Former Lord of Winterfell Posted February 9, 2012 Author Share Posted February 9, 2012 Let's just be clear that the Affordable Care Act lacks a public option, and therefore government is not "running" health care. It's not even "running" insurance companies. It's regulating, which is something government has done to insurance companies for a long, long time.It is also mandating that insurance written according to detailed requirements, and offering specific benefits, be provided by employers, or they pay a penalty. However you want to characterize that, it still deprives them of flexibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Sprunk Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 Just to clarify, you're saying that we're too wealthy of a country to let some people go without health care?Simply put, yes. The U.S. is the wealthiest, most powerful nation in the world. We are so rich that we subsidize industries that already make billions of dollars of profit, and we wage wars just because it's good for politics. To say that we can't afford to give every citizen a basic level of stable healthcare is a crock. Now, if employers want to offer a "Cadillac" plan over and above the basic level that gives MRIs-on-a-whim and access to the latest experimental medicines, then fine and dandy. That's my view, and I'm sure it has is full of holes, but it's the best I've heard from any internet board or politician. Of course, we might have to cut back on invading other nations just because they said bad things about our daddy, but I think I can live with that. Maybe just one full-scale invasion per generation?Jon, it sounds to me like you do believe in more (not absolute) equality of outcome, but justify it on a pragmatic basis. Is that fair?Wikipedia defines equality of outcome as:Equality of outcome, equality of condition, or equality of results is a controversial[1] political concept. Although it is not always clearly defined, it is usually taken to describe a state in which people have approximately the same material wealth or, more generally, in which the general conditions of their lives are similar. Achieving this requires reducing or eliminating material inequalities between individuals or households in a society. This could involve a transfer of income and/or wealth from wealthier to poorer individuals, or adopting other institutions designed to promote equality of condition from the start. The concept is central to some political ideologies and is used regularly in political discourse, often in contrast to the term equality of opportunity. A related way of defining equality of outcome is to think of it as "equality in the central and valuable things in life."After reading that, I would say, no. That's not my personal philosophy. There's nothing wrong with making money, but I don't mind if the government takes a bit more from me so that someone making half as much can pay a little a less. That doesn't mean I want half of all my wealth stripped away and given to someone else. You might be shocked, but liberals believe in hard work. And they also believe that being rich doesn't make you more important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Lord of Winterfell Posted February 9, 2012 Author Share Posted February 9, 2012 Lots of conservatives have been pushing the 53% thing, and it's done to deliberately mislead.Well, then how about if we say that 53% of the people pay absolutely nothing for national defense, Medicaid, or everything else the government does other than Medicare and Social Security? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormund Ukrainesbane Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 This is technically trueThe best kind of true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Sprunk Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 We are getting closer to where you can make more money from not working, as you can from working hard. Actually, Slayer, you are right. Very wealthy individuals, like Mitt Romney, earn more money in a day than most Amercians do in a year, and he doesn't have to lift a finger to do it.Welcome to the 99%, son. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slayer420 Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 No you aren't. WTF fantasy world are you living.left that one very vague for a reason, you can not say it is not true. All I said was closer. people are getting more free stuff, more food stamps. ect. At the same time the avg for what a hard working person is making is going down. so you can not say that isn't true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Sprunk Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 I do not think the founding fathers cared about that.I'm not quite the historian Newt Gingrich is, but I would heartily agree. I blame my sloppy post on the glee I feel whenever I attempt to throw FLoW off his carefully-constructed arguments to nowhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerraPrime Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 .left that one very vague for a reason, you can not say it is not true. All I said was closer. people are getting more free stuff, more food stamps. ect. At the same time the avg for what a hard working person is making is going down. so you can not say that isn't true.Then, don't be lazy, and show us some numbers. First, define what is welfare (hint: unemployment is not welfare). Then show us what is the median dollar value of assistance that welfare recipients get. Then, compare that to a hypothetical income for someone working at minimum wage job for 55 hrs/wk. If you want to make a case, then make it.Being vague is not a valid style of argumentation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Lord of Winterfell Posted February 9, 2012 Author Share Posted February 9, 2012 I'm not quite the historian Newt Gingrich is, but I would heartily agree. I blame my sloppy post on the glee I feel whenever I attempt to throw FLoW (unsuccessfully )off his carefully-constructed brilliant arguments.Fixed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slayer420 Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 Actually, Slayer, you are right. Very wealthy individuals, like Mitt Romney, earn more money in a day than most Amercians do in a year, and he doesn't have to lift a finger to do it.Welcome to the 99%, son.I do hope they start taking money from the rich just to teach people like you a lesson, where does it stop though? You keep taking from the top and giving to the bottom before long you will be in the 1% and they will be taking your stuff and all of us will be poor. Then we will all make the same matter what we do. Not a world I would want to live in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slayer420 Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 Then, don't be lazy, and show us some numbers.First, define what is welfare (hint: unemployment is not welfare). Then show us what is the median dollar value of assistance that welfare recipients get. Then, compare that to a hypothetical income for someone working at minimum wage job for 55 hrs/wk. If you want to make a case, then make it.Being vague is not a valid style of argumentationhttp://blog.heritage...