Always the humanist!
Printable View
Always the humanist!
[QUOTE=Jackson]I would suggest that the responsibility lies first with the individual, and second with the family of the individual.[/QUOTE]Jackson:
I really like your logic and the idea of people having to take personal responsibility for their problems. You shall get no argument from myself on that point. However, the price gouging and insane costs in medical services and prescriptions are becoming cost prohibitive for the average citizen. Why can a person go to a border town in Mexico and purchase their medication for about one-third of what it costs two blocks away in a U. S. Pharmacy? Why is there such a disparity in prices? Think the argument and debate with health care is more about correcting the insane pricing for medical goods and services. How can any responsible politician not question the disparity in pricing and permit it to continue?
Always the thoughtful conservative (though I take issue with him on certain things)
Stan you make a wise observation in reference to the health insurance system now under duress. You say:
"The idea that our system is not "sustainable" is not any more true than when it is applied to Germany and France. The same things have been said, many, many times, about their systems. Governments adjust and tinker with their public systems to bring them in line, as best they can, when they lurch too far one way or the other."
That is absolutely true and the underlying logic also applies to the arguments that Obama is creating deficits that are not "sustainable."
Deficit spending has gone on since Adam borrowed a few apple seeds from Eve. Read Roman history to learn how Caesar used deficit spending to fight his wars and create an Empire.
Remember the US ran deficits every year from FDR through Bush I. Then in Clinton years, "voila" - we had surpluses!
Obama and his successors will as you say "adjust and tinker" with taxes, and spending "to bring them in line, as best they can." The world economy will heal and future growth will produce replenished government coffers.
In honor of the release of the Beatles catalogue in remastered stereo, let me quote Paul "obladi oblada life goes on!" (I decided not to quote George - "There's one for you, nineteen for me! By the way, Yenny has the new discs in stock!
[QUOTE=Ricardo]Remember the US ran deficits every year from FDR through Bush I. Then in Clinton years, "voila" - we had surpluses!
Obama and his successors will as you say "adjust and tinker" with taxes, and spending "to bring them in line, as best they can." The world economy will heal and future growth will produce replenished government coffers.
In honor of the release of the Beatles catalogue in remastered stereo, let me quote Paul "obladi oblada life goes on!" (I decided not to quote George - "There's one for you, nineteen for me! By the way, Yenny has the new discs in stock![/QUOTE]Ricardo:
I don't object to deficits [I]per se[/i]. I object only to the extent that deficits are likely: (a) to one day seriously affect my tax bill; and / or (be) to bring the prospect of a seriously weakened dollar if the deficits are paid for by printing more money. That's a whole separate discussion. I have no problem with reasonable deficit spending, but I think we're pretty much past that point already.
I excerpted that quote only because it was one of the points where Obama engaged in too much rhetoric for me. I don't mind packaging. I admire the guy's ability to speak. Whatever one thinks of Bush II or Bush I for that matter, both Clinton and Obama are head and shoulders above both of them as orators. But, the ability to speak is just a small part of what makes a good President for me. When too much rhetorical flourish is used, I tend to discredit the rest of what the speaker has to say.
That said, I would contrast the speech he gave last night with the one he gave to school kids a day or two before. The latter was excellent, stripped of politics and I was glad he did it. Some objected that it was an effort at indoctrination. That's probably more sour grapes because they didn't think of it before. The fact that kids need to stay in school and take responsibility for their own success is a message kids need to hear, and the guy should be applauded for doing it. The only other criticism I heard was that the message should come from parents. Yes, it should, but there's no reason it shouldn't come from the President, as well.
I would side with Jackson on spending. I've said it before: Republicans lost me and the high ground when they stopped focusing on the bottom line. I can't swing to the left just because the guy's who used to be leading my side shot me in the back.
But, back to Clinton: A lot can be said about the guy, but he did run surpluses. I give him a lot of credit for [I]not[/i] tinkering and meddling. Truthfully, I think that's harder for politicians than any of us non-politicians realize. They all want to leave a legacy.
Obama, on the other hand, has already promised his constituents that he won't raise their taxes, and he's invited them to look through my wallet to see what they can find there. That's where he lost me. Because of that, I'll spend part of my day looking for every legal mechanism I can find to minimize my tax bill. That time might be spent more productively on other things, but the handwriting is on the wall.
