Obama Care

Certainly the crisis of the Civil War constituted extreme measures (income tax). Even so, the tax was less than the SS tax alone is today.

And I'm not saying there should be "no oversight" into the financial system, but not the monstrosity of regulations/legal burdens companies must jump through for the government.

You really should read Chapter 1 of The Fair Tax Book by Neal Boortz to understand how the Income Tax really came to be. As is the same today, the Income Tax (or expansion of taxes) was a Democrat creation, and unfortunatley a few liberal Republicans signed on.

Again, as usual with lefties, my original point wasn't countered....at all, only nit-picking minor details. Please enlighten me, how does the federal government/infrastructure allow/facilitate private individuals & companies to make money? And do you believe the cost of that is worth about 33% of a mid-high end workers income?
Far be it from me to be defending the government per se; but I think it is safe to say that the federal government has a major role in the US's ability to be an effective marketplace. Remember the reason the federal portion was needed was otherwise the individual colonies/states would have bickered endlessly and we would have grown as a country much more like Europe. The Articles of Confederation through their failure to provide the stability and accountability to a greater good certainly showed a need for Federal intervention, and establishment of commerce, roads, a common military defense etc. I am sure you aren't saying we don't need these things.

Your second half saying that should it be 33% of your income. Absolutely not. But the 33% does not pay just for the government necessary to provide the safe and honest transactions conducted over a billion times over the course of a normal business day. It is required to be 33% (and growing) because of the misguided belief that government, better than individuals and charities, can help solve individual hardship, and that in a country as grand as ours, no one should go without. As Schneed said, if a person needs urgent medical attention, all hospitals are required to provide it. However, if a person chooses, or has thrust on them, the option of not securing health insurance, that is where the debate lies. I say each individual/family must come to terms themselves. Others would disagree.

Far be it from me to be defending the government per se; but I think it is safe to say that the federal government has a major role in the US's ability to be an effective marketplace. Remember the reason the federal portion was needed was otherwise the individual colonies/states would have bickered endlessly and we would have grown as a country much more like Europe. The Articles of Confederation through their failure to provide the stability and accountability to a greater good certainly showed a need for Federal intervention, and establishment of commerce, roads, a common military defense etc. I am sure you aren't saying we don't need these things. You are absolutely correct, these things were in place with a minimal income tax.

Your second half saying that should it be 33% of your income. Absolutely not. But the 33% does not pay just for the government necessary to provide the safe and honest transactions conducted over a billion times over the course of a normal business day. It is required to be 33% (and growing) because of the misguided belief that government, better than individuals and charities, can help solve individual hardship, and that in a country as grand as ours, no one should go without. As Schneed said, if a person needs urgent medical attention, all hospitals are required to provide it. However, if a person chooses, or has thrust on them, the option of not securing health insurance, that is where the debate lies. I say each individual/family must come to terms themselves. Others would disagree.Very well stated and agree

The "invisible hand" card being played again? LOL...I recognize that I am a wishful thinker but damn if I'm more of wishful thinker than you lot.

Children, children...invisible things don't exist neither does magic.

Km-pNen3HeA

In my post yesterday I said I was going to play golf which we tried. On the 6th hole it begain to lighting and thunder so we headed for the club house. As I pulled up to the club house I joked with my buddy that I needed some new clubs so I'll parked under tree and maybe lighting will hit the tree and melt my clubs. Not five minutes latter as we gathered our stuff everything lit up and a loud BANG as lighting hit that tree. It was pretty wild and my ears rang for about a 1/2 hour and I think my buddy craped on himself but he wouldn't say.

In my post yesterday I said I was going to play golf which we tried. On the 6th hole it begain to lighting and thunder so we headed for the club house. As I pulled up to the club house I joked with my buddy that I needed some new clubs so I'll parked under tree and maybe lighting will hit the tree and melt my clubs. Not five minutes latter as we gathered our stuff everything lit up and a loud BANG as lighting hit that tree. It was pretty wild and my ears rang for about a 1/2 hour and I think my buddy craped on himself but he wouldn't say.Maybe Obama was trying to tell you something?

Maybe Obama was trying to tell you something?
No he only thinks he is God.

The "invisible hand" card being played again? LOL...I recognize that I am a wishful thinker but damn if I'm more of wishful thinker than you lot.

Children, children...invisible things don't exist neither does magic.

So what is your point? That an economic metaphor used to analyze the correlation between self interest and effect on large scale economics is pointless? Or is it that self-interest on large scale has effect has no effect on economics of scale? That the question raised by SS33

Please enlighten me, how does the federal government/infrastructure allow/facilitate private individuals & companies to make money? And do you believe the cost of that is worth about 33% of a mid-high end workers income?

And arguments raised by CRedskin:

It is required to be 33% (and growing) because of the misguided belief that government, better than individuals and charities, can help solve individual hardship, and that in a country as grand as ours, no one should go without. As Schneed said, if a person needs urgent medical attention, all hospitals are required to provide it. However, if a person chooses, or has thrust on them, the option of not securing health insurance, that is where the debate lies. I say each individual/family must come to terms themselves. Others would disagree.

Are without value?

Enlighten me, oh brilliant self righteous one, on why the concept of statistical probability as it relates to the correlation of maximizing public good through self interest is irrelevant, invalid or otherwise meaningless in the health care setting. Apparently, it is your belief that your understanding of economic theory is clearly far superior to any and all comers and is equally applicable in all markets regardless of the goods and services being exchanged. I wish to understand the facts, assumptions and reasoning of this flawless theory.

...
Apparently, it is your belief that your understanding of economic theory is clearly far superior to any and all comers and is equally applicable in all markets regardless of the goods and services being exchanged. I wish to understand the facts, assumptions and reasoning of this flawless theory.

It's not a mere claim to understanding of such simplistic things as an economic theory that drives the one you speak of. It is the claim of understanding all that encompasses the gravitas of life. It is the claim of a knowledge of good and evil, and the knowledge that all which the government can do is achieve the greatness of human evolution to the final and great wondrous utopia of all through a simple sharing of all that is, that which may be, and that which never was but should have been. Ask the mice they understand.

Certainly the crisis of the Civil War constituted extreme measures (income tax). Even so, the tax was less than the SS tax alone is today.

And I'm not saying there should be "no oversight" into the financial system, but not the monstrosity of regulations/legal burdens companies must jump through for the government.

You really should read Chapter 1 of The Fair Tax Book by Neal Boortz to understand how the Income Tax really came to be. As is the same today, the Income Tax (or expansion of taxes) was a Democrat creation, and unfortunatley a few liberal Republicans signed on.

Again, as usual with lefties, my original point wasn't countered....at all, only nit-picking minor details. Please enlighten me, how does the federal government/infrastructure allow/facilitate private individuals & companies to make money? And do you believe the cost of that is worth about 33% of a mid-high end workers income?

1) Okay, then, for starters, we can agree that you were flatly wrong with your original post.
2) Will do. I'm sure it's a very unbiased account.
3) "Minor details"? Then what was the relevance of the point you made, which, again, we can agree was entirely inaccurate?

1) Okay, then, for starters, we can agree that you were flatly wrong with your original post.

To be fair about the statement regarding the income tax, I think the point was that it was a measure to raise revenue only for an extraordinary purpose -- in this case to pay for the Civil War. It was never meant to be the primary source of funding for the routine functions of the federal government. That didn't happen until 1913 with passage of the 16th amendment.