Seems like the incarnation of Howard Roark.
[quote]bklewis wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Since I started this thread, I will reiterate the topic, especially for Professor Hex: The Katrina refugees claim that the rest of the country owes them jobs, houses, and so forth. Some of them loudly proclaimed this for the television cameras.
I say that they must rely on private charity, that a disaster is not a claim on the life/earnings/wealth of others. I’m sorry, but my property belongs to me. Tax money is money that is extorted from helpless victims, ostensibly for necessary functions of the government.
It is not meant for charity. Because of liberals building this monstrosity of a government, it now assumes even more functions outside of the constitution.
I make the point also that the philosophy that allows one person to claim the earnings of another is the philosophy of parasites. No matter how worthwhile the cause, a demand for my help is not moral. I am happy to give when ASKED but don’t respond well to shreiking demands.
For this, because I think men deserve to be asked, not forced, I’m being called vile things by some other board members. They fashion themselves as somehow moral, because they want to distribute money from one person to another, using force to obtain this money. Professor Hex demonstrated that liberalism is really a prelude to Fascism.
Now, back to the show.
I posted a reply to this thread last week and since then the topic has change a few times. I do respect the original poster’s views because he is entitled to that. However I disagree, which I am also entitled to do. No name calling necessary.
While I agree that the govt is not meant for charity I don’t see a problem with the govt TRYING to assist an ENTIRE CITY that was completely devastated…in America no less!!
All of the discussions in the world won’t change a person’s mind about which side of the argument they agree with. While I don’t wish this tragedy on ANYONE I do believe that for some people to fully grasp the situation they’d have to live through it. It’s too easy to say “well those people should have”.
As for the “REAL VICTIMS” being the tax payer…New Orleans residents are also tax payers. So they are being “victimized” twice. EMPATHIZE
I’ve heard some really unbelievable things from people who think that residents of New Orleans are simply looking for a handout. They are not. They didn’t ask for this to happen. They DID NOT KNOW this was going to happen.
My family left the city when the warnings said to leave. They only took a few items with them because they thought (as before) that the storm would do it’s damage and they could go back home.
Well imagine going back to find your house two blocks south of where it was when you left it. Imagine your kids school being totally obliterated. Imagine your employer calling to tell you that the company has to lay off 50% of it’s staff (you being one of them). Same for your spouse…no more job.
That’s just one family’s story. Multiply that times an entire city (500,000+ people).
It’s easy to say “well start over” and of course you have to…but where? Your whole life has turned upside down.
Would you agree that starting a new job is stressful? How about starting a new school in a new town? Looking for housing? Purchasing all of life’s little necessities to put in the house (pots, pans, furniture, clothes, EVERYTHING)…because you have NOTHING?
Of course it would be great if charities could fix this. But what if they can’t? Should the govt not get involved to save one of her own (New Orleans)? This is a monumental task and charities are not going to be up to the task. Insurance companies can only do so much. Do we turn our backs on these people? Our people.
[/quote]
This a very thoughtful and intelligient post. I greatly respect the poster and his maturity.
My sympathy for the people of NO is profound. Certainly none of us can imagine living what those poor people have been through. I am happy to give all that I can.
Now see things from my perspective: people on national television shreiking their demands. (I realize of course that such people do not represent all of the people of NO.) Imagine someone demanding your help, not asking, DEMANDING.
Then, I see politicians talking about voting $200 billion for the rebuilding, money which is not theirs to give. How would you react? They also did not ask, they simply took.
Do you realize the precedent this sets? Whenever someone has a catastrophe, go to the Feds. If someone has a grand scheme, go to the Feds. The Weimar Republic was awash with social welfare programs, aid to distressed cities, you name it. Then comes Hitler.
Everything Hitler did was perfectly lawful, according to the laws of the Weimar Republic, which btw made him Chancellor.
It is not Katrina so much, as Katrina as a symptom. Very slowly, the federal government becomes more and more responsible for everything. All too often, benevolent intentions have turned malevolent. Sad as it may be, the NO refugees should rely on private charity; better that than an all-encompassing government.
[quote]AZMojo wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Professor Hex demonstrated that liberalism is really a prelude to Fascism.
Would you PLEASE look up liberalism and Fascism in some sort of encyclopedia?
You keep making the comparison, but they are unrelated. STOP![/quote]
LMAO! I’ll look them up if you agree to look up Weimar Republic. Look up the meaning of NSDAP – nah, I’ll give you that one – National Socialist German Workers Party! The Nazis were a bunch of damn left-wing liberal socialists.
Why do you think Dolph had to wipe out Ernst Roehm? Ernst wanted old Dolph to fulfill the Socialist program the evil prick had run on, to get the Chancellorship.
No relationship between liberals and Nazis!! LMAO big-time!!
[quote]Aravind wrote:
Seems like the incarnation of Howard Roark.
[/quote]
“It had to be said: the world is perishing from an orgy of self-sacrificing.”
