I've been watching your videos and have had to stop because I have become very ill. Are you trying to say that only people who "volunteer" their time should take care of the needy, mentally ill and sick people? You are so mean, selfish and heartless. I'm going to have to make a video about you to tell my subscribers how not to be. Damn dude.
@philip0460 oh, stop being dramatic. if anything I've said literally made you ill, you need to grow a backbone if you want to engage in serious philosophical discussion. I deal only in logical, sound solutions. you need to re-watch this video series if that's all you took away from it.
if everyone was rich, we would still have this problem because who would pick your vegetables? who would work for you? who is going to rent from you?????
IT JUST DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY.
SO TRY AND REALIZE THAT ALL THIS "SOCIALIST" USA CRAP TALK IS FAR FROM REALITY.
The top 5% pay MOST of the Fed and state TAXES too. The bottom 46% pay NO fed taxes ( that don't come back to them on earned income checks...tax refunds) and ,in many cases, RECEIVE tax money without paying any. ( Earned income allowances ) Without the rich? No millions of JOBS. Some of those rich actually WORKED for the riches kid. They took major risks, had a plan and a great idea and HIRED people to help them acheive their goals. Socialism causes all (except the leaders) to SUFFER equally.
"The top 5% pay MOST of the Fed and state TAXES too....."
you can't really use that as proof that this system works. i mean, we have this problem and now everyone wants to shoot a democrat.
all this hype about hc reform is a big joke to me because it was bound to happen. you can go ahead and defend all the banks that made those reverse mortgages to people who shouldn't ever qualified causing capitalism's collapse.
@barabg : Lastly kid....What ever made you believe that the Marxist plan is the ONLY lol "fair" ( vomit) plan? You and the other Obamanoid sheeple seem to think that ANY plan is a "good" plan while, in fact, you haven't READ the plan and have very little idea what is IN it or what the future consequences of the current plan will be on the ignorant masses. It's not MY job to TEACH you those consequences but it is YOUR responsibility to know EVERY SINGLE CON of this bill before blabbing about it.
It's not just immigrants that would drain health care/welfare. That entire line of reasoning is weak. Many Americans are bums that leech off the system as well. And there are many immigrants who work hard to make a place for themselves. I agree w/ most of your points. It's ironic that some of the ppl most against healthcare are those it would help the most, aka middle class wage-earners.
@polymathforever: Quote "It's ironic that some of the ppl most against healthcare are those it would help the most, aka middle class wage-earners." So, I a ask? Why or how does this happen? What makes MILLIONS of people vote against their own best interest?
I didn't say we had the best healthcare system according to the WHO and UN. both of those institutions have agendas which I don't agree with, plus I believe their numbers are based on average life expectancy, and the US has a number of factors affecting that, such as murders.
Like I said, look up the numbers and youll see that its not murders and car crashes, you have higher death rates on almost everything other than certain types of cancer.
Do some of the jetset of the world come to the US to get treatment? Yes they do, they also go to Switzerland, Sweden and the UK, depending on what they want. But does the average US citizens have the best healthcare? No, and as I said thats a verifiable fact.
the average US citizen may not have the best healthcare *coverage*, true. but this is where you're wrong in implying that that is an entitlement - it's not. nobody is *entitled* to ANYTHING, but as an American citizen I am promised my right to FREEDOM. everything else derives from that (that is, SHOULD derive from that). any "right" you declare that implies the involuntary enslavement (read: tax) of anyone, implies that none of us is free. ponder it.
Kay, first of all stop saying ponder, its not the 19th century. And Im not talking coverage, Im talking services.
I do think that as a human being you have a right to receive the healthcare that you need, as an extension of the right to life.
The US also has the highest infant mortality rate in the developed world, so its literally true that your freedom not to pay tax is infringing on others right to life. And freedom should be absolute as long as it doesnt limit someone elses, as known.
okay, Americans also live (and DIE) by the big mac. I don't know where you hail from, but in my neck of the woods, nobody watches what they eat (myself included x1000). point being, judging a medical system by the longevity of its patients is inaccurate. they can be judged much more accurately by their demand, in which case the US is UNDOUBTEDLY the best option in the world. I mean, if you're contesting that, you're out of touch.
You have a point, the low life expectancy in the US is more a judgement on the society as a whole rather than healthcare.
Sry, I must not be understanding you properly, are you saying that increased demand for health services (a sicker population) means that it works better? Cause that doesnt make any kind of sense.
no no, sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant demand for US medical services across the globe proves that the quality of care is the highest. the *quantity* of care is probably also the highest. you don't see 6-month waiting lines for a broken arm in America.
everyone makes a big deal about the US being the only country without "universal" (socialized) healthcare. well if that's how you feel, move to one of those countries! because that's not how we do things here in the States.