Sorry, but I was never a Beatles fan. To the extent I have to choose, I would go with the Stones. I think Jagger did a stint at the London School of Economics, so perhaps that explains it. Somehow, though, I doubt Mick is much of a conservative. I'll give the left some credit, they generally make better music. One can only listen to Ted Nugent so many times.
I don't remember anyone getting this angry in Congress when the President wanted to kill lots of Iraqis, but now that the President wants to save the lives of more Americans....'
[QUOTE=Jackson]I am a member of the Libertian Party, registered as an Independent.[/QUOTE]Jackson, just curious what you think of Ron Paul?
I would like to consider myself Libertarian, but if our government is going to spend spend massive amounts of money, would rather see less corporate welfare (bailouts / wars / etc) in favor of things like affordable health care, etc.
The first topic could be who is the better businessman? Mick or Macca?
Mick, like JFK and George Soros, did a short stint at LSE. All three obviously picked up a few pointers.
Paul, a Liverpudlian, went to the century-old Liverpool Institute High School for Boys, an English grammar school with an excellent academic reputation.
Both Mick and Macca are considered as brilliant at business as they are with music.
I spent an hour with McCartney in New York a few years back and he is truly a regular bloke.
Like everyone they both got whacked in the current downturn. McCartney, even after paying his ex $40 million is worth three quarters of a billion. While, Jagger struggles along with only $300 million. Who said: "I Can't Get No Satisfaction"?
Maybe I should tell the over the top O detractors to "Let It Be" or "You Better Move On."
[QUOTE=Jackson]I would suggest that the responsibility lies first with the individual, and second with the family of the individual.
One thing for sure, it's not my responsibility, and I don't wish to be forced to pay for somebody elses fucking health care.
I have a suggestion for those of you who apparently suffer from guilt for having health insurance: Go out on the street, select a poor person of your choice, and buy them a health insurance policy.
In the mean time, keep your hands out of my pocket![/QUOTE]That's a fundamental difference between you and I, and others that think like us. I am willing to help pay for a system where everyone has access to quality healthcare (without going bankrupt).
[quote=Jackson]The responsibility lies first with the individual, and second with the family of the individual. It's not my responsibility. I don't wish to be forced to pay for somebody elses fucking health care.
I have a suggestion for those of you who apparently suffer from guilt for having health insurance:
Go out on the street, select a poor person of your choice, and buy them a health insurance policy. Keep your hands out of my pocket![/quote]People who happen to have compassion are not suffering from guilt. We were taught certain values by our parents and most of us have found those values have both merit and benefits - individual and societal.
When I commit an act of compassion I get all warm and fuzzy. I don't feel like somehow my guilt has been assuaged.
Have you ever read any Dickens?
[QUOTE=Ricardo]People who happen to have compassion are not suffering from guilt. We were taught certain values by our parents and most of us have found those values have both merit and benefits - individual and societal.
When I commit an act of compassion I get all warm and fuzzy. I don't feel like somehow my guilt has been assuaged.
Have you ever read any Dickens?[/QUOTE]Ricardo, Esten, et. al.
Okay, then how about having some compassion for me by not forcing me to pay to further [u]your[/u] moral ambitions?
Thanks,
Jackson
[QUOTE=Esten]That's a fundamental difference between you and I, and others that think like us. I am willing to help pay for a system where everyone has access to quality healthcare (without going bankrupt)[/QUOTE]Okay, I understand that "you are willing to help pay" for providing health care for other people. So who is stopping you? Go find an unsured person and start paying for their health care.
In the mean time, please consider the selfishness of your demands that I and others should be forced to pay to support your moral agenda.
BTW, every single person in the country already has "access" the quality healthcare now. All they have to do is walk in the door of any emergency room in the country and they will receive medical treatment.
Thanks,
Jackson
Jackson quote:
"Every single person in the country already has "access" the quality healthcare now. All they have to do is walk in the door of any emergency room in the country and they will receive medical treatment."
That statement is absolutely, demonstrably, irrefutably and absurdly false.
Every day, all across the US, hospitals turn away people needing serious medical treatment by the thousands unless they have insurance coverage. Terminal cancer, as just one example, is not treated in emergency rooms.
The definition of an "emergency" varies hospital to hospital. In most cases, unless it is evident visually or otherwise that a person is in or close to a life threatening situation may not get treated or even evaluated.