— Roarke, The Fountainhead
Here’s another good one (not by Roarke)
“Senor D’Anconia, what do you think is going to happen to the world?”
“Just exactly what it deserves.”
“Oh, how cruel!”
--- Atlas Shrugged
Enjoy!
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
AZMojo wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Professor Hex demonstrated that liberalism is really a prelude to Fascism.
Would you PLEASE look up liberalism and Fascism in some sort of encyclopedia?
You keep making the comparison, but they are unrelated. STOP!
LMAO! I’ll look them up if you agree to look up Weimar Republic. Look up the meaning of NSDAP – nah, I’ll give you that one – National Socialist German Workers Party! The Nazis were a bunch of damn left-wing liberal socialists.
Why do you think Dolph had to wipe out Ernst Roehm? Ernst wanted old Dolph to fulfill the Socialist program the evil prick had run on, to get the Chancellorship.
No relationship between liberals and Nazis!! LMAO big-time!![/quote]
Merriam-Webster defines fascism as “a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition”[2].
The American Heritage Dictionary instead describes it as “A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism.”[3
Scholar Stanley Payne’s Fascism: Comparison and Definition (1980) uses a lengthy itemized list of characteristics to identify fascism, including the creation of an authoritarian state; a regulated, state-integrated economic sector; fascist symbolism; anti-liberalism; anti-communism and anti-conservatism[4].
A similar strategy was employed by semiotician Umberto Eco in his popular essay Eternal Fascism: Fourteen Ways of Looking at a Blackshirt[5]. More recently, an emphasis has been placed upon the aspect of fascist rhetoric that argues for a “re-birth” of a conflated nation and ethnic people[6].
After the defeat of Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany in World War II, the term has taken on an extremely pejorative meaning, largely in reaction to the crimes against humanity committed by the Nazis.
Today, very few groups proclaim themselves fascist, and the term is often used to describe individuals or political groups who are perceived to behave in an authoritarian or totalitarian manner; by silencing opposition, judging personal behavior, promoting racism, or otherwise attempting to concentrate power and create hate towards the “enemies of the state”.
Whether you think the U.S. is headed this way is one thing. If so, it isn’t because of taxes, or liberalism. So stop LYFAO!! and do something if you don’t like the current system. At least come up with a solution beyond a fucking tithing.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
My sympathy for the people of NO is profound. Certainly none of us can imagine living what those poor people have been through. [/quote]
Yet you still insist you are the REAL victim?
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
AZMojo wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Professor Hex demonstrated that liberalism is really a prelude to Fascism.
Would you PLEASE look up liberalism and Fascism in some sort of encyclopedia?
You keep making the comparison, but they are unrelated. STOP!
LMAO! I’ll look them up if you agree to look up Weimar Republic. Look up the meaning of NSDAP – nah, I’ll give you that one – National Socialist German Workers Party! The Nazis were a bunch of damn left-wing liberal socialists.
Why do you think Dolph had to wipe out Ernst Roehm? Ernst wanted old Dolph to fulfill the Socialist program the evil prick had run on, to get the Chancellorship.
No relationship between liberals and Nazis!! LMAO big-time!!
HAHAHAHAHA. Jesus man. I can tell you are no professor of either history or political science. I can’t believe you are calling Nazi Germany left wing! I am stunned by your uneducated view on this historical matter.
Nazi Germany proclaimed itself socialist, when in fact it had absolutely nothing to do with socialism at all.
Hitler killed Jews, lots of them, based on their religion. He whipped up anti-Jew fervor by proclaiming them “parasites” (hmm…heard this somewhere recently). The socialist creed is based purely on class, and has nothing to do with religion whatsoever. In fact, socialist are the most anti-racist people there are- it makes no sense, as racism simply a device that divides the working class (something we are trying to UNITE) and benefits the ruling class. Therefore, socialists will absolutely never carry out genocides on other working men and women, as it is againstb the very tenets of the idealogy.
Secondly, Hitler and most of Germany were devout Protestants. They went after Catholics, Jews, and other denominations. A socialist state has no state religion, as all men are equal in value, and a state religion does not promote equality.
Hitler had his men burn down the Reichstag, in order to take over the country. Who did he blame this on? The Communists. “The Nazi leaders were determined to demonstrate the Reichstag Fire was a deed of the Comintern, and in early March 1933, three men were arrested who were to play pivotal roles during the Leipzig Trial, known also as “Reichstag Fire Trial,” namely three Bulgarians: Georgi Dimitrov, Vasil Tanev and Blagoi Popov.”
Now, why would a “damn left wing liberal socialist” blame the Communists for a crime that it is known they did not commit? Because they were Nazis- not socialists.
Want another example?
"The Anti-Comintern Pact was concluded between Nazi Germany and Japan on November 25, 1936. The pact was directed against the Communist International (Comintern) in general, and the Soviet Union in particular.
