People realized they can vote with there pocket books a century ago. I'm not sure where these changes you think will come are coming from. I do assume you think that the 10-20% of the population who might be able to use "no tax money at all" would be able to keep the country at its current level it is now?
People realized they can vote with there pocket books a century ago. I'm not sure where these changes you think will come are coming from. I do assume you think that the 10-20% of the population who might be able to use "no tax money at all" would be able to keep the country at its current level it is now?
You know...just because you have a job where your 60 hours a week earns you a lot of money does not mean that "the other guy's" 60 hour per week job that makes a lot less money is less important. He works just as hard if not harder than you yet they are getting a lot less. You are not more important than he is. You just happen to be working a job that makes more money than him and that's it. There is nothing about your job and the amount of money it earns you which makes you an American citizen which is contributing to our great society more than he is. So get off your high horse.
If you really want to justify to yourself that you are more important and deserve more than the other guy, then why don't you look at how much your hard work and taxes are helping out people. In that sense, your hard work is making the lives of other people better. Their lives are still no where even close to how good yours is which is perfectly acceptable but their's is still much better than it could be. But no. You are not doing that. Instead of being an honorable man and team player you just view your contribution to the country as punishment that you do not deserve. How utterly naive. You work so hard yet you do not even realize the value of what it is you are providing. At the very best, you do realize but just don't appreciate it. How utterly disgusting.
Kappo
Platinum Member
- Aug 18, 2000
- 2,381
- 0
- 0
Things like infrastructure are what the government is for.
Schools? Easy mode : privatize it, and hand out vouchers.
Roads? Part of infrastructure (the public doesn't own highways anyhow).
healthcare? personal issue.
Why not pay for everyone to have a car? I mean, there are people in the country who cant get to town for food, they could STARVE!
And no, not EVERYTHING should be "pay as you go" (I know liberals have a hard time with anything that isnt in absolutes, but you can have varying opinions on similar subjects
). healthcare is not one of them, either. Get health insurance. *refer to where I said that if you cannot get health insurance, I recommend you stop spitting out babies for 15 seconds while you learn something that is going to make you more viable in the marketplace.AMEN.
I think those calling for the government to "fix" things and society to "band together" forget what this country was founded on. Freedom and liberty. Not communism and socialism. It's downright scary to see some of the posts in this thread and see how people really don't want to take responsibility and feel entitled. Scary.
Originally posted by: Kappo
Things like infrastructure are what the government is for.
Schools? Easy mode : privatize it, and hand out vouchers.
Roads? Part of infrastructure (the public doesn't own highways anyhow).
healthcare? personal issue.
Why not pay for everyone to have a car? I mean, there are people in the country who cant get to town for food, they could STARVE!
And no, not EVERYTHING should be "pay as you go" (I know liberals have a hard time with anything that isnt in absolutes, but you can have varying opinions on similar subjects
I agree with alot of your ideas, I just think your ideologies of personal responsibility is faulty in its whole though correct in its part. I would go further though and offer increased "mandatory" premiums for health problems that are potentials due to person activities (Obese @ 25? You pay X amount of dollars till your weight gets down..want to smoke? You pay X amount of dollars till you quit) type things. I think we both sort of went with absolutes.
There are much bigger issues for you to devote your time too if you want to return to the 1700-1899 era..
People will never have the opportunity to be lazy and lead comfortable and happy lives. The government only provides them with enough to survive at best. They also provide those who work hard but just have had a lot of bad luck based upon things they had no control over a chance to get by and continue to work hard. People like you make it possible for these people to have the opportunity to better themselves. People like you...the ones who not only work hard but were also dealt a better hand in life. Yes, some of your money is being spent on those that I hate too...the leeches. But a ton of it is also helping those who were just dealt a really bad hand but still try their best and work hard. I don't think you realize how many of those people exist. There are so many...
Also, I am anything but anti-freedom. This country was not only founded on freedom. It was also founded the desire to work together to build a great nation.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
Most of it is just FUD on both sides. People make their decisions based on emotion instead of facts. For example, no candidate is proposing socialism, with regards to health care or otherwise (that BS is fed to you by the interests that want to keep you chained to your employer-provider healthcare instead of making it easy for you to get your own, as both candidates propose). Obama isn't a plant for some evil black liberation conspiracy. McCain doesn't really want 100 years of war in Iraq. And so forth. Facts, logic, and the issue usually have very little to do with people's voting choices.
