Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Amaya wrote:

Why does the government need to lend a helping hand to everyone? Why do you want to force people to have health care? There's a big difference between helping out someone who is ill and can't afford it and forcing a healthy person to pay into it.

Oh, it doesn't, but it often does. The poor get medical services that still impoverish them. The rich get ridiculous tax breaks. I don't want anyone to get a free ride, but damn it, I was glad to have a safety net when my office shut down (outsourced!) and I needed unemployment. It kept me in my home, and allowed me to find another job. I was on it for two months. If I didn't have it, I would probably be homeless, and without a job now. But I'm back on the tax rolls now, and I'm glad I had the help.

Oh, and do you have health insurance? Because if you do, then you are already being forced as a healthy person to pay for sick people. That's how that works. But in addition to paying for sick people, you're paying for the following:

Advertising
Executive bonuses
Lobbyists
Massive administration costs

My mother is involved with the health care industry. There is a massive billing department in the hospital she works at, and for just about every insurance company that the hospital accepts, there are about 3 staffers trained to handle just that one company. Each company has different forms, different prices for the same procedures, different co-pays. If you had a better system in place, like say, Germany's (where private insurers are heavily regulated, standardized and price fixed) then you'd see a massive reduction in waste. So much for the invisible hand of the free market.

Amaya wrote:Yes, and it took a freaking secession to cause that.

Look at Vietnam and the current conflict. Both could have been won quickly.

Edit: Would the North won if Sherman hadn't decided to open up a can of rape? Would America have defeated Japan without fire bombing and dropping the nukes?

Considering you associated WWII with the 20's I am not sure that you have enough information to make a solid determination of either of those things at this point.

dogma wrote:

Happygrunt wrote:
Sorry. I just love Patriotism. I want something to happen that would unite the US, even briefly, under one banner. That of an American.

That's what a nation-state is.

Happygrunt wrote:
We are the best fething country on Earth. What we do, or what we intended to do, is for the good of all peoples. Maybe I am just a punk 16 year old feed propaganda, but I think a United America could take on the world.

Given a population deficit of ~6.5 billion that isn't very likely.

Debt can be fixed. Everyone would have to man up and do their part. Have higher taxes, save money when at all possible. Would be some of the worst years in the history of the nation, but we would be out.

Ahtman wrote:

Amaya wrote:Yes, and it took a freaking secession to cause that.

Look at Vietnam and the current conflict. Both could have been won quickly.

Edit: Would the North won if Sherman hadn't decided to open up a can of rape? Would America have defeated Japan without fire bombing and dropping the nukes?

Considering you associated WWII with the 20's I am not sure that you have enough information to make a solid determination of either of those things at this point.

We all know that WWII was invented in the 20's, so technically, he is absolutely wrong and I just made an absurd statement.

But some do lump together the two World Wars into a much larger conflict period.

http://www.bargaineering.com/articles/federal-income-irs-tax-brackets.html

And what about the death tax where half of your will goes to the goverment?

Amaya wrote:Look at Vietnam and the current conflict. Both could have been won quickly.

I'm not exactly sure how you would "win" Afghanistan quickly, or even what "winning" it entails. We toppled the Taliban in a matter of 2 months.

By "win" do you mean "install a new government, and pacify the populace"? If so, in what way would you expect ruthlessness to be helpful, given that you've already acknowledge the problem that such behavior has caused? For that matter, how would being more ruthless expedite the process?

Ahtman wrote:

Amaya wrote:Yes, and it took a freaking secession to cause that.

Look at Vietnam and the current conflict. Both could have been won quickly.

Edit: Would the North won if Sherman hadn't decided to open up a can of rape? Would America have defeated Japan without fire bombing and dropping the nukes?

Considering you associated WWII with the 20's I am not sure that you have enough information to make a solid determination of either of those things at this point.

Yeah, cause someone born in the 20s would not have lived through everything I described. God forbid you learn to read.

Ahtman wrote:

Amaya wrote:Yes, and it took a freaking secession to cause that.

Look at Vietnam and the current conflict. Both could have been won quickly.

Edit: Would the North won if Sherman hadn't decided to open up a can of rape? Would America have defeated Japan without fire bombing and dropping the nukes?

Considering you associated WWII with the 20's I am not sure that you have enough information to make a solid determination of either of those things at this point.

To be fair, and for the sake of argument, I said born in the 20s. That would have me growing up in the 30s-40s.

No man, I definetly think that Nam happened in the 20s.

derp derp derp

Happygrunt wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Amaya wrote:Yes, and it took a freaking secession to cause that.

Look at Vietnam and the current conflict. Both could have been won quickly.