Yes it proves the quality of a specific care service, but not the system that provides it, that has to be measured by the health of the general population.
Thats the most ridiculous argument Ive ever heard. The US also had institutionalised and legal ethnic segregation and discrimination when no other developed country did, didnt make it right. The States just havent gotten as far.
ok so the longevity of a people dumb enough to live, say, beside an active volcano, should determine the validity of their health care system? come on now...
and comparing segregation to anti-socialized healthcare... lol, come on now...
Your excuse is "Were all stupid"? The other reason the US has an inferior system is of course the massive costs, the most expensive care in the developed world but generally not the quality to match.
Its about social progression and progression as a society, Im definitely comparing it. And the example was primarily used to prove how ridiculous the argument "its just not done here" is, neither was womens suffrage, until it was.
and the reason for the ever-increasing costs? government intervention/regulations. if it were a truly free market the costs would constantly be driven down.
admit that what you advocate is un-Constitutional, or explain how it's not. only then can this debate proceed with any direction.
But thats the problem, since you dont have public campaign financing, the larger a company gets the more it can spend on buying politicians. And why does the us have thousands of dollars more per capita per year spent on healthcare but not better healthcare?
Article 1, section 8 "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes... to pay the Debts and provide for the common and general Welfare of the United States". General welfare, direct quote.
so your solution to the problem of corporations buying corrupt government is to increase the size of government? that makes sense to you? how about if we as a people instead reform the type of politicians we elect in the first place?
and "general welfare" in the sense it was written did not mean welfare in the sense you know it today. it meant purchases spent FOR EVERYONE in the country, like defense spending.
No my solution to that would be, as I said, public campaign financing and limiting the rights of corporations to influece political matters. E g not give them right to campaign for a candidate.
And Im saying that single-payer healthcare would be something that would benefit EVERYONE in the country, not just the poor, as it has been seen to do in all the other developed countries.
you clearly just want to see government control/influence in every aspect of life. which is cool if you're into that sort of thing, but I (and America) is not.
and if you view a 6-month waiting line to set a broken arm "something that would benefit EVERYONE in the country", then, lol.
No, capital gains is an income, you could argue that estate tax and your property increasing in value is also an income that can be taxed. Not mentioning corporate taxes.
Either way there is nothing un-constitutional about taxing incomes and having single-payer healthcare, is there?
wow @ tax apologism. your property increasing in value is not an "income", it's a wise investment, of course people like you want to enviously tax it.
yes, socialized healthcare IS un-Constitutional, it is not for the "general welfare" of the country. and Article I Section 8 enumerates what IS under that category. go read it again, and then know that Jefferson said: "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."
and the particular bill is more un-Constitutional because it requires citizens to buy something (it is a tax on their life) and because it specifically benefits some states more than others.
Actually section 8 just numbers things that are required, section 9 is the one that sets the limits. And one of the synonyms of welfare is well-being, in my opinion its hard to be well when youre sick. Besides its a living document, thats why it can be amended.
Envious? Of what? Its not like I cant afford my healthcare, it would just be a better system if it was single payer, as proven countless times.
And the current bill is shit, I will gladly grant you that.
that's incorrect. S8 limits what taxes can be used for. S9 limits other areas. yes, this means that 90% of the tax-funded programs of today are un-Constitutional. and it is not a living document, it has a living appendix. there is a difference. and I don't think you're getting the point about welfare, it's the "general welfare of the United States", not the "specific well-being of certain individuals in the United States".
If its the will of the people its democratic, and the constitution was enacted and can be therefore be changed with democratic ways.
If youve read any of the founders correspondence then you know that they talk extensively about it being for their time and how different times will need different guidance.
And if I am to choose between a constitutional society or one thats humane and treats people fairly Ill take the latter please.
a society that "treats people fairly" is a codeword for socialism. if that's what you want, go to one of the other "more civilized" countries that offers it. America isn't the place for you.
No, fairly means that everyone gets the same opportunity to make something of themselves and youre not damned by the colour of your skin or the social status of your parents.
Socialism is where the workers either through the state or directly own all the means of production. Notice the difference?
dude, everyone DOES get the same *opportunity*. (except deaths at birth, aborted babies, etc). if that weren't true, then a person born at the "bottom" of the social scale could never make it out. but they do. sure, life isn't "fair" in the sense that everyone doesn't start on the same page. they're not supposed to, this isn't a utopia. this is a place where if you work hard and smart, you can build up any amount of money and leave it for your children if you so choose.