The "Access" that is available in "any emergency room" hardly qualifies as "quality" at every facility and is limited to very narrow definitions of what constitutes an emergency. In addition, if an emergency patients arrives at the wrong time on a busy night, a quiet death in the hospital corridor is distinct possibility.
If what you say was true, the major cause of individual bankruptcies in the US, would not be the huge medical bills that people - including those with insurance - can't pay and that their insurance carriers have refused to pay citing some technicality. These people are forced to file for Chapter 13 protection for the crime of having gotten sick and believing, in error, that paying their premiums every month meant they had insurance.
Every day, all across the US, families, including those with insurance, have to make wrenching decisions about essential health care that is too expensive (and not provided in emergency rooms as you infer) Those decisions can mean death sentences.
If you think that system is fine, bully for you!
A new poll of Americans 45 and over, conducted by AARP, shows Obama's speech to Congress has totally altered the health care reform landscape. Now, changing the current system is supported by a majority of Americans, regardless of political affiliation.
A large majority (76%) of all Americans say healthcare reform should be a priority this year. This includes 56% of Republicans, 70% of Independents and almost all Democrats.
So much for 90% of the people being happy with their insurance plans!
Overall 68% of Americans support the President's approach, including 63% of independents, and even 43% of Republicans. Nearly seven in ten of those who agreed that Obama had addressed their questions and concerns in his comments now support the Obama proposals.
As I read this I can't help but ROTFLMAO!
But if nominated I will not run and if elected I will not serve. I like BA too much. My hope is to track down Governor Sanford's ex. Talk about gorgeous! And I bet she like politics, as well as older guys!
Thanks Ricardo,
Sidney has now been relegated to one line posts. He got tooled. Congrats. I truly enjoy watching this exercise in futility. Keep it up, pure logic usually makes alot more sense than bile.
Best Regards,
BM.
Health Care Reform FTW!
You know, I watch everyone talking here about how the majority of the people in the States believe their insurance is fine. I see everyone talking about how reform is necessary. I see the latest comments made how the majority of people agree with Obama's approach. Who knows what the truth is because polls can be slanted to produce results that are needed for those doing the polls.
I have to say - why don't we talk about why we need insurance to begin with if we are truly going to reform the system and bring costs down? Why can't we all get together and figure out ways to make people responsible for their own lives? Why do we have to bring the government in to "make it all better?"
I am a Libertarian. I would have preferred to see Ron Paul in office rather than anyone else who ran.
I consider our two-party system to be corrupted beyond repair because the two viewpoints offered really don't offer a means to supply the best government any more. It is too riddled with those who are seeking power and money and with those (on BOTH sides) who simply want to force us to live they way they think we should live. I'm not saying that the parliamentary system, for example, is any better as a whole, and I don't have a solution to offer, but that is just an opinion of mine.
But related to healthcare, I believe the public has been hoodwinked into thinking that the only way to have healthcare is to have health insurance. It may be necessary in a system that is non-functioning, over-priced and full of fraud. But in a system that operates under normal market conditions, would it have to be so necessary to have insurance for standard everyday healthcare?
I think that we will end up with whatever "reform" that the Democrats think we need. I have lost faith in the Republican party a long time ago as I watched them mount deficits as high as any "tax and spend Democrat." But it doesn't matter, because I feel that neither party will really "reform" healthcare, but rather make half-assed decisions that can be made under our system and will only end up making things worse over the long haul. Again, my opinion. Whatever, it all results in the same thing - the government is going to tax those who have money to pay for things for people who don't have money. We all have our own opinions as to why those who don't have money are lacking in a system where opportunities really are available for those who work for it.
But back to why do we need insurance? If costs were reasonable, could we not have, for example, catastrophic insurance to take care of big things? Could we not learn to live healthier and take preventive steps to keep us in reasonable health instead of paying outrageous sums of money so that we can feel good about going to the doctor with a small or non-existent co-pay and a small deductible that has to be met?
Big healthcare items are very much a concern, and for the most part for the older people more so for the younger. For the most, part, I believe older people able to pay higher premiums than younger, and they are the ones who should have to - they are the ones who are going to use more of the system. They are also the ones who have lived longer and hve had time to accumulate money - if they have worked for it.
