As you all must have read on the front page of this site, the Senate has passed a $2500 - $7500 tax credit for PHEV's.

The good news: It sounds like the Volt will qualify for the full $7500. And we don't have to worry about who wins the presidency and whether they keep their promise any more.

The bad news: The average working family pays < $4,000 in federal taxes. Since you can only claim what you pay, it means this credit is effectively regressive. The more you make, the better of a deal you will get on this car. Only families making > $150,000 a year will be able to get the full deal. Result: We've just made PHEV's more affordable for the very people who don't need help.

So when those 10,000 vehicles come out and you're trying to decide if you can afford the car, its nice to know the CEO of the company you work for is getting his for $3500 less than you!

I am not a tax accountant or tax lawyer. However, I know that in some cases, credits and losses and deductions can be carried forward and/or backward to be used against other years' taxes if they can't be fully utilized against the current year's taxes. It may be that a family paying around $4k in taxes can use $4k of the credit one year and $3.5k the next, we'll have to see how the actual tax code comes out.

As you all must have read on the front page of this site, the Senate has passed a $2500 - $7500 tax credit for PHEV's.

The good news: It sounds like the Volt will qualify for the full $7500. And we don't have to worry about who wins the presidency and whether they keep their promise any more.

The bad news: The average working family pays < $4,000 in federal taxes. Since you can only claim what you pay, it means this credit is effectively regressive. The more you make, the better of a deal you will get on this car. Only families making > $150,000 a year will be able to get the full deal. Result: We've just made PHEV's more affordable for the very people who don't need help.

So when those 10,000 vehicles come out and you're trying to decide if you can afford the car, its nice to know the CEO of the company you work for is getting his for $3500 less than you!There's gotta be a loop-hole in there somewhere...
WOT

The bad news: The average working family pays < $4,000 in federal taxes. Since you can only claim what you pay, it means this credit is effectively regressive. The more you make, the better of a deal you will get on this car. Only families making > $150,000 a year will be able to get the full deal. Result: We've just made PHEV's more affordable for the very people who don't need help.

So when those 10,000 vehicles come out and you're trying to decide if you can afford the car, its nice to know the CEO of the company you work for is getting his for $3500 less than you!

Why is this bad news? You're right, you can only get back what you pay in. Are you suggesting that your fellow tax payers should have to pay you because they are buying a volt? IE, the old guy making 12,000 per year working at burger king because he doesn't get enough from Social Security to pay his bills even though he worked 40+ hours a week for 60 years but was forced into a failing retirement plan by an over-reaching government won't see a red-cent of this tax credit because he can barely afford his medication, much less an electric car. Wahh muther-f'in waah for those that pay less than 4000/year in taxes who will actually get ALL of their money paid in taxes that year back by the math explained above.

To all of you, get your god damned hands out of my pockets and I'll pay full price for the Volt.

To all of you, get your god damned hands out of my pockets and I'll pay full price for the Volt.




This is the same guy that drives on our Interstates, crosses rivers on our bridges, and watches TV all night long - all powered by our grid. Get real! If you had your way we would all still be living on the little house on the prairie. ;)

Why is this bad news? You're right, you can only get back what you pay in. Are you suggesting that your fellow tax payers should have to pay you because they are buying a volt? IE, the old guy making 12,000 per year working at burger king because he doesn't get enough from Social Security to pay his bills even though he worked 40+ hours a week for 60 years but was forced into a failing retirement plan by an over-reaching government won't see a red-cent of this tax credit because he can barely afford his medication, much less an electric car. Wahh muther-f'in waah for those that pay less than 4000/year in taxes who will actually get ALL of their money paid in taxes that year back by the math explained above.

To all of you, get your god damned hands out of my pockets and I'll pay full price for the Volt.

OK, first of all, I never said this would affect me. I will easily pay more than the rebate. By a long shot. So before you accuse me of sticking my hands in your pocket, make sure I've actually done that.

Some of us actually give a damn about others besides ourselves. I was not saying this was bad for me. I was saying it sucked for the average working man and woman.

Why should someone making $300,000 a year get a BIGGER discount than someone making $80,000?

People buying these cars are paying a premium to help fund the R&D that went into making them. They are helping their country enormously by doing this. Everyone who buys this car should get the same rebate.

