My point is that you keep defending what Obama is doing by saying that Bush did it too. Yet he campaigned on "Hope and Change." More like "Same Old Shit."
Well I'm off to basic training tomorrow to do something good for our country, unlike politicians like Bush and Obama who just fuck everything up. Bye!
@gracehi How is going to basic training going to help you do something good for our country? Aren't you just going to be a foreign policy tool for the "same old shit" in the White House, contributing to the death of innocents and fueling the insurgency in yet another illegal war?
Yes 13 mill is something you or I will probably never see in our lifetime. However, without the "Super Elite" wealth in this country, 65% of our taxes would not be getting paid. So where would our government turn to pay for their Trillion Dollar endeavours... the Illegals who don't pay taxes? Or the "working" middle class?
@Hamcarver i'm not suggesting we kill them. i'm suggesting they pay a litle more. it's not going to scare them off. they paid more under clinton and they did just fine. and i'm amazed at how many people who are struggling will reflexively defend corporations that are kicking them in the teeth daily.
@tishhead At the end of the day, its all about killing the American dream.The old saying "You can be anything you want to be if you work hard" is now being taken away by the hands of liberal government. Why would anyone spend 8 yrs in college to become a surgeon, when government will soon be able to put limitations on ones income? The same with the day trader, until they figured out it put a screeching halt to the investment market. Capitalism is my opinion is the American way.
@Hamcarver capitalism will still be the way. but not unregulated capitalism. i hope you agree that safety standards and bans on child labor and regulation of financial dealings are not un-american even if they stand in the way of pure capitalism. i will say that i don't believe capitalism should apply to health care any more than it should to police or fire protection. health should be seen as a public safety matter as it is in the rest of the industrialized world.
@tishhead I understand your points, however the movement toward "Regulated Capitalism" Imo is a slippery slope toward "Socialism". The more control government has... the less productive our nation will become. We must follow the Constitution in order to preserve our Republic.
@Hamcarver interesting that you like to point back in history. you know who was a firm believer in regulation and progressive taxation and laws to diminish the accumulation of wealth? teddy roosevelt, cited as a hero by so many current repubs. he would be appalled by their attacks on obama. in fact, obama couldn't get away with saying or writing some of the things teddy r said.
@tishhead TR was known for his "square deal," taking on trusts, he busted only about half as many trusts in twice as much time as President Taft later did. Although he made some crowning acheivments in conservation, and food and drug with the meat inspection act, he failed in regard to tackling racism, and his ever so popular "Simplified Spelling" system.
@Hamcarver read what he wrote and said about the evils of accumulated wealth, about the need for an aggressively progressive tax system, about the minimum wage and about the estate tax. the tea partiers would be hanging him in effigy.
@tishhead I am an Independent voter, so dissecting the pros & cons of the Republican party really doesn't interest me much. I think that the ideals of "Self Responsibility" and "Small Government" along with following the Constitution of the United States are what make a politician true to form.
@Hamcarver it's hilarious. every time i debate someone on here, they always say hey i'm an independent, don't lump me with the repubs. and yet all of their arguments attack the dems and defend the repubs. there hasn't been an "independent" president (except maybe washington) and there won't be any time soon. everyone has to pick a side whether they own up to it or not.
@tishhead Thats a ridiculous statement! Why does one have to fall into a political party? If I had my way, There would be NO political parties...That way the voters would have to make their decisions based on POLICIES, IDEALS, and VALUES...rather than what they have been brainwashed into believing.
@Hamcarver i didn't say you had to belong to a party. but be honest when discussing your views. if i were go down a list of senators and congressmen or presidential candidate and have you give thumbs up or thumbs down, they would not look like the choices of an independent.
@tishhead - What are the choices of an Independent? The ONLY reason that I favor some of the Republican politicians, is my view of small government, self responsiblity, and less tax and spend...I voted for a local Dem because of his ideals in regard to the right to carry in my home state.
@Hamcarver gee, which of the dem presid candidates did you like last time. edwards? richardson? kucinich? and which repubs in congress can you not stand? things get decided in this country by dems and repubs. you want to be able to rip the dems and not take any responsibility for what the repubs do.
@tishhead Not a fan of Jon Barrasso (R) who is bed with Harry Reid...However would be inclined to vote for...Rep. John Adler (N.J.)Rep. Jason Altmire (Pa.)
Rep. Michael Arcuri (N.Y.)Rep. John Barrow (Ga.)Rep. Marion Berry (Ark.)
Rep. Dan Boren (Okla.)Rep. Rick Boucher (Va.)Rep. Bobby Bright (Ala.)
Rep. Ben Chandler (Ky.) Dems who voted against the HC bill
@Hamcarver wow. one repub. in the last 4 or 5 nominating processes, are there any dems you would have voted for in the general election against the repub nominee? is there any repub contender that you would have NOT voted for against obama, kerry, gore or clinton?
@tishhead Truthfuly, I was not a fan of ANY candidates in the general election...Sarah Palin was the backbreaker for the Republican Party. They used her to secure the female and minority vote, and it backfired horrifically
@Hamcarver as it turned out, she damaged mccain (though that certainly wasn't the storyline for the first few weeks), but i think he was a lost cause. and to the extent that palin did hurt him, it was more about mccain and his judgment than it was about her. she is what she is and she performed about exactly as you would have guessed given her background.
@tishhead Getting back to the two party system...I truely believe that we as a nation are "Spoon Fed" Candidates that will ultimately perform according to government rule. In other words...If this is the best we as a "Superpower" country can come up with, We are in a world of ( !*$^)
@Hamcarver that may be, tho i suspect if you lived anywhere else, you would prob feel the same. biggest problem is influence of corp money, made thousands time worse by recent sup court decision. there should be publicly funded campaigns and free airtime for political ads with a limit on how many.
@gracehi i'm not sure what that is in response to. again, you would have more credibility had you objected to the repubs doing the same thing only more often. the party in power is never going to do "whatever they want" because elections are always around the corner. and there are certainly ways for the minority to slow things down short of total abuse of the filibuster.
There you go making stupid assumptions again. YOU'D have more credibility if you didn't do that over and over and over again. How do you know I didn't object when the repubs were doing it? And the Democrats are doing whatever they want. They're just trying to do it all before November.
@gracehi i'm not talking about a muttered "i don't agree with that." i'm talking about all the histrionics -- it's undemocratic, it's unconstitutional, it's the end of democracy we know it. come on. you know you and the other anti-obamites didn't say ANYTHING of the sort. of course, they're trying to do as much as they can before the election. why wouldn't they? did you just start following politics a couple of months ago?
So you admit it. They're trying to do everything they can before November, no matter what us "anti Obamites" want. BTW, us "anti-Obamites" now represent more than half the country, as Obama's aproval has dropped below 50%. And the Democratic congress approval rating is below 30%. You really don't think that more than half the country's citizens are Republicans, do you?
@gracehi i honestly don't mean to be insulting, but you really need to grow up. OF COURSE they're trying to get what they can by nov., just like every administration before them. people voted him and dem congress in for a reason. citing the congress approval rating is also naive. congress rating is ALWAYS low and yet 95 percent of incumbants get reelected. those polls are meaningless.
@gracehi as for obama's rating, should bush have just stopped being pres when his approval rating got way, way, way lower than obama's. when public disapproval of staying in iraq got well past 50, dick cheney's response was "so?" it may come as news to sarah palin, but when you're elected you're elected to a full term.
@gracehi thanks for reinforcing my comment about growing up. this may be a revelation but "laaaame" isn't actually an argument. so since you didn't address any of the points, i have to assume you either didn't understand them or you agree with them.
Ronald Reagan helped pass legislation to stimulate the economy, cut inflation, rebound from Carters Unemployment numbers, and strengthen our military. He also cut taxes and Government spending. He made a few blunders militarily...But I think you will find his tenure was worlds above that of the "Peanut" man.
@Hamcarver you are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts. the highest annual unemployment figure under carter was 7.1, a figure topped not once, not twice, not three times, not four times but five times under reagan including a whopping 9.7 and 9.6 in his second and third years. plus once more under daddy bush.
no republican support? first what they wanted is something that reduced the deficit. and no gov't ran plan/..this bill did both of this..they even took out a gov't plan to appease them..there are even 200 amendments in it..yet even the author of those amendments didnt vote for it..why? its about seeing the president fail..not about policy...
> work harder america! the ceo of wellpoint needs to make 20 mil next year, not just 13.8!
Oddly enough, I actually agree with you here, although not in the way you might like. Your goons with guns have been busy ensuring their profits as well. Why is health insurance nearly always done through the employer: The IRS. Good job goons!
@tishhead As I recall it was your favored political party that gave BILLIONS in "Bail-outs" to Wall St., The Big 3, and various other contributors to their election...Only to see lending stay halted, and their bonuses get larger??
@Hamcarver i actually agree with you but you're going to have to decide whether obama is a socialist or a friend of big business. he can't really be both, now can he?
@tishhead Why can't he? The idea of being a "Socialist" is taking from one class of individuals, and giving to another through government control...The idea of giving monetary breaks to those who helped further ones political career however is not soley a "Marxist" idea.
@Hamcarver your definition of socialism would apply to every politician who has ever held office in the US. the bailouts obviously should have been policed better but they were actually implemented by bush and supported by mccain.
@tishhead Yeah people who can't afford health care are just going to LOVE being fined for not purchasing it. Get real.
And as a matter of fact, I DID think that Obama would be elected b/c McCain was as dull as a game of cricket. Although you're right. I never imagined that HC would pass after Brown was elected b/c I never thought Obama would stoop so low as to use reconciliation. I guess it was just wishful thinking that he might have some principals. Silly me.
@gracehi and people who can now cover their children or who have had the lifetime caps lifted or seniors who are getting rebates to covere the doughnut hole will love the idea of having them yanked out of their hands.
reconciliation? yes, darn that majority rules and darn that process the repubs used over and over and over when they were in charge. btw, health care passed both houses WITHOUT reconciliation. only the fixes went through that.
I'm not saying that EVERYTHING in the HC bill is bad. But MOST of it is. Like the parts that FORCE people to buy HC and the part where it says the gov can say what docs can do.
The bill passed BEFORE Brown was elected. They had no R support then either
Who said I was a R? Not everybody who opposes the HC plan is a R ya know
Im sick of you libs defending Obama by talking about how bad Bush was while justifying what he does by pointing out that Bush did them too. Its so hypocritical.
@gracehi i never attacked the reconciliation process. you did. and you did so knowing that there's plenty of precedent for it. what there is NO precedent for is the way the repubs have abused the filibuster. they are filibustering bills that wind up passing 98-0 and 94-2. and the mandate that the repubs are screaming about was originally a repub idea, championed by conservatives. talk about hypocrisy.