Edit: Would the North won if Sherman hadn't decided to open up a can of rape? Would America have defeated Japan without fire bombing and dropping the nukes?

Considering you associated WWII with the 20's I am not sure that you have enough information to make a solid determination of either of those things at this point.

To be fair, and for the sake of argument, I said born in the 20s. That would have me growing up in the 30s-40s.

*Looks back*

Agreed. He did say born in '20s.

Man, I am getting tired. Is that three Submit buttons I see now?

Amaya wrote:http://www.bargaineering.com/articles/federal-income-irs-tax-brackets.html

And what about the death tax where half of your will goes to the goverment?

You mean the amount past $5,000,000? And how it's actually 35%? And by that, I mean 35% of the gross estate value over $5,000,000?

Cry me a river. I wish I had that sort of problem.

Valhallan42nd wrote:

Amaya wrote:http://www.bargaineering.com/articles/federal-income-irs-tax-brackets.html

And what about the death tax where half of your will goes to the goverment?

You mean the amount past $5,000,000? And how it's actually 35%? And by that, I mean 35% of the gross estate value over $5,000,000?

Cry me a river. I wish I had that sort of problem.

Buddy, I wouldn't MIND having that problem.

Also, rule #1. I don't want to go on vacation...

Valhallan42nd wrote:

Amaya wrote:http://www.bargaineering.com/articles/federal-income-irs-tax-brackets.html

And what about the death tax where half of your will goes to the goverment?

You mean the amount past $5,000,000? And how it's actually 35%? And by that, I mean 35% of the gross estate value over $5,000,000?

Cry me a river. I wish I had that sort of problem.

You realize that the death tax is taxing the same income twice right?
edit: And it was more. It got dropped down to 35% from 45%.

Happygrunt wrote:To be fair, and for the sake of argument, I said born in the 20s. That would have me growing up in the 30s-40s.

That makes more sense, obliviously. The US wasn't prosperous and powerful in the sense we think of today until post WWII, so really the peace and prosperity was the 50's.

Amaya wrote:

Valhallan42nd wrote:

Amaya wrote:http://www.bargaineering.com/articles/federal-income-irs-tax-brackets.html

And what about the death tax where half of your will goes to the goverment?

You mean the amount past $5,000,000? And how it's actually 35%? And by that, I mean 35% of the gross estate value over $5,000,000?

Cry me a river. I wish I had that sort of problem.

You realize that the death tax is taxing the same income twice right?

And also there are taxes on things that were already taxed in prior transactions.

Taxes loop around infinitely until they repeal said tax.

And now me tired....me going sleep. Fight to the death without me here.

Happygrunt wrote:
Debt can be fixed. Everyone would have to man up and do their part. Have higher taxes, save money when at all possible. Would be some of the worst years in the history of the nation, but we would be out.

You misunderstand, if the US were to "take on the world" it would be facing 6.5 billion people.

But, even if we are talking about money, national debt isn't quite the same thing as personal debt.

dogma wrote:

Happygrunt wrote:
Debt can be fixed. Everyone would have to man up and do their part. Have higher taxes, save money when at all possible. Would be some of the worst years in the history of the nation, but we would be out.

You misunderstand, if the US were to "take on the world" it would be facing 6.5 billion people.

But, even if we are talking about money, national debt isn't quite the same thing as personal debt.

That's why you launch a massive pre emptive nuclear strike at the major threats and then mop up the rest.

dogma wrote:

Happygrunt wrote:
Debt can be fixed. Everyone would have to man up and do their part. Have higher taxes, save money when at all possible. Would be some of the worst years in the history of the nation, but we would be out.

You misunderstand, if the US were to "take on the world" it would be facing 6.5 billion people.

But, even if we are talking about money, national debt isn't quite the same thing as personal debt.

Um, if you wouldn't mind explaining then... Debt is Debt is Debt right?

I'm sure there wouldn't be any consequences to such a massive deployment of nuclear weapons.

Amaya wrote:

dogma wrote:

Happygrunt wrote:
Debt can be fixed. Everyone would have to man up and do their part. Have higher taxes, save money when at all possible. Would be some of the worst years in the history of the nation, but we would be out.

You misunderstand, if the US were to "take on the world" it would be facing 6.5 billion people.

But, even if we are talking about money, national debt isn't quite the same thing as personal debt.

That's why you launch a massive pre emptive nuclear strike at the major threats and then mop up the rest.

And WHY would we nuke? Nuclear winter is the end all. Plus, you don't think we wouldn't get nuked back. Hit the red button and the world ends. Except for Australia. Fething Kangaroos...

dogma wrote:I'm sure there wouldn't be any consequences to such a massive deployment of nuclear weapons.