“recognizing that the aim of the Communist International, known as the Comintern, is to disintegrate and subdue existing States by all the means at its command; convinced that the toleration of interference by the Communist International in the internal affairs of the nations not only endangers their internal peace and social well‑being, but is also a menace to the peace of the world desirous of co‑operating in the defense against Communist sub?versive activities” "
Now, why would a socialist state be anti-Communist? Ever hear of “A wolf in sheep’s clothing”?
Not convinced yet? Here’s a section for Hitler’s speech of April 12th, 1921:
And thus the Left is forced more and more to turn to Bolshevism. “In Bolshevism they see today the sole, the last possibility of preserving the present state of affairs. They realize quite accurately that the people is beaten so long as Brain and Hand can be kept apart. For alone neither Brain nor Hand can really oppose them. So long therefore as the Socialist idea is coined only by men who see in it a means for disintegrating a nation, so long can they rest in peace.”
“But it will be a sorry day for them when this Socialist idea is grasped by a Movement which unites with it the highest Nationalist pride, with Nationalist defiance, and thus places the Nation’s Brain, its intellectual workers, on this ground. Then this system will break up, and there would remain only one single means of salvation for its supporters: vis. to bring the catastrophe upon us before their own ruin, to destroy the Nation’s Brain, to bring it to the scaffold - to introduce Bolshevism.”
"So the Left neither can nor will help. On the contrary, their first lie compels them constantly to resort to new lies. There remains then the Right. And this party of the Right meant well, but it cannot do what it would because up to the present time it has failed to recognize a whole series of elementary principles.
"In the first place the Right still fails to recognize the danger. These gentlemen still persist in believing that it is a question of being elected to a Landtag or of posts as minister or secretaries. They think that the decision of a people’s destiny would mean at worst nothing more than some damage to their so-called bourgeois-economic existence. They have never grasped the fact that this decision threatens their heads. They have never yet understood that it is not necessary to be an enemy of the Jew for him to drag you one day on the Russian model to the scaffold. They do not see that it is quite enough to have a head on your shoulders and not to be a Jew: that will secure the scaffold for you.
Here’s a little more, supporting the “wolf in sheep’s clothing”-
"1. ‘National’ and ‘social’ are two identical conceptions. It was only the Jew who succeeded, through falsifying the social idea and turning it into Marxism, not only in divorcing the social idea from the national, but in actually representing them as utterly contradictory. That aim he has in fact achieved. At the founding of this Movement we formed the decision that we would give expression to this idea of ours of the identity of the two conceptions: despite all warnings, on the basis of what we had come to believe, on the basis of the sincerity of our will, we christened it ‘National Socialist.’ We said to ourselves that to be ‘national’ means above everything to act with a boundless and all-embracing love for the people and, if necessary, eve to die for it. And similarly to be ‘social’ means so to build up the State and the community of the people that every individual acts in the interest of the community of the people and must be to such an extent convinced of the goodness, of the honorable straightforwardness of this community of the people as to be ready to die for it…
"5. We as National Socialists and members of the German Workers’ Party - a Party pledge to work - must be on principle the most fanatical Nationalists. We realized that the State can be for our people a paradise only if the people can hold sway therein freely as in a paradise: we realized that a slave state still never be a paradise, but only - always and for all time - a hell or a colony.
http://history.hanover.edu/courses/excerpts/111hit1.html
Hitler’s statements go directly against every democratic socialist theory ever invented, and it was his manipulation of language that led anyone to even consider that he was a socialist.
Socialism does not mean Nationalism, it means INTERnationalism. Its kind of one of those important things in the philosophy.
So Headhunter, read some things about shit like this before you go posting about socialist Nazis and parasites.
[/quote]
You know Irish, I agree with this post! Just kidding…no one really expects you to commit suicide.
Look, socialism means that society is somehow above the individual. National Socialism means that the nation is above the individual and that people exist to serve it. Communism means that the community comes first, that the commune or community comes first. The definitions is encyclopedias are not deep enough – they do not look at the philosophical roots of a movement. Why, for example, was Marx greatly influenced by Hegel, an ultra-nationalist? Prussia and Nazi Germany are direct decendents of the philosophy of Hegel, Marx’s intellectual mentor. What country loved Marx?
Because the philosophy of the Nazis and the Communists were so similar, they actually found themselves voting together on issues in the Reichstag while their members had street battles with one another.
All of these philosophies, movements, whatever, are rooted in the same core philosophy: THE INDIVIDUAL AGAINST THE COLLECTIVE. (Look at how you all gang up on me here, for example).
Definitions in encyclopedias are fine, but they simply do not address WHERE the definition comes from. The socialism you advocate is simply the same old tune dressed up to smell nice.
BTW: I find it amazing that you libs, who are happy to admit that their precious whales, dolphins, and other assorted creatures have a particuluar nature, constantly deny that man has a particular nature. Whales are not expected to live like eagles. Yet man is supposed to give up his individuality for the good of a ‘collective’, an entity which , in fact, does not exist (over and above the individuals in it). The collectivist mindset has always eluded me. You are elucidating it for me now. Thank you, FI!!
