Brewology

Posted: **Fri Mar 26, 2010 8:52 pm**

BKFraiders7 wrote:@Que- I cant tell if your agreeing with me or against me with that statement?

I am not against anyone. I did say they got to you too because I thought you were saying that war was a good thing which I think we both agree it isn't.

What follows is a Lil off topic please bear with me.

WWII didn't make this country prosperous, it was actually the social programs specifically the big national highway project (socialist) that not only put people to work but also improved travel and eased commerce. Businesses didn't have to rely on local customers now they could do business longer distances because the highways reduced the time it took to deliver and receive goods and it was easy for people looking for work to go where the jobs were.

More business = better economy.

However, thanks to globalization this model is broken. Corporations like Nike can charge $150 for a pair of shoes and pay kids overseas $.15 a week to make them (exaggerating but not much). Government subsidies business (ie:big oil) so that business can afford to hire more employees but instead business pays dividends to the investors with that money and cuts jobs.

If that is free market then maybe socialism IS the way to go(sarcasm).

I think America needs to worry about America and let everyone else take care of themselves. If we had done that then we would not have this record deficit and if we had invested as much in America as we did in Iraq we would be a better nation for it.

We can debate this on another thread if anyone really wants to, post it. I just wanted to answer BKF publicly because I owed him that.

Posted: **Fri Mar 26, 2010 8:56 pm**

que13x wrote:WWII didn't make this country prosperous, it was actually the social programs specifically the big national highway project (socialist) that not only put people to work but also improved travel and eased commerce. Businesses didn't have to rely on local customers now they could do business longer distances because the highways reduced the time it took to deliver and receive goods and it was easy for people looking for work to go where the jobs were.

[...]

I think America needs to worry about America and let everyone else take care of themselves. If we had done that then we would not have this record deficit and if we had invested as much in America as we did in Iraq we would be a better nation for it.

Thank you! Quote of the decade!

P.S.
I always get paranoid that my posts won't get read if they are the last post on the page.
http://brewology.com/forum/viewtopic.ph ... c&start=29
Click this and it'll be the first post on this page.

Posted: **Sat Mar 27, 2010 6:00 am**

crait wrote:What about garbage men? You gonna say to dig our own holes to bury the trash?
What about truck drivers? You gonna say to use trains instead?
What about dog catchers? Carry the dogs to the pound?
What about school bus drivers? The kids have to walk?
What about fire fighters? Carry the water hoses?
News reporters? Go by foot?
Police? Run?

Looks like we'd be going backwards in society.

Anything that we're required to pay for should be offered by the government but we shouldn't be required to get it from them.
We shouldn't be required to pay third party companies whatsoever. No matter what the circumstance.

Im just saying we've lived without them before. In no way am I saying cars arent a good thing, we would almost be primitive without them, but they are not necessity in everyones lives like food...and now government healthcare is.

Posted: **Sat Mar 27, 2010 6:50 am**

Did you not see the list at all? Driving is a necessity for those people!
The point is, without government-run car insurance, they can jack up the prices to whatever they want nearly like a trust.
We pay for roads in taxes, why would we also have to pay such high insurance to a third party to get to use them?

Posted: **Sat Mar 27, 2010 12:54 pm**

If we want to save money, we can end the ridiculous wars we are in with "terrorists". That would save us billions per year. Plus, I know you guys were mentioning car insurance, but my entire life I have never heard anyone complain about having to pay for car insurance, so why all of a sudden, when people are being required to get health insurance (which is more important than car insurance IMO) they say we are a communist nation and going to bankrupt?

This bill has no public option, the government isn't forcing you to buy in to a system that they made or anything like that.

If this makes 32 million people in my country healthier, and able to afford health care easier, I don't see what the big fuss is all about. If my income is high enough, I have no problem with my premiums rising a few percent to better MILLIONS. But that's just me.

Posted: **Sat Mar 27, 2010 2:49 pm**

What about the small business owners that wont hire but so many people now so they wont have to pay that premium. It will hurt businesses.

Posted: **Sat Mar 27, 2010 4:10 pm**

BKFraiders7 wrote:What about the small business owners that wont hire but so many people now so they wont have to pay that premium. It will hurt businesses.

From what the bill says, they should be getting fairly hefty tax credits for offering insurance, so I don't see how it'd be such a burden on them to offer some sort of coverage.

Posted: **Sat Mar 27, 2010 4:58 pm**

JustinWoodypond wrote:
BKFraiders7 wrote:What about the small business owners that wont hire but so many people now so they wont have to pay that premium. It will hurt businesses.

From what the bill says, they should be getting fairly hefty tax credits for offering insurance, so I don't see how it'd be such a burden on them to offer some sort of coverage.

Which wouldnt cover the cost of paying for it in the first place.

Employ 49 people and not have to pay for health care> Employ 50+ and pay the health care but get xxxx back.

Posted: **Sat Mar 27, 2010 7:25 pm**

Are the tax credits based on a scale? I know it's to a certain point of people being employed but if you go over the point and offer health insurance to every employee yet have say, 300 employees when the "cutoff" is 50, do you get a higher percentage of tax credits towards your business?

-DarkPacMan77-

Posted: **Sat Mar 27, 2010 8:48 pm**

DarkPacMan77 wrote:Are the tax credits based on a scale? I know it's to a certain point of people being employed but if you go over the point and offer health insurance to every employee yet have say, 300 employees when the "cutoff" is 50, do you get a higher percentage of tax credits towards your business?

-DarkPacMan77-

I'm pretty sure it's in brackets similar to tax brackets, if you have X amount of employees you get X% credit. Not sure if there is a cap, but like stated multiple times, the minimum is 50 in the current bill.

Posted: **Sat Mar 27, 2010 8:57 pm**

At some point, I think people have to understand that if a "small business" looks to expand into any form of "larger" business, they have to have more than 49 employees to do so, thus breaking the first bracket and encouraging "small business", in a sense.

I will also make mention though... and something that I know of first-hand because I'm currently working at a place that does this. If a small business is trying to avoid paying certain brackets, they will pay out certain amounts under the table to make sure those employees "don't fulfill enough hours" to actually benefit from health benefits or other benefits, for that matter.

Currently, I'm working at a used video game store. They pay me only $60 in check-form for "part-time" claims in actual paperwork that they fill out. I get the rest of my paycheck on a weekly basis and is handed out in cash. This, therefor, creates a loophole where they don't owe me benefits and still keep a full-time employee. I can claim that I'm more poor than I am and get get certain benefits from that, however, that is not much of a benefit compared to the benefits I'd inherit if I were paid out in-full in check even though I get considerably more money per hour after taking out taxes I'd normally inherit under the system in the proper manner.

It's illegal, but it would expand under this type of health care reform.

-DarkPacMan77-

Posted: **Sun Mar 28, 2010 8:41 am**

Also, you won't have to pay taxes on the financial transactions.

Posted: **Sun Mar 28, 2010 3:03 pm**

My big issue is that the government doesn't have the funds to support this. We really need to be scaling back our spending!

Unfortunately, we can't really afford to take money away from defense. These days, our biggest and best export is the military! No one wants anything with a "Made in America" label because it costs too much to manufacture here and is most likely crap. I personally will probably never buy an American made car. With all American companies outsourcing everything we really have nothing to offer other countries other than protection.

Posted: **Sun Mar 28, 2010 3:17 pm**

Brent, now you know why people don't want to be in a war.

Posted: **Mon Apr 05, 2010 10:33 pm**

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBtdsjAMfJI

Brewology

Official Health Care Reform Debate

Watch this video then comment: