Beck: Help us restore traditional American values

[CMatt25]

If we want to reduce the deficit, let’s have 100 percent of income earners pay income tax. Not the top 50%, everyone. If you make $10.00, you pay 15% of it in taxes. Period. Fair is fair, everyone uses the “common access services” that are paid out of tax revenue. How about we start there. First, a balanced budget. No more borrowing money for programs. Any program. Second, if you earn money, you pay taxes. Period. Third, get the federal government out of the social engineering/planning/controlling business altogether. Most of the programs conducted by the federal government can be more effectively run by the state or local governments, or private industry. “Tea Party” people don’t want to see people languishing in the streets, dying of starvation and disease. They just don’t believe that the federal government is the appropriate format for these issues because they are to open for interpretation, corruption, and abuse.

You can not fairly go by a same percent. 15% for example to a quarter millionaire or a half millionaire or millionaire and up is not the same as 15% to someone with a much lower income. The higher, wealthier levels can afford to pay a higher % and continue to live just fine. But for someone with a lower income who has to buy their own private health insurance for instance, they could probably use some towards having to purchase their own private health insurance coverage. Not sure they’d have enough leftover for the deductibles and copays. But I guess under your plan we’d find out as the rich get richer and the not so rich get poorer. But I believe what sad values to run a country on. God bless and peace.

 

[estesbob]

And it is absurd to think that the DOJ would have a policy of not prosecuting black defendants and especially absurd to think they would admit it if they did. And that is what an “investigation” would be seeking. Let me ask you: do you believe that the DOJ is engaging in pro-black racial discrimination and are so stupid that the civil rights attorneys talk about it openly?

?

Yes and yes. However I could be wrong or you could be wrong but the only way will know is to have an investigation. This is not the only case where the Justice Department seems to have been moved by racial considerations. And of course even many Democrats are uncomfortable with the Obama administration offering jobs to get people out of races. This may be totally innocent also but being the Democrats have completely abdicated their oversight responsibilities concerning the executive branch investigations will be necessary after they are kicked out. If they had been doing their job none of this would be necessary

 

[CMatt25]

PPACA is a product of governing from the center? The absurdity of that statement makes me blush. Are you not interested in reading the actual policy that was signed into law? Your fellow voters are asking questions, you should too.

As I mentioned earlier:
When PPACA is fully implemented in 2014, the insurance industry will function as a regulated utility. As a regulated utility, the government will set the levels of coverage and service. It will set the prices for premiums and medical reimbursements. The government will also socialize risk and pass those costs to the young and healthy. Now, there maybe several insurance companies still in existence (surviving only through the insurance mandate and annual subsidies paid to obligated customers). But make no mistake, the federal government will be everyone’s insurer.

When Congress decides it can no longer afford annual subsidies to prop up health insurers and healthcare providers, you’ll get your public option. I prefer to call it the British healthcare system. The left got everything it wanted. But the final product works like a decongestion - delayed time release.

But are you asking the right questions? Funny how all this “regulation” you speak about hasn’t stopped some private insurance companies from saying they are simply not going to write child only policies now that the first leg of the healthcare law has taken effect. When children are supposedly to be able to get health care coverage with pre-existing conditions. I guess if more private sector companies follow suit. So much for that.

 

[Ocean52680]

Yes, but they are wrong, factually.

The case was not dropped. There was an injunction obtained.

The only question was whether they should have obtained an injunction against the organization or just the individual. That would have required investigation into whether the organization was engaging in suppression, or whether these individuals were acting on their own. I haven’t seen the evidence as to that - but to presume it exists is certainly unjustified.

But that isn’t even the point. The point isn’t whether someone, in hindsight, believes the DOJ made a bad decision. The only wrongdoing would occur if there was a proven racial motive for not going after the organization.

And it is absurd to think that the DOJ would have a policy of not prosecuting black defendants and especially absurd to think they would admit it if they did. And that is what an “investigation” would be seeking. Let me ask you: do you believe that the DOJ is engaging in pro-black racial discrimination and are so stupid that the civil rights attorneys talk about it openly?

Do you realize that National Review isn’t a journalistic enterprise, but an opinion journal? What is your standard for calling for an investigation?

Except for the injunction on the man with the weapon, all claims in the case were dropped. The government forfeited the case.

Answers to your questions:

1. Not likely, but an investigation will determine that.
2. The same standard applied to previous Administrations
3. Do you realize that McCarthy and Spakovsky both worked for DOJ under Bush. Spakovsky was in Civil. Both are very familiar with the department.

