Is Barack the Change his Brothers are Waiting For?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Wait, am I an “elitist” or a “welfare baby”??? You’re AWFUL good at name calling. [/quote]

You should see AndyG’s post to me if you think I am name callling.

But - you don’t get it. You are crying about being openminded, but only as long as people agree with your deep thoughts, and “dead center” links.

Truth is - you have yet to entertain anything that deviates from your opinion. Were you truly the bastion of open mindedness you think you are, you would post links to the bad stuff as well. But you don’t.

IF you are going to talk the talk - walk the walk.

[quote]Didn’t bother to find the article, huh? Maybe you don’t know what the economist is? I posted a small part of the article that answered a direct question. You’ve posted nothing but name calling. Good work, keep it up.
(Hint: The article wasn’t biased, and the economist is dead center)[/quote]

You assume more than I do, and you have the gall to call me out on it?

You have yet to deny my charge. But someone who touts only one article, and then starts calling everyone closed minded because they don’t cream their jeans over it doesn’t have too much credibility in my book.

But then again, I’m sure my book doesn’t mean too much to someone as forward thinking as you are.

I’m still waiting for you to prove you are nuanced and possess depth. One link to one article agreeing with your position shows neither.

I guess if everyone were a “soak the rich” liberal, we would be awash in depth.

Seriously - your nuances and depth, are predictable and quite shallow.

You have to try a little harder than just proclaiming yourself as such. In fact, strutting around like you are doing in this thread is a pretty good sign to those of us who have been here for a while that you are full of shit.

82

[quote]mharmar wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:

Personally I think education in the US should be revamped and a universal health care system would help everyone a lot. Education has to be number 1 though every country that has very good upward mobility has a strong educational system and access to the best universities even for the poorest citizens and not always based on scholarships.

[/quote]

Hey, I’m not trying to insult or get totally torn apart for this post. But the problem I see with universal health care would be the same one that I see with our current welfare system. I completely agree with people who are physically UNABLE to work to provide themselves with a decent life (This would cover people who are missing limbs, or otherwise prohibited from doing any sort of paying job) being able to receive these benefits… With a universal healthcare policy, would people not be able to draw upon this service and simply just work “off the books” to avoid paying taxes on their income?

I’m completely inexperienced with these types of arguments/politics and am just calling it as I see it. Feel free to point out glaring mistakes in my thinking, as long as it is in a beneficial way.

83

[quote]mharmar wrote:
<<< To be honest I think the Republicans have managed to fool many Americans into thinking they have their best interests in mind all the while feeding the Military-Industrial Complex and Corporate greed even more than the Democrats who aren’t even close to clean themselves. The Republicans just direct public attention from important issues to unimportant issues like gay marriage and abortion.

[/quote]

I could compose a boring 20 page essay in response to this post, but let me just say the following.

This reminds me of the whole body fat/bulking controversy. Everybody keeps talking about the government just like they do body fat.

The answers are not in the government they are in the people/muscles.

If there was one damn thing (and this would be the only one) Ross Perot said that I wish everybody would have listened to it was when he called us “The owners of the country”

A very wise man once said that “in a free society the people get the government they deserve”

See you view all the important stuff as being what the government does. I disagree. The most important issues are the ones the government cannot do. Like faith and family or the lack thereof. Out of them grow everything else. Politicians, corporate tycoons, athletes, entertainers, Cops, waiters and everyone else are a product of how they are raised and I don’t mean financially. That’s the least important factor.

You want some spiffy charts and graphs? Find some that track the crime and poverty rates in relation to the divorce and out of wedlock birth rates. Nobody from any party can legislate that.

84

[quote]RebornTN wrote:
mharmar wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:

Personally I think education in the US should be revamped and a universal health care system would help everyone a lot. Education has to be number 1 though every country that has very good upward mobility has a strong educational system and access to the best universities even for the poorest citizens and not always based on scholarships.