I support three kids from a previous marriage and one of the things I am forced to do by state law under my divorce is to provide health coverage for my kids, even though when I was married and we all lived together I didn't have health insurance (BY CHOICE) for most of our time together. That is interference in how I choose to live my life, and it is unneccessary.
My kids ate correctly. My kids exercised. My kids rarely went to the doctor, even when they were sick, because most illnesses simply do not require any kind of care other than what parents know how to give anyway.
We always went to a small clinic near us for everyday needs when they happened. There is a time to bring a kid in to see the doctor when they don't get well after a few days, or spike a fever, etc. But I know MANY people who will go to the doctor the first sign of a stuffy nose. Why? Because they only have a $20 co-pay to go see the doctor, free prescriptions, and a very low deductible. Sometimes they go to fill the deductible for crying out loud, so that later they won't have to pay. Never mind that they are paying $800 or more per month for this "low cost." Or that the companies for which they work are suffereing under the burden of haivng to pay part or all of it.
We had all of our children WITHOUT insurance, in natural childbirth, with a midwife. The cost was around $900 back then, with payment plans available during the pregnancy, extending on afterwards. I'm sure it's more expensive now, but hey, people make more too. But now, you go into a hospital to have a kid and the costs are OUTRAGEOUS just for a "regular" childbirth, including epidermal anesthesia and all. And the incidence of Caeserian births have been shown to be MUCH greater than they should be in hospitals.
Government, in my opinion, should be small and provide a framework for all to function within. When you start having a government that thinks it needs to provide everything and control everything, you lose the freedoms for which we originally fought against England and the colonial system, and invite a dictatorship by the people, against the people.
So what could we do? The AMA has too much power and say over how medicine is practiced. The insurance companies are riddle with fraudlent claims. The court system ends up giving way too much money as reparations to people who are the recipients of true accidents or even normal events that are twisted in court to appear to be someone's "fault." There are many more that we could all talk about, I'm sure, and how these items affect costs such as malpractice insurance and the overhead costs of things.
How exactly does Obama's plans address these much more (to me) important items of true reform? First, I don't think anyone really knows except a few because the plan seems to be very vague and shifting all the time. Second, putting a public option to provide so-called competition to the private insurance companies is a laugh because there is no way ANY government organization can do things cheaper than a privately-run organization unless it is somehow subsidized by the government.
What I object to in all of this is that the American people are giving more and more power to the Federal government every freaking year so they can be more comfortable, work less, and enjoy a higher standard of living. This is unsustainable over time because an economy must depend on its productivity to be successful and getting the government involved at every level of society as we are seeing happen makes things less productive rather than more so.
How many of you who are saying things like "there are too many poor in the US", "there is not good enough medical care in the US for the poor and those who want it" have been to really poor places in this world and seen what true poverty is?
I'm not talking, for example, coming to Argentina and spending time in Recoleta and other places in the city that gringos usually visit. I'm talking about "out in the province" or even other places in the city, where the poor people live in little one room pensiones for 500 pesos a month, with no ventilation and a hot plate to cook their food on, a shared bathroom down the hall. Places where they are living in shacks that can't keep out the cold in the winter, where they are drawing their water from a well and have bare wires supplying their electricity - when they have electricity. I've seen some really horrible stuff out where I live, but I've seen even worse in places like Paraguay.
Look at the economic system in the States and compare our poor with the poor in other parts of the world where the government tries to intervene a lot and control how things are done. It seems very obvious to me that the systems with more freedom have more wealth for EVERYONE than the others I have described.
Raise the economic status of everyone and everyone is living better. Provide opportunites for everyone, and it is the choice of the individual as to how much work they do, how much education they achieve, how much money they earn, as opposed to places where things are controlled to the point where the common line for everyone is much lower.
All of this comes down to, in my opinion, "fix what's broken but keep the government hands out of that where it does not belong." But I guess in the long run, the Federalists won out and we are now faced with a behemoth that cannot not, under its own momentum, allow variety (I think competition among States would have been much better, personally) and will end up soffocating American business and its economy just as what happens in places like Argentina.
Sidney,
You've finally convinced me. You wouldn't know what an ''extreme liberal left mind" was if it came up and kicked you in the balls. I think the words you're looking for in this context are "slightly left of centre". If you want to find real "extreme liberal left" thinking, you should get out more.