 

[bbarrick8383]

You can not fairly go by a same percent. 15% for example to a quarter millionaire or a half millionaire or millionaire and up is not the same as 15% to someone with a much lower income. The higher, wealthier levels can afford to pay a higher % and continue to live just fine. But for someone with a lower income who has to buy their own private health insurance for instance, they could probably use some towards having to purchase their own private health insurance coverage. Not sure they’d have enough leftover for the deductibles and copays. But I guess under your plan we’d find out as the rich get richer and the not so rich get poorer. But I believe what sad values to run a country on. God bless and peace.

15% for a millionaire is much higher than 15% for a 10 dollar an hour worker.

 

[Good_News_1]

Yes and yes.

On both scores, this seems to me irrational.

However I could be wrong or you could be wrong but the only way will know is to have an investigation. This is not the only case where the Justice Department seems to have been moved by racial considerations. And of course even many Democrats are uncomfortable with the Obama administration offering jobs to get people out of races. This may be totally innocent also but being the Democrats have completely abdicated their oversight responsibilities concerning the executive branch investigations will be necessary after they are kicked out. If they had been doing their job none of this would be necessary

This is being investigated by the Commission on Civil Rights. Why the Congress? Now, in addition to believing the local attorneys had this racial animus, and that they were dumb enough to express it, do you additionally believe that this policy originates with Holder or Obama, and that they are dumb enough to leave tracks?

Is there any theory of Obama’s malfeasance outlined by right wing talk radio that you have heard that you think is just too crazy to be believed, or doesn’t merit investigation by the Congress?

 

[estesbob]

On both scores, this seems to me irrational.

This is being investigated by the Commission on Civil Rights. Why the Congress? Now, in addition to believing the local attorneys had this racial animus, and that they were dumb enough to express it, do you additionally believe that this policy originates with Holder or Obama, and that they are dumb enough to leave tracks?

Is there any theory of Obama’s malfeasance outlined by right wing talk radio that you have heard that you think is just too crazy to be believed, or doesn’t merit investigation by the Congress?

If the Democrats had not abdicated their responsibilities this wouldn’t be necessary. You can rant and rave about right-wing talk radio all you want but there is more than enough indications of wrongdoing in the areas I listed to justify an investigation. If, as you say, they did nothing wrong then they have nothing to worry about

 

[Good_News_1]

If the Democrats had not abdicated their responsibilities this wouldn’t be necessary.

Seems circular, no?

You can rant and rave about right-wing talk radio all you want

I didn’t see where I ranted and raved. I asked a question: is there any theory of wrongdoing on the part of Obama that you’ve run across on talk radio that you don’t think is legitimate or worthy of investigation? Is there none that are a little too outlandish for you?

 

[estesbob]

Seems circular, no?

I didn’t see where I ranted and raved. I asked a question: is there any theory of wrongdoing on the part of Obama that you’ve run across on talk radio that you don’t think is legitimate or worthy of investigation? Is there none that are a little too outlandish for you?

I listed the ones I think need to be looked into You are sorely mistaken if you think the issues I bought up were driven by right-wing talk radio. All of them received a lot of coverage even in the mainstream media. They are legitimate issues that need to be looked into.

 

[Good_News_1]

I listed the ones I think need to be looked into You are sorely mistaken if you think the issues I bought up were driven by right-wing talk radio. All of them received a lot of coverage even in the mainstream media. They are legitimate issues that need to be looked into.

A simple no would suffice, then.

 

[Marie5890]

Arrogance and pride on who’s part? How can you have healing when there is still cancer growing in the body?

Considering both sides are comprised of human beings, I would say if everyone did a good and deep look at their own consciences most would find that they wanting and need of repentance…

There is plenty of pride and arrogance teeming in both parties…the parties are bleeding profusely the sin of pride IMO…

 

[Ocean52680]

Oversight is not just about investigating potential illegal activity. The broad powers of Congressional oversight include reviewing administrative rules and agency programs; weeding out waste, fraud, and abuse; and assuring that laws and appropriations passed by the Congress are implemented and spent correctly.

Estesbob is correct, the Democrats have “completely abdicated their oversight responsibilities.”

 

[Ocean52680]

But are you asking the right questions? Funny how all this “regulation” you speak about hasn’t stopped some private insurance companies from saying they are simply not going to write child only policies now that the first leg of the healthcare law has taken effect. When children are supposedly to be able to get health care coverage with pre-existing conditions. I guess if more private sector companies follow suit. So much for that.

Markomalley addressed this on a different thread. All children will still get health care coverage even with pre-existing conditions. Just through existing child policies, family plans and employer plans. However, as result of exposing higher risks to insurers, PPACA is reducing the market for child only policies. This will negatively affect the budget of many families by increasing the premium costs of family and employer plans. If you recall, I wrote the following, “The government will also socialize risk and pass those costs to the young and healthy.” This is a classic example. Keep in mind, the more onerous regulations will be implemented in 2013 and 2014. Companies will hedge against those regulations. So, don’t complain when your insurance premiums rise or the quality of your benefits are reduced. After all, you voted for the responsible party.