Hey, I’m not trying to insult or get totally torn apart for this post. But the problem I see with universal health care would be the same one that I see with our current welfare system. I completely agree with people who are physically UNABLE to work to provide themselves with a decent life (This would cover people who are missing limbs, or otherwise prohibited from doing any sort of paying job) being able to receive these benefits… With a universal healthcare policy, would people not be able to draw upon this service and simply just work “off the books” to avoid paying taxes on their income?

I’m completely inexperienced with these types of arguments/politics and am just calling it as I see it. Feel free to point out glaring mistakes in my thinking, as long as it is in a beneficial way.[/quote]

I was just queasily watching that despicable slug Ted Kennedy.

Health care is neither a right nor a privilege. It’s a market service and is not the government’s job to provide it. This is another whole humongous topic. The issues with healthcare are related to the obscenely inflated costs that make it necessary for yet another scam we know as insurance whereby somebody not you is responsible for paying it.

There’s a whole host of reasons why this is so. In any case one surefire way to be certain it gets worse is to put this obese waddling bureaucracy in charge. However it’s disastrous record of failure with social programs won’t stop the government worshipers from hoping it becomes a reality.

I may be making a mistake, but I’ll tell you people some more personal information about myself.

I have never cleared more than 28,000 dollars in a year, have no access to healthcare and am currently a laid off computer technician trying to start a business. We are every month pennies away from losing our house quite literally.

I have A LOT to personally gain from all this big government bullshit, but I do not want it. I want to be left the hell alone to make my own frickin way like this country once promised without some plastic smiling bureaucratic suit up my ass trying to “help” me.

85

[quote]rainjack wrote:

Some stuff that shows his lack of reading comprehension.
[/quote]

You got one thing right, I don’t care about your opinion. And why would I? You’re an adult who still uses name-calling.

86

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

As as aside, what is it with Canadians always trying to lecture as to what the American Founding Fathers did or thought?[/quote]

Wannabe Americans? Of course, by Americans I mean citizens of the United States. Canadians are kind of…well…like people who always wanted to live in New York City but settled for Jersey.

87

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I have never cleared more than 28,000 dollars in a year, have no access to healthcare and am currently a laid off computer technician trying to start a business. We are every month pennies away from losing our house quite literally.

I have A LOT to personally gain from all this big government bullshit, but I do not want it. I want to be left the hell alone to make my own frickin way like this country once promised without some plastic smiling bureaucratic suit up my ass trying to “help” me. [/quote]

Try to think about this from a societal view. Let’s take your example. You’re an industrious, hard worker, right? There’s a lot of people just like you, right? You’re business will probably be beneficial to society, right?

Now what happens if you get sick tomorrow? All that industry, all that entrepreneurship goes to hell. How does it benefit society to let you fail because you happened to pick up a disease?

Let’s think about it another way. Let’s say you get a minor illness tomorrow. You don’t go to the hospital because you don’t have insurance. You don’t know it, but a medication would cure you easily and cheaply.

Regardless, you start your business and things are going well, but you just keep getting more and more ill. Finally, it hits the breaking point. You end up getting rushed to the hospital at 3am seriously ill. Now to be cured it will be incredibly expensive and you will have to take serious time off of work. Without you at the helm, your business now fails.

How is this a benefit to society? Wouldn’t society be better if you had gone to the hospital earlier when it was cheap and your business could survive?

88

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
rainjack wrote:

Some stuff that shows his lack of reading comprehension.

You got one thing right, I don’t care about your opinion. And why would I? You’re an adult who still uses name-calling. [/quote]

Well, that’s one more than you have gotten right.

I think it’s a little more than suspicious that you call me out for name calling, but ignore all the others. Are you really that sensitive? That hypocritical that you can name call but no one else addressing you can? How do you reconcile that?

89

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

How is this a benefit to society? Wouldn’t society be better if you had gone to the hospital earlier when it was cheap and your business could survive?
[/quote]

How is this a responsibility for the government? This is a personal choice. Since when is it your business to poke your nose into a situation where it doesn’t belong?