And if your were born rich youre also going to die rich, regardless of whether or not youve earned it. And thats bullshit.
Theres no equal opportunity in the US, OECD statistics prove that (since social mobility is highest in Canada and the Scandinavian countries, which all have large public sectors and extensive income redistribution). Especially not for the rich. And if you think that hard work is all it takes in the US then youre delusional my friend, or criminally naive.
I appreciate that you are intelligent and argue your case well, unfortunately, you are just philosophically wrong. you think equality is playing Robin Hood, I think equality is giving everyone absolute freedom from slavery and force. clearly we're not going to agree.
Im just curious though, if you would indulge me. If social mobiliy, both upwards and downwards, therefore implying a more meritocratic society, basically where hard work and talent pays off, is causally connected to high taxes, a large welfare state, universal healthcare, income redistribution etc then why wouldnt you want that kind of society? Ones' ultimate freedom to make something of one self
because I believe the ultimate good in society is not equality, but freedom from force. income redistribution has nothing to do with merit. in a meritocracy (which is the goal of capitalism), the income will already be distributed according to the merits of the producers. you speak of entitlements from the State, this has nothing to do with merit, but laziness.
No Im not talking about the means, Im talking about the goal. Shouldnt the goal be that you receive according to your ability and effort, not your background or family? That hard work and talent should be rewarded regardless of your background?
The problem with that is that the income will be distributed according to the merits of the parents, not the people who inherit it, which evidently makes for an un-meritocratic playing field, wouldnt you say?
not in the way you presume, because the wealth accumulated by what you call "background" was received according to the ability and effort of a parent who CHOSE to leave that wealth for their child.
what you advocate is seriously ludicrous.
btw, I don't know how you can argue that you are not endorsing socialism, you are in fact more open than most about it, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution"
Sure, but in my opinion that makes the playing field uneven and therefore unjust and negative to freedom. Just like the fact that the current healthcare system allows more infants to die but lets you pay less taxes, I dont approve of that.
I actually never said I wasnt a socialist, I am a democratic socialist. I just said that a fair society wasnt necessarily socialism, and it isnt.
But then you think its right that youre restricted by the social status of your parents?
you advocate living one's life for and according to the State. how you can even equate that to the concept of freedom is beyond me.
you are not "restricted" by the social status of your parents. any example of social mobility discredits that notion. is the playing field uneven? of course. unless we were all robots living in a utopia, the playing field will always be uneven.
haha, you think that sounds like what I advocate? I would suggest you look into modern socialism, Scandinavian social democracy and libertarian socialism, then youve got more of an idea where Im coming from;) Its a state for the people, by the people, not the other way around.
So one exception means that there is no rule? It doesnt bother you that mediocre rich kids get rich while mediocre poor kids stay poor?
all non-totalitarian States are "for the people, by the people". yes, you advocate the relinquishing all of rights to the State, for them to decide and redistribute. therefore in such a society you have NO *rights*, you have *privileges*.
I was already familiar with the former and the latter models you suggested. interestingly, the "Scandinavian social democracy" is actually known as the "Scandinavian welfare model". the name says it all. you and I appear to be at opposite ends, friend.
I advocate relinquishing a portion of your income, the higher your income the larger the portion, so that we can solve problems we all have in a more efficient way, e g socialized healthcare.
Any reply to my question?
Hah, yeah I figured that a while back, I still enjoy discussing though. Shouldnt we then try to make the playing field more even?
I'm sorry, I don't even wish to carry on this debate as it's going nowhere. it's just unbelievable to me that a man can be so weak as to give up his own rights and sovereignty to the State in exchange for temporary security. infuriating, really, and I actually feel kind of sorry for anyone so feeble-minded as that. sorry if that's insulting, it's just the way I feel.
Haha, weak and feeble-minded, come say it to my face dude;)
Im giving away nothing, money is just money man, there are more important things in life, sense of community, of being taken care of if shit happens etc.
The fact that I dont mind paying taxes instead of paying some health insurance executive for doing it worse for more money makes me stupid, fair enough.
And Im glad that you decided to end the debate at your weakest point, it shows real resolve;)
believe me, I wouldn't have a problem saying it to your face, but YOU'RE ON THE INTERNET so that's not going to be easy.
you say you're giving away nothing, if you truly believe that then there's something wrong with you, you're giving away everything.
there was no weakest point to my argument, but feel free to make that arbitrary assertion. if a brick wall accused me of the same, I would gladly laugh and cut my intellectual losses. I just don't care to waste my time anymore, is all.