As for the hate, that's human nature. Look at the movie, The Godfather, on IMDB.com. Arguably the greatest movie of all time, ranked #1 on that site, and yet it only has a 9.2/10 user rating. Why is that? If you look at voter breakdowns, you see that 5.9% of the voters gave it a 1 rating, the worst possible. Who would give a low rating to such a masterful movie? A 9, 8, or maybe even a 7 I could understand, but a 1? And more voters gave it a 1 than gave it a 7?
And there's the OP's answer.
As for the hate, that's human nature. Look at the movie, The Godfather, on IMDB.com. Arguably the greatest movie of all time, ranked #1 on that site, and yet it only has a 9.2/10 user rating. Why is that? If you look at voter breakdowns, you see that 5.9% of the voters gave it a 1 rating, the worst possible. Who would give a low rating to such a masterful movie? A 9, 8, or maybe even a 7 I could understand, but a 1? And more voters gave it a 1 than gave it a 7?
And there's the OP's answer.
Because if everyone had that then our government would not have anywhere near enough to do what they need to do to sustain itself and this country. Besides, you do have a lot of freedom to make those choices. You just don't have absolute freedom.
Also, and really urge you to think about this one in the sense that you and I have not been at each other's throats for half the day, do you really want every American to have the amount of freedom with their money as you are asking for? Have you really thought about what might happen? The changes which would occur would not just put more money in your bank accounts you know. The education system alone would go to crap even with the voucher system you proposed in another post. The rich and middle class would be the only ones who could afford quality education. The result over time would be further widening the gap between the rich, middle class, and lower class leaving the lower class much less of an opportunity to really better themselves. That's just the tip of the iceberg. Your life would be a lot worse because your would further be surrounded and relying upon more people that had lesser educations.
Kappo,
Let me just say one more thing which I think you and I might be on the same page about. That is, both of us agree that we want the government to spend less money so that we have more of it in order to better our lives as well as making the decisions to better the lives of others.
However, where we differ is how to go about that process. You seem to want to lessen the expenditures by ridding the government of programs which help those with less money. I do not agree with that. Not only do I want the government to help these people because I believe that it will ultimately make this country a better place for everyone, but I also believe that if we got rid of those programs then you would not see a single additional dime in your pocket. All that it would result in is the government spending the same amount of tax dollars that come from your pocket on other things which most likely will not have any major impact on making your life happier.
On that note, the main thing which I believe we should set our sights on is making sure the government spends it's money on these programs but does so in such a way which is a lot more efficient. There is a lot of money being spent on a lot of programs and goals which could be achieved with the same success for less dollars. I believe that is the real problem. That isn't a promise that the dollars which are saved by doing so will end up in your pocket or mine, but at least it makes way for additional programs and services designed to better life in America for everyone.
Let me just say one more thing which I think you and I might be on the same page about. That is, both of us agree that we want the government to spend less money so that we have more of it in order to better our lives as well as making the decisions to better the lives of others.
However, where we differ is how to go about that process. You seem to want to lessen the expenditures by ridding the government of programs which help those with less money. I do not agree with that. Not only do I want the government to help these people because I believe that it will ultimately make this country a better place for everyone, but I also believe that if we got rid of those programs then you would not see a single additional dime in your pocket. All that it would result in is the government spending the same amount of tax dollars that come from your pocket on other things which most likely will not have any major impact on making your life happier.
On that note, the main thing which I believe we should set our sights on is making sure the government spends it's money on these programs but does so in such a way which is a lot more efficient. There is a lot of money being spent on a lot of programs and goals which could be achieved with the same success for less dollars. I believe that is the real problem. That isn't a promise that the dollars which are saved by doing so will end up in your pocket or mine, but at least it makes way for additional programs and services designed to better life in America for everyone.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
Except both your arguments are completely wrong. In fact, you're supporting a system which currently denies freedom and liberty, and attacking a progressive change towards as communism and socialism.