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Hitler killed Jews, lots of them, based on their religion. He whipped up anti-Jew fervor by proclaiming them “parasites” (hmm…heard this somewhere recently). The socialist creed is based purely on class, and has nothing to do with religion whatsoever. In fact, socialist are the most anti-racist people there are- it makes no sense, as racism simply a device that divides the working class (something we are trying to UNITE) and benefits the ruling class. Therefore, socialists will absolutely never carry out genocides on other working men and women, as it is againstb the very tenets of the idealogy.
Secondly, Hitler and most of Germany were devout Protestants. They went after Catholics, Jews, and other denominations. A socialist state has no state religion, as all men are equal in value, and a state religion does not promote equality.
You are no historian. Hitler was an Austrian catholic. Ask Pastor Niemoller (sorry, I’m at work and can’t check spelling ) about Hitler and the Protestants.
Socialists would never kill anyone? Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics?
Just when I had hopes for you, FI, you write a post like this. Sigh…
[quote]AZMojo wrote:
Since you insisted, I’ll reply one more time to your idiocy.[/quote]
Ah, I have been insulted again. I guess this means we are upset?
[quote]No it isn’t. It shows an utter absence of critical thought.
I assume you’ll explain why later in the post.[/quote]
It is explained throughout the post. Did you miss it? You don’t/can’t/refuse to (I’m not sure which) understand the difference between a private contract and taxation. I cannot explain it any better. Maybe someone else can…
I never denied that the government provides services. However, the government does not produce anything. They can only a) confiscate and b) borrow. Private businesses reinvest at least some of their profits into their operations (in addition to paying dividends, which benefits everyone who owns the company’s shares). Governments do not. Also, there is no competition for government and therefore no real incentive to provide quality service (Saturday at the DMV, anyone?).
The economics of government vis-a-vis private enterprise are two completely different models. The former is modeled upon the assumption of an endless supply of free money. Don’t have enough? Well, just either a) raise taxes, or b) float some bonds and let the next few generations pay for it. Oftentimes these “services” are nothing more than vote-buying schemes anyway.
No. Do us both a favor. Go back and read your own words. You will see that I put nothing in your mouth. You implied that increased profits are the same thing as screwing people (not that there’s anything wrong with that…remember?) I am still waiting for your elaboration on this assertion. You cannot run from your words.
[quote]Did they include that the reserves are REQUIRED by the federal government? How much did they bring in in premiums? You left that out?
That’s because both points are irrelevant.
Incoming premiums are IRRELEVANT? If their revenue comes from 90% premiums and 10% investment income, that’s hardly irrelevent.[/quote]
I didn’t say the premiums were irrelevant (and in the case of AIG, it was about 79%-21%). I said your POINT was irrelevant. I said that the premiums are the cost of the product/service, in the same way that you don’t just waltz up to the gas pump and fill your car for free.
[quote]1)…Many major insurance firms have been in business for going on 150 years, which suggests to me that they have an idea of how to manage their money.
They either know how to manage their’s or take your’s, or both. Probably some of both.[/quote]
They have no choice but to manage theirs (and yours). Again, the premuims you pay are the cost of the service you receive. This is what you don’t seem to get. Why should it be free?
Care to elaborate? (For the record, I never said all companies were wonderful either. But, the free market tends to weed out the bad apples in due time.)
[quote]2) How much did the federal government bring in on their expertly-managed investment portfolio? Why, I think it was about $0.
Now, this really is irrelevant. Not at all on topic.[/quote]
Of course it’s on topic. It is a key difference between the economic models. Once again: governments either a) confiscate or b) borrow. They do not invest. Got it?
[quote]The difference between a consumer and a taxpayer is the consumer has a choice (i.e. can take his golden turds to the company down the street). For an example of how the absence of competition impacts the way business is conducted, go spend a day at your DMV.
Umm, this actually helps prove the analogy.[/quote] How so? [quote]You Mr. Taxpayer also have a choice. You can take your Golden turds elsewhere also.[/quote]
I guess by this you mean move out of the country?
[quote]Thanks Mom!! 
You’re asking your Mommy for this information? How old are you? Sorry, back to topic. Mommy’s right about the state insurance commission. However, it’s not that hard to justify rate hikes, maybe it is in Florida (they actually are one of the more consumer protective states).[/quote]
Oh look! More insults! I must really be having an effect on you. Don’t you talk to your mother? You should call her. She misses you.
So you DO agree that the riskier areas pay higher premiums? I think I mentioned that many pages ago.
OK, so how much did Alaska’s homeowner’s premiums go up over the past five years due to events in other states? I am looking for a percentage and/or per-capita average dollar amount, tied to SPECIFIC events. This will get me off your back on this issue, and I will concede my position up through the statement in the above paragraph (on which we agree). Show me a FACT!