@barabg : ...and I'm SURE that the leaders of the SOCIALIST states that you mention are NOT wealthier than the average individual included in the ignorant unwashed masses. There is SO much that you DON"T know kid. sigh.
@Stratslayer Aww thats sweet, youre trying to talk down to me. Well look here pops, the leaders of our countries make more money than me because partly because I want the best suited to do it and partly so they wont get bribed. And to be honest, if they help build a better world they deserve more money, even if I think theyre making too much right now (which I am of course working to change).
@ barabg : Correct kid. I AM talking down to you and will continue to as long as you like. I know what a social movement is moron. My point is that you are a Socialist, and hence, have a flawed sense of logic and human nature. Now go play kid, AFTER you finish the Dr. Suess book and pop those nasty nightly pimples. Age 21 will come soon and the pimple problem will die down. Try laying off the candy bars and bubble gum.
@barabg : So you are one of the ignorant sheeple "masses" that really believes that Mommy govt. is looking out for YOU. lol!! Kid, that's laughable. If government does"it"....it's NOT going to be done well, efficiently, honestly, "FREE", or with liberty in mind. Entitlements do nothing but make you a "slave" to the "state" and the "state" is ALWAYS a group of wealthy elitists who don't suffer the same slings, arrows,and lifestyles of those they seek to enslave/control. You're very naive kid.
@Stratslayer Oohh, you found out that if you mix the word sheep with the words people you get sheeple, well done. I follow no one, I hold no mans judgment higher than my own.
Social movements are the only thing that is able to stand against global capitalist greed and extortion, and states built by social movements is the only thing able to withstand the tides of greed and short-sightedness that controls the world of today. So sod off.
@ barabg : "Social movements" ?? You mean SOCIALISM don't you kid?
You still don't get it. YOU are as much to blame as those you are cynical of. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.This axiom means that YOU and I are just as corruptible under certain circumstances. If leader "A" rules, they become corrupt. If leader "B" rules then THEY become corrupt, if YOU and I rule, WE become corrupt. Governing philosophies merely cycle in long phases.Capitalism being a "better phase".
@Stratslayer No, social movements are things like the workers movement, indigenous movements in South America, the civil rights movement in the US, democracy movement in Ukraine, etc. Not socialism, social movements. Old man.
Exactly, thats why we have democracy, to limit the influence of the wealthy and powerful. Do you understand now? Im not saying I should run it, Im saying we should all help to run it. Wretched old hag.
hey this is sicofgovernment by the way if you want this name too... My other one has to many strikes against it ;) lol
what do you think about people who, let's say got sick years ago with a cancer you "cure it." You don't see it for years, you move, change jobs, and of course change insurance companies. Then they get cancer again samething as before but worse.
I've been watching your videos and have had to stop because I have become very ill. Are you trying to say that only people who "volunteer" their time should take care of the needy, mentally ill and sick people? You are so mean, selfish and heartless. I'm going to have to make a video about you to tell my subscribers how not to be. Damn dude.
philip0460 1 year ago
@philip0460 oh, stop being dramatic. if anything I've said literally made you ill, you need to grow a backbone if you want to engage in serious philosophical discussion. I deal only in logical, sound solutions. you need to re-watch this video series if that's all you took away from it.
Frettsy 1 year ago 2
Everything is correct. Even enjoying capitalism. Enjoy while it lasts ;)
But there is a fundamental problem with capitalism. And everything, I mean every single problem, derives from that.
Capitalism is like a psycopathy. Only difference is that most actions that should are not criminalized.
Check the symptom list @ wikipedia
/wiki/Psychopathy#PCL-R_items
Familiar?:)
Healing the consequences is really not the right way.
But changing, what is fundamentaly wrong, is.
Otherwise - collapse...
v2ike6udik 1 year ago
I like this guy! Thanks for thinking of the well-being of everyone.
divingbells 1 year ago
not everyone can be rich.
if everyone was rich, we would still have this problem because who would pick your vegetables? who would work for you? who is going to rent from you?????
IT JUST DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY.
SO TRY AND REALIZE THAT ALL THIS "SOCIALIST" USA CRAP TALK IS FAR FROM REALITY.
sk8bow 1 year ago
i don't think anyone knows how to fix the hc system.
no one ever talks about the 4% of the population owning more than half the wealth!
that fact right there is disturbing, and all you "anti-socialists" defend the capitalistic system, and you get upset at the people who are struggling?
there's one thing you don't understand. the poor are becoming the majority. the poor buy products that feed YOUR economy which in turn make YOU money.
so where does the blame end? NO ONE IS TO BLAME.
sk8bow 1 year ago
The top 5% pay MOST of the Fed and state TAXES too. The bottom 46% pay NO fed taxes ( that don't come back to them on earned income checks...tax refunds) and ,in many cases, RECEIVE tax money without paying any. ( Earned income allowances ) Without the rich? No millions of JOBS. Some of those rich actually WORKED for the riches kid. They took major risks, had a plan and a great idea and HIRED people to help them acheive their goals. Socialism causes all (except the leaders) to SUFFER equally.