When Obama took office the global economy was a few financial missteps away from a 1930s like depression. Interest rates everywhere were already near zero, but credit or spending were frozen. EVERY leader of EVERY government around the world - right, left and center - used the only tool available to stave off catastrophe – temporarily pumping government money into the economy to replace the individual and corporate spending that had evaporated. This was terrible according to the anti-government intervention crowd who never offered an alternative.
HERE IS AN INAUGURAL ADDRESS I ASSUME SIDNEY AND HIS FREE MARKET EVANGELISTS BRETHREN WOULD HAVE PREFERRED OBAMA TO DELIVER:
"My fellow Americans, hey, I'm really sorry, and I know a lot of you will be upset when I tell you this, but it's time for a good, old global depression.
We need to wring out of the system, all of the debt that the financial institutions lent you over the last fifteen years. Now we can see that they shouldn't have and you shouldn't have borrowed it. But we can't cry over spilt milk.
Let's face facts, free market capitalism has it's good points and it's bad – it's good times – like we all just enjoyed – and its bad times – like we are about to suffer – big time.
The economists call it "creative destruction." They do have a way with words, don't they.
You know, I'd like to do what every other country is doing right now and have our government step in temporarily to pick up the slack. We could deficit spend for a while, until we can stabilize the crisis. Then we can do what's needed to get back to a growth economy that can bring down and eventually eliminate the debt we need to carry for a while. We did it before. My fellow government heads in every country agree with me that we can do it again.
But those countries don't have Rush, Sean, Billo, Glenn and Fox News to deal with. I do and I don't want to spend the next four years being called a socialist. It would really piss me off. So screw it.
I'll just do what John McCain and Sarah Palin demand and give more billions to the banks and Wall Street, cut taxes for everyone making more than $250k and gut all those social welfare programs that help people.
I call it the YAOYO Ownership Plan or "The You Are On Your Own Ownership Society."
I won't cut defense spending and we will continue to be the world's policeman. Actually we may have to increase that spending due to the fact that our depression will soon spread across the globe. That will create serious social unrest just about everywhere and we will do what Americans always do – throw our weight around, bring stability to foreign lands and show people who's boss!
If that leads to a few wars, remember wars can be good ways out of a depression, as long as they are World Wars and last long enough.
In a similar vein, we made need to spend more on jails as some people when they lose everything turn to crime. Prisons are God's way of protecting economic freedom.
Now cutting taxes will push the deficit through the roof and cutting social welfare programs will mean people will suffer and die in the streets, but the free market will fix that over time – perhaps a very long time, but them's the breaks I guess.
On the up side, our very rich people are still going to be very rich. With more tax cuts we can make then even richer. They are symbols of what makes capitalism great and I salute them.
I know from my childhood that living in poverty is not much fun. But you may have to get used to it. You may find out its not so bad.
This depression is going to run anywhere from five to fifteen years and I can't predict what things will look when it's over. So just suck it up.
After today's parade I will take a few weeks off. If people want a smaller government, so be it. As President I only do big stuff, so if I disappear for a while what's the problem?
God bless America and here's hoping most of you come out of this in one piece.
Michelle, Malia and Sacha, we're outa here!"
Anyone who knows me, knows I am neither extreme nor a liberal. I am not dogmatic, I don't share your crutch. [QUOTE=Sidney]''Tooled''! In your extreme liberal left mind![/QUOTE]People on the forum have been asking you that very same question for years. I think Miami Bob was one of the most recent. Look back in this thread 70% of the posts are yours.
[QUOTE=Sidney]Why waste the verbage and time?[/QUOTE]And for the record, you did get tooled.
Regards,
BM
[QUOTE=Jackson]Okay, I understand that "you are willing to help pay" for providing health care for other people. So who is stopping you? Go find an unsured person and start paying for their health care.
In the mean time, please consider the selfishness of your demands that I and others should be forced to pay to support your moral agenda.
BTW, every single person in the country already has "access" the quality healthcare now. All they have to do is walk in the door of any emergency room in the country and they will receive medical treatment.[/QUOTE]If it was possible/practical to run a system where people pay just for the services they want, and most people got the services they wanted, this might be do-able. But it isn't. Some things are just too big and expensive and important to not be funded by a means that ensures their continuity (i.e. broad taxes). This includes things such as defense, emergency response, public safety, education, health, income security, etc. And many people believe the "health" bucket should include affordable access for everyone. I doubt many feel selfish about requiring others to pay for this who don't want to. More likely, we consider those with views like yours to be selfish for not wanting to support the provision of a basic human need like health. Important in this however, is that what each individual pays to support these basic services be assessed relative to their income and ability to pay.