The mandate that "was originally a repub idea?" Do you mean that socialist "republican" Mit Romney? Yeah, he's just as moronic as Obama, his HC bill, and his ass-kissing cronies.
The Democrats would have stopped at NOTHING to pass this HC bill. If the reconciliation method hadn't worked, they would have used the Slaughter method. And I suppose you'll tell me that would have been a perfectly legal way to pass the bill too.
@gracehi of course it would have been. politically stupid, but beyond any question, legal and, again, previously used by the other side.
you need to read more, you really do. it predated romney. it was part of the alternative to clinton's plan in the 90s, proposed by those "commies" like orrin hatch and bob dole and heartily endorsed by those pinkos at the heritage foundation. the hypocrisy REEKS.
Wow. You really think that considering a peice of legislation passed without anyone voting on it is legal and constitutional. I don't care who did it before. That is fucked. And you are fucked in the head for thinking that. I see no further point in discussing this matter with you. Peace.
@gracehi your language and your lack of facts indicates your level of education on these matters, you apparently conceded the points on the mandatory provision and the filibuster because you are woefully, pathetically uneducated. and typical of those on your side. btw, the pt isn't whether the procedure is legit. the pt is where were you people when the other side did it?
And you're instistance that the slaughter method shows that you don't know fuck about the constitution. So let's give everyone a free pass to use the slaughter method. Then the Rs come back in power & repeal the HC bill using it. And then whoever is ihn power can just do whatever the fuck they want. Forget Canada. Move to China. They have a great dictatorship there that you'll love.
@gracehi calm down. deem and pass is a procedure. you still need the votes behind it. and again, where was your outrage when the repubs did it. the only difference between the parties is that the repubs actually used it instead of talking about it. you should be far more upset about the filibuster abuse. if both parties did that, nothing would ever get done.
What makes you think I agreed with the Rs when they did it? I have told you over and over again that I'm not an R but you keep going back to that assumption. The point of the Slaughter method is that you don't need a final vote. That is why it's unconstitutional. If you can't grasp that very simple concept, then there's no point in talking to you anymore.
@gracehi it's not a question of whether you agreed or not. where was the outrage, all this talk about the constitution? didn't happen. and you are wrong, you do need a final vote. you vote on the fixes and that assumes the original vote. it's political BS. it's politically stupid. i'm glad they didn't do it. but it has nothing to do with the constitution.
It has EVERYTHING to do w/ the constitution. The constitution was written to limit the federal government so as to preserve state & individual rights. If the federal government just ignores it then they can do whatever they want and encroach on our rights.
Where was the outrage? Weren't we talking about Obama & the HC bill? If we had been talking about the Republicans doing it, I would have told you how bad it was then too.
@gracehi there just seems to be a pattern. reconciliation is unfair -- when the dems do it. deem and pass is an outrage -- when the dems do it. deficit spending is unconscionable -- when the dems do it. and again, the dems DIDN'T USE deem and pass. they just talked about it. and the bill wasn't passed under reconciliation, just the fixes. as for state's rights, again tell me what fed programs have been invalidated by 10th amendment?
None. The Supreme Court no longer cares about the constitution, just precedent. And b/c of that, the size of the federal government continues to grow and consume more and more state and individual rights.
@gracehi you say "no longer." when has the sup court EVER used the 10th amendment to invalidate fed programs. you say they rely on precedent (which they certainly did NOT do in the decision to allow corps to buy elected officials). where is the precedent for what you want?
@tishhead I would have to agree that the Bush regime was equally responsible for the "Bailout activity, However...The "Socialist" actions are generally perpetrated by liberals. I was a big fan of Ronald Reagans fiscal responsibility, and the idea that the people should govern themselves, while government interference should be kept to a minimum.
@Hamcarver reagan? fiscally responsible? were you being sarcastic? the debt exploded under reagan. that's why poor daddy bush had to go back on his read my lips. trillions for the star wars boondoggle. tax cuts for the rich. tax hikes for the middle class. size of govt grew under reagan, shrank under clinton. the facts are not on your side.
@tishhead I think you are confusing the economic and military debacles of Jimmy Carter..."Panama Canal Treaties", "Iran Hostage Crisis", "The Russian Wheat Deal", "The Fair Housing Act", interest rates at 21.5% and Unemployment rates at 11.9%, The Hugo Chavez election, the energy crisis...I think you are confused?
@tishhead If you are concerned about the "costly" War on Drugs, I would recommend closing the door to our now "Healthcare Covered under law" illegals...This would save us Billions in HC, Welfare, and Prison System dollars, as well as cut the amount of illegal substances entering this country in half.
@Hamcarver "closing the door" is first, of all, likely impossible. secondly, it would also cost billions in enforcement and the effects on the economy. your cheap food prices are largely dependent on cheap labor. so be prepared to open your wallet. also the health care bill will have little or no effect on illegals. they will still go to the ER, which is profoundly inefficient.
@tishhead I disagree...Not impossible, but rather improbable. Secondly, The "Cost" you speak of would bring about "Employment" for non working Americans...which would ultimatlely save the taxpayers money, and stimulate economic growth. "Cheap labor"...more job opportunities for the unemployed...And as for the illegals who flood our Welfare System, Prisons, and Hospitals...How many of those MILLIONS are going to be paying taxes? The answer is in the donut.
@Hamcarver you gonna build your wall and put thousands of guards on the border? good luck. and they virtually ALL pay taxes. as in sales taxes and, in many cases, payroll taxes. it's always easy to point out some outside group and blame your problems on them. and, yeah, americans are just lining up to go pick grapes in the field or work in the car wash or in the hotels.
@tishhead Thats an interesting concept...Sales Tax that is. What are your feelings toward a "Fair Tax"? This in my opinion would even the playing field.
@Hamcarver not supportive. despite the subsidies for the poor, it is still inherently non-progressive because middle class and poor spend much more than wealthy, who are able to invest it and save it. i think taxes need to be more progressive, not less.
@tishhead Exactly my point...The middle class and the poor DO spend significantly more money on items for which they DO NOT NEED...ie Cell Phones, TVs, Handbags, Alcohol, Tobacco, Internet service, Computers...All items that could be put aside for the purchase of the ever so popular HEALTH CARE INSURANCE
@Hamcarver first, that wasn't the point. the point is you get more bang for the buck, economically, by putting money in the pockets of people who will spend it. but, really, we should forego cell phones and the internet to pour money in the pockets of insurance cos, who are merely in business to gouge people? deeply, deeply twisted.
@Hamcarver you really think its feasible to operate in 2010 without the internet and a cell phone? and very few people go bankrupt feeding verizon. it is a question of priorities. we choose to be the only industrialized country on planet earth where people go bankrupt just because they got sick. and then we have working class people defend that system so insurance ceos can clear 13 mill a year.
@tishhead I seem to remember a time when there were no computers or cell phones...Baring Don Johnsons brick sized MIAMI VICE celli. In any event, We seemed to be able to communicate with one another without these modern conveniences. Which reminds me...Isn't the post office a government run entity facing bankruptcy? Maybe if we got back to communicating and paying our bills via courier, we could rescue yet another failing government run corporation? As for the CEO...
@Hamcarver and i remember a time when i had hair. it doesn't do much good to pine for the good old days, which seems to be a favorite repub pasttime (you know, back when blacks and women knew their place). and yes, the post office is failing because times have changed. i actually think that getting millions of pieces of mail across country in 2 days for 42 cents a shot is pretty impressive.
@tishhead In response to Republicans and the "Good Ol Days" ...As I recall Dr. Martin Luther King was a Republican. It amuses me that the minority vote of today has slowly merged to the Democratic party...I guess do to the fact that they used a minority candidate and kickbacks to government assistance programs? I often wonder how the last election would have turned out had the Rep party backed Allen Keys?
@Hamcarver martin luther king sr. was a republican. mlk jr was not registered with either party. in his autobiography, mlk jr described the 1964 repub convention as "a frenzied mixture of the KKK and other elements of the radical right."
alan keyes would be a joke if he were purple or green. he is certifiable and the repubs were correct to have nothing to do with him.
blacks becoming dems? two items: New Deal and civil rights and the repub backlash to both.
@tishhead "Prior to 1936, Blacks who could vote generally supported Republican Presidential candidates. The GOP was the party of Abraham Lincoln. Even Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal failed to completely break the bond between Blacks and the GOP. Ike received strong support from Black voters in 1952 and 1956". -Paul Weyrich
It was JFK and his Welfare revisions that swayed the minority vote back to the liberal camp.
@Hamcarver i don't know what you mean by completely -- 100 percent? from roosevelt on, the dems have owned the northern black vote. i'll ignore the inherent racism in your welfare comment to point out that civil rights was the decisive factor in cementing the black vote as permanently democratic. goldwater acknowledged writing off the black vote by opposing it.
@tishhead Not meant to be a racist comment, but a statistical fact...Blacks comprise only 12% of the US population, yet hold 38% of all government assistance.
@Hamcarver those numbers are a sad legacy of hundreds of years of abuse at the hands of the white majority. but to suggest that the 90-plus percent of blacks who vote dem at presidential level do so because of welfare is repugnant. it fails the test of decency. i think they know which side fought for their right to vote, to go to a decent school and to get a job. and which side most certainly did not.
@tishhead If I were to suggest a reason behind why 93% of all African Americans voted for Barack Obama (A Democrat) it certainly wouldn't be because of the Welfare card...The race card however is a different story. I am not a racist by any means...The election of our President is a different story.
@Hamcarver again, nonsense. obama got only a marginally higher percentage of black vote than kerry or gore got. the repubs wrote off the blacks a long time ago, now pay lip service to try to get over 10 percent. go ahead and name me all the black repubs in congress. i'll wait.
@tishhead ARE YOU KIDDING?? Their voter turnout rate increased 4.9 percentage points, from 60.3% in 2004 to 65.3% in 2008, nearly matching the voter turnout rate of white eligible voters (66.1%). The voter turnout rate among eligible black female voters increased 5.1 percentage points, from 63.7% in 2004 to 68.8% in 2008.Blacks ages 18 to 29 increased their voter turnout rate by 8.7 percentage points, from 49.5% in 2004 to 58.2% in 2008.
@Hamcarver you are burying yourself. first, turnout was up for everyone. second, you yourself said white turnout was still higher. (i guess that's the way it's supposed to be). finally, if blacks, owning a part of a legacy of slavery and racism that you and I couldn't begin to understand, were excited at the notion of electing a black president, they're to apologize for that? are you crazy?
