[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Kamala Harris, reparations, and guaranteed income Did Mudboy Slim finally kill this place? "Why Young Americans Are Not Taught about Evil" "New Rules For Radicals — How To Reinvent Kamala Harris" "Harris’ problem: She’s a complete phony" Hurricane Beryl strikes Bay City (TX) Who Is ‘Destroying Democracy In Darkness?’ ‘Kamalanomics’ is just ‘Bidenomics’ but dumber Even The Washington Post Says Kamala's 'Price Control' Plan is 'Communist' Arthur Ray Hines, "Sneakypete", has passed away. No righT ... for me To hear --- whaT you say ! "Walz’s Fellow Guardsmen Set the Record Straight on Veep Candidate’s Military Career: ‘He Bailed Out’ " "Kamala Harris Selects Progressive Minnesota Governor Tim Walz as Running Mate" "The Teleprompter Campaign" Good Riddance to Ismail Haniyeh "Pagans in Paris" "Liberal groupthink makes American life creepy and could cost Democrats the election". "Enter Harris, Stage Lef"t Official describes the moment a Butler officer confronted the Trump shooter Jesse Watters: Don’t buy this excuse from the Secret Service Video shows Trump shooter crawling into position while folks point him out to law enforcement Eyewitness believes there was a 'noticeable' difference in security at Trump's rally Trump Assassination Attempt We screamed for 3 minutes at police and Secret Service. They couldn’t see him, so they did nothing. EYEWITNESS SPEAKS OUT — I SAW THE ASSASSIN CRAWLING ACROSS THE ROOF. Video showing the Trump Rally shooter dead on the rooftop Court Just Nailed Hillary in $6 Million FEC Violation Case, 45x Bigger Than Trump's $130k So-Called Violation 2024 Republican Platform Drops Gun-Rights Promises Why will Kamala Harris resign from her occupancy of the Office of Vice President of the USA? Scroll down for records/details Secret Negotiations! Jill Biden’s Demands for $2B Library, Legal Immunity, and $100M Book Deal to Protect Biden Family Before Joe’s Exit AI is exhausting the power grid. Tech firms are seeking a miracle solution. Rare Van Halen Leicestershire, Donnington Park August 18, 1984 Valerie Bertinelli Cameo If you need a Good Opening for black, use this. "Arrogant Hunter Biden has never been held accountable — until now" How Republicans in Key Senate Races Are Flip-Flopping on Abortion Idaho bar sparks fury for declaring June 'Heterosexual Awesomeness Month' and giving free beers and 15% discounts to straight men Son of Buc-ee’s co-owner indicted for filming guests in the shower and having sex. He says the law makes it OK. South Africa warns US could be liable for ICC prosecution for supporting Israel Today I turned 50! San Diego Police officer resigns after getting locked in the backseat with female detainee Gazan Refugee Warns the World about Hamas Iranian stabbed for sharing his faith, miraculously made it across the border without a passport! Protest and Clashes outside Trump's Bronx Rally in Crotona Park Netanyahu Issues Warning To US Leaders Over ICC Arrest Warrants: 'You're Next' Will it ever end? Did Pope Francis Just Call Jesus a Liar? Climate: The Movie (The Cold Truth) Updated 4K version There can never be peace on Earth for as long as Islamic Sharia exists The Victims of Benny Hinn: 30 Years of Spiritual Deception. Trump Is Planning to Send Kill Teams to Mexico to Take Out Cartel Leaders The Great Falling Away in the Church is Here | Tim Dilena Status: Not Logged In; Sign In United States News See other United States News Articles Title: TrumpÂ’s not a liar. HeÂ’s a madman. Source: WAPO URL Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin ... ry.html?utm_term=.4d19c67ddbb1 Published: May 30, 2018 Author: Dana Milbank Post Date: 2018-05-30 07:47:55 by Jameson Keywords: out, of, control Views: 5967 Comments: 62 Even by President Trump’s standards, this Memorial Day weekend was memorable for the sheer volume of balderdash, bunk, poppycock and patent nonsense flowing from the White House. Balderdash: Trump went after the “failing and corrupt” New York Times for citing a senior White House official “who doesn’t exist” and admonished the newspaper to “use real people, not phony sources.” It turned out the senior official in question had spoken at a White House briefing arranged by Trump’s aides and attended by dozens of reporters. Bunk: Trump attacked “the 13 Angry Democrats” working for Robert S. Mueller III, apparently referring to prior party registration. But Mueller himself is a Republican, appointed by a Republican who was himself appointed by Trump. Poppycock: He called for “pressure on the Democrats to end the horrible law that separates children from there [sic] parents once they cross the Border into the U.S.” There is no such law, and Attorney General Jeff Sessions has acknowledged that family separation “inevitably” results from Trump’s “zero- tolerance” enforcement policy. Patent nonsense: “Who’s going to give back the young and beautiful lives (and others) that have been devastated and destroyed by the phony Russia Collusion Witch Hunt?” Trump asked. I can picture the GoFundMe campaign: “Paul Manafort, a young and beautiful 69-year-old, had a promising career ahead of him selling access to the White House before he was cruelly indicted . . . ” Early in this weekend’s monsoon of malarkey, New York Times White House reporter