It's not terribly difficult to sit down and think for a second and realize that if you dont get vaccinated, you're dependent on everyone else still getting vaccinated in order to not get sick.
It's also not terribly difficult to sit down, think for a second, and realize that the potential side effects of the vaccine, and the chances of getting them are far, far, far less likely and less debilitating than the effects of many of the diseases.
Not everyone who is unvaccinated is that way by choice. The elderly, along with people who are on immune suppressing drugs, are much more likely to develop disease.
If your kid is vaccinated does it really matter THAT much if other kids are not?
YES. Not everyone who gets the shot develops full immunity. Further, there are other people who are on immunosuppressants and such who cannot receive the vaccine. These people depend on herd immunity to prevent the disease from taking hold and increasing their risk of getting sick.
Working for someone else means I don't have to deal with all of the bullshit that comes with running a company. I like writing software. If I were to start my own business doing it, suddenly my time spend doing so would be dwarfed by all of the other shit it takes to run a company. Further, I'm good at writing software. I'm not good at graphic design. At my job, we have people on all parts of the spectrum who can get together and do things, so we are better than just the sum of our parts.
If Cubans have it so well, why are so many still risking their lives to leave Cuba by traveling in make-shift boats across 90 miles of treacherous ocean?
Totalitarian regimes have their problems. That doesn't say anything about the underlying economic model.
The thing I hate in these arguments is "$policy1 isn't working so we should all change to $policy2." where $policy1 suffers from obvious defects and $policy2 is the exact and extreme opposite of $policy1 and suffers from the same or similar defects of $policy1.
To be fair, most of us are not saying we should become pure socialists. We believe the best way forward is a proper blend of systems, much like they practice in other areas of the developed world.
Not everyone has perfect job mobility. That's why I always hate the argument that comes up against sane worker protection laws, "Why don't you just find a new job?" That argument completely ignores the fact that it isn't always possible, and it makes the argument that if someone isn't able to move jobs, possibly putting up with even more hardship by doing so, then they deserve to be abused.
I grew up on a hard working farm where failing to complete a job or do the daily work properly and on time had real and potentially long term monetary consequences. I have a great deal of respect for someone who works hard and doesn't just up and leave work in the middle of a job because they've put in their eight hours.
In your example, you have a vested interest in the outcome. You will definitely feel the affects if you "walk out" after 8 hours.
Most people who have a regular job, that is not the case. Businesses over the past number of years have made it abundantly clear that they have absolutely no loyalty to their workers. So if there's no loyalty to me, why should I bust my ass even more for them? I'm already working hard for the hours I was asked to do. I'm not getting anything more from it; I'm not seeing any benefit from it.
I'll agree it can be quite hard to select a vendor. But with current rules, even if you've worked with a vendor before, and they've proven they can't do the work for what they actually propose, you are still required to go with them if they are the lowest bidder.
Are you really so uninformed as to not know that 0bama had a majority in the House for his first two years? If so, you shouldn't be posting on this topic.
And are you so uninformed to know that it takes BOTH HOUSES of Congress to pass a budget? And that anything Republicans didn't like in the Senate was filibustered to death? If so, you shouldn't be posting on this topic.
I believe Romney will stick with his stated path, as there will be a lot of upside to doing so, and no downside.
The only way that statement would be true is if his "stated path" caused him to not be elected.
On the other hand, if you want to discuss a politician that's failed to come through on his campaign promises, there's always 0bama. Just another of the many reasons he'll be out of a job come November.
Like what? What specifically are you going to talk about?
America needs better, and R&R will provide that come Election Day. I hope you can cope.;-)
Romney's plan does absolutely nothing but make things better for the top 1%. At the expense of everyone else.
No supporting links I see. You deny Obama has said he would do many things he has not done?
I deny that many of the things you listed are things he has not done, or things he said he would not do. For instance, he signed the Executive Order closing Gitmo his first day in office. Doesn't mean a whole hell of a lot if Congress won't let it happen.
Further, I saw no supporting links from you, either.
They tried to pass numerous budgets, which Democrats rejected.
And none of those budgets were workable either. None of them were meant to be passed, they were pure political grandstanding.
Throwing in a bunch of things that your opposition will never agree to, and then bitching and moaning that a "budget" was not passed doesn't count. Would you honestly say that the Democrats would have "tried to pass numerous budgets" if they included provisions that Republicans are vehemently opposed to, and therefore caused it to not pass?
Not so for Obama.
Obama very clearly has a direction. If you haven't seen that in the past few years, then you are blind.
Says the main without a link, and at least one know baldfaced lie.
Nothing I've said is a lie, and none of your post had a link either.
I'll let you have the last response, since it's annoying to respond to liars who will say anything.
So you don't have to provide links, but everyone else does. Glad to know you set your own rules.