I don't mind paying for roads - something we are (supposedly) doing with our gasoline tax. Except here in Oregon, our "leaders" engage in social engineering by diverting what should be highway dollars into projects like light rail - a bargain at over $100 million per mile. We haven't had any new roads built for decades! Meanwhile, watch out for the potholes. :mad:

I don't think any taxpayer minds paying a reasonable portion of his income to provide for infrastructure (at least I don't). Where I have a problem is the incredible waste of taxpayer's money in pork, boondoggles, and pure income redistribution. And then there's the "reasonable" part - how much is enough? 30% of my income? 40%? Plus, I think about the money I pay out to various businesses, utilities, etc. How much of that money is going to pay their taxes? After all, businesses don't pay taxes, their customer's do. The final figure is probably approaching 50%. That's just sickening. :eek:

My mental image of government is that it is like a cancer - it will grow uncontrollably unless you cut off its food supply (money - my money). Some government is a necessary evil, but the bloated gargantuan we have today is simply unsustainable.

I don't mind paying for roads - something we are (supposedly) doing with our gasoline tax. Except here in Oregon, our "leaders" engage in social engineering by diverting what should be highway dollars into projects like light rail - a bargain at over $100 million per mile. We haven't had any new roads built for decades! Meanwhile, watch out for the potholes. :mad:

I don't think any taxpayer minds paying a reasonable portion of his income to provide for infrastructure (at least I don't). Where I have a problem is the incredible waste of taxpayer's money in pork, boondoggles, and pure income redistribution. And then there's the "reasonable" part - how much is enough? 30% of my income? 40%? Plus, I think about the money I pay out to various businesses, utilities, etc. How much of that money is going to pay their taxes? After all, businesses don't pay taxes, their customer's do. The final figure is probably approaching 50%. That's just sickening. :eek:

My mental image of government is that it is like a cancer - it will grow uncontrollably unless you cut off its food supply (money - my money). Some government is a necessary evil, but the bloated gargantuan we have today is simply unsustainable.

Agreed 100%. I really wish the gov't was forced to do their accounting like a business is forced too. They couldn't get away with half of the garbage that they do. That or a straight sales tax. No income tax of any kind and only taxes on finished goods. People of all classes would begin to realize how badly the gov't has them bent over when goods become drastically cheaper, but with a 50% tax slapped on top, and force the gov't to shrink and spend less or face the consequences.

You guys have a point when you rail against government bloat and inefficiency, but consider this. That old man working at mcdonalds can't afford his medication not because of government bloat but because of a bloated, profit-driven private sector that's been left in charge of health care. The United States pays more than anyone else in the world for health care and gets the least service for every dollar they put in.

There's a lot wrong with government and it's definitely worth complaining about. But the answer is not to confidently proclaim that government itself is the problem, like Reagan did, and turn everything over to a fairy tale free market. That reactionary, ideological attitude causes far more harm than good.

Maybe if we got the insurance companies out of healthcare, it would be affordable again.

The United States pays more than anyone else in the world for health care and gets the least service for every dollar they put in.

Maybe so, however I don't see anyone from the US running to Mexico or Canada for medical care.

As broken as our health care system is, it's still the best on earth.

Every American should watch the movie Sicko. That will at least get the discussion going. Then go and research both sides with an open mind. If you do that you might be a little disgusted. Just a little.

Sorry, I had a Micheal Moore BS filter installed :p

Sorry, I had a Micheal Moore BS filter installed :p




It seems that most Republicans have that very same filter installed. What's the name of it again? Oh yeah. Hear no evil see no evil speak no evil V5.0

Things are too screwed up for people to have the luxury of closing their eyes to reality. They need to stop listening to their God-like leaders and start doing real, open minded research. Get the facts, analyze the data very carefully like a scientist would. Don't allow your emotions to cloud your judgment. Just compare and contrast. Use real statistics and finally you can see what is going on.

Why in Gods name would you consider having the police departments controlled by the government for the safety of the people but not heath care? Every other industrialized country feels it's the same as the police, fire departments, etc. Having our citizens not insured, especially children, is baffling. Other countries have at least basic health care for their citizens at overall costs that are way below what we pay. Why is that? How is that possible? Well, The drug companies can make a lot of money selling drugs. A lot of money. Who cares if you don't really need the medicine. Why is our country's heath so poor? Our infant mortality rate is worse than Cuba’s! Rationalize that.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_mortality_rate_(2005)


Oh and the best health care in the world? Here is the ranking by the WHO (World Health Organization):

1 France 2 Italy 3 San Marino 4 Andorra 5 Malta 6 Singapore 7 Spain 8 Oman 9 Austria 10 Japan 11 Norway 12 Portugal 13 Monaco 14 Greece 15 Iceland 16 Luxembourg 17 Netherlands 18 United Kingdom 19 Ireland 20 Switzerland 21 Belgium 22 Colombia 23 Sweden 24 Cyprus 25 Germany 26 Saudi Arabia 27 United Arab Emirates 28 Israel 29 Morocco 30 Canada 31 Finland 32 Australia 33 Chile 34 Denmark 35 Dominica 36 Costa Rica 37 United States of America

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

Maybe so, however I don't see anyone from the US running to Mexico or Canada for medical care.
Of course not. You're not a Canadian or a Mexican! If you did you would just have to PAY! (no different than here) BUT you'd be standing in line next to some canuck or beaner getting the exact same service (tests, treatment, surgery etc) FOR FREE!!
That's the difference. (and the slightly higher taxes they pay for that privilege of course)
JMO
WOT

Maybe so, however I don't see anyone from the US running to Mexico or Canada for medical care.