Maggie Haberman tweeted that Trump told “demonstrable falsehoods” — and she was roundly ridiculed on Twitter for failing to say Trump was lying. She defended herself by saying Trump’s pronouncements “can be hard to label” because “he often thinks whatever he says is what’s real.” Haberman is right, but there’s another reason not to label Trump’s untruths “lies”: Calling him a liar lets him off easy. A liar, by definition, knows he’s not telling the truth. Trump’s behavior is worse: With each day it becomes more obvious he can’t distinguish between fact and fantasy. It’s an illness, and it’s spreading. I’ve been writing for two years about his seeming inability to separate truth from falsehood: from his claim that he opposed the Iraq War to his belief that his rainy inauguration was “really sunny.” The man who ghostwrote Trump’s “Art of the Deal” marveled at Trump’s “ability to convince himself that whatever he is saying at any given moment is true.” Click for Full Text! Poster Comment: Thanks for telling us what we already knew. Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 52. #1. To: Jameson (#0) Title: TrumpÂ’s not a liar. HeÂ’s a madman. I'm glad you finally admitted that Trump is not a liar. Tooconservative  posted on  2018-05-30   8:06:32 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #2. To: Tooconservative (#1) I'm glad you finally admitted that Trump is not a liar. I admit no such thing. I believe the intent of this piece, is to point out that JO45 is indeed a liar, AND a mental defective. (in addition to being a degenerate) Jameson  posted on  2018-05-30   8:11:28 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #3. To: Jameson (#2) So you don't believe the very first sentence of your own article? Tooconservative  posted on  2018-05-30   8:14:20 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #6. To: Tooconservative (#3) So you don't believe the very first sentence of your own article? What I believe the author is saying is that to simply point out that JO45 is a lying sack of shit, is a monumental understatement. This ass-bite lies at every opportunity: President Trump lied more than 3,000 times in 466 days https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/01/politics/donald-trump-3000/index.html and He believes his lies, which makes him a mental defective who should probably be institutionalized. Jameson  posted on  2018-05-30   9:01:37 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #7. To: Jameson (#6) What I believe the author is saying is that to simply point out that JO45 is a lying sack of shit, is a monumental understatement. This ass-bite lies at every opportunity: President Trump lied more than 3,000 times in 466 days https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/01/politics/donald-trump-3000/index.html and He believes his lies, which makes him a mental defective who should probably be institutionalized. It's been a long time since you've been happy about politics, hasn't it? Vicomte13  posted on  2018-05-30   9:13:32 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #8. To: Vicomte13 (#7) It's been a long time since you've been happy about politics, hasn't it? About 568 days........ Jameson  posted on  2018-05-30   9:24:52 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #9. To: Jameson (#8) It's been a long time since you've been happy about politics, hasn't it? About 568 days........ So, you were an Obama man? (for the record, I did not find Obama terrible. I disliked his health care plan because it was unworkable. I did not find W terrible. I disliked his war strategy because I did not believe it could work. I thought Clinton was pretty good, actually. I thought H.W. Bush was a scumbag for lying to me to get my vote and then raising taxes. I liked Reagan, though I thought his tax policies were foolish. I thought Carter was weak. I was too young to have any sort of real political opinion about Ford, Nixon or LBJ. I stood up in the my crib for the first time the day JFK was shot, so I have no opinion on him or his next three successors based on direct experience, only on history, and history is never really true.) Vicomte13  posted on  2018-05-30   9:42:26 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #12. To: Vicomte13 (#9) I disliked his health care plan because it was unworkable. No argument about being unworkable as written. I expected additional legislation that would have fixed the biggest problems. The ACA did remove lifetime maximums, pre-existing conditions, and allowed kids to stay on their parents' plan - which were all very good things. All things considered, I am strongly in favor of universal healthcare for all, but that's a discussion for another day. So, you were an Obama man? At first by default, because after 8 years of "w" I was unwilling to vote for McCain, and in 2012 I found Romney to be too much of an elitist. I also considered what I expected the make-up of the congress to be... I felt divided government under the circumstances to be advisable. Jameson  posted on  2018-05-30   9:57:33 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #14. To: Jameson (#12) I am strongly in favor of universal healthcare for all, but that's a discussion for another day. I think it is a discussion for today. I am in favor of universal