The KGB Oracle
Serving the online gaming community since 1997
Visit www.the-kgb.com
For additional information

Join KGB DISCORD: http://discord.gg/KGB
 
KGB Information
Untitled 1

Visit KGB HQ
www.the-kgb.com

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 26 guests, and 31 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
ShoutChat
Comment Guidelines: Do post respectful and insightful comments. Don't flame, hate, spam.
Today's Birthdays
Decon Black
Newest Members
Luckystrikes, Shingen, BillNyeCommieSpy, Lamp, AllenGlines
1,477 Registered Users
Forum Statistics
Forums53
Topics13,094
Posts116,355
Members1,477
Most Online276
Aug 3rd, 2023
Top Likes Received (30 Days)
None yet
Top Posters(30 Days)
Popular Topics(Views)
1,988,697 Trump card
1,324,443 Picture Thread
474,043 Romney
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 6 of 13 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 12 13
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,070
Likes: 6
KGB (F4) Chancellor
Crowfall Faction
***
Offline
KGB (F4) Chancellor
Crowfall Faction
***
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,070
Likes: 6
Being in the 28% tax bracket is fine, if there was a fair and equitable tax code.

What is bullshit is being penalized for not be married and having a tribe of crumb snatchers. We reward those who aren't fiscally sound with the worlds largest subsidization in the form of tax credits. We reward people who purchase homes beyond their means, allowing them to write off interest. While at one point from the late 40's through the early 70's before hyperinflation, this actually did what it was suppose to do, it encouraging individuals to purchase a home. Now with an housing market that has been over valued due to continual flipping of ownership and using homes as an equity commodity to be traded for revenue, we have fucked ourselves into a new era of the Company Store.

How about we just get fucking rid of the subsidization, and have a real discussion about taxation. Oh wait, that isn't the pro forma or status quo in Government. That would be to tell you I am going to do something, and then to do the opposite, all the while telling you I am doing what I said I was going to do.


Don't make me have'ta Troll ya Bro!
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,653
Likes: 6
Chief Justice
KGB Supreme Court
****
Offline
Chief Justice
KGB Supreme Court
****
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,653
Likes: 6
Holy crap, I started looking into the WHO report... and even I am shocked by what I found, and not in a good way.

"Governments should be the “stewards” of their national resources, maintaining
and improving them for the benefit of their populations. In health, this means
being ultimately responsible for the careful management of their citizens’ wellbeing." - excerpt from WHO report.

http://www.who.int/whr/2000/en/whr00_ch6_en.pdf

Citizens should be responsible for their own well-being, not the Govt. Or at least have the option to do so.

Looking elsewhere in the report, it is clear that a primary criteria for the WHO ranking was based specifically ON how "socialized" the health care was. Actual availability and quality of care either did not factor, or were weighted low on this particular health report.

This WHO ranking , being largely a measurement of Socialization, is therefore null and void for legitimate use in a debate of this nature. Saying the USA ranks low on a WHO list due to lack of Socialization, is not in itself, an argument for Socialization.

I knew there was something pretty fishy when Columbia ranked higher than the USA.


For who could be free when every other man's humour might domineer over him? - John Locke (2nd Treatise, sect 57)
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 12,986
Likes: 44
JetStar Offline OP
(GM10) KGB High King
KGB Federal Faction
(F5) High Chancellor
KGB New World Faction
KGB Oracle Administrator
Founded KGB in 1997
****
OP Offline
(GM10) KGB High King
KGB Federal Faction
(F5) High Chancellor
KGB New World Faction
KGB Oracle Administrator
Founded KGB in 1997
****
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 12,986
Likes: 44
Originally Posted By: Derid
Saying that the top rates were higher in years past to pay for wars is also somewhat disingenuous, as noone will argue that taxing to pay for necessary national defense is in any way equivalent to "social redistribution of wealth". You are comparing apples and oranges, and that line of attack does not hold merit.