The main issue isn't raising taxes on the "rich", it's raising taxes on "small businesses" which pay using the same tax tables.
No, it's not. This myth has been debunked thousands of times. Small businesses have many exceptions to these same rules, and quite frankly, there are numerous ways to set up a small business to NOT use those tables. The number of "small businesses" which would be affected by letting the tax rates return to what they were is about 3%.
What do you think will happen if those rates are raised?
Very little. Otherwise explain the boom during the Clinton years.
(BTW, the other point regarding the "rich" is that they have several options to avoid higher tax rates, including simply spending their money rather than trying to make more.
1). Spending more would be a GOOD THING, as it would increase demand, and get the economy going again. Remember, it's DEMAND that drives an economy. If there is no demand, employers won't hire, no matter how many tax breaks they get. Further, if there is demand, they will hire, because there is more money to be made.
2). We're talking about 3% here. What is sooooooo fucking magical about 3% that suddenly makes them decide to pay taxes rather than engage in the tax avoidance schemes you claim they can engage in?
They might also decide that leaving the country with their fortunes is suddenly looking a lot more attractive
Highly fucking unlikely. Just about all of the civilized nations have tax rates higher than ours. And most of the developing nations have plenty of other problems with stability. Otherwise, why haven't the rich already fled?
That's the kind of sillyness that 'step' based systems encourage, whether they be in assistance programs or part of the tax code.
Or from people who never actually think about what they're doing. The housing thing might be legitimate, depending on if the raise would have covered the increase in rent he would have to pay. However, for tax brackets and our current system, it is absolutely false, and if he were doing it for tax reasons, he'd be a complete fucking idiot.
I think people very much like the idea of a flat tax because it seems simple and fair.
Until you actually look at it. And most of the people who propose the "flat tax" tend to put in a bunch of exceptions to try and make it not regressive, making it more complex and negating most of the savings they claim implementing one would do.
There is no reason we can't do something reasonable like say 5% of income at the bottom, XX% at the top, and a nice smooth line between those two whose equation calculates your taxes. Screw deductions.
Someone around the poverty line who has kids likely couldn't afford your 5%. And you might say, "Well, they shouldn't be having kids!" and you might have a point. But the fact of the matter is, those kids are there, and they still need to be taken care of.
It seems equally absurd that 50% of americans don't pay any taxes at all
Not so much when you actually look into that claim. The claim is that they don't pay INCOME TAX, and that's because they don't have shit for income (or they are rich piles of shit like the ex-LA Dodgers owners, the McCourts, who had it revealed during their divorce proceedings that they didn't pay anything in taxes). They most certainly pay taxes, just like everyone else. Sales tax? Yup. Gas tax? Oh you better believe it. Vehicle registration tax? Yes.
When you have to depend on the goverment just to make ends meet, that is a very, very bad thing. And that is what 50%+ of us do
1). Your premise here is 100% false.
2). What's the alternative? Throwing these people out in the gutter to starve? We'll send them to where you live. I'm sure the increase in crime won't bother you.
A flat tax is the very definition of regressive, as it affects the poor far more than it affects the rich.
although you are correct that a poor person will "feel" a flat tax more than a rich person
Thus making it regressive.
Wanting something does not make it a "right".
Never said it did. However, you might want to tell most of the people on Wall Street that.
Having the government take from you neighbor
Nobody is "taking" anything. My neighbor fully agreed to pay taxes by living here, just like they agreed to follow the other laws.
Further, the idea that someone would be far better without taxes is absurd, as just about all of the amenities we have in a first world country came that way through taxes, and most importantly, coming together as a nation to make these things happen. The Interstate Highway System, for example. Do you honestly think that such a thing would have been possible if the government didn't do it? Or that it would be anywhere near as efficient and popular as it is now? If so, then I want you to move to a country where they do not have such things, and prove your point by making it there. I want you to start with nothing, and move to the middle of Africa, and prove your point by rising your way into the Fortune 500.
What's that? You don't want to? You don't think you can do it?
Slashdot Mirror
Again, tell me, how well do you think your solution would have worked during the heyday of smallpox, or polio?
Tell me, how well did your theory pan out during the heyday of polio and smallpox?
It's not terribly difficult to sit down and think for a second and realize that if you dont get vaccinated, you're dependent on everyone else still getting vaccinated in order to not get sick.
It's also not terribly difficult to sit down, think for a second, and realize that the potential side effects of the vaccine, and the chances of getting them are far, far, far less likely and less debilitating than the effects of many of the diseases.
Not everyone who gets the shot develops full immunity.
Not everyone who is unvaccinated is that way by choice. The elderly, along with people who are on immune suppressing drugs, are much more likely to develop disease.
So if the government is going to make school mandatory, then it has to cater to everyone's nutty religious beliefs.