Consequences only matter when you lose. Why do you think we got away with fire bombing and nuking civilians?

Amaya wrote:

Valhallan42nd wrote:

Amaya wrote:http://www.bargaineering.com/articles/federal-income-irs-tax-brackets.html

And what about the death tax where half of your will goes to the goverment?

You mean the amount past $5,000,000? And how it's actually 35%? And by that, I mean 35% of the gross estate value over $5,000,000?

Cry me a river. I wish I had that sort of problem.

You realize that the death tax is taxing the same income twice right?

Yes. And since you have income tax taken out, you're exempt from excise tax? The myth of being exempt from double taxation is just that, a myth. We get double taxed all the time.

And do you have an estate valued over $5,000,000? If not, then estate tax has no impact on you. It only affects those most qualified to be able to take the hit. Those self same people also likely can afford very, very talented CPAs, who can hide that money, and find every loophole. I'm shedding no tears for the rich.

Amaya wrote:

dogma wrote:I'm sure there wouldn't be any consequences to such a massive deployment of nuclear weapons.

Consequences only matter when you lose. Why do you think we got away with fire bombing and nuking civilians?

You do have to be alive to win though, nuclear winter and all that.

youbedead wrote:

Amaya wrote:

dogma wrote:I'm sure there wouldn't be any consequences to such a massive deployment of nuclear weapons.

Consequences only matter when you lose. Why do you think we got away with fire bombing and nuking civilians?

You do have to be alive to win though, nuclear winter and all that.

That's just a liberal myth.

Pointlessly offensive comment removed. We'll be generous and assume it was a poorly worded or phrased joke and nothing more. Please refrain from attempts at "humour" in the future.

Happygrunt wrote:
Um, if you wouldn't mind explaining then... Debt is Debt is Debt right?

Effective nations naturally run a deficit in order to cope with the expansion of infrastructure. A natural consequence of this is that all nations will maintain a certain degree of debt due to variance between expected GDP growth, and actual GDP growth (because the figure that's really important is debt as a percentage of GDP). Additionally, there are certain diplomatic advantages to having other states hold your debt; most of them relating to ability of the debtor to use the resultant economic connection as a shield against certain things that might come up in the course of trade negotiations.

To much debt is still bad, but not having any debt has similar issues because it basically shows that the state is spending less money than it should be. That's the simplistic way of phrasing it, anyway.

Amaya wrote:Yes, and it took a freaking secession to cause that.

Look at Vietnam and the current conflict. Both could have been won quickly.

Edit: Would the North won if Sherman hadn't decided to open up a can of rape? Would America have defeated Japan without fire bombing and dropping the nukes?

The civil war was won through out producing the south. Japan would have been crushed by the combined might of russia and the U.S.

Vietnam could have been won if we went in with overwhelming force, shock and awe. Hit the north Vietnamese hard and fast, no need to be ruthless. Afghanistan and Iraq really can't be 'won' as the soviets showed us quite plainly.

Amaya wrote:

youbedead wrote:

Amaya wrote:

dogma wrote:I'm sure there wouldn't be any consequences to such a massive deployment of nuclear weapons.

Consequences only matter when you lose. Why do you think we got away with fire bombing and nuking civilians?

You do have to be alive to win though, nuclear winter and all that.

That's just a liberal myth. We'll keep all the intelligent whites in underground bunkers for 50 years just to be safe.

AAANNNNNNDDDDDDDDD Credibility just died right there. Who's you may ask? Yours.

Dogma, thanks for the explanation. So having a lot of national debt is kind of a good thing then?

Happygrunt wrote: So having a lot of national debt is kind of a good thing then?

He stated that a lot was bad, but that you do want some.

Amaya wrote:That's just a liberal myth. We'll keep all the intelligent whites (ed-emphasis mine) in underground bunkers for 50 years just to be safe.

I just lost any reason to reengage in this spirited debate.

Happygrunt wrote:

Amaya wrote:

youbedead wrote:

Amaya wrote:

dogma wrote:I'm sure there wouldn't be any consequences to such a massive deployment of nuclear weapons.

Consequences only matter when you lose. Why do you think we got away with fire bombing and nuking civilians?

You do have to be alive to win though, nuclear winter and all that.

That's just a liberal myth. We'll keep all the intelligent whites in underground bunkers for 50 years just to be safe.

AAANNNNNNDDDDDDDDD Credibility just died right there. Who's you may ask? Yours.

Dogma, thanks for the explanation. So having a lot of national debt is kind of a good thing then?

I do believe that was a joke. Yep about debt, thats while when a politician says lets balance the books they are spouting hot air