Some very wealthy Canadians go south to skip waiting lists for surgeries, but there are way more Americans going north for the free health care. Why compare Canada to Mexico? That's like comparing France (first world social democracy) to Cuba. I'm sick of these baseless comparisons by people with no knowledge of the world outside their borders.

I'll bet Moore has his hemorrhoids done stateside :D

Michael Moore is a very good human being, despite looking like an unshaven sack of ****. He's spent his whole life fighting for the little people and exposing fraud and corruption. So let's listen to what he says and not just insult him like those wacky dudes from south park. I personally don't like his film making style and I think it sometimes takes away from his message, but it's the content that counts.

Michael Moore is a very good human being, despite looking like an unshaven sack of ****. He's spent his whole life fighting for the little people and exposing fraud and corruption. So let's listen to what he says and not just insult him like those wacky dudes from south park. I personally don't like his film making style and I think it sometimes takes away from his message, but it's the content that counts.OMG! (and pats tin-foil more tightly around skull)
LOL
just funnin wit ya vader...
;)
WOT

Michael Moore is a very good human being, despite looking like an unshaven sack of ****. He's spent his whole life fighting for the little people and exposing fraud and corruption. So let's listen to what he says and not just insult him like those wacky dudes from south park. I personally don't like his film making style and I think it sometimes takes away from his message, but it's the content that counts.
I appreciate how he makes sure to remain unbiased in his journalistic endeavors.

OMG! (and pats tin-foil more tightly around skull)
LOL
just funnin wit ya vader...
;)
WOT

What does this even mean?

You guys have a point when you rail against government bloat and inefficiency, but consider this. That old man working at mcdonalds can't afford his medication not because of government bloat but because of a bloated, profit-driven private sector that's been left in charge of health care. The United States pays more than anyone else in the world for health care and gets the least service for every dollar they put in.

There's a lot wrong with government and it's definitely worth complaining about. But the answer is not to confidently proclaim that government itself is the problem, like Reagan did, and turn everything over to a fairy tale free market. That reactionary, ideological attitude causes far more harm than good.

What makes you think the "private" sector has been left in charge of health care? In WV, Title 33 of the WV Code defines minimal standards for health care, restrictions on who can provide health care, taxes on various services, who can sale insurance, creates a state authority to "promulgate rules" on defining the forms that any insurer or provider of health is to use in the state, how insurance can be marketed and on and on and on. This is not the private sector in control of health care or health insurance. This is government intrusion into the market on such a scale that many companies will not provide health insurance in WV.

As Texas said, everyone should watch Sicko, but they should also read the rules and regulations of their state that affect their health care. Michael Moore paints the hospitals and insurance companies as evil machines that must be reigned in by the government but forgets to tell you that they are already operating under the governments prevue and blessing.

Take for instance the rules on obtaining insurance. Apparently, in WV if you are buying private insurance for yourself, you are not allowed to be reimbursed by your employer for the costs of the insurance. Due to this regulation, up until this last month, I was unable to legally get health insurance in WV. As an individual, I could not go to another state and get Health insurance from a company that I desired, but only from companies providing it in my state. I made enough money to pay for insurance, but my employer was going to reimburse me for it. So I either had to, effectively, take a pay cut to pay for it myself, or lie.

The fairy tale that you have been told is that there has been any sort of real deregulation in any market within the last half century or more. Energy, financial, agricultural, health, all the way down to the lowly hair dresser are regulated in almost every jurisdiction in this country.

The amount of regulation that we have now creates the opposite effect of it's intention. The companies and market places are not longer beholden to the consumer but operate on the mentality "if it's not illegal ..." or "the fines are so small in comparison, it's worth it until we are caught ...".

The only successful check on the actions of the market place is the consumer and where and how we spend our money.

This is the same guy that drives on our Interstates, crosses rivers on our bridges, and watches TV all night long - all powered by our grid. Get real! If you had your way we would all still be living on the little house on the prairie. ;)


Buying roads:

I pay taxes when I buy gasoline that go to the National Highway fund and to the state.
I pay registration and inspection fees on my vehicle that go to the state.
I pay taxes on my vehicle that go to the state.

I personally believe that the National Highway fund is one of the better setups of a public program, it essentially is a user-fee system to use the roads. I believe user-fee systems are appropriate for government to implement.