No, it doesn't. That's just stupid.
No amount of discussion is going to budge your pro-vax mentality
You mean, the stance of SCIENCE and REALITY?
You do know that the authorities want to administer Gardasil to boys [reuters.com], right?
And you realize that men can carry HPV, and develop cancer from it, right?
The flu shot contains mercury
It hasn't in years.
Don't be afraid to re-evaluate your beliefs from time to time.
And when you do, make sure you don't give into the complete idiocy that the anti-vaxxers espouse.
If your kid is vaccinated does it really matter THAT much if other kids are not?
YES. Not everyone who gets the shot develops full immunity. Further, there are other people who are on immunosuppressants and such who cannot receive the vaccine. These people depend on herd immunity to prevent the disease from taking hold and increasing their risk of getting sick.
I really don't care about the slippery slope. If you want to enroll your child in school, then they get vaccinated. End of story.
'Vaccination' is a massive fraud
Until you look at history, and realize that vaccination is what wiped out many major diseases which often had debilitating effects, like polio.
Working for someone else means I don't have to deal with all of the bullshit that comes with running a company. I like writing software. If I were to start my own business doing it, suddenly my time spend doing so would be dwarfed by all of the other shit it takes to run a company. Further, I'm good at writing software. I'm not good at graphic design. At my job, we have people on all parts of the spectrum who can get together and do things, so we are better than just the sum of our parts.
If Cubans have it so well, why are so many still risking their lives to leave Cuba by traveling in make-shift boats across 90 miles of treacherous ocean?
Totalitarian regimes have their problems. That doesn't say anything about the underlying economic model.
The thing I hate in these arguments is "$policy1 isn't working so we should all change to $policy2." where $policy1 suffers from obvious defects and $policy2 is the exact and extreme opposite of $policy1 and suffers from the same or similar defects of $policy1.
To be fair, most of us are not saying we should become pure socialists. We believe the best way forward is a proper blend of systems, much like they practice in other areas of the developed world.
Agreed. I mean, look at all those malnourished people in Norway and Finland.
Not everyone has perfect job mobility. That's why I always hate the argument that comes up against sane worker protection laws, "Why don't you just find a new job?" That argument completely ignores the fact that it isn't always possible, and it makes the argument that if someone isn't able to move jobs, possibly putting up with even more hardship by doing so, then they deserve to be abused.
I grew up on a hard working farm where failing to complete a job or do the daily work properly and on time had real and potentially long term monetary consequences. I have a great deal of respect for someone who works hard and doesn't just up and leave work in the middle of a job because they've put in their eight hours.
In your example, you have a vested interest in the outcome. You will definitely feel the affects if you "walk out" after 8 hours.
Most people who have a regular job, that is not the case. Businesses over the past number of years have made it abundantly clear that they have absolutely no loyalty to their workers. So if there's no loyalty to me, why should I bust my ass even more for them? I'm already working hard for the hours I was asked to do. I'm not getting anything more from it; I'm not seeing any benefit from it.
I'll agree it can be quite hard to select a vendor. But with current rules, even if you've worked with a vendor before, and they've proven they can't do the work for what they actually propose, you are still required to go with them if they are the lowest bidder.
Are you really so uninformed as to not know that 0bama had a majority in the House for his first two years? If so, you shouldn't be posting on this topic.
And are you so uninformed to know that it takes BOTH HOUSES of Congress to pass a budget? And that anything Republicans didn't like in the Senate was filibustered to death? If so, you shouldn't be posting on this topic.
I believe Romney will stick with his stated path, as there will be a lot of upside to doing so, and no downside.
The only way that statement would be true is if his "stated path" caused him to not be elected.
On the other hand, if you want to discuss a politician that's failed to come through on his campaign promises, there's always 0bama. Just another of the many reasons he'll be out of a job come November.
Like what? What specifically are you going to talk about?
America needs better, and R&R will provide that come Election Day. I hope you can cope. ;-)
Romney's plan does absolutely nothing but make things better for the top 1%. At the expense of everyone else.
No supporting links I see. You deny Obama has said he would do many things he has not done?
I deny that many of the things you listed are things he has not done, or things he said he would not do. For instance, he signed the Executive Order closing Gitmo his first day in office. Doesn't mean a whole hell of a lot if Congress won't let it happen.
Further, I saw no supporting links from you, either.
They tried to pass numerous budgets, which Democrats rejected.
And none of those budgets were workable either. None of them were meant to be passed, they were pure political grandstanding.
Throwing in a bunch of things that your opposition will never agree to, and then bitching and moaning that a "budget" was not passed doesn't count. Would you honestly say that the Democrats would have "tried to pass numerous budgets" if they included provisions that Republicans are vehemently opposed to, and therefore caused it to not pass?
Not so for Obama.