-all-time-high/ here you go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 .left that one very vague for a reason, you can not say it is not true. All I said was closer. people are getting more free stuff, more food stamps. ect. At the same time the avg for what a hard working person is making is going down. so you can not say that isn't true.Do you have any sources to back that up?As far as I can tell, that money that's not going to "a hard working person" any more is accumulating at the top, not the bottom. But then again the right wing has feasted for decades on steering the rage of the populace at "lazy" poor people to distract from the accelerating gap between rich and everyone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slayer420 Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 Do you have any sources to back that up?As far as I can tell, that money that's not going to "a hard working person" any more is accumulating at the top, not the bottom. But then again the right wing has feasted for decades on steering the rage of the populace at "lazy" poor people to distract from the accelerating gap between rich and everyone else.do you have souces to back this up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 do you have souces to back this up.http://motherjones.c...ica-chart-graphOr here, if you think Mother Jones is a liberal rag (I can't help but notice your "support" is from the fucking Heritage Foundation), try the Economist:http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/10/income-inequality-americaI'm not sure you're actually capable of absorbing that information, but go ahead and try. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Sprunk Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 I do hope they start taking money from the rich just to teach people like you a lesson, where does it stop though? You keep taking from the top and giving to the bottom before long you will be in the 1% and they will be taking your stuff and all of us will be poor. Then we will all make the same matter what we do. Not a world I would want to live in.But no one (well, very few -- there are crackpots in every group) is suggesting the seizure of wealth from any percent and "giving" it to the bottom. Income tax is not a tax on your wealth; it's a tax on what you made that year. How much of it you should pay for the wonderful things you enjoy (roads, bridges, police, hospitals, schools, parks, clean air, clean water, ad infinitum...) is a debate worth having and repeating (which is why I value a strong, intelligent conservative movement in this country -- something we are sadly lacking right now). But if you just toss out hyperboles left and right, you're not arguing. You're just bleating.Hint: Even a hyperbolic 99% income tax on people making a billion dollars or more a year isn't ever going to make them poor because they will still be making $1 million per annum.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slayer420 Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 But no one (well, very few -- there are crackpots in every group) is suggesting the seizure of wealth from any percent and "giving" it to the bottom. Income tax is not a tax on your wealth; it's a tax on what you made that year. How much of it you should pay for the wonderful things you enjoy (roads, bridges, police, hospitals, schools, parks, clean air, clean water, ad infinitum...) is a debate worth having and repeating (which is why I value a strong, intelligent conservative movement in this country -- something we are sadly lacking right now). But if you just toss out hyperboles left and right, you're not arguing. You're just bleating.Hint: Even a hyperbolic 99% income tax on people making a billion dollars or more a year isn't ever going to make them poor because they will still be making $1 million per annum....Well if you did that last thing the rich would be gone, they would not stay here so..... Just saying when you start going down the road its hard to come back. Its like anything the more you take the more you want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alguien Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 left that one very vague for a reason... The reason being, nebulous unproveable statements are difficult to argue against? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slayer420 Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 The reason being, nebulous unproveable statements are difficult to argue against?Yea, and he took the bait, hook line and sinker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Sprunk Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 Yes, and so we grapple on that slippery slope. How to collect enough revenues to pay for the services we require as a nation? What gets priority? How often can we afford to let some cowboy live out his John Wayne/Top Gun fantasies overseas?Now, FLoW makes an argument that, despite decades of spending like there's no tomorrow, the republican party is finally ready to actually pretend to be fiscally responsible if they are given just one more chance. Well, I'm sure they will eventually get their wish, and we'll see. But so far the person talking most about fiscal prudence is President Obama, which is why the repubs in congress are having to leap so far to the right to keep out of reach of Obama's outstretched hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alguien Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 Yea, and he took the bait, hook line and sinker.I don't think your rhetorical maneuver is as successful as you think it is... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.