I do not believe that the National Highway fund should be used as leverage by the federal government in order to pass legislation that would otherwise be unconstitutional, i.e. National drinking law of 21.

I believe the states should come together and setup a fund with their bordering states that could function similar to the National Highway fund but without the monkey on their back that is the federal government.

I think management of the road system should be a partnership between the government, the auto manufacturers, the oil companies and the gasoline retailers.

TV:
I don't watch it all night long, I'm on the damned internet.
I pay for television service so the cable company can pay their electric bill.
I pay an electric bill for the electric company to provide me with electricity.
I pay for the television that was made by the manufacturer.

I believe that if the government was not redistributing our wealth, we would still have these services and you have yet to provide any evidence as to otherwise.

OK, first of all, I never said this would affect me. I will easily pay more than the rebate. By a long shot. So before you accuse me of sticking my hands in your pocket, make sure I've actually done that.

Some of us actually give a damn about others besides ourselves. I was not saying this was bad for me. I was saying it sucked for the average working man and woman.

Why should someone making $300,000 a year get a BIGGER discount than someone making $80,000?

People buying these cars are paying a premium to help fund the R&D that went into making them. They are helping their country enormously by doing this. Everyone who buys this car should get the same rebate.

Everyone who buys the car should get the same rebate? If they all get the same rebate and not everyone put in more taxes than the rebate allows for, you are sticking your hands in my pocket to receive your rebate, no matter how much you make in a year. The only way to make it fair would be to make the rebate of the vehicle be the least common denominator, ie the same amount that the poorest man put into the system. Which is zero dollars.

Why in Gods name would you consider having the police departments controlled by the government for the safety of the people but not heath care? Every other industrialized country feels it's the same as the police, fire departments, etc. Having our citizens not insured, especially children, is baffling. Other countries have at least basic health care for their citizens at overall costs that are way below what we pay. Why is that? How is that possible? Well, The drug companies can make a lot of money selling drugs. A lot of money. Who cares if you don't really need the medicine. Why is our country's heath so poor? Our infant mortality rate is worse than Cuba’s! Rationalize that.


Since when is the police department controlled by the government for the safety of the people? The police department has no responsibility to any individual or their safety.

"Police have no legal duty to respond and prevent crime or protect the victim. There have BEEN OVER 10 various supreme and state court cases the individual has never won. Notably, the Supreme Court STATED about the responsibility of police for the security of your family and loved ones is "You, and only you, are responsible for your security and the security of your family and loved ones. That was the essence of a U.S. Supreme Court decision in the early 1980's when they ruled that the police do not have a duty to protect you as an individual, but to protect society as a whole.""
http://publicrights.org/Kennesaw/PoliceResponsibility.html



Oh and the best health care in the world? Here is the ranking by the WHO (World Health Organization):

1 France 2 Italy 3 San Marino 4 Andorra 5 Malta 6 Singapore 7 Spain 8 Oman 9 Austria 10 Japan 11 Norway 12 Portugal 13 Monaco 14 Greece 15 Iceland 16 Luxembourg 17 Netherlands 18 United Kingdom 19 Ireland 20 Switzerland 21 Belgium 22 Colombia 23 Sweden 24 Cyprus 25 Germany 26 Saudi Arabia 27 United Arab Emirates 28 Israel 29 Morocco 30 Canada 31 Finland 32 Australia 33 Chile 34 Denmark 35 Dominica 36 Costa Rica 37 United States of America

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

Guess it depends on which column you sort by in the spreadsheet.

US v France:

US 72 37 24 32 1 3-38 54-55 15 1
France 4 1 3 12 16-17 3-38 26-29 6 4

We are better in "Responsiveness" and spending more money on health care. :)

What the numbers in those spreadsheets actually mean isn't very well defined, so I reserve judgement on the WHO rankings. What the hell is DALE anyways?

Some other interesting rankings when considering what government should and shouldn't do -

Rank of nation debt as % of gdp:

France: 18 at 66%
US: 62 at 36.8%
http://www.photius.com/rankings/economy/public_debt_2008_0.html

Labor force by occupation: services

France: 18 at 71.5% of people in service jobs
US: 102 at 16.5% of people in service jobs

Labor force by Size:

US: 5th with 153,100,000 people in the labor force
France: 21st with 27,760,000 people in the labor force

Total population:
US: 301,139,947
France: 63,718,187

In France, many job positions are guaranteed. There are very few reasons that you can be fired for. That's what the whole riots by the youth in france were about a few years ago. The government wanted to pass a law that would allow people under 25 to be fired within their first two years. So they rioted because they believe that they are obligated a job. Yet, they still have an unemployment rate of 8% vs the US rate of 4.6%. And they still can't go into debt at twice the rate that we do in order to provide all those services to the people.

