[quote]hlss09 wrote:
Don’t you DARE boom roast me lol. That is MY move, stolen from the one and only Michael Gary Scott of course.
PS can someone link me to the supreme court decision mentioned here stopping caps on political contributions. Thx.
[/quote]
Lol I didn’t know the exact name of the case Mr. Lawyer!
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]hlss09 wrote:
…#2: Capitalism and its Drawbacks. The capitalist is only concerned with increasing profits for the year. They don’t look to the future in large. They often get rid of employees or replace employees with computerized systems to increase profits. It seems that the fierce capitalist pushes out employees in order to increase the bottom line. Well, this then becomes a self effacing system. Get rid of the employees, get rid of the middle class. Without employees, there will be nobody to buy the products the capitalist is selling! Duh. It seems that the capitalist, insofar as he is mainly concerned with making a higher profit than the previous year, squeezes the middle class out of the picture. The result is less of a customer base to buy the products being sold. Capitalism doesn’t seem to work without help from the government either. Laisses-faire capitalism works for a period of time, but without gov’t aid, it would’ve caused a worse depression than we had in the early part of the 20th century. Bailouts saved capitalism. Clearly, laissez-faire capitalism isn’t so ‘laissez-faire.’… [/quote]
OMG, this is rich.
WTF kind of educational system do these people stumble through?[/quote]
We’re doomed. Accept it.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Then why have I always heard “healthcare provided by the government” referred to as “socialized healthcare”?[/quote]
Because it is - it is operating as a wealth transfer.
[quote]hlss09 wrote:
He’s also VERY versed in economics, politics, and peace & conflict. He’s way smarter than 99.999% of people I’ve ever known. [/quote]
Clearly not, based on your representations. And his fluency in “peace & conflict” gave the game away.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Then why have I always heard “healthcare provided by the government” referred to as “socialized healthcare”?[/quote]
Because it is - it is operating as a wealth transfer.
[/quote]
But you just said I was confusing “provided by the government” with “socialized”.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
But you just said I was confusing “provided by the government” with “socialized”. [/quote]
You were - not all government functions are in the category of a “socialized” function. Police and fire protection are not, government-provided health care is.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
But you just said I was confusing “provided by the government” with “socialized”. [/quote]
You were - not all government functions are in the category of a “socialized” function. Police and fire protection are not, government-provided health care is.
[/quote]
Okay… what’s the difference between the first two and the second, that they are not socialized while the latter would be?
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Okay… what’s the difference between the first two and the second, that they are not socialized while the latter would be?[/quote]
Well, I addressed that earlier:
Whether or not a public service is an example of a “socialized” service or not depends on its policy aim. Is the aim of the government-provided service to redistribute wealth or otherwise make a transfer payment? Police protection, for example, is not “socialist”.
Fire protection doesn’t have a mission to redistrubute wealth along “fairness” lines - nor does our armed forces. If we were attacked by aliens tomorrow and the government had to consume 100% of GDP to defend us from annhiliation, that’d be an example of the government controlling all resources, but it wouldn’t be “socialistic”.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Okay… what’s the difference between the first two and the second, that they are not socialized while the latter would be?[/quote]
Well, I addressed that earlier:
Whether or not a public service is an example of a “socialized” service or not depends on its policy aim. Is the aim of the government-provided service to redistribute wealth or otherwise make a transfer payment? Police protection, for example, is not “socialist”.
Fire protection doesn’t have a mission to redistrubute wealth along “fairness” lines - nor does our armed forces. If we were attacked by aliens tomorrow and the government had to consume 100% of GDP to defend us from annhiliation, that’d be an example of the government controlling all resources, but it wouldn’t be “socialistic”.
[/quote]
I think we can agree that providing people with basic healthcare is not redistribution of wealth, so lets focus on the “transfer payment” part.
If the police provide me with a service, they get paid for it, even if I don’t pay them directly. Same with fire, EMS, etc. How is the fact that these services are funded through taxation not a “transfer payment”?
If I go to the doctor for a checkup, and the doctor is paid through the state (which gets its money through taxes), that’s a “tansfer payment”, because I’m getting a service which is paid for by someone else, right? Or am I misinterpreting your use of “transfer payment”?
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
I think we can agree that providing people with basic healthcare is not redistribution of wealth, so lets focus on the “transfer payment” part.[/quote]
Well, no, we can’t agree on that, because provision of basic healthcare is redistribution of wealth - the consumption of individualized health care resources is being paid for by someone else. And, a transfer payment is in the category of redistribution of wealth (income, primarily), so I am not sure what you mean.
[quote]hlss09 wrote:
#1: Social Security. Social security isn’t taken past $91,000. This is a CLEAR tax break for the rich. Maybe people who make over 91k could contribute an equal amount like you guiys are all arguing for. You want to tax everyone equally, right? Well, why do you give tax breaks to the rich? Yeah, let’s put the burden, once again, on the poor/lower class…It’s just so ass backwards.