Stratslayer 1 year ago
@Stratslayer
"The top 5% pay MOST of the Fed and state TAXES too....."
you can't really use that as proof that this system works. i mean, we have this problem and now everyone wants to shoot a democrat.
all this hype about hc reform is a big joke to me because it was bound to happen. you can go ahead and defend all the banks that made those reverse mortgages to people who shouldn't ever qualified causing capitalism's collapse.
sk8bow 1 year ago
@barabg : Lastly kid....What ever made you believe that the Marxist plan is the ONLY lol "fair" ( vomit) plan? You and the other Obamanoid sheeple seem to think that ANY plan is a "good" plan while, in fact, you haven't READ the plan and have very little idea what is IN it or what the future consequences of the current plan will be on the ignorant masses. It's not MY job to TEACH you those consequences but it is YOUR responsibility to know EVERY SINGLE CON of this bill before blabbing about it.
Stratslayer 1 year ago
It's not just immigrants that would drain health care/welfare. That entire line of reasoning is weak. Many Americans are bums that leech off the system as well. And there are many immigrants who work hard to make a place for themselves. I agree w/ most of your points. It's ironic that some of the ppl most against healthcare are those it would help the most, aka middle class wage-earners.
polymathforever 2 years ago
@polymathforever: Quote "It's ironic that some of the ppl most against healthcare are those it would help the most, aka middle class wage-earners." So, I a ask? Why or how does this happen? What makes MILLIONS of people vote against their own best interest?
cecryerjr 1 year ago
Im sorry man, on the constitution question you made no sense whatsoever.
And the US having the worlds best healthcare system is a factual untruth, check the WHO and UN numbers.
barabg 2 years ago
I didn't say we had the best healthcare system according to the WHO and UN. both of those institutions have agendas which I don't agree with, plus I believe their numbers are based on average life expectancy, and the US has a number of factors affecting that, such as murders.
Frettsy 2 years ago
The agenda of wanting people to stay alive?
Like I said, look up the numbers and youll see that its not murders and car crashes, you have higher death rates on almost everything other than certain types of cancer.
Do some of the jetset of the world come to the US to get treatment? Yes they do, they also go to Switzerland, Sweden and the UK, depending on what they want. But does the average US citizens have the best healthcare? No, and as I said thats a verifiable fact.
barabg 2 years ago
the average US citizen may not have the best healthcare *coverage*, true. but this is where you're wrong in implying that that is an entitlement - it's not. nobody is *entitled* to ANYTHING, but as an American citizen I am promised my right to FREEDOM. everything else derives from that (that is, SHOULD derive from that). any "right" you declare that implies the involuntary enslavement (read: tax) of anyone, implies that none of us is free. ponder it.
Frettsy 2 years ago
Kay, first of all stop saying ponder, its not the 19th century. And Im not talking coverage, Im talking services.
I do think that as a human being you have a right to receive the healthcare that you need, as an extension of the right to life.
The US also has the highest infant mortality rate in the developed world, so its literally true that your freedom not to pay tax is infringing on others right to life. And freedom should be absolute as long as it doesnt limit someone elses, as known.
barabg 2 years ago
okay, Americans also live (and DIE) by the big mac. I don't know where you hail from, but in my neck of the woods, nobody watches what they eat (myself included x1000). point being, judging a medical system by the longevity of its patients is inaccurate. they can be judged much more accurately by their demand, in which case the US is UNDOUBTEDLY the best option in the world. I mean, if you're contesting that, you're out of touch.
insuring stupidity ensures stupidity. ponder it.
Frettsy 2 years ago
You have a point, the low life expectancy in the US is more a judgement on the society as a whole rather than healthcare.
Sry, I must not be understanding you properly, are you saying that increased demand for health services (a sicker population) means that it works better? Cause that doesnt make any kind of sense.
barabg 2 years ago
no no, sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant demand for US medical services across the globe proves that the quality of care is the highest. the *quantity* of care is probably also the highest. you don't see 6-month waiting lines for a broken arm in America.
everyone makes a big deal about the US being the only country without "universal" (socialized) healthcare. well if that's how you feel, move to one of those countries! because that's not how we do things here in the States.