Looks like I hit a nerve with BigRedFed talking about our health care system! It's just like our energy problem and our financial management problem. The first step is to admit that we have a problem. Then come up with a plan and then get to work fixing it. Ignoring our problems only make them last longer and go deeper.

The only way to make it fair would be to make the rebate of the vehicle be the least common denominator, ie the same amount that the poorest man put into the system. Which is zero dollars.

Bingo!

Social engineering will come back to bite sooner or later, mostly later.

If the Volt, or any transportation product, is really a good thing, people should buy it for that reason.

I think one can actually make a case for social engineering via the tax code.

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."

i.e. some pay for freedom by making good choices, some pay by paying more taxes.

I think one can actually make a case for social engineering via the tax code.

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."

i.e. some pay for freedom by making good choices, some pay by paying more taxes.

We may all be free, but those that make the good choices (education, hard work, etc.) pay more taxes than the ignorant who expect handouts from the rest of us.

We may all be free, but those that make the good choices (education, hard work, etc.) pay more taxes than the ignorant who expect handouts from the rest of us.

And they still don't appreciate it. :(

We may all be free, but those that make the good choices (education, hard work, etc.) pay more taxes than the ignorant who expect handouts from the rest of us.




That's an interesting way of looking at life. When I see a third world country I don't see them as a bunch of lazy people trying to get something for nothing. I am just thankful I have what I have. Are the strong supposed to look down at the weak? Have I missed something? Seems kind of like high-school mentality where adolescents that lack confidence pick on those that are in even a worse situation in order to boost their own self-esteem. So utterly childish. I always liked the story of the star quarterback sticking up for the glasses wearing lad who just got his books dumped by the A-hole linebacker. ;) I guess it's all perspective.

I hope as the world community moves forward it starts to realize that the best way for all of us to live in a peaceful and profitable way is to fully utilize all of the earth's resources in a long-term sustainable way. That includes the most powerful resource of all - the human mind.

I see the US as both a first world and third world nation. I have seen cleaner and safer urban areas in third world nations than in some neighborhoods in the US. How about Flint Michigan? Now that's an embarrassment!

I don't think the US will turn this dismal situation around until we get one simple concept down - We the People. Not we the rich and powerful people. Also, it's kind of like the mindset that investing in green technologies will cost us money. No, it will make us rich selling this technology around the world and also making us more efficient with our energy use. If we can get all of our 300,000,000 brains moving in the right direction (impossible but a goal like continual improvement) then I think many of our problems would fix themselves.

When writing about such social concepts one can expect people to start throwing out labels but to me it's just good business strategy. The nation that utilizes their resources the best is in a better competitive position. That it also leads to better treatment of the populace is just icing on the cake. Strong financial positions and great wealth generation from efficient use of resources provides a great environment for improving society. When the bank vault is full, making sure infants have basic health insurance is not so hard to swallow. We only have to look at struggling economies (like ours is now) to see what happens when the finances are weak. Basics like school funding get slashed first. Heck, we won't see the results of those decisions until after the politician that made them is out of office. They can then blame the next presiding administration! Brilliant!

I was thinking more of the people who have an entitlement mentality than the disadvantaged in third-world countries.

You are right about the "We the people" concept, but it will mostly be the same people who already "get it".

Has anyone heard from GM Headquarters in Mexico or Canada on how much they are charging for this product? :)

Has anyone heard from GM Headquarters in Mexico or Canada on how much they are charging for this product? :)Why would they? We/They/GM don't even know what the final MSRP price will be in the USA!!!
WOT

I would like to see tis tax crdit changed to a "government rebate" for the plug in hybrid of your choice similar to the digital conversion box.

Redeemable at yur local dealer.

"In most developed countries and many developing countries health care is provided to everyone regardless of their ability to pay. The National Health Service, established in 1948 by Clement Atlee's Labor government in the United Kingdom, were the world's first universal health care system provided by government and paid for from general taxation. Alternatively, compulsory government funded health insurance with nominal fees can be provided, as in Italy. Other examples are Medicare in Australia, established in the 1970s by the Labor government, and by the same name Medicare was established in Canada between 1966 and 1984. Universal health care contrasts to the systems like health care in the United States or South Africa, though South Africa is one of the many countries attempting health care reform.[2] The United States is the only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not provide universal health care.[3][4]"


"The health care industry is considered an industry or profession which includes peoples' exercise of skill or judgment or the providing of a service related to the preservation or improvement of the health of individuals or the treatment or care of individuals who are injured, sick, disabled, or infirm. The delivery of modern health care depends on an expanding group of trained professionals coming together as an interdisciplinary team.[5][6]