Please clarify, since we are in TWO wars right now, why we are even discussing this. How can people expect for our country to be in TWO wars at the same time, for almost a decade (Unprecedented in our history) and have no tax increase to pay for them? How is paying our bills considered a redistribution of wealth, when you yourself condoned paying for war in the past as an acceptable excuse for a 90% tax rate on the rich?

Quote:
Direct Iraq War costs:

As of February 2010, around $704 billion has been spent based on estimates of current expenditure rates[1], which range from the Congressional Research Service (CRS) estimate of $2 billion per week to $12 billion a month, an estimate by economist Joseph Stiglitz.[2]
Those figures are significantly more than typical estimates published just prior to the start of the Iraq War, many of which were based on a shorter term of involvement. For example, in a March 16, 2003 Meet the Press interview of Vice President Dick Cheney, held less than a week before the Iraq War began, host Tim Russert reported that "every analysis said this war itself would cost about $80 billion, recovery of Baghdad, perhaps of Iraq, about $10 billion per year. We should expect as American citizens that this would cost at least $100 billion for a two-year involvement."[3].
[edit]Appropriations
See also: Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund
FY2003 Supplemental: Operation Iraqi Freedom: Passed April 2003; Total $78.5 billion, $54.4 billion Iraq War
FY2004 Supplemental: Iraq and Afghanistan Ongoing Operations/Reconstruction: Passed November 2003; Total $87.5 billion, $70.6 billion Iraq War
FY2004 DoD Budget Amendment: $25 Emergency Reserve Fund (Iraq Freedom Fund): Passed July 2004, Total $25 billion, $21.5 billion (estimated) Iraq War
FY2005 Emergency Supplemental: Operations in the War on Terror; Activities in Afghanistan; Tsunami Relief: Passed April 2005, Total $82 billion, $58 billion (estimated) Iraq War
FY2006 Department of Defense appropriations: Total $50 billion, $40 billion (estimated) Iraq War.
FY2006 Emergency Supplemental: Operations Global War on Terror; Activities in Iraq & Afghanistan: Passed February 2006, Total $72.4 billion, $60 billion (estimated) Iraq War
FY2007 Department of Defense appropriations: $70 billion(estimated) for Iraq War-related costs[4][5]
FY2007 Emergency Supplemental (proposed) $100 billion
FY2008 Bush administration has proposed around $190 billion for the Iraq War and Afghanistan[6]
FY2009 Obama administration has proposed around $130 billion in additional funding for the Iraq War and Afghanistan.[7]
FY2011 Obama administration proposes around $159.3 billion for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.[8]
[edit]Indirect and delayed costs
According to a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report published in October 2007, the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could cost taxpayers a total of $2.4 trillion dollars by 2017 when counting the huge interest costs because combat is being financed with borrowed money. The CBO estimated that of the $2.4 trillion long-term price tag for the war, about $1.9 trillion of that would be spent on Iraq, or $6,300 per U.S. citizen.[9][10]
Stiglitz, former chief economist of the World Bank and winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics, has stated the total costs of the Iraq War on the US economy will be three trillion dollars in a moderate scenario, and possibly more in the most recent published study, published in March 2008.[11] Stiglitz has stated: "The figure we arrive at is more than $3 trillion. Our calculations are based on conservative assumptions...Needless to say, this number represents the cost only to the United States. It does not reflect the enormous cost to the rest of the world, or to Iraq."[11]
The extended combat and equipment loss have placed a severe financial strain on the U.S Army, causing the elimination of non-essential expenses such as travel and civilian hiring.[12][13]


The UH-60 Black Hawk that crashed on September 21, 2004.
[edit]Long-term health care costs
A recent study indicated that the long term health care costs for wounded Iraq war veterans could range from $350 billion to $700 billion.[14]
[edit]Military equipment lost
The U.S. has lost a number of pieces of military equipment during the war. The following statistics are from the Center for American Progress:[15]; they are approximations that include vehicles lost in non-combat-related accidents as of 2009.