Since you are such a well read little man, how about you go find me exactly where in the constitution that it says there is any right whatsoever to free healthcare.

I’ll wait right here while you go find it.

90

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Since you are such a well read little man, how about you go find me exactly where in the constitution that it says there is any right whatsoever to free healthcare.[/quote]

The preamble states that one of the goal is to “…promote the general welfare” of the citizenry.

There’s also this part about “the pursuit of happiness.” It’s from the Declaration of Independence, but it is one of your founding document. How can one pursue happiness if he’s sick or crippled and can’t afford health care nor be employed?

91

[quote]pookie wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Since you are such a well read little man, how about you go find me exactly where in the constitution that it says there is any right whatsoever to free healthcare.

The preamble states that one of the goal is to “…promote the general welfare” of the citizenry.

There’s also this part about “the pursuit of happiness.” It’s from the Declaration of Independence, but it is one of your founding document. How can one pursue happiness if he’s sick or crippled and can’t afford health care nor be employed?
[/quote]

The fact that every non US citizen here is eager to see Obama elected should be an eye opener, but it won’t.

It’s not even possible that anybody who has studied the thought of the revolutionary period could believe that anything in our founding documents could be construed as supporting a government with a budget sporting 15 zeros, even in adjusted dollars.

92

[quote]pookie wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Since you are such a well read little man, how about you go find me exactly where in the constitution that it says there is any right whatsoever to free healthcare.

The preamble states that one of the goal is to “…promote the general welfare” of the citizenry.

There’s also this part about “the pursuit of happiness.” It’s from the Declaration of Independence, but it is one of your founding document. How can one pursue happiness if he’s sick or crippled and can’t afford health care nor be employed?
[/quote]

Promote - not ensure (insure would probably be more applicable).

You have the inalienable right to the pursuit of happiness - not the guarantee of it.

Are you saying crippled people cannot be happy? Are you going to completely prevent all disease, and malady? That’s not the government’s job. But that doesn’t stop the social welfarists from make it so.

93

[quote]rainjack wrote:

Since you are such a well read little man, how about you go find me exactly where in the constitution that it says there is any right whatsoever to free healthcare.

I’ll wait right here while you go find it.
[/quote]

Nice red herring.

[quote]How is this a responsibility for the government? This is a personal choice. Since when is it your business to poke your nose into a situation where it doesn’t belong?
[/quote]

It’s a market failure. Society as a whole and the economy as a whole would be better in the above situation if he were to head to the hospital when he first gets sick. Notice no one is “forcing” him to go to the hospital, he can still choose not to go. The incentive for him to do so has simply been increased.

94

[quote]rainjack wrote:

Promote - not ensure (insure would probably be more applicable).
[/quote]

Increasing the incentive/capacity for people to live healthier lives is promoting (not ensuring) the welfare of the population.

[quote]
Are you saying crippled people cannot be happy? Are you going to completely prevent all disease, and malady? That’s not the government’s job. But that doesn’t stop the social welfarists from make it so. [/quote]

Nice straw man.

95

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
rainjack wrote:

Promote - not ensure (insure would probably be more applicable).

Increasing the incentive/capacity for people to live healthier lives is promoting (not ensuring) the welfare of the population.

Are you saying crippled people cannot be happy? Are you going to completely prevent all disease, and malady? That’s not the government’s job. But that doesn’t stop the social welfarists from make it so.

Nice straw man.

[/quote]

You need to go do some more reading if you think I created a straw man.

Seriously, kiddo - you are in water that way deeper than you can swim in.

You are doing a wonderful job of ducking out when you know you have nothing.

I’ll ask it of you once again, since you seem to have trouble understanding simple requests:

Go find precisely where in the constitution where it says health care is the responsibility of the government.

96

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
rainjack wrote:

Since you are such a well read little man, how about you go find me exactly where in the constitution that it says there is any right whatsoever to free healthcare.