Consuming over 10 percent of gross domestic product of most developed nations, health care can form an enormous part of a country's economy. In 2003, health care costs paid to hospitals, physicians, nursing homes, diagnostic laboratories, pharmacies, medical device manufacturers and other components of the health care system, consumed 16.3 percent[7] of the GDP of the United States, the largest of any country in the world. For the United States, the health share of gross domestic product (GDP) is expected to hold steady in 2006 before resuming its historical upward trend, reaching 19.5 percent of GDP by 2016.[8] In 2001, for the OECD countries the average was 8.4 percent[9] with the United States (13.9%), Switzerland (10.9%), and Germany (10.7%) being the top three."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care



I think the problem is that here in the U.S. the main objective of health care is profit. I just think that is the wrong motivation for proper and cost effective health care. Our system basically transfers wealth from the poor to wealthy health care professionals and companies in a kind of trickle down economic system. The money will eventually trickle down to the poor. This may be true but should we be using health care to power our economy or should health care be used to insure the health of our citizens? Healthy citizens that have routine preventive health care (the cheapest kind - if you wait until the last minute you incur the greatest cost) are more likely to be happy, contributing members of society.

However, there is a bigger, hidden, problem with our system. People are afraid. They are afraid to change jobs, become self employed, seek preventive care, etc. because they don't want to loose their current insurance coverage. What if they have to go through another physical and get rejected? These are real fears that prevent free movement of the labor force.

This fear happens in many countries that tie pensions to companies. If the person changes jobs they lose all of that pension. I feel this just creates a large workforce that is unmotivated (except to keep their pension) and less effective than what would occur under a system that allows free movement of labor. We fixed our pension system by going to 401K plans and IRAs and now it's time to fix our health care system. People should not be afraid to change jobs or seek inexpensive preventative health care because they are worried about losing coverage.

Tex

People should be free to join a health insurance program that is optimum for them. Under Obama's plan, nobody would be denied from any insurance plan. Socialism is all about taking from those who work hard and make good choices and giving to those who don't.

Tex

People should be free to join a health insurance program that is optimum for them. Under Obama's plan, nobody would be denied from any insurance plan. Socialism is all about taking from those who work hard and make good choices and giving to those who don't.




Well, I'm sure we can come up with something better than what we have. One day we will learn that the best way for us to move forward and be competitive in an increasingly competitive world is to efficiently use our resources. That includes our citizens.

You talk about socialism and handouts. I talk about investment and leadership. I only wish that you would spend some real time in a third world county. Not just as a tourist but live there. Try to get by on a couple bucks a day for a couple months and experience what's it's like not to be one of the lucky ones, blessed with first world citizenship and all gifts that come with it. Might just set you straight.

There are conditions out there that would make even Rocky throw in the towel. Try to live in the shoes of the people you look down on. Imagine your life without your exceptional intelligence, education, guidance, etc. Imagine if you had nothing compared to your peers. Its analogous to you stepping on the field during a NFL game. You have no talent, training, gifts, etc. How motivated are you? How successful would you be, Rudy?

"Well, I'm sure we can come up with something better than what we have. One day we will learn that the best way for us to move forward and be competitive in an increasingly competitive world is to efficiently use our resources. That includes our citizens."


It is conservatives who have proposed setting a minimum, such as giving everyone 10,000 a year. Socialists don't like that because it removes their control over people.


"You talk about socialism and handouts. I talk about investment and leadership. I only wish that you would spend some real time in a third world county. Not just as a tourist but live there. Try to get by on a couple bucks a day for a couple months and experience what's it's like not to be one of the lucky ones, blessed with first world citizenship and all gifts that come with it. Might just set you straight."

I spent my whole childhood living below the poverty line. If I recall correctly, your the one who doesn't want to help the developing world. I'm sure you remember:


"Your second comment stating that the much more urgent task of bringing the rest of the world out of poverty just proves your thinking is backwards." http://gm-volt.com/forum/showthread.php?t=66&page=2


"There are conditions out there that would make even Rocky throw in the towel. Try to live in the shoes of the people you look down on. Imagine your life without your exceptional intelligence, education, guidance, etc. Imagine if you had nothing compared to your peers. Its analogous to you stepping on the field during a NFL game. You have no talent, training, gifts, etc. How motivated are you? How successful would you be, Rudy?"

You've shown that you have a heart; now all you need is a brain.

"Well, I'm sure we can come up with something better than what we have. One day we will learn that the best way for us to move forward and be competitive in an increasingly competitive world is to efficiently use our resources. That includes our citizens."


It is conservatives who have proposed setting a minimum, such as giving everyone 10,000 a year. Socialists don't like that because it removes their control over people.


"You talk about socialism and handouts. I talk about investment and leadership. I only wish that you would spend some real time in a third world county. Not just as a tourist but live there. Try to get by on a couple bucks a day for a couple months and experience what's it's like not to be one of the lucky ones, blessed with first world citizenship and all gifts that come with it. Might just set you straight."