Frettsy 2 years ago
Yes it proves the quality of a specific care service, but not the system that provides it, that has to be measured by the health of the general population.
Thats the most ridiculous argument Ive ever heard. The US also had institutionalised and legal ethnic segregation and discrimination when no other developed country did, didnt make it right. The States just havent gotten as far.
barabg 2 years ago
ok so the longevity of a people dumb enough to live, say, beside an active volcano, should determine the validity of their health care system? come on now...
and comparing segregation to anti-socialized healthcare... lol, come on now...
Frettsy 2 years ago
Your excuse is "Were all stupid"? The other reason the US has an inferior system is of course the massive costs, the most expensive care in the developed world but generally not the quality to match.
Its about social progression and progression as a society, Im definitely comparing it. And the example was primarily used to prove how ridiculous the argument "its just not done here" is, neither was womens suffrage, until it was.
barabg 2 years ago
and the reason for the ever-increasing costs? government intervention/regulations. if it were a truly free market the costs would constantly be driven down.
admit that what you advocate is un-Constitutional, or explain how it's not. only then can this debate proceed with any direction.
Frettsy 2 years ago
But thats the problem, since you dont have public campaign financing, the larger a company gets the more it can spend on buying politicians. And why does the us have thousands of dollars more per capita per year spent on healthcare but not better healthcare?
Article 1, section 8 "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes... to pay the Debts and provide for the common and general Welfare of the United States". General welfare, direct quote.
barabg 2 years ago
so your solution to the problem of corporations buying corrupt government is to increase the size of government? that makes sense to you? how about if we as a people instead reform the type of politicians we elect in the first place?
and "general welfare" in the sense it was written did not mean welfare in the sense you know it today. it meant purchases spent FOR EVERYONE in the country, like defense spending.
Frettsy 2 years ago
No my solution to that would be, as I said, public campaign financing and limiting the rights of corporations to influece political matters. E g not give them right to campaign for a candidate.
And Im saying that single-payer healthcare would be something that would benefit EVERYONE in the country, not just the poor, as it has been seen to do in all the other developed countries.
barabg 2 years ago
you clearly just want to see government control/influence in every aspect of life. which is cool if you're into that sort of thing, but I (and America) is not.
and if you view a 6-month waiting line to set a broken arm "something that would benefit EVERYONE in the country", then, lol.
Frettsy 2 years ago
Amendment 16
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived..."
Tax is constitutional.
barabg 2 years ago
I think you missed an important part of that one, namely "ON INCOMES". the Sixteenth Amendment legalizes the income tax, nothing else.
Frettsy 2 years ago
No, capital gains is an income, you could argue that estate tax and your property increasing in value is also an income that can be taxed. Not mentioning corporate taxes.
Either way there is nothing un-constitutional about taxing incomes and having single-payer healthcare, is there?
barabg 2 years ago
wow @ tax apologism. your property increasing in value is not an "income", it's a wise investment, of course people like you want to enviously tax it.
yes, socialized healthcare IS un-Constitutional, it is not for the "general welfare" of the country. and Article I Section 8 enumerates what IS under that category. go read it again, and then know that Jefferson said: "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."
Frettsy 2 years ago
and the particular bill is more un-Constitutional because it requires citizens to buy something (it is a tax on their life) and because it specifically benefits some states more than others.
Frettsy 2 years ago
Actually section 8 just numbers things that are required, section 9 is the one that sets the limits. And one of the synonyms of welfare is well-being, in my opinion its hard to be well when youre sick. Besides its a living document, thats why it can be amended.
Envious? Of what? Its not like I cant afford my healthcare, it would just be a better system if it was single payer, as proven countless times.
And the current bill is shit, I will gladly grant you that.
barabg 2 years ago
that's incorrect. S8 limits what taxes can be used for. S9 limits other areas. yes, this means that 90% of the tax-funded programs of today are un-Constitutional. and it is not a living document, it has a living appendix. there is a difference. and I don't think you're getting the point about welfare, it's the "general welfare of the United States", not the "specific well-being of certain individuals in the United States".
Frettsy 2 years ago
Good argument there, "no youre wrong".
If its the will of the people its democratic, and the constitution was enacted and can be therefore be changed with democratic ways.
If youve read any of the founders correspondence then you know that they talk extensively about it being for their time and how different times will need different guidance.
And if I am to choose between a constitutional society or one thats humane and treats people fairly Ill take the latter please.
barabg 2 years ago
a society that "treats people fairly" is a codeword for socialism. if that's what you want, go to one of the other "more civilized" countries that offers it. America isn't the place for you.