healthcare, but along very specific lines, as follows: (1) It starts with doctors. Medical school education is already merit based. Most of it should be free, paid for by the government - just exactly like ROTC - with a public service requirement of 8 years after licensing, minimum, just exactly like ROTC and the military. People who have the academic merit should be able to go the medical school and through residency without going into debt, and they should pay for that free education by working in the public health services and public hospitals as public doctors on the public payroll for about 10 years. (2) Legal reform should remove jury trials from medical malpractice cases, and substitute panels of experts, so that there are professional tribunals trying medical malpractice cases, to improve medicine, compensate victims, and generally cut the cost of malpractice insurance by 67%. A pattern that you will see throughout is that I do not believe that private insurers should be making much profit off of human suffering. I prefer public not- for-profit hospitals, doctors, and public not-for-profit insurance (eg: medicare) over private for-profit insurance. I do not believe that private insurance provides any improvement to the quality of medical care, and is nothing but a pure drain of financial resources FROM medicine TO capitalists and investors - and I believe that those profits are detrimental to health care (because they belong in medicine), and that the system should be designed to squeeze private insurance - not doctors - out of business. (3) All Americans should be on Medicare, cradle to grave, and there should be no Medicaid at all. There should not a two tier system of health care for workers and crappy barely-cared-for-at-all care for the poor. Point 1 creates (and the malpractice bit of point 2) provides a vast cadre of public doctors. In other words, I think that medicine, like schooling, is a necessary public good and a universal public right, irrespective of the ability to pay. I do not believe that private for-profit insurance has any role to play, and that public not-for-profit insurance should occupy the field and drive all of the private insurers out of business because they can't compete with it, other than in the "gap". Medigap insurance covers the better-off for the insurance gap between Medicare and Medicaid. (4) Because medicine is a licensed profession, I think that the acceptance of Medicare should be a requirement of holding a license, and that doctors who refuse to receive the public and be paid public insurance should not be allowed to practice medicine at all. Of course, by removing medical school debt, malpractice costs, and providing the public structure for the first ten years of practice, young doctors will be in much better financial shape than they are now when they go into private practice, if they decide to. Universal medicare, public medical education, tort reform are the keys to a good system. Obamacare did none of those things. Instead, it focused on preserving a big fat profit margin for private insurers in exchange for universal coverage. But that cannot work, economically. It is a waste of public money. Private insurers provide no health care beyond public insurance (Medicare): they simply provide profit to their owners. Obamacare amounted to a direct distribution of profit from the treasury to the private insurance companies. Take the profit out of medical insurance, nationalize it into Medicare, take the profit out of student lending to doctors and give them their medical education for free in exchange for a decade of public medical service. Take the profit, and bloated salaries, out of "not-for-profit" hospitals and make them public hospitals, staffed by public doctors (per the system described above). And insure everybody, cradle to grave, with Medicare. Cut military spending and raise taxes to pay for it. In other words, adopt the French health care system, because it is the best in the world, and it works better than all of the others, including ours. It's expensive, relative to the others, but it delivers a better quality of care than ANY other - the same as ours in terms of outcome - and it costs 60% less. Medical care pre-natal to grave, and public education, are universal human rights of Americans - set the taxes at whatever they need to be set at to accomplish that. We can talk about pensions another time. Vicomte13  posted on  2018-05-30   10:16:45 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #16. To: Vicomte13 (#14) I think it is a discussion for today. Fair enough. I take no issue with any of your points. adopt the French health care system, How does the French system differ from the Canadians'? ***There is a 0.00% chance of this sort of reform occurring under republican leadership*** Jameson  posted on  2018-05-30   10:24:08 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #30. To: Jameson (#16) How does the French system differ from the Canadians'? (1) Universal Medicare. In France everybody has health insurance, just like everybody in America over age 65 does. The French Medicare agency is the insurer (not for profit). (2) In France, most doctors are independent, but younger doctors are still working for the public hospitals. (3) So therefore, in France, doctors