I spent my whole childhood living below the poverty line. If I recall correctly, your the one who doesn't want to help the developing world. I'm sure you remember:


"Your second comment stating that the much more urgent task of bringing the rest of the world out of poverty just proves your thinking is backwards." http://gm-volt.com/forum/showthread.php?t=66&page=2


"There are conditions out there that would make even Rocky throw in the towel. Try to live in the shoes of the people you look down on. Imagine your life without your exceptional intelligence, education, guidance, etc. Imagine if you had nothing compared to your peers. Its analogous to you stepping on the field during a NFL game. You have no talent, training, gifts, etc. How motivated are you? How successful would you be, Rudy?"

You've shown that you have a heart; now all you need is a brain.





Nice job pulling out my old post and using it out of context. The point I made, which is still correct today, is that we need to solve the world's energy problems BEFORE we can expect to improve the standard of living for all the people in the world. Remember? You can't do that without energy. We can't do that with petroleum. Once we get renewable energy systems developed we have a shot. Of course we also need to manage other resources like water and such. However, fixing the energy problem first is critical. With unlimited energy comes unlimited potential.

Just giving people $10,000 for heal care is a ridiculous solution. Why? Because that will just raise inflation and you will end up having to pay $1000 to get weighed. Maybe we should give everyone $10,000 to pay for police and fire services. If someone breaks into your house you have to pay the police $500 to come out. Have a fire? That's going to cost you. If you run out then you better have a full bladder. Surely, even you can come up with a better solution than giving everyone $10,000.


How about instead of having a presidential candidate whip up a ridiculous health care plan during an early morning toilet visit, we draw up a real plan. We can start with assembling heath care experts from around the world that already have universal heath care systems. That experience would be invaluable. Then we can get Clinton's plan that she has been working on for at least a decade and take some of those ideas and hammer out something that makes sense. Of course this is going to take careful planning because we spend so much of our GDP on health care per capita (more than any other developed country) that making our heath care system efficient would drastically change the landscape. As our country falls apart we can add health care reform to the overall recovery package. It's going to be massive. Energy policy, health care policy, financial management policy, etc. The size of our recovery project will be unprecedented but long overdue. Where is a guy like Benjamin Franklin when you need him? It's going to take some long hard work and great leadership to get us out of our current mess. Thinking that a large portion of our population is lazy and just wants handouts is not the way to move forward. We need to get back to basics and work to utilize all of our resources efficiently to compete in the global marketplace. With our vast natural resources and great constitution we can remain a powerful force and thus achieve excellent standards of living for our and the world’s citizens.

Bringing the world out of poverty and providing a minimum standard of living: A small fraction of world GDP

Achieving socialist utopia: Priceless


Keep working on the brain thing Tex.

I don't see why the argument has to be framed between socialist handouts to lazy poors!! and defending the bloated private insurance system and all the stop-gap measures being proposed to keep it alive.

Texas brought up a very important point a few posts up which is that America pays far far more for health care than anyone else yet gets less coverage out of it. I'm not sure how much Obama's plan will do to fix this, but his plan seems to be going in a better direction than McCain's, which is just to throw more money into the private insurance abyss and to tell people that they can cross state lines to get slightly cheaper coverage.

From what I understand about Obama's plan, it's all about changing the rules health insurance companies have to follow so they cover more people and (possibly) charge less. If I'm not mistaken there is no fundamental change to the American health care industry involved, like what you would see with Hillary's plan. I think it would make much more sense to radically overhaul the entire system to make it look more like universal healthcare systems found all over the world in other first world countries, rather than tool around with the outdated and severely broken system in place now. But this is a huge industry we're talking about with a lot of powerful people who wouldn't want to see their business model messed with.

Bringing the world out of poverty and providing a minimum standard of living: A small fraction of world GDP

Achieving socialist utopia: Priceless


Keep working on the brain thing Tex.





Oh this should good for a laugh. Mike756, can you please give your estimates as to what that small fraction of global GDP would be? How we would accomplish the task of raising people out of your defined poverty level? You know that once you "pull" people out of poverty they need to stay there. Right? You can't just throw some cash their way for a couple of months and claim victory. Additionally, when people become less poor they use more energy. Make sense? Where is that extra energy going to come from? We are talking about billions of people. Billions!

Can you please define what your "minimum standard of living" would be? How much energy per person extra would be needed? Maybe to run tractors, put down fertilizer and insecticide, build infrastructure?

You really have no concept of how economies work or fathom how important energy is in order to maintain activities. Perhaps you are clueless as to just how poor the world is. Just a quick statistic. If the rest of the world's population (per capita) used as much energy as the average U.S. citizen we would require at least 5X the amount of global petroleum production. I guess you would just get the extra oil from drilling outside of Florida and North Alaska. Maybe throwing up a few nuclear power plants in Africa and elsewhere. Oh, that’s right! You don’t think any extra energy is needed! Wow, that just blows my mind. lol.