@tishhead White voter turnout remained constant...as they make up 75% of America. I don't deny that this election helped further the civil rights movement...However, the cost of electing a President SOLEY because of his skin color goes against everything the Civil Rights Movement stands for.
@Hamcarver the idea that obama was elected because he was black is so ludicrous as to be bizarre. this i guess would explain our long history of black presidents? he got 90-plus percent just like kerry and gore did and just like hillary would have.
@Hamcarver if you want racism in the exit polls, look at the fact that everywhere but the south, obama and mccain basically split the white vote with obama actually slightly ahead. but in the south, mccain won the white vote by over 30 points.
@sdkee here's a thought experiment for you. the US doesn't have the highest rate of taxes in the world, not even close. if you had to move to another country, would you rather choose from the list of countries with higher rates or lower rates?
@sdkee love your violent imagery. my point was, you prob wouldn't want to move to the countries with the lowest taxation. they're called third-world countries. you're free to hang on to your money -- and die at 45.
@sdkee wow, you just don't get it to you. leave aside your violent fantasies for a second and imagine whether you would rather live in benin or lesotho or bangladesh. low taxes. should be heaven for you.
> imagine whether you would rather live in benin...
Imagine the rapist has a knife.
You are still advocating for the lesser rapist on the grounds that worse ones exist. This is not really an argument, but a scare tactic. You want me to accept *your* form of rape by telling me stories about how bad the other rapists are.
@sdkee what is your deal with guns and rape? to be clear, i am not advocating rape. you can choose to live in a community where some needs are met as a group. or you can live every man for himself. history has shown the first way superior. by a lot.
Guns because you propose to arm goons with them to use on me. Rape because it is an apt analogy of the relationship between the nation-state and the citizen.
> or you can live every man for himself
Or I could live peaceably alongside my fellow man without stealing from him. Your statement proposes a false dichotomy between hermitism and state-slavery. Has it occurred to you that other options may exist?
@sdkee well, gee, i think the people who don't LIKE paying taxes are probably the majority in this country, don't you? and yet, there doesn't seem to be a movement to abolish all taxes. maybe they are adults who have figured out how things work. who's the leader of your movement? who are the big heroes of the no-taxes movement? where can we sign up?
So basically you're just giving up on arguing the ethics of it and want to change the subject. If I use my guns to take your money I am called a criminal, but when you do it, it is the apex of civilized behavior?
Whether or not other people may agree with me or not has precisely zero relevance to whether I am correct or not. It's the classic ad populum logical fallacy.
@sdkee actually, i have argued the ethics of it in almost every post. and i think you pretty much abandoned ethics when you said the child of the poor parent should be left to die because "life is tough." i think that pretty much ended the ethics portion of our game.
...And last, but certainly not least...What happened to working across the aisle? Bipartisanship? Working for the people? Is it so important that this bill be passed without any conservative or independent support? The last time I checked, this was a REPUBLIC, based on the will of the people...not the will of a political party.
...In addition, I am a business owner who would be directly affected by these absurd regulations imposed by the government...Not a Billionaire...Just a Business owner...The very people Barack Obama has promised to help flourish to spark economic growth. EMPTY PROMISES!!
@ Texshelters- The State of Virgina has filed legal action. To quote Ken Cuccinelli, the Attorney Gen of Virginia We believe the federal law is unconstitutional as it is based on the commerce clause. Simply put, not buying insurance is not engaging in commerce, the attorney general added. If you are not engaged in commerce, the federal government cannot regulate this inaction. Just being alive is not interstate commerce. If it were, Congress could regulate every aspect of our lives.
@Hamcarver legally, it's a tax that you are exempt from if you buy health insurance. you do realize, do you not, that the individual mandate was originally a republican idea and once championed by the conservative heritage foundation? and you realize that the likely repub frontrunner for pres in 2012 signed a bill with an individual mandate?
@tishhead -Thats like saying, "You must buy an Egg McMuffin every day for the rest of your life, but we won't charge you for the coffee" Secondly, If you look a bit closer to the bill, there are MANY hidden taxes that affect certain business' more than others. Lastly...I am not a supporter of ANY party, but rather an advocate of "Self Responsibility"...Meaning I can take care of myself...Not everyone else.
@Hamcarver not sure about your mcmuffin analogy, although suddenly, i'm hungry. yes, there are taxes, which are perfectly constitutional. if you pay insurance premiums and you are relatively, healthy you are ALREADY paying for someone else. that's how insurance works. it's also how government works. people without children still pay property taxes that pay for schools. no one completely takes care of themselves.
@tishead- It brings to mind a little historical event known as the Boston Tea Party...As I recall, the British were trying to force purchase of tea upon colonists...as well as the stamp act which forced purchase of stamps (Which were required for purchase of many items) This eventually led to the phrase "Taxation without Representation",basically the phrase was coined to describe the situation were colonists, who had no voice in the matter, could be taxed without consenting to it.
@Hamcarver trying to force purchase of tea? what are you talking about? they were trying to tax it from england. the protest wasn't even necessarily about the tax, but the way the tax was imposed. i hate to break it you, the current taxes are WITH representation. a duly elected congress has passed all taxes and passed this bill.
@tishhead "In May of 1773 Parliament concocted a clever plan. They gave the struggling East India Company a (monopoly) on the importation of tea to America. Additionally, Parliament reduced the duty the colonies would have to pay for the imported tea. The Americans would now get their (tea) at a cheaper price than ever before. However, if the colonies paid the duty tax on the imported tea they would be acknowledging Parliament's right to tax them."-1773 Sound eerily famillar to the HC plan?
@gracehi and i'm sure you never thought obama could be elected. and you thought that once brown won in mass, healthcare reform was dead. so forgive me if i don't take your predictions as gospel. the fact is, the opposition to healthcare was never as it was portrayed -- you really need to read polls better -- and it will be even less once its implemented.
@tishhead -As for "Representation" ...Take Adolph Hitler for example...The German people were once in favor of following a leader who planned to exterminate an entire race of individuals. Fortunatly, OUR government intervened and saved the day...Unfortunatly, there was a cost to be paid.
@Hamcarver wow, you just careened right over the edge didn't you. am i to understand your argument is that since hitler was elected and congress was elected, they must be doing the same thing? again, wow!
@tishhead Nice try... The response was to enlighten you to the premise that just because leaders of a nation are elected by the people does not give them the right to practice unethicaly, nor go against the wishes of those who (have or have not)elected them.
@Hamcarver you began this thread by comparing it to the tea party. whatever it is, this is clearly NOT taxation without representation. the only people in this country who are taxed without representation are the citizens of DC. when congress continued to fund the iraq occupation against the much clearer will of the people, i never thought they didn't have the right to do it. immoral and foolish but not unconstitutional.
@sdkee the end result is that if insurance cos. have to take pre-existing conditions and can't drop you, then it makes sense to require people to get insurance BEFORE they get sick. it's not really that difficult to understand. is the home mortgage deduction social planning? how about tax credits related to having children? grow up.
One country (let's call then USSR) takes all your money and gives you back some based on a complicated schedule of what they think you need to live on. We call them evil because of this.
Another country (let's call then USA) takes all your money *except* an amount which they allow you need to live on, based on a very similar complicated schedule. We call this "progressivism".
How is the first country ethically any different from the second?
@sdkee i get it. you want a complete social-darwin experiment, survival of the fittest with no taxes, no regulation, no govt except an army. that argument was settled long before obama was even born. the country taxes and it taxes to encourage some behavior and discourage others. it is not new.
If that's what you call it when you and your gun-toting enforcer goons leave me the fuck alone, then yes. I want you (or your hired goons) to not come to my house with guns and steal half my stuff to use for your misguided social programs.
> argument was settled long before
Yeah, the goons with guns "won" the argument by shooting their opponents. This makes it ethical?
@sdkee good lord, what's all this talk about goons and guns? you live in a country, you pay taxes. you are part of a community. you eat food that is inspected, you drive on roads that are maintained, you call the police or fire dept if you need to, along with 1,000 other services.
If I don't pay my taxes, what happens? Do not the goons (who you are advocating for) come to my house with guns and throw me in a cage?
I'm just calling a spade a spade here. If you think this kind of behavior is ok then argue for it. But don't hide behind comforting euphemisms to pretend like this is not the truth of it.
You arguing for more taxes is you arguing to have the goons take more of my stuff.
@sdkee yes, we have evolved from the cavemen. we form communities, we govern ourselves. that costs money, so we tax. or, i guess, we drop out of society and go live in the jungles of south america or africa, or on the north pole.
The interesting thing about your "reply" is that you don't actually address the point. Does it cause you trauma to your worldview to realize that taxes are a form of organized theft?
You hide behind the comforting facade of modern=good. You quote this and cease thinking. Problem solved. Now you don't have to worry your brain with the knowledge that you are advocating a system of organized theft.
@sdkee actually, i think it is you that is arguing an abstraction. in your tax-less world, what happens to children born into poverty? what happens to the people too sick or injured to work? what happens when companies are free of regulation and choose to rip people off or harm them? what happens when hurricanes and earthquakes hit? unregulated free market is the abstraction here. it doesn't work, just as pure socialism doesn't.
A person or group chooses to help it, or it dies. Life is tough.
You propose to steal from people to pay for this. You want to pretend that it is not really theft by hiding behind a change of words (tax). You do this to avoid thinking about where the money comes from.
If you truly believe it is morally ok to steal from one person to help another, then put your ethics where your mouth is. Do it yourself.
@sdkee well keep fighting your fight, dude. the rest of the world has evolved and moved far, far beyond where you are. we pay for police, for fire, for roads, for food inspection. it doesn't work perfectly but it works. but you can live out in the hills and forage for berries or whatever you do. please keep your guns pointed away from me and i don't really give a rat's ass. it takes all kinds.
@sdkee i am advocating we live in a community and part of that is paying for services. if you don't pay your taxes, you really have to push it before guns are involved, but yes, laws don't really work without enforcement. i suspect you partake of services that are paid for my tax dollars, whether it's driving on public roads or eating inspected food or using police and fire services.
@tishhead > if you don't pay your taxes, you really have to push it before guns are involved
But guns will be used in the final case, yes? You ask nicely first, then not so nicely, and then the guns come out.
Again, you are doing everything in your power to hide from yourself the actual fact of what you are advocating, taking refuge behind euphemisms and word games.
But still it remains that you want to use guns to take from various people and use it as you see fit.
Seems that Youtube has decided to remove/hide my comment.
If I don't pay my taxes, your guys with guns come and take it from me, no?
So you are actually advocating armed theft. Yes they send a "friendly" letter first, but the enforcement is by guns. Guns you propose to have your goons point at me if I refuse to "give" you the money you demand.