 

[A_Fortiori_33]

If the Democrats had not abdicated their responsibilities this wouldn’t be necessary. You can rant and rave about right-wing talk radio all you want but there is more than enough indications of wrongdoing in the areas I listed to justify an investigation. If, as you say, they did nothing wrong then they have nothing to worry about

I’m jumping around this thread and I am not caught up. I could not help but notice this argument. " If the Dems had not abdicated their responsibilities this wouldn’t be necessary"
I hope you are talking about the felonies committed by the Bush administration. I do feel Eric Holder is lax in investigating Dick Cheney and his cabal. Germany wanted to prosecute Rumsfeld and Obama stepped in. We have broken our signed treadty with the UN. No investigation. Warrantless wiretapping, voter caging ( which is alive and well in Wisconsin) and the list goes on. Esstesbob, You are right.
Are we singing out of the same hymnal?

 

[CMatt25]

15% for a millionaire is much higher than 15% for a 10 dollar an hour worker.

No kidding. In dollars. But not in how it affects one’s life! A millionaire can pay a much higher tax rate, still afford all the fine luxuries of his or her life. And still have money to put aside. Look at Meg Whitman and all the personal dough she is spending on her campaign against Jerry Brown for Gov of CA. An insane amt. An all time record in personal spending to get oneself elected. But a lower income person paying the same flat tax rate might have difficulty just affording private healthcare insurance. And there are Republicans who don’t want to give the middle class tax cuts unless the Warren Buffets and Meg Whitmans of the world get theirs. I find this absolutely sickening. Some common sense must return to our politics

politics.usnews.com/news/articles/2010/09/16/californias-meg-whitman-breaks-campaign-spending-records.html.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

The so-called “Civil War” did not answer the question of secessionist legality.

The reply which you quoted does not mention the Civil War…

So, in this case, if Texas were to notify the White House that it is leaving the Union, and (hypothetically) Pres. Obama opted to NOT pursue military action, then it would be, de facto legal, since Texas “wins” by US non-action.

Or President Obama could choose not to pursue any military action whatsoever but to respond as if Texas is still de facto part of the USA. What do these crazy Texan secessionists do then?

Or, if he did, and Texas were to win a violent contestation of its secessionist claim, then it would be legal, because Texas “won”.

Yes.

So you are confirming that might makes right.

No, I’m confirming that might makes the laws. The laws aren’t necessarily right.

The civil war didn’t prove anything other than “he with the most loyal soldiers and guns gets to make the rules”.

The Civil War proved that secession is not legal. Nothing about the morality of secession follows from this (see below). Don’t try to imply otherwise.

Stalin, Mao, and Hitler would be very proud of that arguement.

Reductio ad Hitlerum with a good dose of Communist totalitarianism thrown in.

So, the United States is only a single country because the other states are intimidated by the threat of force to remain. I just want to make sure that I have your position articulated correctly.

You don’t have it articulated correctly. The United States is a single country because all sane Americans recognize the legitimacy and sanity of not wielding secessionist rhetoric or intentions for light and transient causes.

The right to secede is found in natural law. Any positive law that contradicts natural law is invalid and only serves to legitimize either oppression or immorality. Try reading the Declaration of Independence and the various exposes on natural law by St. Thomas Aquinas, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, et al…

I’ve read all those thinkers (admittedly, I skimmed Hobbes… though I have in the interim read more about him)

So let’s turn to the Declaration of Independence. Remember this part?
U.S. Declaration of Independence:

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

As I said earlier, the sky is not falling. Every political ideologue prophesies doom and destruction when their opponents are in power, and I don’t buy it. Delusions of secession are nothing but hysteria. To maintain that things are bad enough for an attempt at secession is just as over-the-top as the far left’s denunciation of President Bush as a “war criminal” during his presidency.

And for the record, “the forms to which [we] are accustomed” are extraordinarily and deliberately supple. To even speak of abolishing them is shortsighted lunacy.

Slavery wasn’t the issue that started the war. It was background noise and was being chanted mostly by Northern abolitionists. The issue that started the war was the Morrill Tariff. Slavery eventually became the central cause, and rightly so, although Lincoln was no lover of the colored man, in fact he was a notorious racist who did not believe that white and black people could live together in peace. There is more that I could go on about this, probably best for another thread.

Lovely revisionism. As I’m sure you’ll well acknowledge, slavery had been a growing issue for decades - since the beginning of the United States, in fact. The issue had already imploded the Whig party.

Please don’t pretend that you don’t acknowledge that the southern states wanted to secede because a president had been elected from a party whose primary platform was the abolition of slavery.

