HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Goodheart » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next »

Goodheart

Profile Information

Member since: Sat Apr 8, 2017, 08:19 PM
Number of posts: 1,464

Journal Archives

Blasphemy: a National Sales Tax would be MUCH better than our present or any Income Tax system

Let me start by saying that I strongly disagree with the biggest myth that keeps us operating under an income tax system: that a national sales tax would disproportionately and unfairly hurt lower and middle class people. The reasons that's an incorrect assumption? 1) Because different items for purchase can easily be taxed at different rates 2) some items don't have to be taxed at all 3) taxes can be instituted on items and transactions that are not currently taxed 4) government refunds of sales taxes can be easily instituted.

On the contrary, it's our current income tax system that hurts the non-rich. Why? Several reasons: 1) Income is easy to hide, understate, and manipulate 2) Items and transactions that are deducted as expenses to lower taxation are not necessarily relevant nor necessary to producing the associated income (In other words, the fortunate can presently subsidize luxuries under the guise of expense). Furthermore, as far as our current system goes, there are many transactions which should be taxed but are not (most egregiously: the sales/transfers of equities and real property).

All that aside, I'm here as a former corporate accountant to tell you that fully one third of my work was devoted to satisfying government information and reporting mandates because of an income tax system. Elimination of income taxes (and most of the IRS) in favor of a much easier to operate national sales tax system would be a boon to corporate productivity.


Any Les Miles fans here?

So, I'm an LSU grad and fan, and was more than eager to replace him as head coach, but you gotta love him. Here's a quote from last night after his Kansas team pulled off a surprising upset on the road against Boston College:

"The city of Boston is known for such battles of revolution. The football team tonight willed to revolution of the team victory in triumph. Our men fought hard in such extreme toughness in conquering the team of fight."

LOL.

And you know what? When he says things like that, even though his syntax is horrendous, he still makes perfect sense. Compare that to what a moron says:

“We have the cleanest water, the cleanest air that we’ve ever had in the history of our country, right now. Let’s say the history of our country over the last 25 years. I would say they probably had cleaner water, cleaner air because there was nobody here. So I have to be very accurate."

No fucking sense in that, whatsoever.


Not in love with my Instant Pot

Aside from the blatant lies about cooking times, and the blind SURPRISES you get, I find the menu system really confusing and unintuitive.

For example, I just tried to cook some plain white rice... put the hard rice in with the appopriate amount of water, closed it up, and pressed the "Rice" button. Sure sounds simple enough, right? But then the LED flashed 12:00 minutes... OK, I can deal with that... it's going to take 12 minutes once the pot is pressurized.... BUT THEN...

The led changes its display word to AUTO and a panel button marked "Keep Warm" lights up..... well short of the pressure time + 12 minutes. It's certainly not cooked, so why is it "Keeping my stuff Warm"? What sort of nonsense is that?

Either I have a defective pot or somebody needs to go back to the drawing board. With this much guess work I might as just use a regular pressure cooker.

So, why didn't Mueller mention the Deutsche Bank loan arrangements?

Seriously.

Because I'm not stupid.

That was my answer when one of the white people at a very white get-together, surprised to hear me defend Hillary Clinton against a smear, asked me "You're a Democrat??!!! Really? Why?"

I'm keeping it simple these days.


Cremate, people.

Cremate people.

Are we talking about dignity for the dead?

Let me tell you a sad story....

Somebody very close to me died, and the eulogy was very nice.... but THEN...

We travel out to some mausoleum and his body (inside a coffin, of course) is pushed into a drawer about five rows up.... so high that the attending pastor had to use a ladder next to the coffin.

How is it dignified, pray tell, to have your body stuffed into a drawer?

I can see, maybe, the beauty in lowering your body into the ground and then covering it with earth... but a DRAWER? And somebody paid good money for that drawer space.

How much more beautiful would it have been to toss the ashes to the wind? A WHOLE LOT MORE, that's what.

The meme that the Clintons had Epstein killed is strong among the dullards.

I've heard it several times now.

Unless the "public option" is free or inexpensive it's snake oil.. and dangerous snake oil at that.

I'll start this discussion by stating that I consider Biden's and Bennet's debate performances last night as failures. They both insist that adding a "public option" to the ACA is the healthcare system we all should have, but what does that public option actually mean to a consumer? HOW MUCH would my premiums and deductibles be relative to a comparable plan provided by private insurance? THAT'S the most important question, and neither proffered an answer.

So let's address the proposal to keep the ACA:

The ACA should not be a Democratic sacred cow just because it began with the Obama Administration and is better than what we had previously. Even President Obama considered it only a stepping stone (albeit a significant one) on our way to single payer health CARE, as opposed to profit-dominated private health INSURANCE. So, why did he SETTLE for the ACA instead of single payer? Well, because it was constructed upon a Heritage Foundation concept he thought (naively) that he could at least get a few Republicans to agree to the plan, ostensibly unaware that all those Republicans had made a compact among themselves to thwart ANY and all programs that Obama might chalk up as achievements.

Most important in its consideration, in my view, is that the Affordable Care Act is certainly not "affordable" for many Americans... 27 MILLION of us are STILL uninsured. And then there are millions of people such as myself, who barely earned $50k last year but had to fork over $900+ per month, for just myself as a single person, for medical premiums under an ACA-subsidized plan.