@sdkee look, we have both stated our cases, you are on the far, far fringe of humanity. you want to live out in the hills, i and 99.9 percent of humanity, choose to live in a community. that costs money. yes, if you don't pay your taxes, there will be penalties. most adults deal with that. this is really pointless. the rest of the world is in a different place than you, thank goodness.
Sorry, you are implying that those who desire to analyze the ethics of their actions are in the fringe? Then I happily agree.
I desire to live in a community which is free. You desire to add armed guys with guns who use them to steal from the rest of us. I ask you to justify the ethics of this.
Does this make me a lunatic? Asking you to justify why your goon shows up at my door and demands *EVEN MORE* money than last year?
> the rest of the world is in a different place than you, thank goodness.
How many people do you employ? How many people owe their lifestyle to your business?
*I* am in the fringe? No, I am posing ethical questions. You try your damdest to not answer them. You don't want to, your high-school civics class brainwashing is sufficient for you.
I am a business owner and am fucking tired of a-holes like you who produce nothing demanding to steal more from me each year.
@sdkee good, you're tired of me and i think you are batshit crazy, loonier than a bedbug. that got us somewhere didn't it. as i said before, i am sure you take advantage of dozens of services paid by taxes. so unless you're never going to drive on publicly maintained roads or ever use police or fire or never eat food you didn't grow yourself, you're really just flapping your gums because you have no credibility.
And with this statement, which you use endlessly, you paper over the actual truth.
Taxes are extracted by force. It pays for services. How is that relevant to the means of collection? You come with your guns. If you want to argue in favor of it then we can have a discussion. But if you want to pretend that the truth doesn't exist then what kind of discussion can we have? I know the truth and you refuse to recognize it.
Oh, the roads! Every time a state-apologist wants to justify taxes, he brings out the roads! Bush talked endlessly about fixing potholes as if this was the primary function of the Fed Gov.
How much of the money your goons steal goes into roads? I know that in my state the DMV is a profit center. The FedGov has been leeching off the gas tax by stuffing t-bills into the "highway fund" for years.
Think: how much do roads cost? 50% of your income?
@sdkee look, dude, you were amusing for awhile but now you are just boring. you are the guy ranting in the park that people laugh at and then move on. roads is one of dozens of examples. you use the services and don't want to pay. that's fine. you live your little paranoid, they're-coming-for-me fantasy. maybe you'll shoot up a govt building, maybe you won't. be thinking of you on apr 15.
Yeah, it's easier to not think. You can pretend that your advocating new taxes is not actually a call for theft. You can sleep better when you pretend that you are not a monster. I understand.
You don't want to deal with the reality of your own existence. It is easier to pigeonhole me into one of the groups the media have created for you to place me into. Then you can call me names and laugh, while forgetting the question I asked you. Then you can sleep, unburdened.
@sdkee and i have asked you many questions which you are utterly incapable of answering. like, how many taxpayer-funded services have YOU used in your life? and why wouldn't you want to go to places where there are no income taxes, like the third-world paradises of africa, asia and south america? it's easier to spew. (i kinda like being called a monster, though)
> how many taxpayer-funded services have YOU used in your life?
Lots of them. If I break into your house and steal your money, which I then use to buy groceries for you, is it somehow a justification of my theft if you eat them?
Now your turn: Is the money extracted by force or not? You'd clearly prefer to pretend that that it is not by avoiding thinking about it. You *could* make an argument that the theft is justified, but you don't. You just avoid thinking about it.
@sdkee you realize, of course, that your analogy makes no sense. we ALL live in a community. we ALL pay taxes. we ALL use services. if you use the services and you refuse to pay the taxes, you are stealing the services. when was the last serious movement to abolish all taxes. in any industrialized country. i'll wait.
> if you use the services and you refuse to pay the taxes, you are stealing the services
Let's analyze this: If I go to McDonald's and order a burger do they charge a different rate depending on my income? If it's a payment for service, then the price should be fixed according to what service is provided. Toll roads are a good example.
No, the system you have in mind is that you dictate to me how much of my money you want and send the guys with guns to take it.
@sdkee oh here come the guns again. what percent of criminal tax cases do you suppose involve the use of guns? you are the one dealing in abstractions on that count. of course, it's not a straight fee for service. it's the cost of being part of a community. a progressive tax simply makes sense, both economically and morally.
> what percent of criminal tax cases do you suppose involve the use of guns?
We've already been over this. Whether the guns are actually used or not is irrelevant to the fact that the guns and cages are the reason people pay up. If the mob sends a letter to you demanding "protection money" then you know what the score is. They ask nicely first and if you don't play ball, the guns come out. So you pay up and the guns don't get used. Yet the guns are why you pay.
@sdkee ok, so we go back to your mcdonalds analogy. do you pay because if you don't, you'll go to jail. or do you pay because, in a civilized society, that's what you do? if you want to start a movement that will abolish all taxes, feel free. i suspect you won't get far.
I pay because if I don't then they won't give me a burger. Duh.
> i suspect you won't get far
Supposing you are correct, so what? Is the correctness of a proposition dependent on how many people believe it? Example: if I can't convince two rival gangs to not murder each other, then is the murder justified?
@sdkee ok, if you go to a sit-down restaurant, do you dine and dash? do you not because of the threat of jail or because it's not the right thing to do? is your obeyance of laws strictly due to the threat of jail?
As a thought experiment, suppose the government just took all of our money? Your argument that it is just payment for services still applies, no? What is the ethical way to calculate what the proper tax amount is when the amount paid and the services received are completely unconnected? Whatever number you throw out, the same argument applies equally well for a higher (or lower) one.
how depressing, Kucinich was one of the good guys, but "pressure from his constituents" caused him to vote against his conscience. So now we see he's a pushover, how are many left that we can trust?
This bill...Not unlike the last ridiculous, pork infused, bribery laden, TRILLION dollar bust, was rammed up the rear ends of Americans without a single member who voted in its favor having READ it!! It is not only unconstitutional to mandate the purchase of insurance, but is equally wrong to place absurd tax hikes on "Working Americans" in order to pay for the Welfare community. I myself, cannot wait until the midterm elections so that these douchebags can be voted out of office!
Kuntcinich took a plane ride with Obama, and brought back the "not what we wanted, but best we have" CORPORATION "HEALTH CARE REFORM" sell out.
Great job Jack*ss.
IronRangeSurvival 2 months ago
It is amazing how insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies can buy out over half of the politicians, and blind the masses of a nation.
Spanky00Cheeks 1 year ago 2
Denny = yes
Obama = no
Bush = no
Paul = yes
YoungIvyScholar 1 year ago 2
@YoungIvyScholar booyah!
j00Bags 8 months ago
My point is that you keep defending what Obama is doing by saying that Bush did it too. Yet he campaigned on "Hope and Change." More like "Same Old Shit."
Well I'm off to basic training tomorrow to do something good for our country, unlike politicians like Bush and Obama who just fuck everything up. Bye!
gracehi 1 year ago 3
@gracehi How is going to basic training going to help you do something good for our country? Aren't you just going to be a foreign policy tool for the "same old shit" in the White House, contributing to the death of innocents and fueling the insurgency in yet another illegal war?
zmcg 8 months ago
way to flip flop kucinich. traitor.
gmartnz1994 1 year ago
Yes 13 mill is something you or I will probably never see in our lifetime. However, without the "Super Elite" wealth in this country, 65% of our taxes would not be getting paid. So where would our government turn to pay for their Trillion Dollar endeavours... the Illegals who don't pay taxes? Or the "working" middle class?
Hamcarver 1 year ago
@Hamcarver i'm not suggesting we kill them. i'm suggesting they pay a litle more. it's not going to scare them off. they paid more under clinton and they did just fine. and i'm amazed at how many people who are struggling will reflexively defend corporations that are kicking them in the teeth daily.
tishhead 1 year ago
@tishhead At the end of the day, its all about killing the American dream.The old saying "You can be anything you want to be if you work hard" is now being taken away by the hands of liberal government. Why would anyone spend 8 yrs in college to become a surgeon, when government will soon be able to put limitations on ones income? The same with the day trader, until they figured out it put a screeching halt to the investment market. Capitalism is my opinion is the American way.
Hamcarver 1 year ago
@Hamcarver capitalism will still be the way. but not unregulated capitalism. i hope you agree that safety standards and bans on child labor and regulation of financial dealings are not un-american even if they stand in the way of pure capitalism. i will say that i don't believe capitalism should apply to health care any more than it should to police or fire protection. health should be seen as a public safety matter as it is in the rest of the industrialized world.
tishhead 1 year ago
@tishhead I understand your points, however the movement toward "Regulated Capitalism" Imo is a slippery slope toward "Socialism". The more control government has... the less productive our nation will become. We must follow the Constitution in order to preserve our Republic.
Hamcarver 1 year ago
@Hamcarver interesting that you like to point back in history. you know who was a firm believer in regulation and progressive taxation and laws to diminish the accumulation of wealth? teddy roosevelt, cited as a hero by so many current repubs. he would be appalled by their attacks on obama. in fact, obama couldn't get away with saying or writing some of the things teddy r said.
tishhead 1 year ago
@tishhead TR was known for his "square deal," taking on trusts, he busted only about half as many trusts in twice as much time as President Taft later did. Although he made some crowning acheivments in conservation, and food and drug with the meat inspection act, he failed in regard to tackling racism, and his ever so popular "Simplified Spelling" system.
Hamcarver 1 year ago
@Hamcarver read what he wrote and said about the evils of accumulated wealth, about the need for an aggressively progressive tax system, about the minimum wage and about the estate tax. the tea partiers would be hanging him in effigy.
tishhead 1 year ago
@tishhead I am an Independent voter, so dissecting the pros & cons of the Republican party really doesn't interest me much. I think that the ideals of "Self Responsibility" and "Small Government" along with following the Constitution of the United States are what make a politician true to form.
Hamcarver 1 year ago
@Hamcarver it's hilarious. every time i debate someone on here, they always say hey i'm an independent, don't lump me with the repubs. and yet all of their arguments attack the dems and defend the repubs. there hasn't been an "independent" president (except maybe washington) and there won't be any time soon. everyone has to pick a side whether they own up to it or not.
tishhead 1 year ago
@tishhead Thats a ridiculous statement! Why does one have to fall into a political party? If I had my way, There would be NO political parties...That way the voters would have to make their decisions based on POLICIES, IDEALS, and VALUES...rather than what they have been brainwashed into believing.