[Linked Image from w3.the-kgb.com][Linked Image from oracle.the-kgb.com]
Star Citizen Hanger:
RSI Javelin Destroyer, Hull E, RSI Constellation Pheonix, Aegis Dynamics Retaliator, Banu Merchantman
F7A Military Hornet Upgrade, F7C-S Hornet Ghost, F7C-R Hornet Tracker, Origin 325a Fighter
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 12,986
Likes: 44
JetStar Offline OP
(GM10) KGB High King
KGB Federal Faction
(F5) High Chancellor
KGB New World Faction
KGB Oracle Administrator
Founded KGB in 1997
****
OP Offline
(GM10) KGB High King
KGB Federal Faction
(F5) High Chancellor
KGB New World Faction
KGB Oracle Administrator
Founded KGB in 1997
****
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 12,986
Likes: 44
Originally Posted By: Derid
Holy crap, I started looking into the WHO report... and even I am shocked by what I found, and not in a good way.

"Governments should be the “stewards” of their national resources, maintaining
and improving them for the benefit of their populations. In health, this means
being ultimately responsible for the careful management of their citizens’ wellbeing." - excerpt from WHO report.

http://www.who.int/whr/2000/en/whr00_ch6_en.pdf

Citizens should be responsible for their own well-being, not the Govt. Or at least have the option to do so.

Looking elsewhere in the report, it is clear that a primary criteria for the WHO ranking was based specifically ON how "socialized" the health care was. Actual availability and quality of care either did not factor, or were weighted low on this particular health report.

This WHO ranking , being largely a measurement of Socialization, is therefore null and void for legitimate use in a debate of this nature. Saying the USA ranks low on a WHO list due to lack of Socialization, is not in itself, an argument for Socialization.

I knew there was something pretty fishy when Columbia ranked higher than the USA.


Ok, if you dont like the WHO, lets go by Adult Mortality rate. This is a true measure of how well your health care system is doing right? Where do you think the US ranks?
Originally Posted By: Washington Post
Adult mortality, measured as the probability of dying after the 15th birthday but before the 60th, dropped 19 percent for men and 34 percent for women over the past 40 years.

The country with the lowest adult male mortality was Iceland, with 65 premature deaths per 1,000 men. The highest was Swaziland, with 765 premature deaths per 1,000 men. For women, the country with the lowest rate was Cyprus (38 deaths per 1,000) and the one with the highest was Zambia (606 deaths per 1,000).

The United States ranked 45th in the mortality rate for men, which stood at 130, and 49th in the rate for women, which was 77. The average decline over the four decades was less than 1 percent a year.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/30/AR2010043003006.html


[Linked Image from w3.the-kgb.com][Linked Image from oracle.the-kgb.com]
Star Citizen Hanger:
RSI Javelin Destroyer, Hull E, RSI Constellation Pheonix, Aegis Dynamics Retaliator, Banu Merchantman
F7A Military Hornet Upgrade, F7C-S Hornet Ghost, F7C-R Hornet Tracker, Origin 325a Fighter
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,653
Likes: 6
Chief Justice
KGB Supreme Court
****
Offline
Chief Justice
KGB Supreme Court
****
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,653
Likes: 6
Because for one, they are not "total wars" - like the World Wars were.
A good quick definition of Total War : "Total war is a war limitless in its scope in which a belligerent engages in the mobilization of all their available resources, in order to render beyond use their rival's capacity for resistance."

The two wars were not initiated on the basis of being wars of that magnitude, and yes wars have magnitude. They were also not sold to Congress and authorized as such.

Comparing our interventions in these states to the World Wars is not compelling. And even if it were necessary to raise taxes for the prosecution of said wars, the main topic of debate is necessity and morality of taking productivity forcibly from one citizen and bequething it to another, due to a percieved need on behalf - and to what degree that is both sustainable, and acceptable.

Mind you, I am not and have not argued in favor of total and immediate abolition of all aspects of the welfare state. However, I think what so many have lost sight of - is that there are reasonable limits to how much can be done before you start doing irreperable harm not only to the overall economy, but to society itself.