Second, "insurance" companies, their executives, and their agents do not wield stethoscopes and scalpels. They don't operate cat-scan machines nor perform operations. They exist to generate PROFITS. And make no mistake about it... they generate ENORMOUS profits. And any and all profits that go to such middlemen could otherwise be directed to health care, itself. We already have real world examples... should I list them? Canada, the UK, France, Scandinavia, Japan, Australia... all of whom have better health CARE delivery than our own, not to mention greater life expectancies.

So, is adding a "public option" to this present mixture a way to reduce overall costs of health care? Please tell me how, because Joe Biden certainly hasn't. How would it eliminate private insurance as the primary element in our health care allocation system? How would it eliminate those PROFITS?

Well, I'll tell you how (again, Biden certainly hasn't) it COULD work. If we're going to have a "public option" on top of the ACA then its premiums must be free or nearly free, in order that employers can eliminate arrangements with private insurers and have their employees move to the public option, or purchase group public option plans themselves. Eventually, private insurance would be replaced as our dominant factor by the sheer weight of its expense to consumers.

So why is the public option "dangerous" at COMPETITIVE rates (i.e. market rates determined by the private insurance companies)? Because unless those rates are actually significantly better they will be perceived as pointless, endangering their very existence, and thus eliminating a movement to government assistance for universal care altogether.

I CAN NOT support your "public option" Joe unless you tell me it's going to be free or inexpensive. Right now you are endangering the future of universal health care.

Unless the "public option" is free or inexpensive it's snake oil.. and dangerous snake oil at that.

I'll start this discussion by stating that I consider Biden's and Bennet's debate performances last night as failures. They both insist that adding a "public option" to the ACA is the healthcare system we all should have, but what does that public option actually mean to a consumer? HOW MUCH would my premiums and deductibles be relative to a comparable plan provided by private insurance? THAT'S the most important question, and neither proffered an answer.

So let's address the proposal to keep the ACA:

The ACA should not be a Democratic sacred cow just because it began with the Obama Administration and is better than what we had previously. Even President Obama considered it only a stepping stone (albeit a significant one) on our way to single payer health CARE, as opposed to profit-dominated private health INSURANCE. So, why did he SETTLE for the ACA instead of single payer? Well, because it was constructed upon a Heritage Foundation concept he thought (naively) that he could at least get a few Republicans to agree to the plan, ostensibly unaware that all those Republicans had made a compact among themselves to thwart ANY and all programs that Obama might chalk up as achievements.

Most important in its consideration, in my view, is that the Affordable Care Act is certainly not "affordable" for many Americans... 27 MILLION of us are STILL uninsured. And then there are millions of people such as myself, who barely earned $50k last year but had to fork over $900+ per month, for just myself as a single person, for medical premiums under an ACA-subsidized plan.

Second, "insurance" companies, their executives, and their agents do not wield stethoscopes and scalpels. They don't operate cat-scan machines nor perform operations. They exist to generate PROFITS. And make no mistake about it... they generate ENORMOUS profits. And any and all profits that go to such middlemen could otherwise be directed to health care, itself. We already have real world examples... should I list them? Canada, the UK, France, Scandinavia, Japan, Australia... all of whom have better health CARE delivery than our own, not to mention greater life expectancies.

So, is adding a "public option" to this present mixture a way to reduce overall costs of health care? Please tell me how, because Joe Biden certainly hasn't. How would it eliminate private insurance as the primary element in our health care allocation system? How would it eliminate those PROFITS?

Well, I'll tell you how (again, Biden certainly hasn't) it COULD work. If we're going to have a "public option" on top of the ACA then its premiums must be free or nearly free, in order that employers can eliminate arrangements with private insurers and have their employees move to the public option, or purchase group public option plans themselves. Eventually, private insurance would be replaced as our dominant factor by the sheer weight of its expense to consumers.

So why is the public option "dangerous" at COMPETITIVE rates (i.e. market rates determined by the private insurance companies)? Because unless those rates are actually significantly better they will be perceived as pointless, endangering their very existence, and thus eliminating a movement to government assistance for universal care altogether.

I CAN NOT support your "public option" Joe unless you tell me it's going to be free or inexpensive. Right now you are endangering the future of universal health care.





OMG... I was overliked at dinner by the couple at the next table.

Bear with me.

I didn't know them, they didn't know me, they didn't gush over me, I don't think they even noticed me, and I didn't speak to them nor they to me.

But they DID annoy me. Their conversation.... You don't really WANT to tune in to what your neighbors are saying, but sometimes in close proximity you can't NOT hear it. Maybe I shouldn't be so irritable but it becomes like nails on a blackboard.

I call it being "overliked". You've probably also been overliked.

I'll explain by posting a bit of what the young fellow was saying to his friend:

"So, I was LIKE watching this documentary, and it was LIKE about immigration, and I sort of LIKE felt sorry for those people because I'm sure it must be LIKE terrifying to come a strange place because LIKE your own country is so bad LIKE. And Ford LIKE doesn't make cars anymore, because LIKE they're moving to all truck and SUV production because that's LIKE the future. LIKE, LIKE, LIKE, LIKE, LIKE, LIKE....."

What is it with this Like Generation? Granted... we had our "um's" and "you know's"... is "LIKE" supposed to be a step up from those? It's ANNOYING AS HELL.

And you really, really, really want to lean over and say "young man, you say LIKE too much"... but you don't because you don't want to cause a scene, or admit that you were listening to them even though it was entirely not your fault, nor hurt some feelings, and they seem to be otherwise very fine people. Really unlikable, though.
Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next »