Hamcarver 1 year ago
@Hamcarver i didn't say you had to belong to a party. but be honest when discussing your views. if i were go down a list of senators and congressmen or presidential candidate and have you give thumbs up or thumbs down, they would not look like the choices of an independent.
tishhead 1 year ago
@tishhead - What are the choices of an Independent? The ONLY reason that I favor some of the Republican politicians, is my view of small government, self responsiblity, and less tax and spend...I voted for a local Dem because of his ideals in regard to the right to carry in my home state.
Hamcarver 1 year ago
@Hamcarver gee, which of the dem presid candidates did you like last time. edwards? richardson? kucinich? and which repubs in congress can you not stand? things get decided in this country by dems and repubs. you want to be able to rip the dems and not take any responsibility for what the repubs do.
tishhead 1 year ago
@tishhead Not a fan of Jon Barrasso (R) who is bed with Harry Reid...However would be inclined to vote for...Rep. John Adler (N.J.)Rep. Jason Altmire (Pa.)
Rep. Michael Arcuri (N.Y.)Rep. John Barrow (Ga.)Rep. Marion Berry (Ark.)
Rep. Dan Boren (Okla.)Rep. Rick Boucher (Va.)Rep. Bobby Bright (Ala.)
Rep. Ben Chandler (Ky.) Dems who voted against the HC bill
Hamcarver 1 year ago
@Hamcarver wow. one repub. in the last 4 or 5 nominating processes, are there any dems you would have voted for in the general election against the repub nominee? is there any repub contender that you would have NOT voted for against obama, kerry, gore or clinton?
tishhead 1 year ago
@tishhead Truthfuly, I was not a fan of ANY candidates in the general election...Sarah Palin was the backbreaker for the Republican Party. They used her to secure the female and minority vote, and it backfired horrifically
Hamcarver 1 year ago
@Hamcarver as it turned out, she damaged mccain (though that certainly wasn't the storyline for the first few weeks), but i think he was a lost cause. and to the extent that palin did hurt him, it was more about mccain and his judgment than it was about her. she is what she is and she performed about exactly as you would have guessed given her background.
tishhead 1 year ago
@tishhead Getting back to the two party system...I truely believe that we as a nation are "Spoon Fed" Candidates that will ultimately perform according to government rule. In other words...If this is the best we as a "Superpower" country can come up with, We are in a world of ( !*$^)
Hamcarver 1 year ago
@Hamcarver that may be, tho i suspect if you lived anywhere else, you would prob feel the same. biggest problem is influence of corp money, made thousands time worse by recent sup court decision. there should be publicly funded campaigns and free airtime for political ads with a limit on how many.
tishhead 1 year ago
@tishhead
So you think whatever party is in power can just do whatever they want. Great.
gracehi 1 year ago
@gracehi i'm not sure what that is in response to. again, you would have more credibility had you objected to the repubs doing the same thing only more often. the party in power is never going to do "whatever they want" because elections are always around the corner. and there are certainly ways for the minority to slow things down short of total abuse of the filibuster.
tishhead 1 year ago
@tishhead
There you go making stupid assumptions again. YOU'D have more credibility if you didn't do that over and over and over again. How do you know I didn't object when the repubs were doing it? And the Democrats are doing whatever they want. They're just trying to do it all before November.
gracehi 1 year ago
@gracehi i'm not talking about a muttered "i don't agree with that." i'm talking about all the histrionics -- it's undemocratic, it's unconstitutional, it's the end of democracy we know it. come on. you know you and the other anti-obamites didn't say ANYTHING of the sort. of course, they're trying to do as much as they can before the election. why wouldn't they? did you just start following politics a couple of months ago?
tishhead 1 year ago
@tishhead
So you admit it. They're trying to do everything they can before November, no matter what us "anti Obamites" want. BTW, us "anti-Obamites" now represent more than half the country, as Obama's aproval has dropped below 50%. And the Democratic congress approval rating is below 30%. You really don't think that more than half the country's citizens are Republicans, do you?
gracehi 1 year ago
@gracehi i honestly don't mean to be insulting, but you really need to grow up. OF COURSE they're trying to get what they can by nov., just like every administration before them. people voted him and dem congress in for a reason. citing the congress approval rating is also naive. congress rating is ALWAYS low and yet 95 percent of incumbants get reelected. those polls are meaningless.
tishhead 1 year ago
@gracehi as for obama's rating, should bush have just stopped being pres when his approval rating got way, way, way lower than obama's. when public disapproval of staying in iraq got well past 50, dick cheney's response was "so?" it may come as news to sarah palin, but when you're elected you're elected to a full term.
tishhead 1 year ago
@tishhead
laaaame. Face it, your savior Obama is the Democrat version of Bush.
gracehi 1 year ago 2
@gracehi thanks for reinforcing my comment about growing up. this may be a revelation but "laaaame" isn't actually an argument. so since you didn't address any of the points, i have to assume you either didn't understand them or you agree with them.
tishhead 1 year ago
Ronald Reagan helped pass legislation to stimulate the economy, cut inflation, rebound from Carters Unemployment numbers, and strengthen our military. He also cut taxes and Government spending. He made a few blunders militarily...But I think you will find his tenure was worlds above that of the "Peanut" man.
Hamcarver 1 year ago
@Hamcarver you are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts. the highest annual unemployment figure under carter was 7.1, a figure topped not once, not twice, not three times, not four times but five times under reagan including a whopping 9.7 and 9.6 in his second and third years. plus once more under daddy bush.
tishhead 1 year ago
no republican support? first what they wanted is something that reduced the deficit. and no gov't ran plan/..this bill did both of this..they even took out a gov't plan to appease them..there are even 200 amendments in it..yet even the author of those amendments didnt vote for it..why? its about seeing the president fail..not about policy...
1nechance419 1 year ago
Work harder America!! Millions on Welfare are depending on you!!
Hamcarver 1 year ago
@Hamcarver work harder america! the ceo of wellpoint needs to make 20 mil next year, not just 13.8!
tishhead 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tishhead
> work harder america! the ceo of wellpoint needs to make 20 mil next year, not just 13.8!
Oddly enough, I actually agree with you here, although not in the way you might like. Your goons with guns have been busy ensuring their profits as well. Why is health insurance nearly always done through the employer: The IRS. Good job goons!
sdkee 1 year ago
@tishhead As I recall it was your favored political party that gave BILLIONS in "Bail-outs" to Wall St., The Big 3, and various other contributors to their election...Only to see lending stay halted, and their bonuses get larger??
Hamcarver 1 year ago
@Hamcarver i actually agree with you but you're going to have to decide whether obama is a socialist or a friend of big business. he can't really be both, now can he?
tishhead 1 year ago
@tishhead Why can't he? The idea of being a "Socialist" is taking from one class of individuals, and giving to another through government control...The idea of giving monetary breaks to those who helped further ones political career however is not soley a "Marxist" idea.
Hamcarver 1 year ago
@Hamcarver your definition of socialism would apply to every politician who has ever held office in the US. the bailouts obviously should have been policed better but they were actually implemented by bush and supported by mccain.
tishhead 1 year ago
@tishhead Yeah people who can't afford health care are just going to LOVE being fined for not purchasing it. Get real.
And as a matter of fact, I DID think that Obama would be elected b/c McCain was as dull as a game of cricket. Although you're right. I never imagined that HC would pass after Brown was elected b/c I never thought Obama would stoop so low as to use reconciliation. I guess it was just wishful thinking that he might have some principals. Silly me.
gracehi 1 year ago
@gracehi and people who can now cover their children or who have had the lifetime caps lifted or seniors who are getting rebates to covere the doughnut hole will love the idea of having them yanked out of their hands.
reconciliation? yes, darn that majority rules and darn that process the repubs used over and over and over when they were in charge. btw, health care passed both houses WITHOUT reconciliation. only the fixes went through that.
tishhead 1 year ago
@tishhead
I'm not saying that EVERYTHING in the HC bill is bad. But MOST of it is. Like the parts that FORCE people to buy HC and the part where it says the gov can say what docs can do.
The bill passed BEFORE Brown was elected. They had no R support then either
Who said I was a R? Not everybody who opposes the HC plan is a R ya know
Im sick of you libs defending Obama by talking about how bad Bush was while justifying what he does by pointing out that Bush did them too. Its so hypocritical.
gracehi 1 year ago
@gracehi i never attacked the reconciliation process. you did. and you did so knowing that there's plenty of precedent for it. what there is NO precedent for is the way the repubs have abused the filibuster. they are filibustering bills that wind up passing 98-0 and 94-2. and the mandate that the repubs are screaming about was originally a repub idea, championed by conservatives. talk about hypocrisy.
tishhead 1 year ago
@tishhead
The mandate that "was originally a repub idea?" Do you mean that socialist "republican" Mit Romney? Yeah, he's just as moronic as Obama, his HC bill, and his ass-kissing cronies.
The Democrats would have stopped at NOTHING to pass this HC bill. If the reconciliation method hadn't worked, they would have used the Slaughter method. And I suppose you'll tell me that would have been a perfectly legal way to pass the bill too.
gracehi 1 year ago
@gracehi of course it would have been. politically stupid, but beyond any question, legal and, again, previously used by the other side.
you need to read more, you really do. it predated romney. it was part of the alternative to clinton's plan in the 90s, proposed by those "commies" like orrin hatch and bob dole and heartily endorsed by those pinkos at the heritage foundation. the hypocrisy REEKS.
tishhead 1 year ago
@tishhead
Wow. You really think that considering a peice of legislation passed without anyone voting on it is legal and constitutional. I don't care who did it before. That is fucked. And you are fucked in the head for thinking that. I see no further point in discussing this matter with you. Peace.
gracehi 1 year ago
@gracehi your language and your lack of facts indicates your level of education on these matters, you apparently conceded the points on the mandatory provision and the filibuster because you are woefully, pathetically uneducated. and typical of those on your side. btw, the pt isn't whether the procedure is legit. the pt is where were you people when the other side did it?
tishhead 1 year ago
@tishhead
And you're instistance that the slaughter method shows that you don't know fuck about the constitution. So let's give everyone a free pass to use the slaughter method. Then the Rs come back in power & repeal the HC bill using it. And then whoever is ihn power can just do whatever the fuck they want. Forget Canada. Move to China. They have a great dictatorship there that you'll love.
gracehi 1 year ago
@gracehi calm down. deem and pass is a procedure. you still need the votes behind it. and again, where was your outrage when the repubs did it. the only difference between the parties is that the repubs actually used it instead of talking about it. you should be far more upset about the filibuster abuse. if both parties did that, nothing would ever get done.
tishhead 1 year ago
@tishhead
What makes you think I agreed with the Rs when they did it? I have told you over and over again that I'm not an R but you keep going back to that assumption. The point of the Slaughter method is that you don't need a final vote. That is why it's unconstitutional. If you can't grasp that very simple concept, then there's no point in talking to you anymore.
gracehi 1 year ago
@gracehi it's not a question of whether you agreed or not. where was the outrage, all this talk about the constitution? didn't happen. and you are wrong, you do need a final vote. you vote on the fixes and that assumes the original vote. it's political BS. it's politically stupid. i'm glad they didn't do it. but it has nothing to do with the constitution.
tishhead 1 year ago
It has EVERYTHING to do w/ the constitution. The constitution was written to limit the federal government so as to preserve state & individual rights. If the federal government just ignores it then they can do whatever they want and encroach on our rights.