For example, Kappo keeps falling back on the healthcare issue, as though the current healthcare system were free market and providing consumers with choice, when it is and does absolutely nothing of the kind. I and everyone else am forced to get healthcare from my employer (or pay more or face getting denied for pre-existing condition), and we are forced to get that healthcare our employers dictate and at the price they dictate. If we choose not to participate in our employer's plan, then we lose what part of the cost they might pick up, plus all the related tax breaks and subsidies involved.
If that's what you're calling freedom and liberty, then the only scary posts in this thread are yours and Kappo's.
In the meantime, both candidates support an actual free market system (the same one really, Sen. Wyden's proposed Healthy Americans Act, with just the details to be hammered out), where people are no longer dependent on their employers for their healthcare, but can choose and purchase on their own the plan and coverage that they want. And the tax breaks and subsidies that currently go to our employers and the health insurers will be re-directed to the people to help and encourage them to buy coverage. And this is what you're calling communism and socialism.
Educate yourself, eh?
Vic,
I don't know about you but I can get any health insurance I want and can deduct those premiums. I can go to any doctor I want and get any procedure I want. The healthcare system is pretty dang great right now. Although any move to pure free market with NO government regulation other than possibly safety and accountability is a good thing.
I don't know about you but I can get any health insurance I want and can deduct those premiums. I can go to any doctor I want and get any procedure I want. The healthcare system is pretty dang great right now. Although any move to pure free market with NO government regulation other than possibly safety and accountability is a good thing.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
All bullsh!t but thanks for playing. Please don't lie so blatantly.
You can only get any health insurance you want if you don't have a disqualifying pre-existing condition. You can only deduct those premiums if they exceed 7.5% of your adjusted gross income and/or you have access to a qualifying cafeteria program (provided by employers). And so forth. All of which means that exercising choice in this marketplace will cost you more.
You clearly have no idea of the massive amount of tax breaks and subsidies provided to employers and health insurers if you can consider the current system even anything close to a free market.
Here, read this.
The vast majority of health care plans available do not provide the kind of quality you are describing. The few that are available are either not offered by the jobs which are held by the majority of Americans or they are available but the cost per month is no where close to being affordable. Read the article Vic posted and don't dismiss it because that is the reality whether you want to believe it or not.
Again, quality health care should not be reserved for the upper middle class and the rich alone. Everyone deserves quality health care.
Originally posted by: bamacre
Actually, many of Paul's supporters, or fans now
But that said, with Obama, we see big change in domestic policies, but as I have pointed out in other threads, not a big change in regards to foreign policy.
I don't hate Obama, but that's not not going to stop me from pointing out my disagreements with him. I'd happily take him over McCain, but I still will vote for the LP candidate.
I think the only hate you'll see for Obama are from Bush fans, racists, Hillary junkies, and from those who think they are conservatives, but ironically support neo-conservative foreign policies. Two ideas that are greatly conflicting, IMO.
The only big change you'll see if Obama gets in the White House is the change in your pocket getting less as you are taxed out the ass to pay for his universal health care, and the shredding of the constitution, specifically the 2nd amendment.
Say what you will about bush and his administration and their abuse of the constitution, but Obama will be no better as he wants a complete ban of all firearms.
He, and Dems in general don't want law abiding citizens to have guns because they want them to live in fear of criminals so they will feel compelled to support an overbearing "protectionist" government. All the bullshit about it saving children's lives is hogwash when more kids are killed in car accidents every year, and there is no Constitutional amendment granting us the right to drive a car.
Also, so far, I haven't heard McCain lie about anything. He admitted he isn't a strong with economics and that's why he would have advisors. Yet Obama and Clinton are economists, and undoubtedly are going to rely on economists to help them, but they get no flak over it.
Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
Originally posted by: bamacre
Actually, many of Paul's supporters, or fans now
But that said, with Obama, we see big change in domestic policies, but as I have pointed out in other threads, not a big change in regards to foreign policy.
I don't hate Obama, but that's not not going to stop me from pointing out my disagreements with him. I'd happily take him over McCain, but I still will vote for the LP candidate.
I think the only hate you'll see for Obama are from Bush fans, racists, Hillary junkies, and from those who think they are conservatives, but ironically support neo-conservative foreign policies. Two ideas that are greatly conflicting, IMO.