Justifying aspects of the welfare state as needed expediencies is one thing, justifying a full welfare state philosophically as something that someone should have a "right" to, is something completely different.

In the name of rational expediency, you can create perfectly rational arguments as to how some degree of social safety nets, however unsavory in concept, can reduce the burden of other institutions and also create a better environment for those who are stuck footing the bill.

However, as resources are not unlimited, you can quickly reach a point at which such services are un-sustainable. We have now passed that point. Had the Left been content to leave the level of services where they were under Clinton, there would be no problem. I think things were likely sustainable.

There is also now the question of Self-empowerment vs Micromanagement by the State. Things like making business file with the IRS for EVERY purchase over 600$, FORCING individuals to buy health care ( a CONSUMER PRODUCT) and many other issues that venture far from normal bounds regarding the balance between power of the individual and business, and govt control.

More is not always better. Right now, so many people seem to think there is always room for more. That there will never be enough.

Tell me Jet, where do you think the line lies between enough, and not enough? When would we finally be able to say " ok THIS is the LINE we will never cross, enough is enough "

Also keep in mind, that bureaucrats are seldom less self-serving than corporations. But that is another line of attack against big govt entirely, and out of the scope of this discussion for now.


For who could be free when every other man's humour might domineer over him? - John Locke (2nd Treatise, sect 57)
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 12,986
Likes: 44
JetStar Offline OP
(GM10) KGB High King
KGB Federal Faction
(F5) High Chancellor
KGB New World Faction
KGB Oracle Administrator
Founded KGB in 1997
****
OP Offline
(GM10) KGB High King
KGB Federal Faction
(F5) High Chancellor
KGB New World Faction
KGB Oracle Administrator
Founded KGB in 1997
****
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 12,986
Likes: 44
Originally Posted By: Derid
Holy crap, I started looking into the WHO report... and even I am shocked by what I found, and not in a good way.

"Governments should be the “stewards” of their national resources, maintaining
and improving them for the benefit of their populations. In health, this means
being ultimately responsible for the careful management of their citizens’ wellbeing." - excerpt from WHO report.

http://www.who.int/whr/2000/en/whr00_ch6_en.pdf

Citizens should be responsible for their own well-being, not the Govt. Or at least have the option to do so.

Looking elsewhere in the report, it is clear that a primary criteria for the WHO ranking was based specifically ON how "socialized" the health care was. Actual availability and quality of care either did not factor, or were weighted low on this particular health report.

This WHO ranking , being largely a measurement of Socialization, is therefore null and void for legitimate use in a debate of this nature. Saying the USA ranks low on a WHO list due to lack of Socialization, is not in itself, an argument for Socialization.

I knew there was something pretty fishy when Columbia ranked higher than the USA.


You should read more on Who before you judge them on one sentence. They are a 62 year old highly respected organization.


[Linked Image from w3.the-kgb.com][Linked Image from oracle.the-kgb.com]
Star Citizen Hanger:
RSI Javelin Destroyer, Hull E, RSI Constellation Pheonix, Aegis Dynamics Retaliator, Banu Merchantman
F7A Military Hornet Upgrade, F7C-S Hornet Ghost, F7C-R Hornet Tracker, Origin 325a Fighter
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 12,986
Likes: 44
JetStar Offline OP
(GM10) KGB High King
KGB Federal Faction
(F5) High Chancellor
KGB New World Faction
KGB Oracle Administrator
Founded KGB in 1997
****
OP Offline
(GM10) KGB High King
KGB Federal Faction
(F5) High Chancellor
KGB New World Faction
KGB Oracle Administrator
Founded KGB in 1997
****
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 12,986
Likes: 44
Hey Derid,

Whats your take on Social Security and Medicare?