Where was the outrage? Weren't we talking about Obama & the HC bill? If we had been talking about the Republicans doing it, I would have told you how bad it was then too.
gracehi 1 year ago
@gracehi there just seems to be a pattern. reconciliation is unfair -- when the dems do it. deem and pass is an outrage -- when the dems do it. deficit spending is unconscionable -- when the dems do it. and again, the dems DIDN'T USE deem and pass. they just talked about it. and the bill wasn't passed under reconciliation, just the fixes. as for state's rights, again tell me what fed programs have been invalidated by 10th amendment?
tishhead 1 year ago
@tishead
None. The Supreme Court no longer cares about the constitution, just precedent. And b/c of that, the size of the federal government continues to grow and consume more and more state and individual rights.
gracehi 1 year ago
@gracehi you say "no longer." when has the sup court EVER used the 10th amendment to invalidate fed programs. you say they rely on precedent (which they certainly did NOT do in the decision to allow corps to buy elected officials). where is the precedent for what you want?
tishhead 1 year ago
@tishhead I would have to agree that the Bush regime was equally responsible for the "Bailout activity, However...The "Socialist" actions are generally perpetrated by liberals. I was a big fan of Ronald Reagans fiscal responsibility, and the idea that the people should govern themselves, while government interference should be kept to a minimum.
Hamcarver 1 year ago
@Hamcarver reagan? fiscally responsible? were you being sarcastic? the debt exploded under reagan. that's why poor daddy bush had to go back on his read my lips. trillions for the star wars boondoggle. tax cuts for the rich. tax hikes for the middle class. size of govt grew under reagan, shrank under clinton. the facts are not on your side.
tishhead 1 year ago
@tishhead I think you are confusing the economic and military debacles of Jimmy Carter..."Panama Canal Treaties", "Iran Hostage Crisis", "The Russian Wheat Deal", "The Fair Housing Act", interest rates at 21.5% and Unemployment rates at 11.9%, The Hugo Chavez election, the energy crisis...I think you are confused?
Hamcarver 1 year ago
@Hamcarver oh, and no govt. interference? how does that square with the ridiculous and costly "war on drugs."?
tishhead 1 year ago
@tishhead If you are concerned about the "costly" War on Drugs, I would recommend closing the door to our now "Healthcare Covered under law" illegals...This would save us Billions in HC, Welfare, and Prison System dollars, as well as cut the amount of illegal substances entering this country in half.
Hamcarver 1 year ago
@Hamcarver "closing the door" is first, of all, likely impossible. secondly, it would also cost billions in enforcement and the effects on the economy. your cheap food prices are largely dependent on cheap labor. so be prepared to open your wallet. also the health care bill will have little or no effect on illegals. they will still go to the ER, which is profoundly inefficient.
tishhead 1 year ago
@tishhead I disagree...Not impossible, but rather improbable. Secondly, The "Cost" you speak of would bring about "Employment" for non working Americans...which would ultimatlely save the taxpayers money, and stimulate economic growth. "Cheap labor"...more job opportunities for the unemployed...And as for the illegals who flood our Welfare System, Prisons, and Hospitals...How many of those MILLIONS are going to be paying taxes? The answer is in the donut.
Hamcarver 1 year ago
@Hamcarver you gonna build your wall and put thousands of guards on the border? good luck. and they virtually ALL pay taxes. as in sales taxes and, in many cases, payroll taxes. it's always easy to point out some outside group and blame your problems on them. and, yeah, americans are just lining up to go pick grapes in the field or work in the car wash or in the hotels.
tishhead 1 year ago
@tishhead Thats an interesting concept...Sales Tax that is. What are your feelings toward a "Fair Tax"? This in my opinion would even the playing field.
Hamcarver 1 year ago
@Hamcarver not supportive. despite the subsidies for the poor, it is still inherently non-progressive because middle class and poor spend much more than wealthy, who are able to invest it and save it. i think taxes need to be more progressive, not less.
tishhead 1 year ago
@tishhead Exactly my point...The middle class and the poor DO spend significantly more money on items for which they DO NOT NEED...ie Cell Phones, TVs, Handbags, Alcohol, Tobacco, Internet service, Computers...All items that could be put aside for the purchase of the ever so popular HEALTH CARE INSURANCE
Hamcarver 1 year ago
@Hamcarver first, that wasn't the point. the point is you get more bang for the buck, economically, by putting money in the pockets of people who will spend it. but, really, we should forego cell phones and the internet to pour money in the pockets of insurance cos, who are merely in business to gouge people? deeply, deeply twisted.
tishhead 1 year ago
@tishhead It is really a question of priorities...Pour money into Verizon Wireless, or an Insurance Co...Twisted indeed.
Hamcarver 1 year ago
@Hamcarver you really think its feasible to operate in 2010 without the internet and a cell phone? and very few people go bankrupt feeding verizon. it is a question of priorities. we choose to be the only industrialized country on planet earth where people go bankrupt just because they got sick. and then we have working class people defend that system so insurance ceos can clear 13 mill a year.
tishhead 1 year ago
@tishhead I seem to remember a time when there were no computers or cell phones...Baring Don Johnsons brick sized MIAMI VICE celli. In any event, We seemed to be able to communicate with one another without these modern conveniences. Which reminds me...Isn't the post office a government run entity facing bankruptcy? Maybe if we got back to communicating and paying our bills via courier, we could rescue yet another failing government run corporation? As for the CEO...
Hamcarver 1 year ago
@Hamcarver and i remember a time when i had hair. it doesn't do much good to pine for the good old days, which seems to be a favorite repub pasttime (you know, back when blacks and women knew their place). and yes, the post office is failing because times have changed. i actually think that getting millions of pieces of mail across country in 2 days for 42 cents a shot is pretty impressive.
tishhead 1 year ago
@tishhead In response to Republicans and the "Good Ol Days" ...As I recall Dr. Martin Luther King was a Republican. It amuses me that the minority vote of today has slowly merged to the Democratic party...I guess do to the fact that they used a minority candidate and kickbacks to government assistance programs? I often wonder how the last election would have turned out had the Rep party backed Allen Keys?
Hamcarver 1 year ago
@Hamcarver martin luther king sr. was a republican. mlk jr was not registered with either party. in his autobiography, mlk jr described the 1964 repub convention as "a frenzied mixture of the KKK and other elements of the radical right."
alan keyes would be a joke if he were purple or green. he is certifiable and the repubs were correct to have nothing to do with him.
blacks becoming dems? two items: New Deal and civil rights and the repub backlash to both.
tishhead 1 year ago
@tishhead "Prior to 1936, Blacks who could vote generally supported Republican Presidential candidates. The GOP was the party of Abraham Lincoln. Even Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal failed to completely break the bond between Blacks and the GOP. Ike received strong support from Black voters in 1952 and 1956". -Paul Weyrich
It was JFK and his Welfare revisions that swayed the minority vote back to the liberal camp.
Hamcarver 1 year ago
@Hamcarver i don't know what you mean by completely -- 100 percent? from roosevelt on, the dems have owned the northern black vote. i'll ignore the inherent racism in your welfare comment to point out that civil rights was the decisive factor in cementing the black vote as permanently democratic. goldwater acknowledged writing off the black vote by opposing it.
tishhead 1 year ago
@tishhead Not meant to be a racist comment, but a statistical fact...Blacks comprise only 12% of the US population, yet hold 38% of all government assistance.
Hamcarver 1 year ago
@Hamcarver those numbers are a sad legacy of hundreds of years of abuse at the hands of the white majority. but to suggest that the 90-plus percent of blacks who vote dem at presidential level do so because of welfare is repugnant. it fails the test of decency. i think they know which side fought for their right to vote, to go to a decent school and to get a job. and which side most certainly did not.
tishhead 1 year ago
@tishhead If I were to suggest a reason behind why 93% of all African Americans voted for Barack Obama (A Democrat) it certainly wouldn't be because of the Welfare card...The race card however is a different story. I am not a racist by any means...The election of our President is a different story.
Hamcarver 1 year ago
@Hamcarver again, nonsense. obama got only a marginally higher percentage of black vote than kerry or gore got. the repubs wrote off the blacks a long time ago, now pay lip service to try to get over 10 percent. go ahead and name me all the black repubs in congress. i'll wait.
tishhead 1 year ago
@tishhead ARE YOU KIDDING?? Their voter turnout rate increased 4.9 percentage points, from 60.3% in 2004 to 65.3% in 2008, nearly matching the voter turnout rate of white eligible voters (66.1%). The voter turnout rate among eligible black female voters increased 5.1 percentage points, from 63.7% in 2004 to 68.8% in 2008.Blacks ages 18 to 29 increased their voter turnout rate by 8.7 percentage points, from 49.5% in 2004 to 58.2% in 2008.
Hamcarver 1 year ago
@Hamcarver you are burying yourself. first, turnout was up for everyone. second, you yourself said white turnout was still higher. (i guess that's the way it's supposed to be). finally, if blacks, owning a part of a legacy of slavery and racism that you and I couldn't begin to understand, were excited at the notion of electing a black president, they're to apologize for that? are you crazy?
tishhead 1 year ago
@tishhead White voter turnout remained constant...as they make up 75% of America. I don't deny that this election helped further the civil rights movement...However, the cost of electing a President SOLEY because of his skin color goes against everything the Civil Rights Movement stands for.
Hamcarver 1 year ago
@Hamcarver the idea that obama was elected because he was black is so ludicrous as to be bizarre. this i guess would explain our long history of black presidents? he got 90-plus percent just like kerry and gore did and just like hillary would have.
tishhead 1 year ago
@Hamcarver if you want racism in the exit polls, look at the fact that everywhere but the south, obama and mccain basically split the white vote with obama actually slightly ahead. but in the south, mccain won the white vote by over 30 points.
tishhead 1 year ago
Comment removed
Hamcarver 1 year ago
Comment removed
Hamcarver 1 year ago
Comment removed
Hamcarver 1 year ago
Comment removed
Hamcarver 1 year ago
Most generations before us have realized that stealing from others is not a good (or at least ethical) way to provide for one's own services.
sdkee 1 year ago
@sdkee here's a thought experiment for you. the US doesn't have the highest rate of taxes in the world, not even close. if you had to move to another country, would you rather choose from the list of countries with higher rates or lower rates?
tishhead 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ tishhead
> US doesn't have the highest rate of taxes in the world
This is moral relativism. Illustrative analogy: you should thank me as I rape you 'cause the other rapists would leave bruises.
sdkee 1 year ago
@sdkee love your violent imagery. my point was, you prob wouldn't want to move to the countries with the lowest taxation. they're called third-world countries. you're free to hang on to your money -- and die at 45.
tishhead 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ tishhead
> my point was, you prob wouldn't want to move to the countries with the lowest taxation
And I'd rather be raped by the gentle rapist.