Thanks Ricardo for pointing out the huge, gaping error in Jackson's statement on access.
Sydney,
Upon reflection, I think its probably cultural differences that play a part here. Being european, I've had experience of the real far left, a part of the political spectrum that I doubt exists in the USA. For us Obama is pretty much in the centre, and Cheney and his ilk, of the far-right. But anyway, thanks for saving us from those long and boring cut and paste jobs.
I did go back and read all 50 pages of this thread and I skimmed the thread on W's time. I stand corrected. Sidney, you were no fan of the Bush / Greenspan regime that put us into the soup. Apologies.
I don't advise following my example to any one over 45 that hasn't met with a "death panel" bureaucrat and prepared an advance directive.
My friend, Sidney, your hard-on for Obama is a thing to behold. It seems that Bush never excited you quite as much. If you can stay that erect with the chicas, I bet they all call you "el gringo siempre rígido!" You sure have been "tooling" poor Barack and his Obamanation (or the Promised Land as I call it!
The argument I have with Jackson, Sidney and others on this post is not really personal, despite the occasional hyperbole. It is not a new argument. I have been having it with friends and detractors since high school. I bet the same goes for Jackson and Sidney.
It's really not about Obama or George W or health care or deficit spending. It's about something more fundamental.
As JFK would say, it's an argument "as old as the scriptures." It's about how we view as humans how we interact with other humans we share the earth with.
According to ancient Jewish rabbinical scholars: "There are four types of people. The one who says: What is mine is mine and what is yours is yours. This is the common type, but there are some who say that this is the type of Sodom. What is mine is yours and what is yours is mine — this is a boor. What is mine is yours — a saint. What is yours is mine — a villain."
I am not going to accuse Jackson and Sidney of being Sodomites (at least in this context) but they do fall into the first category.
I don't claim sainthood for my fellow left-leaning liberals, and myself but we do fall into the third. We say a portion of what is mine is yours and a progressive tax system offers an efficient way for that exchange to be made.
Because we start from different premises, we read history differently, we view facts differently, we disagree even on what some facts are, we come to different conclusions when we study the same information.
What is unfortunate is that, especially in today's supercharged political environment, rather than chalk up other's different views to legitimate differences in how each of us sees the world, name-calling becomes the default weapon in debates. I am "indoctrinated" – "extreme" – "socialist" – "guilty" – "moral' (as a criticism! And best of all "dogmatic." Now we know neither Jackson nor Sid is in any way dogmatic!
I will admit sometimes I find things others say are stupid in my view, but I don't say that makes them stupid. I say my share of stupid things (as well as some that are brilliant - don't you think)
The only name I will call those who see things differently is "people who see things differently" and who I think are often wrong.
Wrong – not stupid - not immoral or amoral - and not evil.
Name-calling is non-productive and often a dodge when someone can't marshall a good defense of their views or a convincing critique of the other side. But what it really is is lazy!
Let's stick with real things if we are going to continue this exchange.
[QUOTE=Esten]Thanks Ricardo for pointing out the huge, gaping error in Jackson's statement on access.[/QUOTE]Don't get too congratulatory, I was only baiting him.
Thanks,
Jackson
[QUOTE=Ricardo]Jackson - get out your wallet![/QUOTE]Ricardo, Esten, etc.
I'm still trying to understand what moral authority do you use to justify forcing me to pay for medical care for other people?
Please don't try to use the "common good" argument. Obviously we need to pay taxes to provide for a common defense, a justice system, even public education because we all benefit from an educated population, but another person's personal health care just doesn't qualify, except, of course, in a socialist / communist society.
The fact is that food, clothing, shelter, and medical care are [u]personal[/u] [u]responsibilities[/u].
Like I said before, if "you are willing to help pay" for providing health care for other people, the go find an unsured person and start paying for their health care.
Thanks,
Jackson
======================================
"[i]From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.[/i]"
Karl Marx, 1875
==============================================
For the record, I am [u]NOT[/u] a Rebublican, and I am [u]NOT[/u] a conservative.