The only big change you'll see if Obama gets in the White House is the change in your pocket getting less as you are taxed out the ass to pay for his universal health care, and the shredding of the constitution, specifically the 2nd amendment.
Say what you will about bush and his administration and their abuse of the constitution, but Obama will be no better as he wants a complete ban of all firearms.
He, and Dems in general don't want law abiding citizens to have guns because they want them to live in fear of criminals so they will feel compelled to support an overbearing "protectionist" government. All the bullshit about it saving children's lives is hogwash when more kids are killed in car accidents every year, and there is no Constitutional amendment granting us the right to drive a car.
Also, so far, I haven't heard McCain lie about anything. He admitted he isn't a strong with economics and that's why he would have advisors. Yet Obama and Clinton are economists, and undoubtedly are going to rely on economists to help them, but they get no flak over it.
Want some tinfoil? You giver the government alot of credit to think you can get a few hundred sentators/house members/state members to all act together to try and 'disarm" america.
Svnla
Lifer
- Nov 10, 2003
- 17,986
- 1,388
- 126
Hate? Not me.
I just don't believe like BO's believers that he will solve all our problems if he becomes the next president of the US.
Just to say "let change" won't change a darn thing if you don't willing/want to do the hard parts ..ie. solve the HUGE problem of SS, healthcare, budget deficit, economy, terrorist, just to name a few will require ALOT of painful cuts and adjustments.
To me, he is just another politician from the other party <different name, same old ways of doing things>.
I just don't believe like BO's believers that he will solve all our problems if he becomes the next president of the US.
Just to say "let change" won't change a darn thing if you don't willing/want to do the hard parts ..ie. solve the HUGE problem of SS, healthcare, budget deficit, economy, terrorist, just to name a few will require ALOT of painful cuts and adjustments.
To me, he is just another politician from the other party <different name, same old ways of doing things>.
AAjax
Diamond Member
- Feb 17, 2001
- 3,798
- 0
- 0
LOL! Though the way the media is treating him I think thats what some are expecting.
Here are my reasons for not liking him
1) Supported the patriot act.
2) Suggested that nuking pakistan is an option.
3) Tells people what they want to hear, not what they need to hear.
With that said Im sure he will be the next presedent. Be careful what you wish for.
I find your 3rd point kind of funny since we have few dozen posts at least crying about the exact opposite where is he too honest with the general population and it gets him in trouble,
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
Originally posted by: Tab
Obama isn't for Universal Health Care?
In fact, no. The system he is calling Universal Health Care is actually universal access to health care, meaning that no one can be denied health insurance coverage. To the young and healthy, that probably doesn't mean much, but to a lot of people who cannot get health insurance due to age or pre-existing condition (despite the heavy breaks and subsidies the govt gives the insurers), it means a lot.
The plan of the future (no matter who gets elected) is one where people will get their own coverage from a variety of choices. Maybe your employer will have the best plan, most likely you will find the best on your own. Costs and tax deductions will go to the individual, leveling out the playing field. You will be able to pick from a variety of coverage options, possibly even exempting certain major coverages (like cancer for example, if you have no family history).
The only 2 aspects that borderline on socialism is that there will be safety net system to those who legitimately cannot afford coverage provided through the federal plan, and parents will be required to obtain coverage for their children.
However, as about 50% of health care costs in America are currently paid for by Medicare and other govt programs (spidey's "free" market), it is actually believed that this plan will result in an overall reduction in the % of govt costs, mostly through better preventative care and efficiency.
BeauJangles
Lifer
- Aug 26, 2001
- 13,941
- 1
- 0
Obama isn't some sort of magic pill that can conveniently fix all of our problems with no side-effects. Neither is Hillary Clinton, John McCain, George Bush, Bill Clinton, Reagan, Kennedy, FDR, Lincoln, or Washington. Our next president is going to face tremendous challenges, some of which you've outlined. I am, however, far more hopeful of Obama's ability to compromise, negotiate, and partner with conservatives to make progress in Washington. He's a democrat and a liberal, but we need a leader with the sense to understand that in order to get a little, you've got to give a little.
Can Obama do all that? I'm not sure, but I'd rather put my faith in him than in Clinton or McCain.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter