Printable View
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