- I am [u]against[/u] the death penalty.
- I am [u]against[/u] [u]any[/u] government support of religious organizations.
- I am [u]for[/u] the legalization of drugs.
- I am [u]for[/u] the legalization of commercial sex.
- I am [u]for[/u] a woman's right to choose.
- I am [u]for[/u] comprehensive sex education.
- I am [u]for[/u] a foreign guest worker program.
- I am [u]for[/u] a universal flat tax on [u]EVERYONE'S[/u] income.
I am a member of the Libertian Party, registered as an Independent.
We know that you are proudly descended from the "Fuck you. I'm Alright Jack" segment of the population which dates back to the days soon after Adam and Eve fought over who ate the biggest slice of the apple. We respect your place as the local poster boy for the "what is mine is mine and what is yours is yours" model spoken of in the ancient rabbinical scriptures.
The scriptures pre-date the emergence of democracy. An elemental feature of democracy is that citizens, by willingly agreeing to live in such a system, thereby agree to collectively support government-set limits on certain individual behavior, as well as a level of government involvement in the day to day functioning of the economy. Elected representatives, chosen by the majority of voters, establish the nature, range and level of involvement and limits. The Constitution puts some limits on those parameters so as to protect both universal rights, as well as the rights of minorities.
From its earliest days, the majority of US citizens have agreed that as a Christian nation certain moral and ethical nostrums needed to be reflected in its collective life. The historical fact is that the citizens of a free country created this approach - of their free will - in the full light of day - under no duress - not looking down the barrel of a gun - not because they were brainwashed - they just thought it was the right, just and yes moral way to live.
This led over time to the government taking on - in limited fashion - to collectively provide "food, clothing, shelter, and medical care" to segments of the population. They have debated and disagreed on the extent of sharing of national resources, but a very, very small minority have fought to bring the whole structure down. You may not like it. But that's the history and them's the breaks.
Unfortunately for me, the Constitution doesn't exempt me, or anyone else, from paying taxes for national defense expenditures I find anything but a "public good" including foolish wars, weapons systems that don't work but make the manufacturers rich and armaments donated to dictatorial regimes around the globe, among other things.
Unfortunately for you, the Constitution doesn't exempt you, or anyone else, from paying taxes to provide for things the majority determines are "public goods" that you dislike.
In a Jackson dictatorship it might be a "fact" that "food, clothing, shelter, and medical care are personal responsibilities." But the US is not Jackson Land. Hell you don't even live there.
Can I assume you took the advice "love it or leave it" when it began to go a little too far left for you (or was it the irritating women) If it was at all about anything other than pussy, funny how you ended up here.
I would guess one of the things that makes it easier for you to get out of bed in the morning and have to read the latest about CFK and Nestor doing their thing, is the ease with which you can avoid paying any taxes - even those needed for those things you say we "obviously need" like Argentina's "defense, justice system and public education."
Now I don't assume you actually do anything illegal to avoid AFIP, I just think you might like the idea that you could if you were another type of person.
Maybe we can work a deal - you pay my share of the national defense budget including the interest carried for past spending and I'll enroll one of the ladies from Madahos in OSDE!
My comments on Obama have always been very measured. As are my opinions about him. Your memory is flawed.
lol @ Castro, Chavez, Ortega, the USSR and Red China being liberal. You got some jokes today.
Regards,
BM[QUOTE=Sidney]We remember your many posts of the past that extolled the virtues of very liberal, left positions and idols = Castro, Chavez, Ortega, Correa, Morales, USSR, Red China, and Obama. Welcome to the Center![/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Jackson]The fact is that food, clothing, shelter, and medical care are [u]personal[/u] [u]responsibilities[/u].[/QUOTE]I agree with that statement. We all need to take responsibility for our lives. And most of the time, most people are able to find a way to meet these basic needs. The operative word being "most".
There are times when, despite our best efforts and intentions, some people find themselves in situations where all these needs cannot be met, and must choose between them (or go broke in the process). My (and others) vision of a developed country is one in which these basic needs are provided for all individuals. No one should starve, go without clothing or shelter, or be denied medical attention to keep them in good health. Obviously there is potential for abuse, so such a system has to be structured very carefully to encourage individual responsibility and minimize abuse.