I NEVER said ANYTHING about voluntary taxes. Who, again, is putting things in other people’s mouths? I am well aware of the need for a degree of governance; I just prefer the more “traditional” American model to what we have today. I shall trust that you have a full understanding of the difference and have thoroughly thought it through to arrive at your position.
And if we pretend for a moment that YOUR statement is 100% true, I think the free market ALWAYS represents a better situation than any government solution, and you will never convince me otherwise.
Then you clearly did not read the post.
[quote]Fonebone wrote:
AZMojo wrote:
Since you insisted, I’ll reply one more time to your idiocy.
Ah, I have been insulted again. I guess this means we are upset?
No it isn’t. It shows an utter absence of critical thought.
I assume you’ll explain why later in the post.
It is explained throughout the post. Did you miss it? You don’t/can’t/refuse to (I’m not sure which) understand the difference between a private contract and taxation. I cannot explain it any better. Maybe someone else can…
Not going to respond? What? I thought you had all the answers. Does the government provide a service or not? It’s not a difficult question.
I never denied that the government provides services. However, the government does not produce anything. They can only a) confiscate and b) borrow. Private businesses reinvest at least some of their profits into their operations (in addition to paying dividends, which benefits everyone who owns the company’s shares). Governments do not. Also, there is no competition for government and therefore no real incentive to provide quality service (Saturday at the DMV, anyone?).
The economics of government vis-a-vis private enterprise are two completely different models. The former is modeled upon the assumption of an endless supply of free money. Don’t have enough? Well, just either a) raise taxes, or b) float some bonds and let the next few generations pay for it. Oftentimes these “services” are nothing more than vote-buying schemes anyway.
I never said profits are bad, but nice use of putting words in my mouth to change the subject. Profits gooood.
No. Do us both a favor. Go back and read your own words. You will see that I put nothing in your mouth. You implied that increased profits are the same thing as screwing people (not that there’s anything wrong with that…remember?) I am still waiting for your elaboration on this assertion. You cannot run from your words.
Did they include that the reserves are REQUIRED by the federal government? How much did they bring in in premiums? You left that out?
That’s because both points are irrelevant.
Incoming premiums are IRRELEVANT? If their revenue comes from 90% premiums and 10% investment income, that’s hardly irrelevent.
I didn’t say the premiums were irrelevant (and in the case of AIG, it was about 79%-21%). I said your POINT was irrelevant. I said that the premiums are the cost of the product/service, in the same way that you don’t just waltz up to the gas pump and fill your car for free.
1)…Many major insurance firms have been in business for going on 150 years, which suggests to me that they have an idea of how to manage their money.
They either know how to manage their’s or take your’s, or both. Probably some of both.
They have no choice but to manage theirs (and yours). Again, the premuims you pay are the cost of the service you receive. This is what you don’t seem to get. Why should it be free?
Maybe you don’t know this, but insurance companies have sort of a reputation for screwing people. Hmmm.
Care to elaborate? (For the record, I never said all companies were wonderful either. But, the free market tends to weed out the bad apples in due time.)
- How much did the federal government bring in on their expertly-managed investment portfolio? Why, I think it was about $0.
Now, this really is irrelevant. Not at all on topic.
Of course it’s on topic. It is a key difference between the economic models. Once again: governments either a) confiscate or b) borrow. They do not invest. Got it?
The difference between a consumer and a taxpayer is the consumer has a choice (i.e. can take his golden turds to the company down the street). For an example of how the absence of competition impacts the way business is conducted, go spend a day at your DMV.
Umm, this actually helps prove the analogy. How so? You Mr. Taxpayer also have a choice. You can take your Golden turds elsewhere also.
I guess by this you mean move out of the country?
Thanks Mom!!
You’re asking your Mommy for this information? How old are you? Sorry, back to topic. Mommy’s right about the state insurance commission. However, it’s not that hard to justify rate hikes, maybe it is in Florida (they actually are one of the more consumer protective states).
Oh look! More insults! I must really be having an effect on you. Don’t you talk to your mother? You should call her. She misses you.
Insurance companies have two options when a catastrophe strikes, raise rates or go out of business(once the reserves deplete). Now they can’t raise rates enough for people who choose to live in disaster prone places(i.e.Florida), (I think you meant “e.g.”) homeowner’s simply wouldn’t be able to afford insurance. So to mitigate this, they raise them everywhere, and the people in disaster prone places benefit, even though they still pay higher premiums than the norm, just not as high.
So you DO agree that the riskier areas pay higher premiums? I think I mentioned that many pages ago.
OK, so how much did Alaska’s homeowner’s premiums go up over the past five years due to events in other states? I am looking for a percentage and/or per-capita average dollar amount, tied to SPECIFIC events. This will get me off your back on this issue, and I will concede my position up through the statement in the above paragraph (on which we agree). Show me a FACT!
Follow? That’s the reality of business. Even if your statement was 100% true, who in your voluntary taxes paradise would pay this insurance commissioner to protect you? Ooops, another example of your extorted tax dollars doing some good.
I NEVER said ANYTHING about voluntary taxes. Who, again, is putting things in other people’s mouths? I am well aware of the need for a degree of governance; I just prefer the more “traditional” American model to what we have today. I shall trust that you have a full understanding of the difference and have thoroughly thought it through to arrive at your position.
And if we pretend for a moment that YOUR statement is 100% true, I think the free market ALWAYS represents a better situation than any government solution, and you will never convince me otherwise.
The CORE of your post was the Magical Ass thing? That’s the ONLY mention of the government’s financial management ability in hole (I mean whole) thing.
Then you clearly did not read the post.[/quote]
Fonebone, ever notice how we ANSWER but most others just slime? Have to give FI credit though, he did look things up (though he got a lot of his facts wrong.)
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
My sympathy for the people of NO is profound. Certainly none of us can imagine living what those poor people have been through. I am happy to give all that I can.
[/quote]
Really? Sure as hell dont sound like it.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Since when did the claims of parasites become a moral claim on the host?
How did those who don’t produce get a moral blank check on those who do?
I have to pay blackmail to the lazy?
Those who wish to contribute to the people made homeless and so forth by the hurricane are free to do so. When I am forced to contribute, however, I do so but only with the threat of jail or a gun pointed at me.
“Its only a few drops of blood.” says the parasite. “You’ll never miss it. I’m starving here! I know that you losing those few drops of blood would be much more traumatic than me being hungry!”
The people of New Orleans, who scream for my tax dollars, are parasites.
They chose to live in a dangerous place. They gambled that the levees would hold and that they could live in a city that should actually be underwater. They were wrong.
I don’t wish to pay for someone else’s irresponsibility. They made a choice. Now, they should have to rely on private charity for help.
Now, if some loafer demands part of your pay to rebuid his house, will you give it to him? No.
So, can the people of New Orleans demand my tax money for the purpose of rebuilding their homes.
I now detest governmental aid for New Orleans more than ever. Thank you, Fonebone!
[/quote]
The word HYPOCRISY comes to mind.
[quote]RHINO928 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
My sympathy for the people of NO is profound. Certainly none of us can imagine living what those poor people have been through. I am happy to give all that I can.
Really? Sure as hell dont sound like it.
Headhunter wrote:
Since when did the claims of parasites become a moral claim on the host?
How did those who don’t produce get a moral blank check on those who do?
I have to pay blackmail to the lazy?
Those who wish to contribute to the people made homeless and so forth by the hurricane are free to do so. When I am forced to contribute, however, I do so but only with the threat of jail or a gun pointed at me.
“Its only a few drops of blood.” says the parasite. “You’ll never miss it. I’m starving here! I know that you losing those few drops of blood would be much more traumatic than me being hungry!”
The people of New Orleans, who scream for my tax dollars, are parasites.
They chose to live in a dangerous place. They gambled that the levees would hold and that they could live in a city that should actually be underwater. They were wrong.
I don’t wish to pay for someone else’s irresponsibility. They made a choice. Now, they should have to rely on private charity for help.
Now, if some loafer demands part of your pay to rebuid his house, will you give it to him? No.
So, can the people of New Orleans demand my tax money for the purpose of rebuilding their homes.
I now detest governmental aid for New Orleans more than ever. Thank you, Fonebone!
The word HYPOCRISY comes to mind.
[/quote]
Read my response to Fonebone’s post. Case closed.
[quote]RHINO928 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
My sympathy for the people of NO is profound. Certainly none of us can imagine living what those poor people have been through. I am happy to give all that I can.[/quote]
Really? Sure as hell dont sound like it.
I’m so sympathetic, I want them to stand on their own two feet, with the help of private charity, if needed. Are you saying that wanting people to be responsible for themselves is wrong?
[quote]Fonebone wrote:
AZMojo wrote:
It is explained throughout the post. Did you miss it? You don’t/can’t/refuse to (I’m not sure which) understand the difference between a private contract and taxation. I cannot explain it any better. Maybe someone else can…[/quote]
I understand the differences just fine. Why don’t/can’t you understand that it’s an ANALOGY. Some of your tax dollars are earmarked to provide the same services that insurance companies provide when private insurance falls short, like flood insurance for instance. In that case, the analogy is a direct one.
Yes, the government collects taxes. No, you don’t have a choice. No, there is no domestic competition. No, they don’t ask for your permission to spend those taxes. Yes, the government makes poor spending decisions. I assume we agree on all of this? So what is your problem? Is it that I slandered the insurance industry?
Instead of going round and round insisting that I don’t know the difference between government and private industry, why don’t you offer your solution to the problem? Do you also advocate a tithing system like headhunter, or is your solution more profound?[quote]
Not going to respond? What? I thought you had all the answers. Does the government provide a service or not? It’s not a difficult question.
I never denied that the government provides services. However, the government does not produce anything. They can only a) confiscate and b) borrow. Private businesses reinvest at least some of their profits into their operations (in addition to paying dividends, which benefits everyone who owns the company’s shares). Governments do not. Also, there is no competition for government and therefore no real incentive to provide quality service (Saturday at the DMV, anyone?).
[/quote]
Governments don’t reinvest their profits, because they don’t make any profits. Is that what you mean by produce? They do produce a service. [quote]
I never said profits are bad, but nice use of putting words in my mouth to change the subject. Profits gooood.
No. Do us both a favor. Go back and read your own words. You will see that I put nothing in your mouth. You implied that increased profits are the same thing as screwing people (not that there’s anything wrong with that…remember?) I am still waiting for your elaboration on this assertion. You cannot run from your words. [/quote]
I don’t run from my words, but it would be nice if you read them before commenting. I believe I said that making a profit gives private industry more of an INCENTIVE to screw you(look, profit and screw in the same sentence, blashpemy!). I stand by this assertion.[quote]
I didn’t say the premiums were irrelevant (and in the case of AIG, it was about 79%-21%). I said your POINT was irrelevant. I said that the premiums are the cost of the product/service, in the same way that you don’t just waltz up to the gas pump and fill your car for free.[/quote]
How is that different than taxes?[quote]
Of course it’s on topic. It is a key difference between the economic models. Once again: governments either a) confiscate or b) borrow. They do not invest. Got it?[/quote]
I understand the words, but you’re talking about two things. One is how revenue is generated. The other is how revenue is managed. Got it? Businesses are trying to make a profit, as opposed to government, so of course they invest some of their income. If these investments lose money then the business may no longer be in business, depending on how much they risked. The government cannot take these same chances, we would never allow it. I would be curious to see how much of this precious investment revenue big insurance companies brought in before the mid-90s stock market boom, say twenty years ago.[quote]
Insurance companies have two options when a catastrophe strikes, raise rates or go out of business(once the reserves deplete). Now they can’t raise rates enough for people who choose to live in disaster prone places(i.e.Florida), (I think you meant “e.g.”) homeowner’s simply wouldn’t be able to afford insurance. So to mitigate this, they raise them everywhere, and the people in disaster prone places benefit, even though they still pay higher premiums than the norm, just not as high.
So you DO agree that the riskier areas pay higher premiums? I think I mentioned that many pages ago. [/quote]
I never disagreed with it. But those living in high areas DO NOT pay premiums proportionate with their risk. The rest of the customer base absorbs some of this. If not, insurance companies couldn’t afford to do business in states like Florida.[quote]
OK, so how much did Alaska’s homeowner’s premiums go up over the past five years due to events in other states? I am looking for a percentage and/or per-capita average dollar amount, tied to SPECIFIC events. This will get me off your back on this issue, and I will concede my position up through the statement in the above paragraph (on which we agree). Show me a FACT! [/quote]
I don’t have the time or inclination to research this. Maybe you could prove how they haven’t been affected and get back to me. The FACT is, that people’s insurance premiums are going to go up when a major catastophe hits. Look for it about a year or two later, after the bulk of claims have been paid. Although, you may not notice since you live in Florida and already have the rest of your insurance company’s clients subsidizing you. Maybe you can get together with headhunter in Ohio a few years from now and see if his rates are still where they’re at today.[quote]
I NEVER said ANYTHING about voluntary taxes. Who, again, is putting things in other people’s mouths? I am well aware of the need for a degree of governance; I just prefer the more “traditional” American model to what we have today. I shall trust that you have a full understanding of the difference and have thoroughly thought it through to arrive at your position.[/quote]
So you support taxation, as long as only enough is taken to provide the necessary services and protection? Fine, then we just disagree on what that level is, it’s a matter of degree. I can live with that.
That, however, is not the discussion headhunter is having. He is opposed to all mandatory taxation.
Since you are defending him so vigorously, I wrongly assumed you were of similar opinion.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Are you saying that wanting people to be responsible for themselves is wrong?
[/quote]
Not at all.
I’m saying the Federal Government has a responsibility to help rebuild a region that contributes to the GDP and provides one of the world’s largest ports as a gateway for international trade. If YOUR tax contribution is neeeded to help do so, than so be it. Your state, and all others, benefits from revenues generated by Louisiana oil and gas.
We are spending a whole lot re-building Iraq and our country receives no money from them. Are you equally pissed at the fact the political parasites are spending your money there?
[quote]RHINO928 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Are you saying that wanting people to be responsible for themselves is wrong?
Not at all.
I’m saying the Federal Government has a responsibility to help rebuild a region that contributes to the GDP and provides one of the world’s largest ports as a gateway for international trade. If YOUR tax contribution is neeeded to help do so, than so be it. Your state, and all others, benefits from revenues generated by Louisiana oil and gas.
We are spending a whole lot re-building Iraq and our country receives no money from them. Are you equally pissed at the fact the political parasites are spending your money there?[/quote]
If you read the thread, you’d know my stance there. I don’t want you to be forced to pay for something you don’t believe in, period. Why is this so wrong? Why use force, when asking would probably work better?