Frettsy 2 years ago
No, fairly means that everyone gets the same opportunity to make something of themselves and youre not damned by the colour of your skin or the social status of your parents.
Socialism is where the workers either through the state or directly own all the means of production. Notice the difference?
barabg 2 years ago
dude, everyone DOES get the same *opportunity*. (except deaths at birth, aborted babies, etc). if that weren't true, then a person born at the "bottom" of the social scale could never make it out. but they do. sure, life isn't "fair" in the sense that everyone doesn't start on the same page. they're not supposed to, this isn't a utopia. this is a place where if you work hard and smart, you can build up any amount of money and leave it for your children if you so choose.
Frettsy 2 years ago
And if your were born rich youre also going to die rich, regardless of whether or not youve earned it. And thats bullshit.
Theres no equal opportunity in the US, OECD statistics prove that (since social mobility is highest in Canada and the Scandinavian countries, which all have large public sectors and extensive income redistribution). Especially not for the rich. And if you think that hard work is all it takes in the US then youre delusional my friend, or criminally naive.
barabg 2 years ago
I appreciate that you are intelligent and argue your case well, unfortunately, you are just philosophically wrong. you think equality is playing Robin Hood, I think equality is giving everyone absolute freedom from slavery and force. clearly we're not going to agree.
Frettsy 2 years ago
Thank you, and the same.
Im just curious though, if you would indulge me. If social mobiliy, both upwards and downwards, therefore implying a more meritocratic society, basically where hard work and talent pays off, is causally connected to high taxes, a large welfare state, universal healthcare, income redistribution etc then why wouldnt you want that kind of society? Ones' ultimate freedom to make something of one self
barabg 2 years ago
because I believe the ultimate good in society is not equality, but freedom from force. income redistribution has nothing to do with merit. in a meritocracy (which is the goal of capitalism), the income will already be distributed according to the merits of the producers. you speak of entitlements from the State, this has nothing to do with merit, but laziness.
Frettsy 2 years ago
No Im not talking about the means, Im talking about the goal. Shouldnt the goal be that you receive according to your ability and effort, not your background or family? That hard work and talent should be rewarded regardless of your background?
The problem with that is that the income will be distributed according to the merits of the parents, not the people who inherit it, which evidently makes for an un-meritocratic playing field, wouldnt you say?
barabg 2 years ago
not in the way you presume, because the wealth accumulated by what you call "background" was received according to the ability and effort of a parent who CHOSE to leave that wealth for their child.
what you advocate is seriously ludicrous.
btw, I don't know how you can argue that you are not endorsing socialism, you are in fact more open than most about it, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution"
Frettsy 2 years ago
Sure, but in my opinion that makes the playing field uneven and therefore unjust and negative to freedom. Just like the fact that the current healthcare system allows more infants to die but lets you pay less taxes, I dont approve of that.
I actually never said I wasnt a socialist, I am a democratic socialist. I just said that a fair society wasnt necessarily socialism, and it isnt.
But then you think its right that youre restricted by the social status of your parents?
barabg 2 years ago
you advocate living one's life for and according to the State. how you can even equate that to the concept of freedom is beyond me.
you are not "restricted" by the social status of your parents. any example of social mobility discredits that notion. is the playing field uneven? of course. unless we were all robots living in a utopia, the playing field will always be uneven.
Frettsy 2 years ago
haha, you think that sounds like what I advocate? I would suggest you look into modern socialism, Scandinavian social democracy and libertarian socialism, then youve got more of an idea where Im coming from;) Its a state for the people, by the people, not the other way around.
So one exception means that there is no rule? It doesnt bother you that mediocre rich kids get rich while mediocre poor kids stay poor?
barabg 2 years ago
all non-totalitarian States are "for the people, by the people". yes, you advocate the relinquishing all of rights to the State, for them to decide and redistribute. therefore in such a society you have NO *rights*, you have *privileges*.
I was already familiar with the former and the latter models you suggested. interestingly, the "Scandinavian social democracy" is actually known as the "Scandinavian welfare model". the name says it all. you and I appear to be at opposite ends, friend.
Frettsy 2 years ago
I advocate relinquishing a portion of your income, the higher your income the larger the portion, so that we can solve problems we all have in a more efficient way, e g socialized healthcare.
Any reply to my question?