I’ll wait right here while you go find it.

Nice red herring.

How is this a responsibility for the government? This is a personal choice. Since when is it your business to poke your nose into a situation where it doesn’t belong?

It’s a market failure. Society as a whole and the economy as a whole would be better in the above situation if he were to head to the hospital when he first gets sick. Notice no one is “forcing” him to go to the hospital, he can still choose not to go. The incentive for him to do so has simply been increased.

[/quote]

How can you be so sure about that? People get sick. People die. One person’s sickness could be another person’s big break.

The Circle of Life does not need the government getting in the way.

97

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:

How is this a benefit to society? Wouldn’t society be better if you had gone to the hospital earlier when it was cheap and your business could survive?

How is this a responsibility for the government? This is a personal choice. Since when is it your business to poke your nose into a situation where it doesn’t belong?

Since you are such a well read little man, how about you go find me exactly where in the constitution that it says there is any right whatsoever to free healthcare.

I’ll wait right here while you go find it.
[/quote]

I’ll settle for finding an enumerated power for the federal government to even institute such a program.

This is what I really don’t understand about modern partisans. I can understand having your preferences. I can understand the argument that universal health care would be, overall, a good institution. I disagree, but I understand. What I do NOT understand is why we as a nation have to support these experimental schemes. Let Massachusetts or California try it. Let them see what can be done on a state level, and if other states see that it is useful, let them also pass similar legislation. Let them arrange reciprocal agreements if they wish.

And let me move to a state in the Union in which I do not have to subsidize the experiment.

98

[quote]nephorm wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:

How is this a benefit to society? Wouldn’t society be better if you had gone to the hospital earlier when it was cheap and your business could survive?

How is this a responsibility for the government? This is a personal choice. Since when is it your business to poke your nose into a situation where it doesn’t belong?

Since you are such a well read little man, how about you go find me exactly where in the constitution that it says there is any right whatsoever to free healthcare.

I’ll wait right here while you go find it.

I’ll settle for finding an enumerated power for the federal government to even institute such a program.

This is what I really don’t understand about modern partisans. I can understand having your preferences. I can understand the argument that universal health care would be, overall, a good institution. I disagree, but I understand. What I do NOT understand is why we as a nation have to support these experimental schemes. Let Massachusetts or California try it. Let them see what can be done on a state level, and if other states see that it is useful, let them also pass similar legislation. Let them arrange reciprocal agreements if they wish.

And let me move to a state in the Union in which I do not have to subsidize the experiment.[/quote]

Ding. Ding. Ding.

99

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
rainjack wrote:

Are you saying crippled people cannot be happy? Are you going to completely prevent all disease, and malady? That’s not the government’s job. But that doesn’t stop the social welfarists from make it so.

Nice straw man.

You need to go do some more reading if you think I created a straw man. [/quote]

I’ll play the roll of your teacher today.

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position. To “set up a straw man” or “set up a straw man argument” is to describe a position that superficially resembles an opponent’s actual view but is easier to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent (for example, deliberately overstating the opponent’s position)

A red herring is an argument, given in reply, that does not address the original issue. Critically, a red herring is a deliberate attempt to change the subject or divert the argument.

100

[quote]nephorm wrote:
I’ll settle for finding an enumerated power for the federal government to even institute such a program.

This is what I really don’t understand about modern partisans. I can understand having your preferences. I can understand the argument that universal health care would be, overall, a good institution. I disagree, but I understand. What I do NOT understand is why we as a nation have to support these experimental schemes. Let Massachusetts or California try it. Let them see what can be done on a state level, and if other states see that it is useful, let them also pass similar legislation. Let them arrange reciprocal agreements if they wish.

And let me move to a state in the Union in which I do not have to subsidize the experiment.[/quote]

Overall I understand your position, and I still think that universal coverage is the way to go. Looking at other first world nations as well as California and Massachusetts, I see a lot of value for society as a whole, and for the economy as a whole.