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Headhunter, if you are against anything that stresses the collective over the masses, than you cannot be fore democracy- the collective majority decides what goes on, and special interests groups rule the roost.
The USSR was no socialist state-- it was state capitalism. The held very little in common with the socialist ideals. Nazi Germany held nothing in common. They used the name, little else.[/quote]
Why couldn’t the USSR hold to socialist ideals? Did you miss the part about the whales and dolphins?
A man’s life is sacred. It must not be sacrificed to any collective, no matter how large their need or how great their number. Men are not whales or birds or whatnot – they are individual rational beings. They cannot live (very long) under any collectivist ideal. A mind cannot be forced, or it dies. The man who attempts to do so becomes subhuman (such as a Nazi).
Socialism cannot work for this reason. Man has a particular nature. He requires freedom, especially from other men. Socialism, Communism, Fascism, and so forth, are societies on the way to death. Each man must decide his own goal and purpose, without regard for other men. Socialism wishes to replace this with ‘the good of society’. It cannot work, just as a bird cannot eat like a whale and a whale can’t perch in a tree.
Man is sacred, his work is sacred, and the results of that work (his money) is sacred.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
What freaking country are you from? Most of what you are writing isn’t even making sense. We had two majority parties running for president. That usually pits the Democrats against the Republicans. Nearly every “problem” you have listed is a result of REPUBLICANS which is what headstrong claims to be. Do you get it now? You are backing up the very guy who you should be against judging by what you are writing.[/quote]
I’m not so much backing off “headstrong” as I am saying that he’s got a point.
Two major, but no minor? Is it illegal to vote blank or vote for a “minor” party? They are only major because everyone votes for them. Stop the cycle, don’t vote for them.
[quote]So, let me get this straight. You think the rich will voluntarily pay more and more taxes? If that happens, then the poor would stop paying taxes under that same model. I don’t know what country you are from, but what you are writing makes no sense and I am having a hard time believing that you think it does.
[/quote]
Well, I believe the poor benefit from police protection as well as the rich. But if the rich pay enough taxes to get the poor “off the hook” (which will never happen) then the poor dont “have to” pay tax.
It makes sense as long as you keep in mind:
-
Everyone wants protection from the government and realize that without taxation the government cannot protect you.
-
The rich are only rich as long as the government is protecting them from robbery, theft etc.
-
The poor are only alive as long as the police are protecting them from attack, murder, phsychos etc.
-
Not all systems can be taken up over night. No one will ever vote for someone advocating a system that takes ~10-50 years to adjust to. Its a dream, not a reality. Its a system that believes that societies are smart and can understand the system.
Individuals are smart, but societies are not.
So, what am I really saying?
-
Yeah, I like numbered lists
-
Taxation for rebuilding private property is wrong.
-
If experience shows you cannot rely on insurance companies to cover your ass then don’t use their service. It sounds like the american insurance industry is kinda screwy, so dont use them. Pay “premiums” into your own bank account. Hope you get lucky and don’t need them until you get a sizeable amount.
-
The people who are suffering from Katrina are not the point. I do realize that they need help. They NEED charity and they need lots. They however have no right to DEMAND charity.
-
Its true, I don’t have full understanding of the usa political scene. I only know whats in the news. But still, vote for someone that doesnt screw you. Even if they cant afford to advertise ALOT.
Oh and btw, I’m from Iceland. Now you can stop asking.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
I don’t want you to be forced to pay for something you don’t believe in, period. Why is this so wrong? Why use force, when asking would probably work better?
[/quote]
Well then, there is a lot of government spending that would fall under your guidelines.
Who is using force? You keep saying that and I’m trying to figure out who is forcing you.
What about abortion? Government funding of it, not the issue.
Or what about NASA? I hate the fact we give NASA payments for research.
What about Public School? I have a 4 year old and paid $5000 for her first year of private school. Why should I be forced to pay into public shool funding?
You pretty much could do a line item budget for every tax payer and find spending on issues or programs that they may not support.
So what is your point for this thread?
A) NO Federal money should be spent in rebuilding New Orleans.
B) NO Fed money should be spent helping recover private losses.
c) You don’t want any money going to New Orleans or The Gulf Coast from the Fed.
D) Natuaral disasters that wipe out American cities are not your issue and your tax dollars shouldn’t spent on recovery.
E) All of the above
F) Other (please explain)
I’m not going to sift through all forty pages of this argument, but the original poster was right. In addition, unless you’ve lived with Louisiana politics and priorities for a few years, you don’t know how bad things are run.
Yes, I was there, and the begging, blame and associated BS has run me out of that state for the final time. You yankees, when they call New Jersey the Louisiana of the east coast, it’s not a compliment. Think Tammany Hall, but it’s been going on since Huey Long was in office. It still is now.
BTW, in case anyone dosen’t know, the Federal Flood insurance program exists precisely because no company that wanted to stay solvent would insure 95% of this crap. Which, coincidentally, is why people shouldn’t build there, looking out for their own self interests and all.