offices, whether public or private, do not have billing departments. You go to the doctor, of your choice, including specialists - just like you choose your doctor in America. In America, you are limited by "in network", and in Canada, you must go through your primary care physician and be prescribed to see a specialist. So, in Canada there are quotas and limits, and the doctors work for the government. In America, private insurance companies impose limits. But in France you, the patient, are absolutely free to chose any doctor you like, and the doctors take whatever patients they want, because - unlike in Canada - the doctors are not controlled by the government, and unlike in the US, the doctors are not controlled by the state either. In France, you go to the doctor, and you pay him with cash, check, or credit card, for service. You then take the receipt and send it to the insurer, which is Medicare, and Medicare sends you a reimbursement check for 80% of it. You cover the 20% co-pay. If you're poor, you qualify for French welfare, and they pay the 20%. If you're REALLY poor, you get the welfare payment voucher before you go to the doctor. So, in France, there is no medical rationing, no waiting list, and doctors are independent. The doctors who work for the state hospitals are, of course, on the government payroll, but they don't have the rationing and cost limitation mentality that Canadian and British doctors do. In short, the Canadian system is aimed at providing health care in the way that is cheapest per capita, and does so through limiting what patients can do, whom they can see, and rationing care: there are waiting lists for procedures, some operations are not scheduled for those who are deemed, essentially, "too old to be worth the cost". And in Canada, there is no opt out from the public system at all. The British system, likewise, controls costs by controlling patients: whom they may see, what operations they may get. The French system is exactly like the American system insofar as the patient is totally free to choose the doctors, or specialists he chooses. There are no gatekeepers. And the French are freer in this regard than Americans, because Americans have to choose "in network" doctors or the costs are prohibitive, but in France, the patient is always paying the doctor himself, so the doctor has no relationship at all with any insurance company. Rather, in France the relationship with the insurance is entirely between the individual and the Social Security Administration. The patient sends in the bill, and he generally gets sent a check for 80% of the price of it (per the schedule). There are, of course, private clinics with chic clientele, often foreign, who charge much higher than the schedule price. This is not because the doctors are better, usually, but because the high price is intended to discourage anybody but the foreign sheiks from using it. The pricing acts as the exclusivity bar. The American system is the only system that approximates the French system in terms of the absolute freedom of choice, but the French are much freer than we are, because we are limited by insurance company lists, and the Medicare pricing lists in America are aimed at rationing care. The pricing in France is more generous for doctors. So, what you get in France is top-level American-style quality and advanced care, with universal availability, and universal, non-employment-based insurance. The medical care is at the same as top-level American care, and the freedom is greater. Canada has nothing like those features. Of course, the French system costs more than twice as much per capita as the Canadian system, and is only about 30% cheaper, per capita, than the Americans, it is the most expensive of all of the national health systems BY FAR. What the French were aiming for was universal TOP END health care available to EVERYBODY, including the bottom of the poor, while preserving the full LIBERTY of choice by patients, and professional liberty of doctors. The best of American medicine, available to the poor, without rationing. That's really, REALLY expensive, for a national health system. Remember, it's only 30% cheaper than the American system, and double or triple the cost of all of the other systems. But it's the only other health system in the world that has the state-of- the-art medicine that Americans have - and the French are on average healthier because the state of the art stuff is only available to the top 50% of Americans who have good insurance. There is a TRADE OFF for French health care's freedom and quality, and that is that it is VERY EXPENSIVE, relative to all of the other systems except ours. Ours is 30% more expensive. Why? First, profit margin of the insurance companies. That isn't there in the French system. Second, the terrible American legal system and the huge cost of malpractice insurance in America. American doctors in some specialities spend a third of their gross revenue on malpractice insurance. In France, that's more like 7%. Those two things account for much of the gap. A third difference is that in America, health care billing is handled by doctors, who have large staffs of administrators to deal with the insurance companies. In France, a doctors office is usually doctors and a receptionist, maybe a