Does this preference justify the acts of the gentle rapist?
sdkee 1 year ago
@sdkee wow, you just don't get it to you. leave aside your violent fantasies for a second and imagine whether you would rather live in benin or lesotho or bangladesh. low taxes. should be heaven for you.
tishhead 1 year ago
@ tishhead
> imagine whether you would rather live in benin...
Imagine the rapist has a knife.
You are still advocating for the lesser rapist on the grounds that worse ones exist. This is not really an argument, but a scare tactic. You want me to accept *your* form of rape by telling me stories about how bad the other rapists are.
sdkee 1 year ago
@sdkee what is your deal with guns and rape? to be clear, i am not advocating rape. you can choose to live in a community where some needs are met as a group. or you can live every man for himself. history has shown the first way superior. by a lot.
tishhead 1 year ago
@ tishhead
Guns because you propose to arm goons with them to use on me. Rape because it is an apt analogy of the relationship between the nation-state and the citizen.
> or you can live every man for himself
Or I could live peaceably alongside my fellow man without stealing from him. Your statement proposes a false dichotomy between hermitism and state-slavery. Has it occurred to you that other options may exist?
sdkee 1 year ago
@tishhead the ethical way is we elect people who determine the rates and if enough people don't like it, they get voted out and new people decide.
tishhead 1 year ago
@tishhead
> we elect people
So if three nazis and a jew hold an election and the predictable result occurs, is the it ethical because they had a vote on it?
If I and my 12 buddies come over to your house and we hold a vote to decide whose house it is, will you be happy to pass over the deed to me?
So why, then, if you and your buddies hold a vote about how much of my money to steal does this make the theft ethical?
sdkee 1 year ago
@sdkee well, gee, i think the people who don't LIKE paying taxes are probably the majority in this country, don't you? and yet, there doesn't seem to be a movement to abolish all taxes. maybe they are adults who have figured out how things work. who's the leader of your movement? who are the big heroes of the no-taxes movement? where can we sign up?
tishhead 1 year ago
@tishhead
> who's the leader of your movement [etc]
So basically you're just giving up on arguing the ethics of it and want to change the subject. If I use my guns to take your money I am called a criminal, but when you do it, it is the apex of civilized behavior?
Whether or not other people may agree with me or not has precisely zero relevance to whether I am correct or not. It's the classic ad populum logical fallacy.
sdkee 1 year ago
@sdkee actually, i have argued the ethics of it in almost every post. and i think you pretty much abandoned ethics when you said the child of the poor parent should be left to die because "life is tough." i think that pretty much ended the ethics portion of our game.
tishhead 1 year ago
I never thought I would live to see the day you would be taxed simply for drawing breath.
Orthanc98 1 year ago
...And last, but certainly not least...What happened to working across the aisle? Bipartisanship? Working for the people? Is it so important that this bill be passed without any conservative or independent support? The last time I checked, this was a REPUBLIC, based on the will of the people...not the will of a political party.
Hamcarver 1 year ago
...In addition, I am a business owner who would be directly affected by these absurd regulations imposed by the government...Not a Billionaire...Just a Business owner...The very people Barack Obama has promised to help flourish to spark economic growth. EMPTY PROMISES!!
Hamcarver 1 year ago
@ Texshelters- The State of Virgina has filed legal action. To quote Ken Cuccinelli, the Attorney Gen of Virginia We believe the federal law is unconstitutional as it is based on the commerce clause. Simply put, not buying insurance is not engaging in commerce, the attorney general added. If you are not engaged in commerce, the federal government cannot regulate this inaction. Just being alive is not interstate commerce. If it were, Congress could regulate every aspect of our lives.
Hamcarver 1 year ago
@Hamcarver legally, it's a tax that you are exempt from if you buy health insurance. you do realize, do you not, that the individual mandate was originally a republican idea and once championed by the conservative heritage foundation? and you realize that the likely repub frontrunner for pres in 2012 signed a bill with an individual mandate?
tishhead 1 year ago
@tishhead -Thats like saying, "You must buy an Egg McMuffin every day for the rest of your life, but we won't charge you for the coffee" Secondly, If you look a bit closer to the bill, there are MANY hidden taxes that affect certain business' more than others. Lastly...I am not a supporter of ANY party, but rather an advocate of "Self Responsibility"...Meaning I can take care of myself...Not everyone else.
Hamcarver 1 year ago
@Hamcarver not sure about your mcmuffin analogy, although suddenly, i'm hungry. yes, there are taxes, which are perfectly constitutional. if you pay insurance premiums and you are relatively, healthy you are ALREADY paying for someone else. that's how insurance works. it's also how government works. people without children still pay property taxes that pay for schools. no one completely takes care of themselves.
tishhead 1 year ago
@tishead- It brings to mind a little historical event known as the Boston Tea Party...As I recall, the British were trying to force purchase of tea upon colonists...as well as the stamp act which forced purchase of stamps (Which were required for purchase of many items) This eventually led to the phrase "Taxation without Representation",basically the phrase was coined to describe the situation were colonists, who had no voice in the matter, could be taxed without consenting to it.
Hamcarver 1 year ago
@Hamcarver trying to force purchase of tea? what are you talking about? they were trying to tax it from england. the protest wasn't even necessarily about the tax, but the way the tax was imposed. i hate to break it you, the current taxes are WITH representation. a duly elected congress has passed all taxes and passed this bill.
tishhead 1 year ago
@tishhead "In May of 1773 Parliament concocted a clever plan. They gave the struggling East India Company a (monopoly) on the importation of tea to America. Additionally, Parliament reduced the duty the colonies would have to pay for the imported tea. The Americans would now get their (tea) at a cheaper price than ever before. However, if the colonies paid the duty tax on the imported tea they would be acknowledging Parliament's right to tax them."-1773 Sound eerily famillar to the HC plan?
Hamcarver 1 year ago
@Hamcarver by the way, it is now a republican who is talking about doing away with the direct election of senators.
tishhead 1 year ago
@tishhead
Actually they just have to run on NOT being Democrats. Shouldn't be too hard.
gracehi 1 year ago
@gracehi and i'm sure you never thought obama could be elected. and you thought that once brown won in mass, healthcare reform was dead. so forgive me if i don't take your predictions as gospel. the fact is, the opposition to healthcare was never as it was portrayed -- you really need to read polls better -- and it will be even less once its implemented.
tishhead 1 year ago
@tishhead -As for "Representation" ...Take Adolph Hitler for example...The German people were once in favor of following a leader who planned to exterminate an entire race of individuals. Fortunatly, OUR government intervened and saved the day...Unfortunatly, there was a cost to be paid.
Hamcarver 1 year ago
@Hamcarver wow, you just careened right over the edge didn't you. am i to understand your argument is that since hitler was elected and congress was elected, they must be doing the same thing? again, wow!
tishhead 1 year ago
@tishhead Nice try... The response was to enlighten you to the premise that just because leaders of a nation are elected by the people does not give them the right to practice unethicaly, nor go against the wishes of those who (have or have not)elected them.
Hamcarver 1 year ago
@Hamcarver you began this thread by comparing it to the tea party. whatever it is, this is clearly NOT taxation without representation. the only people in this country who are taxed without representation are the citizens of DC. when congress continued to fund the iraq occupation against the much clearer will of the people, i never thought they didn't have the right to do it. immoral and foolish but not unconstitutional.
tishhead 1 year ago
@ tishhead
> it's a tax that you are exempt from if you...
So it's a tax? And if you do what the social planners want then you get some money back?
Who cares which of the two corrupt parties does it? The end result is that same.
sdkee 1 year ago
@sdkee the end result is that if insurance cos. have to take pre-existing conditions and can't drop you, then it makes sense to require people to get insurance BEFORE they get sick. it's not really that difficult to understand. is the home mortgage deduction social planning? how about tax credits related to having children? grow up.
tishhead 1 year ago
@ tishhead
> it makes sense to require people to get insurance BEFORE they get sick
Yes. It also makes sense to require people to not engage in behaviors which will *make* them sick. Your argument leads to the nanny state.
> is the home mortgage deduction social planning
Yes. The gov should have stayed out of the housing business and we would not have had this bubble.
> how about tax credits related to having children
Why should *I* pay for *your* children?
sdkee 1 year ago
@ tishhead
Here's a though experiment:
One country (let's call then USSR) takes all your money and gives you back some based on a complicated schedule of what they think you need to live on. We call them evil because of this.
Another country (let's call then USA) takes all your money *except* an amount which they allow you need to live on, based on a very similar complicated schedule. We call this "progressivism".
How is the first country ethically any different from the second?
sdkee 1 year ago
@sdkee i get it. you want a complete social-darwin experiment, survival of the fittest with no taxes, no regulation, no govt except an army. that argument was settled long before obama was even born. the country taxes and it taxes to encourage some behavior and discourage others. it is not new.
tishhead 1 year ago
@ tishhead
> you want a complete social-darwin experiment
If that's what you call it when you and your gun-toting enforcer goons leave me the fuck alone, then yes. I want you (or your hired goons) to not come to my house with guns and steal half my stuff to use for your misguided social programs.
> argument was settled long before
Yeah, the goons with guns "won" the argument by shooting their opponents. This makes it ethical?
sdkee 1 year ago
@sdkee good lord, what's all this talk about goons and guns? you live in a country, you pay taxes. you are part of a community. you eat food that is inspected, you drive on roads that are maintained, you call the police or fire dept if you need to, along with 1,000 other services.
tishhead 1 year ago
@ tishhead
> what's all this talk about goons and guns?
If I don't pay my taxes, what happens? Do not the goons (who you are advocating for) come to my house with guns and throw me in a cage?
I'm just calling a spade a spade here. If you think this kind of behavior is ok then argue for it. But don't hide behind comforting euphemisms to pretend like this is not the truth of it.