Hah, yeah I figured that a while back, I still enjoy discussing though. Shouldnt we then try to make the playing field more even?
barabg 2 years ago
I'm sorry, I don't even wish to carry on this debate as it's going nowhere. it's just unbelievable to me that a man can be so weak as to give up his own rights and sovereignty to the State in exchange for temporary security. infuriating, really, and I actually feel kind of sorry for anyone so feeble-minded as that. sorry if that's insulting, it's just the way I feel.
Frettsy 2 years ago
Haha, weak and feeble-minded, come say it to my face dude;)
Im giving away nothing, money is just money man, there are more important things in life, sense of community, of being taken care of if shit happens etc.
The fact that I dont mind paying taxes instead of paying some health insurance executive for doing it worse for more money makes me stupid, fair enough.
And Im glad that you decided to end the debate at your weakest point, it shows real resolve;)
barabg 2 years ago
believe me, I wouldn't have a problem saying it to your face, but YOU'RE ON THE INTERNET so that's not going to be easy.
you say you're giving away nothing, if you truly believe that then there's something wrong with you, you're giving away everything.
there was no weakest point to my argument, but feel free to make that arbitrary assertion. if a brick wall accused me of the same, I would gladly laugh and cut my intellectual losses. I just don't care to waste my time anymore, is all.
Frettsy 2 years ago
@Frettsy That was sort of my point, that youre name-calling on the internet, its a bit like invoking Hitler...
barabg 1 year ago
@barabg : ...and I'm SURE that the leaders of the SOCIALIST states that you mention are NOT wealthier than the average individual included in the ignorant unwashed masses. There is SO much that you DON"T know kid. sigh.
Stratslayer 1 year ago
@Stratslayer Aww thats sweet, youre trying to talk down to me. Well look here pops, the leaders of our countries make more money than me because partly because I want the best suited to do it and partly so they wont get bribed. And to be honest, if they help build a better world they deserve more money, even if I think theyre making too much right now (which I am of course working to change).
barabg 1 year ago
@ barabg : Correct kid. I AM talking down to you and will continue to as long as you like. I know what a social movement is moron. My point is that you are a Socialist, and hence, have a flawed sense of logic and human nature. Now go play kid, AFTER you finish the Dr. Suess book and pop those nasty nightly pimples. Age 21 will come soon and the pimple problem will die down. Try laying off the candy bars and bubble gum.
Stratslayer 1 year ago
@barabg : So you are one of the ignorant sheeple "masses" that really believes that Mommy govt. is looking out for YOU. lol!! Kid, that's laughable. If government does"it"....it's NOT going to be done well, efficiently, honestly, "FREE", or with liberty in mind. Entitlements do nothing but make you a "slave" to the "state" and the "state" is ALWAYS a group of wealthy elitists who don't suffer the same slings, arrows,and lifestyles of those they seek to enslave/control. You're very naive kid.
Stratslayer 1 year ago
@Stratslayer Oohh, you found out that if you mix the word sheep with the words people you get sheeple, well done. I follow no one, I hold no mans judgment higher than my own.
Social movements are the only thing that is able to stand against global capitalist greed and extortion, and states built by social movements is the only thing able to withstand the tides of greed and short-sightedness that controls the world of today. So sod off.
barabg 1 year ago
@ barabg : "Social movements" ?? You mean SOCIALISM don't you kid?
You still don't get it. YOU are as much to blame as those you are cynical of. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.This axiom means that YOU and I are just as corruptible under certain circumstances. If leader "A" rules, they become corrupt. If leader "B" rules then THEY become corrupt, if YOU and I rule, WE become corrupt. Governing philosophies merely cycle in long phases.Capitalism being a "better phase".
Stratslayer 1 year ago
@Stratslayer No, social movements are things like the workers movement, indigenous movements in South America, the civil rights movement in the US, democracy movement in Ukraine, etc. Not socialism, social movements. Old man.
Exactly, thats why we have democracy, to limit the influence of the wealthy and powerful. Do you understand now? Im not saying I should run it, Im saying we should all help to run it. Wretched old hag.
barabg 1 year ago
And yes, I know that the US isnt that place, but I believe it could be, and truly fulfill the dreams of the founders.
barabg 2 years ago
if they change insurance companies, then they still have insurance.. so I'm not sure why that is a problem?
Frettsy 2 years ago
I understand not letting someone not be insured that choose to wait to be sick. But I know of some stories where people really got screwed.
TelevisionPirate 2 years ago
hey this is sicofgovernment by the way if you want this name too... My other one has to many strikes against it ;) lol
what do you think about people who, let's say got sick years ago with a cancer you "cure it." You don't see it for years, you move, change jobs, and of course change insurance companies. Then they get cancer again samething as before but worse.
Aren't those people getting screwed?
TelevisionPirate 2 years ago