prep nurse. They don't HAVE administrative staffs: the patients pay the doctors in cash, and the PATIENTS seek reimbursements, themselves, from the government insurance agency. So French doctors don't bear the administrative costs Americans do. Also, French doctors have no student loan debt, and have been working for about 10 years as paid professional doctors in the public system before they go into private practice, so they don't have the economic pressures on them that young American doctors do. This tends to moderate prices. But finally - the biggest difference between the French system and the Canadian or American system. The French pay a "Social Security Tax" in addition to the income tax. Both the employer and the employee pay matching amounts. We pay Social Security and Medicare tax in America and they pay it in Canada too. In America, the Social Security covers the government retirement stipend and disability insurance, while the Medicare tax partially covers the cost of Medicare (the rest comes from the general fund). The current tax rate for Social Security is 6.2% for the employer and 6.2% for the employee, or 12.4% total, on the first $127,000 or so of WAGES. The current rate for Medicare is 1.45% for the employer and 1.45% for the employee, or 2.9% total, of all WAGES. (Other forms of income are not taxed.) So for an average salaried employee, the total paid all in is 15.3%, half paid by employer, half by employee (and all paid by the self-employed). In Canada, the total paid by employer and employee for the same things, but with that different standard of health care, is 13.884%. Remember, please, that Social Security tax also covers retirements, and that the US and Canadian Social Security retirement system is not intended to be a full pension. In France, the total paid by the employee for medical insurance as described, and for a full retirement pension (which French social security is), is 17.95%, while the employer contribution is 31.4%, for a total of 49.35%. Remember, please, that the system in France provides free school, free college, universal health care, and full pensions for all. And the tax for all of that amounts to 49.35% of the outlays by employers for employees, over three times as much as Americans or Canadians pay. Essentially, three different national philosophies have been applied here, that turn on three vectors: Liberty, Equality, and Security. The Liberty portion essentially means the freedom of the individual to choose. In matters of medicine this means choosing one's doctor and one's level of care. In more general matters of life it means having the economic means to do as one pleases. Taxes reduce general liberty, by taking money away from individuals reducing their choices. Equality refers to the different treatment by the society of the very rich, the very poor, the people in between, the upper half and the lower half. And Security refers to the freedom from fear - fear of not being able to educate one's self and get a job, fear of losing one's home if unemployed, fear of being able to provide for one's kid, fear of illness, and fear of being destitute in old age, among other things. Canada, the USA and the French, all democracies, have made different choices in these regards. The Americans have maximized personal liberty, insofar as we have the lowest taxes of the three countries. We have not maximized liberty of choice in health care, but we have considered the liberty of insurance companies to set the terms of their business and make private profits to be a paramount interest. We have also considered the liberty to sue, and of juries to decide what the plaintiff is due, to be very important. The Canadians have chosen to minimize personal liberty. In order to have the equality of medical treatment within the country, at low cost, the Canadians have chosen to compel all doctors to operate within the national system, and to limit what patients can choose, to ration care. This makes Canadian health care available to all, but of visibly poorer quality than the top half of America receives. Canadians in general pay higher taxes, but they pay a lot less, in the mix, for health care. The French have chosen to maximize equality and security, and liberty in the realm of medical care (and university attendance), but at the cost of more general liberty. Everybody in France gets the health care available to the top fifth of the USA. Everybody has a pension. Everybody has a free college education. And if unemployed, support payments mean that nobody loses their home and is out on the street with kids. That security comes at the price of very high taxes. So there is less left over for the French to do other things with, like buy clothes and sports cars and computer stuff, entertainment, etc. Canadian health care is equal, cheap, restrictive, and unacceptably bad to the top half of Americans and all of the French. French health care is as good as top shelf American health care, but only the top half of Americans have access to it. The bottom half of Americans are worse off than Canadians. The French have the best health care in the world, and everybody has full access to it - and that means that the French don't have as much disposable income for other stuff as Americans or Canadians. The French have