You arguing for more taxes is you arguing to have the goons take more of my stuff.
sdkee 1 year ago
@sdkee yes, we have evolved from the cavemen. we form communities, we govern ourselves. that costs money, so we tax. or, i guess, we drop out of society and go live in the jungles of south america or africa, or on the north pole.
tishhead 1 year ago
@ tishhead
> we have evolved from the cavemen
The interesting thing about your "reply" is that you don't actually address the point. Does it cause you trauma to your worldview to realize that taxes are a form of organized theft?
You hide behind the comforting facade of modern=good. You quote this and cease thinking. Problem solved. Now you don't have to worry your brain with the knowledge that you are advocating a system of organized theft.
You can hide behind your abstraction.
sdkee 1 year ago
@sdkee actually, i think it is you that is arguing an abstraction. in your tax-less world, what happens to children born into poverty? what happens to the people too sick or injured to work? what happens when companies are free of regulation and choose to rip people off or harm them? what happens when hurricanes and earthquakes hit? unregulated free market is the abstraction here. it doesn't work, just as pure socialism doesn't.
tishhead 1 year ago
@ tishhead
> what happens to children born into poverty
A person or group chooses to help it, or it dies. Life is tough.
You propose to steal from people to pay for this. You want to pretend that it is not really theft by hiding behind a change of words (tax). You do this to avoid thinking about where the money comes from.
If you truly believe it is morally ok to steal from one person to help another, then put your ethics where your mouth is. Do it yourself.
sdkee 1 year ago
@sdkee well keep fighting your fight, dude. the rest of the world has evolved and moved far, far beyond where you are. we pay for police, for fire, for roads, for food inspection. it doesn't work perfectly but it works. but you can live out in the hills and forage for berries or whatever you do. please keep your guns pointed away from me and i don't really give a rat's ass. it takes all kinds.
tishhead 1 year ago
@tishhead
> please keep your guns pointed away from me
LOL. I have been trying to point out that it is you who have *your* guns pointed at me, and you claim to be afraid of *my* guns?
You are advocating that the abstraction you call "the state" should come to my house and steal from me. With guns, if necessary.
Do you deny this? What if I don't agree with your collectivist program-of-the-moment? You'll just come and take it, no?
sdkee 1 year ago
@sdkee i am advocating we live in a community and part of that is paying for services. if you don't pay your taxes, you really have to push it before guns are involved, but yes, laws don't really work without enforcement. i suspect you partake of services that are paid for my tax dollars, whether it's driving on public roads or eating inspected food or using police and fire services.
tishhead 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tishhead > if you don't pay your taxes, you really have to push it before guns are involved
But guns will be used in the final case, yes? You ask nicely first, then not so nicely, and then the guns come out.
Again, you are doing everything in your power to hide from yourself the actual fact of what you are advocating, taking refuge behind euphemisms and word games.
But still it remains that you want to use guns to take from various people and use it as you see fit.
sdkee 1 year ago
@tishhead
Seems that Youtube has decided to remove/hide my comment.
If I don't pay my taxes, your guys with guns come and take it from me, no?
So you are actually advocating armed theft. Yes they send a "friendly" letter first, but the enforcement is by guns. Guns you propose to have your goons point at me if I refuse to "give" you the money you demand.
sdkee 1 year ago
@sdkee look, we have both stated our cases, you are on the far, far fringe of humanity. you want to live out in the hills, i and 99.9 percent of humanity, choose to live in a community. that costs money. yes, if you don't pay your taxes, there will be penalties. most adults deal with that. this is really pointless. the rest of the world is in a different place than you, thank goodness.
tishhead 1 year ago
@tishhead
> you are on the far, far fringe of humanity.
Sorry, you are implying that those who desire to analyze the ethics of their actions are in the fringe? Then I happily agree.
I desire to live in a community which is free. You desire to add armed guys with guns who use them to steal from the rest of us. I ask you to justify the ethics of this.
Does this make me a lunatic? Asking you to justify why your goon shows up at my door and demands *EVEN MORE* money than last year?
sdkee 1 year ago
@tishhead
> the rest of the world is in a different place than you, thank goodness.
How many people do you employ? How many people owe their lifestyle to your business?
*I* am in the fringe? No, I am posing ethical questions. You try your damdest to not answer them. You don't want to, your high-school civics class brainwashing is sufficient for you.
I am a business owner and am fucking tired of a-holes like you who produce nothing demanding to steal more from me each year.
sdkee 1 year ago
@sdkee good, you're tired of me and i think you are batshit crazy, loonier than a bedbug. that got us somewhere didn't it. as i said before, i am sure you take advantage of dozens of services paid by taxes. so unless you're never going to drive on publicly maintained roads or ever use police or fire or never eat food you didn't grow yourself, you're really just flapping your gums because you have no credibility.
tishhead 1 year ago
@tishhead
> services paid by taxes.
And with this statement, which you use endlessly, you paper over the actual truth.
Taxes are extracted by force. It pays for services. How is that relevant to the means of collection? You come with your guns. If you want to argue in favor of it then we can have a discussion. But if you want to pretend that the truth doesn't exist then what kind of discussion can we have? I know the truth and you refuse to recognize it.
sdkee 1 year ago
@tishhead
> publicly maintained roads
Oh, the roads! Every time a state-apologist wants to justify taxes, he brings out the roads! Bush talked endlessly about fixing potholes as if this was the primary function of the Fed Gov.
How much of the money your goons steal goes into roads? I know that in my state the DMV is a profit center. The FedGov has been leeching off the gas tax by stuffing t-bills into the "highway fund" for years.
Think: how much do roads cost? 50% of your income?
sdkee 1 year ago
@sdkee look, dude, you were amusing for awhile but now you are just boring. you are the guy ranting in the park that people laugh at and then move on. roads is one of dozens of examples. you use the services and don't want to pay. that's fine. you live your little paranoid, they're-coming-for-me fantasy. maybe you'll shoot up a govt building, maybe you won't. be thinking of you on apr 15.
tishhead 1 year ago
@tishhead
Yeah, it's easier to not think. You can pretend that your advocating new taxes is not actually a call for theft. You can sleep better when you pretend that you are not a monster. I understand.
You don't want to deal with the reality of your own existence. It is easier to pigeonhole me into one of the groups the media have created for you to place me into. Then you can call me names and laugh, while forgetting the question I asked you. Then you can sleep, unburdened.
sdkee 1 year ago
@sdkee and i have asked you many questions which you are utterly incapable of answering. like, how many taxpayer-funded services have YOU used in your life? and why wouldn't you want to go to places where there are no income taxes, like the third-world paradises of africa, asia and south america? it's easier to spew. (i kinda like being called a monster, though)
tishhead 1 year ago
@tishhead
> how many taxpayer-funded services have YOU used in your life?
Lots of them. If I break into your house and steal your money, which I then use to buy groceries for you, is it somehow a justification of my theft if you eat them?
Now your turn: Is the money extracted by force or not? You'd clearly prefer to pretend that that it is not by avoiding thinking about it. You *could* make an argument that the theft is justified, but you don't. You just avoid thinking about it.
sdkee 1 year ago
@sdkee you realize, of course, that your analogy makes no sense. we ALL live in a community. we ALL pay taxes. we ALL use services. if you use the services and you refuse to pay the taxes, you are stealing the services. when was the last serious movement to abolish all taxes. in any industrialized country. i'll wait.
tishhead 1 year ago
@tishhead
> if you use the services and you refuse to pay the taxes, you are stealing the services
Let's analyze this: If I go to McDonald's and order a burger do they charge a different rate depending on my income? If it's a payment for service, then the price should be fixed according to what service is provided. Toll roads are a good example.
No, the system you have in mind is that you dictate to me how much of my money you want and send the guys with guns to take it.
sdkee 1 year ago
@sdkee oh here come the guns again. what percent of criminal tax cases do you suppose involve the use of guns? you are the one dealing in abstractions on that count. of course, it's not a straight fee for service. it's the cost of being part of a community. a progressive tax simply makes sense, both economically and morally.
tishhead 1 year ago
@tishhead
> what percent of criminal tax cases do you suppose involve the use of guns?
We've already been over this. Whether the guns are actually used or not is irrelevant to the fact that the guns and cages are the reason people pay up. If the mob sends a letter to you demanding "protection money" then you know what the score is. They ask nicely first and if you don't play ball, the guns come out. So you pay up and the guns don't get used. Yet the guns are why you pay.
sdkee 1 year ago
@sdkee ok, so we go back to your mcdonalds analogy. do you pay because if you don't, you'll go to jail. or do you pay because, in a civilized society, that's what you do? if you want to start a movement that will abolish all taxes, feel free. i suspect you won't get far.
tishhead 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tishhead
> do you pay because, in a civilized society
I pay because if I don't then they won't give me a burger. Duh.
> i suspect you won't get far
Supposing you are correct, so what? Is the correctness of a proposition dependent on how many people believe it? Example: if I can't convince two rival gangs to not murder each other, then is the murder justified?
sdkee 1 year ago
@sdkee ok, if you go to a sit-down restaurant, do you dine and dash? do you not because of the threat of jail or because it's not the right thing to do? is your obeyance of laws strictly due to the threat of jail?
tishhead 1 year ago
@tishhead
As a thought experiment, suppose the government just took all of our money? Your argument that it is just payment for services still applies, no? What is the ethical way to calculate what the proper tax amount is when the amount paid and the services received are completely unconnected? Whatever number you throw out, the same argument applies equally well for a higher (or lower) one.
sdkee 1 year ago
how depressing, Kucinich was one of the good guys, but "pressure from his constituents" caused him to vote against his conscience. So now we see he's a pushover, how are many left that we can trust?
NIMHFS 1 year ago
@NIMHFS
He's SUPPOSED to vote according to the will of his constituents. He represents them.
gracehi 1 year ago
This bill...Not unlike the last ridiculous, pork infused, bribery laden, TRILLION dollar bust, was rammed up the rear ends of Americans without a single member who voted in its favor having READ it!! It is not only unconstitutional to mandate the purchase of insurance, but is equally wrong to place absurd tax hikes on "Working Americans" in order to pay for the Welfare community. I myself, cannot wait until the midterm elections so that these douchebags can be voted out of office!
Hamcarver 1 year ago 2
@Hamcarver
The argument that it's unconstitutional is not true.
Can you find me the "no public mandate" in the bill?
However, I am against the mandate. Congress did have a year to debate the bill.
How is that "ramming it through"?
Also, the "tax hike" you are worried about won't be leveled on the
the lower classes. Are you a billionaire?
Peace,
Tex Shelters
texshelters 1 year ago
What?
He VOTED against the bill.
Did he just change his mind in the last 4 days?
Kucinich supports some kind of weird free health care system, which is not even remotely possible considering our economic situation.
Hackiesacker007 1 year ago
helll 4 u.
D13247 1 year ago