[/quote]
Do you know the way social security is “supposed” to work? You are supposed to put in a certain amount of your money over the years, and then, based on the amount you put in, you receive a certain amount back in your twilight years. Hence, there is no reason to tax the wealthy past a certain amount because they would just end up getting the money back. Of course, this assumes we don’t go towards means-testing, which is of course inevitable at this point.
Bottom line is social security was never meant to (but clearly is going towards) wealth redistribution as many liberals like to paint it.
@ Thunder: My GSI is very smart. Bottom line. You may not agree with him, but he just is.
@ TBT: good point. I guess that makes sense, but it just seems to fall in line with the ideal of taxing the poor/putting the burden on the poor.
Thunderbolt: I assume you’re conservative, right? Even conservatives are wising up to the fact that ppl are tired of the divide between rich and poor. They’re changing their rhetoric. Many of the conservatives are now talking about ways to bridge the gap and re-create the middle class. Why don’t you get off your intellectual high horse and start talking things out with us if you have an opinion rather than trying to WIN the argument. This is the problem with discussion. People don’t listen, they just wait until the can one up their opponent. Let’s just have a conversation about our ideas, no attacks and no BS, okay? lol.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
I think we can agree that providing people with basic healthcare is not redistribution of wealth, so lets focus on the “transfer payment” part.[/quote]
Well, no, we can’t agree on that, because provision of basic healthcare is redistribution of wealth - the consumption of individualized health care resources is being paid for by someone else. And, a transfer payment is in the category of redistribution of wealth (income, primarily), so I am not sure what you mean.[/quote]
But the same can be said for fire fighting service - the consumption (use) of individualized fire service is being paid for by someone else. Correct?
Or, if I go to another state, where I’ve never paid a cent of tax, and I’m robbed, I can call the local police and expect them to provide me with a service (taking a report of the incident, alerting other officers about the robber, attempting to apprehend him, etc) - isn’t that a service paid for by someone else?
I get that you classify these services differently than health care, I dont think you’ve made a clear argument as to why, exactly, though.
[quote]hlss09 wrote:
@ TBT: good point. I guess that makes sense, but it just seems to fall in line with the ideal of taxing the poor/putting the burden on the poor.
[/quote]
Not sure I follow. Social security (at least for retirement purposes, I know there are other uses) is supposed to be a what YOU put in is what YOU get out system. If you make more money, you put more money in, you get more money out. If you make less money, you put less money in, you get less money out. It is an entirely personal system, so I don’t see why the burden “falls on the poor”.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
But the same can be said for fire fighting service - the consumption (use) of individualized fire service is being paid for by someone else. Correct?
Or, if I go to another state, where I’ve never paid a cent of tax, and I’m robbed, I can call the local police and expect them to provide me with a service (taking a report of the incident, alerting other officers about the robber, attempting to apprehend him, etc) - isn’t that a service paid for by someone else?
I get that you classify these services differently than health care, I dont think you’ve made a clear argument as to why, exactly, though.[/quote]
Is the goal of these “services” to remedy inequalities in wealth among citizens? Yes or no?
[quote]hlss09 wrote:
@ Thunder: My GSI is very smart. Bottom line. You may not agree with him, but he just is.[/quote]
I didn’t say he wasn’t smart. I just said that from your description, he doesn’t sound well-versed in the subjects you noted.
Who is attacking anyone? What “intellectual high horse” are you talking about?
I have grave concerns about the health (and existence) of the middle class and I have ideas on how to resurrect and strengthen it. Emulating the European “socialist” model - which is disintegrating in real-time before our eyes - however, isn’t the answer.
As for worries about “winning” arguments - an important part of discourse is to have the honesty to call bad ideas bad ideas. That isn’t a bad thing, and you can’t have a meaningful discussion without it.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
But the same can be said for fire fighting service - the consumption (use) of individualized fire service is being paid for by someone else. Correct?
Or, if I go to another state, where I’ve never paid a cent of tax, and I’m robbed, I can call the local police and expect them to provide me with a service (taking a report of the incident, alerting other officers about the robber, attempting to apprehend him, etc) - isn’t that a service paid for by someone else?
I get that you classify these services differently than health care, I dont think you’ve made a clear argument as to why, exactly, though.[/quote]
Is the goal of these “services” to remedy inequalities in wealth among citizens? Yes or no?
[/quote]
If the current system was that paying families were covered for fire services, while those unable to pay were not, then yes, providing fire service to everyone through taxation would remedy an inequality in wealth among citizens.
I’m sorry, I worded that last post badly. It should say “then yes, providing fire service to everyone through taxation would remedy an inequality (caused by an inequality in wealth) among citizens.”
So you want health care like your fire services? Contact your local representatives. Maybe your fellow citizens will agree to a city or county healthcare service.