decided that security of education, housing, health care and retirement (and of the nation itself, and energy security) are "alpha" priorities that are more important than individual priorities, so they society is taxed at a rate that is limited by law to be no more than 50% of an individual's income (though the sales tax: the VAT, of 20%, means that that remaining disposable income is itself taxed at a rate of between 10 and 20% when the money is spent). It is very expensive to give everybody in a major country an equal shot at an education, equal health care at American levels (rounding to the TOP, as opposed to going Canadian style and providing equal, lower-quality care), and retirement pensions. The French have made a choice. The Canadians have made one. The Americans have made a third. Of the three, I think the French have chosen most wisely, though being an upper tier American I have more personal liberty living in the USA than I would in France, because I have quite a bit more disposable income available to do with as I please here than I would in France. Vicomte13  posted on  2018-05-30   11:39:27 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #37. To: Vicomte13 (#30) Ours is 30% more expensive. Why? Because our private insurance pays close to 100% of the cost vs. 70% in the French system. misterwhite  posted on  2018-05-30   12:03:29 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #41. To: misterwhite (#37) Because our private insurance pays close to 100% of the cost vs. 70% in the French system. No. Because in the US our insurance doesn't cover anywhere close to 100%. Everybody on this thread can attest to that. Beyond that, huge numbers of Americans don't have insurance, or don't have insurance that covers anything but the most critical things. Our life expectancy is shorter, or infant mortality rate is higher. The French have medical care that is as good as ours is medically, and everybody in the country is covered by it. That is a HUGE improvement over the US situation. We should adopt the French system, and impose the taxes to pay for it. To start, Social Security should touch every dollar of income, not just the income of the working and middle class. That would pay for a great deal. Vicomte13  posted on  2018-05-30   13:13:05 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #43. To: Vicomte13 (#41) To start, Social Security should touch every dollar of income Fine by me, provided those who pay more in get more out. Which is not the case today. misterwhite  posted on  2018-05-30   13:55:11 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #45. To: misterwhite (#43) Fine by me, provided those who pay more in get more out. Which is not the case today. Yeah it is. I have paid in the max for many, many years, and therefore I will get the max benefit out. Those who paid in less don't get the same level of benefit. Obviously you have to cap the payment out at some level, because taxes ARE meant to be redistributive, so that the people at the bottom can have it better and not live in poverty. That's basically the whole point: there's a level below which people should not be allowed to fall, a safety net. Retirement should be a bit above the middle of the middle, nothing more than that. Paying in to get paid out is a way it was sold. Really it's just a tax and redistribution, for the benefit of most. We should be much more honest about these things. Vicomte13  posted on  2018-05-30   14:07:44 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #47. To: Vicomte13 (#45) Obviously you have to cap the payment out at some level, Fine. Then cap the tax at some level. misterwhite  posted on  2018-05-30   14:23:08 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #50. To: misterwhite (#47) Fine. Then cap the tax at some level. No, because that means that those at higher income do not bear the same redistributive burden, as a percentage of their wealth, as those down the scale. Vicomte13  posted on  2018-05-30   14:56:54 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #52. To: Vicomte13 (#50) No, because that means that those at higher income do not bear the same redistributive burden, as a percentage of their wealth,, as a percentage of their wealth, as those down the scale. Redistributive burden as a percentage of their wealth? What is that, some new communist formula for failure? Social Security is a program by which everyone puts in a certain percentage of their income up to a cap, and everyone receives a certain amount of money after they retire, no matter how wealthy they are. The amount of money you receive every month is related to how much you put in. If you want to raise one, then I say raise the other. Our income tax system is already a huge redistributive burden. misterwhite  posted on  2018-05-30   15:40:43 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   Replies to Comment # 52. #54. To: misterwhite (#52) Redistributive burden as a percentage of their wealth? What is that, some new communist formula for failure? No. It's the formula for fairness. Vicomte13  posted on  2018-05-30 15:51:47 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   End Trace Mode for Comment # 52. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]  Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com