the wealthy and corporate America possessed bulging
wallets before the tax breaks.We don't consider the effects of
spending countless billions on defense programs which we don't need and
forget about the crumbling infrastructure of the country. We refuse to plan
ahead for retirement with savings. In fact, most of us could not survive a
crisis today.We can not conceive the day when we have a health
crisis and the mountain of bills that will come from that and reject a
comprehensive solution involving some form of universal health care. We spurn
the notion that the country might one day be dominated by a collage of
"minority" voters who will remember the bad old days of segregation,
discrimination and anti-immigrant sloganeering.We can not deal with
the truth of political lies and scandals in the current administration and have
thus lay down the standards for the next President and Congress. Inaction has
consequences, leading to the death of democracy.Yup, Americans are
indeed short sighted.
Great editorial. The crisis of all crisis's is one where humans will be
unable to address it because the solutions have long since past. That crisis
will be environmental and the other crisis's that follow. When we run out
of clean water, healthy air and oceans that can no longer feed the masses,
human's will be fighting over limited resources at a scale never seen
before. And this is not as far off as some wish to believe. Look at your
grandchildren now and ask yourself will they have the same bounties and beauty
we now have on the Earth?
@marxist:"The top 10% of households own 75% of the wealth. Of
course you conservatives think this is because they just "work
harder.""I thought the typical liberal was fighting for the
99%, and that therefore somebody wasn't "rich" until they made it
into the top 1%?I'm not in the top 10% for income. I'm
not even in the top 20%. But I might just barely be finally cracking the top
10% for net worth, but it's not because I work harder.It's
because I save and invest, and I'm nearing retirement age. And
I also know that "top 10% for income" includes a bunch of two earner
couples, like an engineer married to a school teacher, or a lawyer married to a
nurse, or a doctor married to a plumber. So, when you start trying
to take money from this group to pay for "free health care for all",
yeah, I'm going to say all of them got where they got because of hard work.
And a couple making $150k/year being made to pay $70k/year for
somebody else's health care isn't going to work.
@Sc Matt " Democrats want everybody to get everything, even the latest
medical advancements paid for exclusively by "the rich." That's not
possible. "Actually it is. The top 10% of households own 75% of
the wealth. Of course you conservatives think this is because they just
"work harder." You don't understand this system.
We could get rid of half of the bureaucracy the so called swamp that would help
reduce the deficit. If we had a post card application for Federal taxes that
would save several hundred billion. Perhaps eliminate the HEW and allow states
to manage their own health and education. Why should the Feds do it?There
is a lot of sleight of hand in food stamps and welfare, maybe there are so me
savings there. The president can only do so much in balancing the budget as
Congress writes the bills, but if Congress cannot balance the budget then we
should reduce their pay accordingly.
Mr. Samuelson is absolutely correct. We wait until crisis, and the
legislature can't legislate.Oh, they can pass bills along
partisan lines occasionally, but when was the last truly meaningful compromise?
I think it's probably the welfare reform of Bill Clinton's
term with the Newt Gingrich House. We could limit CO2 emissions
right now.... if Democrats would agree to expanded use of nuclear power.We could fix healthcare spending right now. But we won't.
Democrats want everybody to get everything, even the latest medical advancements
paid for exclusively by "the rich." That's not possible. The math
doesn't work. Even Sander's proposal was what, $32T over 10 years?
Oh, without, of course, meaningful contributions made from anybody making less
than $100k/year. And every time Republicans propose solutions,
Democrats say "nope" and then claim that Republicans don't have a
plan.It's kind of hard to negotiate with that tactic.
Especially when it's repeated often enough that "normal" people
(like those here) actually believe it's true.