Good idea, but it is more aptly called “Austrian School Economics” or anarcho-capitalism. Since central economic planning and Keynesian economics has proven to be such a smashing success at ensuring enduring and ubiquitous prosperity, lets just have MORE AND BIGGER!

I love this video!

No, really, it’s really funny and well-done. You should all check it out!

 

[CMatt25]

Markomalley addressed this on a different thread. All children will still get health care coverage even with pre-existing conditions. Just through existing child policies, family plans and employer plans. However, as result of exposing higher risks to insurers, PPACA is reducing the market for child only policies. This will negatively affect the budget of many families by increasing the premium costs of family and employer plans. If you recall, I wrote the following, “The government will also socialize risk and pass those costs to the young and healthy.” This is a classic example. Keep in mind, the more onerous regulations will be implemented in 2013 and 2014. Companies will hedge against those regulations. So, don’t complain when your insurance premiums rise or the quality of your benefits are reduced. After all, you voted for the responsible party.

I’ll complain because exactly why we need single payer or a public option. So I wouldn’t have to deal with the private health insurance companies shenanigans.

 

[Suudy]

I’ll complain because exactly why we need single payer or a public option. So I wouldn’t have to deal with the private health insurance companies shenanigans.

And government bureaucracy shenanigans are better?

As I posted way back when the Obamacare debate started, my father, while traveling cross country in his RV, was admitted to a private run hospital in New Mexico. He was covered under Tri-Care, the VA, and Medicare. And none of the three would pay for his stay, each saying it was the other’s responsibility. It went on like that for almost 2 years, and he died with it unresolved. As executor, I didn’t want to hassle with the government red tape, so I paid it off.

A single payer or public option will not get rid of shenanigans. In fact, there will be even more red tape.

 

[bbarrick8383]

No kidding. In dollars. But not in how it affects one’s life! A millionaire can pay a much higher tax rate, still afford all the fine luxuries of his or her life. And still have money to put aside. Look at Meg Whitman and all the personal dough she is spending on her campaign against Jerry Brown for Gov of CA. An insane amt. An all time record in personal spending to get oneself elected. But a lower income person paying the same flat tax rate might have difficulty just affording private healthcare insurance. And there are Republicans who don’t want to give the middle class tax cuts unless the Warren Buffets and Meg Whitmans of the world get theirs. I find this absolutely sickening. Some common sense must return to our politics

politics.usnews.com/news/articles/2010/09/16/californias-meg-whitman-breaks-campaign-spending-records.html.

Think about it, right now I have my third child on the way. I make about 10k over the poverty line per year, I think it’s like 21k a year for a family of 4. I’m about to have 5, with a stay at home wife. I’ve got my dependents max’d out and I think with everything taken out of my paycheck, I dont have it in front of me but I’ll look tomorrow, it’s got to be at least 15%.

My argument is, I work for a small company that is owned by my family. I see the taxes that are paid since we do almost all of the financial work ourselves. I even see my parents personal income taxes. It is ridiculous. I could make somewhere around 10k more per year if it wasnt for all the taxes they pay.

This envy of the rich is just beyond me, I do not envy them I want to be where they are. There was a female billionaire on Huckabees show a week or two ago. She employs several thousands of people. She saved almost all their jobs as the companies she owns were about to go under. She turns them around and gets them to make a profit so people can keep their jobs. I would be so happy to employ so many people and know that I saved them from getting on unemployment.

She is worth bah billions, and she deserves every dime of it. I wish people would get there hands out of her pockets, my companies pockets, my parents pockets because they do end up in my pockets.

 

[CMatt25]

Think about it, right now I have my third child on the way. I make about 10k over the poverty line per year, I think it’s like 21k a year for a family of 4. I’m about to have 5, with a stay at home wife. I’ve got my dependents max’d out and I think with everything taken out of my paycheck, I dont have it in front of me but I’ll look tomorrow, it’s got to be at least 15%.

My argument is, I work for a small company that is owned by my family. I see the taxes that are paid since we do almost all of the financial work ourselves. I even see my parents personal income taxes. It is ridiculous. I could make somewhere around 10k more per year if it wasnt for all the taxes they pay.

This envy of the rich is just beyond me, I do not envy them I want to be where they are. There was a female billionaire on Huckabees show a week or two ago. She employs several thousands of people. She saved almost all their jobs as the companies she owns were about to go under. She turns them around and gets them to make a profit so people can keep their jobs. I would be so happy to employ so many people and know that I saved them from getting on unemployment.

She is worth bah billions, and she deserves every dime of it. I wish people would get there hands out of her pockets, my companies pockets, my parents pockets because they do end up in my pockets.

I hardly envy the rich. I don’t want it to be harder for me to get to heaven than it is for a camel to pass thru the eye of a needle. I only want the rich to pay higher rates than under Dubya when ya’ll are crying deficits for example. Tha’s all. God bless you and peace.