Thinking that a large portion of our population is lazy and just wants handouts is not the way to move forward. We need to get back to basics and work . . .

Except that a sizable portion of our populace does have an entitlement mentality, and expects handouts. Maybe if those government checks stopped showing up like clockwork, people would find a bit more motivation. People need to quit looking to the government for solutions. I agree - we need to get back to the basics, like accepting personal responsibility, and willingness to work hard for what we get.

Except that a sizable portion of our populace does have an entitlement mentality, and expects handouts. Maybe if those government checks stopped showing up like clockwork, people would find a bit more motivation. People need to quit looking to the government for solutions. I agree - we need to get back to the basics, like accepting personal responsibility, and willingness to work hard for what we get.

So the government should sit by and do nothing as whole communities fester in poverty? I think you're right that simply giving handouts to the unemployed won't do much good, but the notion that government should have no role at all in the well being of its citizens is astounding.

And I think you're highly overestimating the "large chunk" of the populace that's supposedly living large on their ultra generous welfare cheques. Those darn welfare queens! I fully support the idea that hard work and personal responsibility are virtues that we should value highly in our society, but I think you're overstating your case against those on the government dole.

Except that a sizable portion of our populace does have an entitlement mentality, and expects handouts. Maybe if those government checks stopped showing up like clockwork, people would find a bit more motivation.



It's this Republican mindset that will prevent us from valuing these resources. There is nothing more powerful than a motivated human. This is both scary and exciting.

Many of us fortunate ones find no trouble at all getting excited about the possibly for a better life and that if we work hard we will be rewarded. Unfortunately, this is not true of a huge percentage of the world's population, that includes a good percentage of the U.S. population. When I look at what some people have to work with it's seems quite demotivating to me. Having to join a gang to avoid the risk getting killed or having to work 10 hours a day in the fields just to help feed your extended family may provide motivation to some but I'm not really talking about that kind of motivation - primitive survival.

Let's face it, our current generation has inherited an amazing amount of technical and industrial infrastructure. Are we utilizing those resources effectively? Hardly. It's an embarrassing amount of waste. Most of that ineffectiveness is due to the fear of powerful people trying to hold on to their control.

It reminds me of a CEO or President of a company that only hires people less intelligent than himself so that he doesn't look bad. Jack Welch was a great CEO and leader because he always looked for people brighter than himself. His feeling was that surrounding himself with great people made him look better. Of course he was right. Do you want to live in a dilapidated environment just so you can be number one? King of the dip-****s? Most of human activity is controlled by insecurity and fear.

I believe the world is going though a transitional period from one of rapid growth to a more sustaining model. Seriously, how many more people can the earth hold? Sure we can strip mine every last barrel of oil from the tar sands or generate enough nuclear waste to blanket the earth but then what? I’m guessing that with 50 more years of breakthroughs in renewable technologies the earth could provide quite a nice standard of living for 6 billion or so people but how would the standard of living be if the world’s population reached 40 billion? Seems like it would be like a Blade Runner or The Fifth Element type of living.

Will us humans be smart enough to prevent exhausting the resources of Earth to the point where our lands lay in ruin and people are fighting for a drink of water? Probably not. However, I can guarantee that we need to change our mindset to value our limited and sometimes non-renewable resources. For example, we should be using our fossil fuel energy resources to prepare our renewable energy infrastructure. Not doing so is going to cause much pain. Sustainability must be our policy moving forward. Otherwise we will just keep bumping up against the next non-renewable resource threshold. Just like yeast in a vat of sugar - it keeps growing until it runs out of sugar or dies from its alcohol waste. It’s amazing to me that we ignore the lessons that nature teaches us. Think ecosystem.

http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/news/enn.cfm#id_12025

Quote (4th paragrapgh)

To help individuals take advantage of all the tax credits, Division C of H.R. 1424 increases the income limits for the Alternative Minimum Tax, while the energy tax provision allows unused tax credits to be carried over to the next tax year. And to help finance energy efficiency improvements, the bill authorizes $800 million in Qualified Energy Conservation Bonds, which will be issued by state and local governments. The bonds can be applied to a wide range of energy efficiency projects, research and demonstration projects, and even renewable energy projects. The bill also extends the authority to issue bonds for qualified green building and sustainable design projects through 2012. See the Division B and C of H.R. 1424, and for comparison, see Subparts A, D, and E of Part IV of Subchapter A of Chapter 1 of the existing Internal Revenue Code (posted by the Cornell University Law School), as well as Section 168 of Part VI of Subchapter B.