Obama very clearly has a direction. If you haven't seen that in the past few years, then you are blind.
Says the main without a link, and at least one know baldfaced lie.
Nothing I've said is a lie, and none of your post had a link either.
I'll let you have the last response, since it's annoying to respond to liars who will say anything.
So you don't have to provide links, but everyone else does. Glad to know you set your own rules.
The main issue isn't raising taxes on the "rich", it's raising taxes on "small businesses" which pay using the same tax tables.
No, it's not. This myth has been debunked thousands of times. Small businesses have many exceptions to these same rules, and quite frankly, there are numerous ways to set up a small business to NOT use those tables. The number of "small businesses" which would be affected by letting the tax rates return to what they were is about 3%.
What do you think will happen if those rates are raised?
Very little. Otherwise explain the boom during the Clinton years.
(BTW, the other point regarding the "rich" is that they have several options to avoid higher tax rates, including simply spending their money rather than trying to make more.
1). Spending more would be a GOOD THING, as it would increase demand, and get the economy going again. Remember, it's DEMAND that drives an economy. If there is no demand, employers won't hire, no matter how many tax breaks they get. Further, if there is demand, they will hire, because there is more money to be made.
2). We're talking about 3% here. What is sooooooo fucking magical about 3% that suddenly makes them decide to pay taxes rather than engage in the tax avoidance schemes you claim they can engage in?
They might also decide that leaving the country with their fortunes is suddenly looking a lot more attractive
Highly fucking unlikely. Just about all of the civilized nations have tax rates higher than ours. And most of the developing nations have plenty of other problems with stability. Otherwise, why haven't the rich already fled?
So you agree with me, then. That capital gains taxes should not be at a special rate, but rather the same income rate.
If you live in a high tax location like NYC that puts you well over 50%
50% of PROFIT. Not of the total proceeds. It's a huge fucking difference, and you ignoring this makes your entire comment invalid.
Yes. Do a simple thought experiment.
Provide some actual data backing up your position first. Guesses are nice and all, but I'd prefer government be run on data and facts.
That's the kind of sillyness that 'step' based systems encourage, whether they be in assistance programs or part of the tax code.
Or from people who never actually think about what they're doing. The housing thing might be legitimate, depending on if the raise would have covered the increase in rent he would have to pay. However, for tax brackets and our current system, it is absolutely false, and if he were doing it for tax reasons, he'd be a complete fucking idiot.
I think people very much like the idea of a flat tax because it seems simple and fair.
Until you actually look at it. And most of the people who propose the "flat tax" tend to put in a bunch of exceptions to try and make it not regressive, making it more complex and negating most of the savings they claim implementing one would do.
There is no reason we can't do something reasonable like say 5% of income at the bottom, XX% at the top, and a nice smooth line between those two whose equation calculates your taxes. Screw deductions.
Someone around the poverty line who has kids likely couldn't afford your 5%. And you might say, "Well, they shouldn't be having kids!" and you might have a point. But the fact of the matter is, those kids are there, and they still need to be taken care of.
It seems equally absurd that 50% of americans don't pay any taxes at all
Not so much when you actually look into that claim. The claim is that they don't pay INCOME TAX, and that's because they don't have shit for income (or they are rich piles of shit like the ex-LA Dodgers owners, the McCourts, who had it revealed during their divorce proceedings that they didn't pay anything in taxes). They most certainly pay taxes, just like everyone else. Sales tax? Yup. Gas tax? Oh you better believe it. Vehicle registration tax? Yes.
When you have to depend on the goverment just to make ends meet, that is a very, very bad thing. And that is what 50%+ of us do
1). Your premise here is 100% false.
2). What's the alternative? Throwing these people out in the gutter to starve? We'll send them to where you live. I'm sure the increase in crime won't bother you.
A flat tax rate cannot possibly be regressive.
A flat tax is the very definition of regressive, as it affects the poor far more than it affects the rich.
although you are correct that a poor person will "feel" a flat tax more than a rich person
Thus making it regressive.
Wanting something does not make it a "right".
Never said it did. However, you might want to tell most of the people on Wall Street that.
Having the government take from you neighbor
Nobody is "taking" anything. My neighbor fully agreed to pay taxes by living here, just like they agreed to follow the other laws.
Further, the idea that someone would be far better without taxes is absurd, as just about all of the amenities we have in a first world country came that way through taxes, and most importantly, coming together as a nation to make these things happen. The Interstate Highway System, for example. Do you honestly think that such a thing would have been possible if the government didn't do it? Or that it would be anywhere near as efficient and popular as it is now? If so, then I want you to move to a country where they do not have such things, and prove your point by making it there. I want you to start with nothing, and move to the middle of Africa, and prove your point by rising your way into the Fortune 500.
What's that? You don't want to? You don't think you can do it?
You are still a thief,
No, I am not.