[Linked Image from w3.the-kgb.com][Linked Image from oracle.the-kgb.com]
Star Citizen Hanger:
RSI Javelin Destroyer, Hull E, RSI Constellation Pheonix, Aegis Dynamics Retaliator, Banu Merchantman
F7A Military Hornet Upgrade, F7C-S Hornet Ghost, F7C-R Hornet Tracker, Origin 325a Fighter
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,653
Likes: 6
Chief Justice
KGB Supreme Court
****
Offline
Chief Justice
KGB Supreme Court
****
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,653
Likes: 6
Originally Posted By: JetStar


You should read more on Who before you judge them on one sentence. They are a 62 year old highly respected organization.


I have read plenty about the org in the past. What I looked for in that particular report, as I initially indicated I would, was the criteria used to concoct that ranking.

I am not saying the entire Org itself has never done anything usefull.. but using a report that ranks countries by their Socialization level of Health care as evidence that USA Health care quality and availability ranked below that of other, more heavily Socialized countries was a non-starter.

I mean come on, Colombia having better medical care than the USA?


And Social Security and Medicare... were more or less tolerable, structurally speaking, under the later Clinton years I would say. I am not going to argue for or against relatively minor changes, but as society had come to depend on them, it would be unwise to suddenly remove or alter them in any significant fashion.

Also, people have already paid into them. If you paid your medicare/SS taxes all your life you certainly have a valid claim to reap the return.


For who could be free when every other man's humour might domineer over him? - John Locke (2nd Treatise, sect 57)
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 12,986
Likes: 44
JetStar Offline OP
(GM10) KGB High King
KGB Federal Faction
(F5) High Chancellor
KGB New World Faction
KGB Oracle Administrator
Founded KGB in 1997
****
OP Offline
(GM10) KGB High King
KGB Federal Faction
(F5) High Chancellor
KGB New World Faction
KGB Oracle Administrator
Founded KGB in 1997
****
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 12,986
Likes: 44
Originally Posted By: Derid
Originally Posted By: JetStar


You should read more on Who before you judge them on one sentence. They are a 62 year old highly respected organization.


I have read plenty about the org in the past. What I looked for in that particular report, as I initially indicated I would, was the criteria used to concoct that ranking.

I am not saying the entire Org itself has never done anything usefull.. but using a report that ranks countries by their Socialization level of Health care as evidence that USA Health care quality and availability ranked below that of other, more heavily Socialized countries was a non-starter.

I mean come on, Colombia having better medical care than the USA?


And Social Security and Medicare... were more or less tolerable, structurally speaking, under the later Clinton years I would say. I am not going to argue for or against relatively minor changes, but as society had come to depend on them, it would be unwise to suddenly remove or alter them in any significant fashion.

Also, people have already paid into them. If you paid your medicare/SS taxes all your life you certainly have a valid claim to reap the return.


But in your definition, this is socialism in your definition!

What about the taxes and funding the wars in my post above?


[Linked Image from w3.the-kgb.com][Linked Image from oracle.the-kgb.com]
Star Citizen Hanger:
RSI Javelin Destroyer, Hull E, RSI Constellation Pheonix, Aegis Dynamics Retaliator, Banu Merchantman
F7A Military Hornet Upgrade, F7C-S Hornet Ghost, F7C-R Hornet Tracker, Origin 325a Fighter
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,653
Likes: 6
Chief Justice
KGB Supreme Court
****
Offline
Chief Justice
KGB Supreme Court
****
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,653
Likes: 6

Jet, what are you on about? I thought it was a pretty simple stance, that the established socialist mechanisms are too entrenched to carelessly rip out. Are you truly saying that entrenching further Socialist mechanisms is good, simply because the ones we have lived with haven't crushed us yet?

Taxes to pay for Total Wars aren't relevant to the discussion, seeing as there are no total wars going on. And even if they were, there is to much good that came from lowering them to consider it an issue.


Maybe its time to reconsider some of your stances, so far your justifications are all non sequitur.

High taxes are good, because we had them during world wars?

Come on man.

Page 6 of 13 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 12 13

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5