About "moral authority", when you live in a society with other people you are not going to be able to have it your way all the time. If enough people assign enough importance and value to something, and it ends up affecting you (e.g. via taxes) you may be required to do or pay for something you don't agree with.
[QUOTE=Esten]...when you live in a society with other people you are not going to be able to have it your way all the time. If enough people assign enough importance and value to something, and it ends up affecting you (e. G. Via taxes) you may be required to do or pay for something you don't agree with.[/QUOTE]No, that's not true.
[i]"Democracy is not nine wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner."[/i]
Just because you have the numbers doesn't mean that you have the moral authority to take from me and give to others that [u]you[/u] have determined are more "deserving".
Thanks,
Jackson
Your "moral authority" cow left the barn a long time ago. Maybe the nine wolves ate the cow.
You may not think it's "moral" but your government has the constitutional "authority" to take money from you and give to others - deserving or not.
In 1862, under Republican President Lincoln, the federal income tax was first authorized to fund the civil war and then in 1909, under Republican President Taft, the 16th Amendment established the constitutionally of it.
Ain't it kinda surprising that Lincoln and Taft - those socialist SOBs - are the guilty pricks that let Bush pick my pocket and Obama pick yours!
Looks like at the end of the day the best that can be said is "tough shit!"
[QUOTE=Ricardo]In 1862, under Republican President Lincoln, the federal income tax was first authorized to fund the civil war and then in 1909, under Republican President Taft, the 16th Amendment established the constitutionally of it.
Ain't it kinda surprising that Lincoln and Taft - those socialist SOBs - are the guilty pricks that let Bush pick my pocket and Obama pick yours!
Looks like at the end of the day the best that can be said is "tough shit!"[/QUOTE]No Ricardo, what is not surprising is that both Lincoln and Taft were shot to death, probably by angry taxpayers and not secessionists in Abe's case! LOL
[QUOTE=Jackson][/i]Just because you have the numbers doesn't mean that you have the moral authority to take from me and give to others that [u]you[/u] have determined are more "deserving".
Thanks,
Jackson[/QUOTE]I agree with your opinion that they may not have the moral authority to do x number of things, but unfortunately and according to some theorists of politics we citizens of so called republics and democracies have made a social contract between us and our government. For their "protection" we give them part of our liberty and allow them to act in our "best interest".
Law making, taxes, contributions and law enforcement are part of the rights that we or our ancestors decided to give away to our governments (or maybe not but the bastards took the rights anyway, so it is fait acompli)
As you can see -sadly- moral is one of the least important issues when it comes to politics, which by the way is a practical profession where -unfortunately- most of times morality does not count.
As Ronald Reagan used to say Politics is the second oldest profession but it resembles very much to the first.
Taft after serving as President went on to become the Cheif Justice of the Supreme Court. At 72 years old, he died of old age - not at the hand of an assassin.
John Wilkes Booth's murder of Lincoln had zilch to do with taxes.
Booth and his co-conspirators hatched a plan to kill Lincoln, VP Johnson, and Secretary of State Seward to help the Confederacy. Although Lee had already surrendered to the North, Booth and his crew refused to accept that the war was over.
They went ahead with their sick scheme and guaranteed that wounds of the Civil War never healed - even up to today among a lot of Southerners - many of whom resent the fact that Obama is President and the US has a black family living in the White House.
[QUOTE=Sidney]1. Capitalism attracts capital investment and profits. 2. Socialism attracts no capital investment. Profits decline. In fact capital ''flees'' Socialism seeking better ROI! ------Simply, the USA is fucked under the Obomination![/QUOTE]Hi Professor,
Can you tell me what your definition of a socialist government is? And what countries, you consider to be socialist?
Assuming your definition of socialism will encompass the US, please enlighten us at to exactly when the country went socialist.
You case will be credible if you give a few examples of Presidents who led the nation astray, what major policies they imposed on an unwilling population that you consider socialist, whether and how they got away with subverting the laws and their political affiliation.
Just a few examples will do. However, if you single out Obama you will not be credible, as there is precedent for virtually every initiative he has pursued since he entered the White House.
I doubt you will claim- even under Obama - that it is a completely socialist country, so maybe you can rank it on a scale of 1 to 10.
The readers here seem to be interested in learning from the rigor of your thought processes. And at least I will give you the benefit of the doubt and not assume you are one off those boring people, who just throw out silly slogans with nothing to back them up.