# Morally Bizarre



## dblack (Nov 13, 2014)

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/10/republican-admits-why-republicans-hate-obamacare.html



> Conservatives have made a series of specific predictions about the effects of Obamacare — overall costs would rise, insurers would flee the exchanges, premiums would go up, the ranks of the uninsured would not even fall. All these predictions have failed. And yet conservative opposition to the law has not diminished. If you want to know why this is, listen to these secretly recorded comments from Iowa Republican Senate candidate Joni Ernst, via Radio Iowa and Greg Sargent. Here Ernst, speaking candidly to supporters, gets to the root of conservative opposition:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Read this a few days ago, and found it really striking, because the author's reaction is exactly the same as my reaction to the idea that a service someone else provides can be claimed as a right. THAT seems morally bizarre to me.


----------



## georgephillip (Nov 13, 2014)

dblack said:


> Read this a few days ago, and found it really striking, because the author's reaction is exactly the same as my reaction to the idea that a service someone else provides can be claimed as a right. THAT seems morally bizarre to me.


"Indeed, very few Republicans have the confidence to make the case openly that the inability of some people to afford the cost of their own medical care is their own problem. 

"But that is the belief that sets them apart from major conservative parties across the world, and it is the belief that explains *why they have opposed national health insurance *every time Democrats have held power, and why they have neglected to create national health insurance every time they have."
*Now that seems morally bizarre, to me.

Republican Admits Why Republicans Hate Obamacare -- NYMag*


----------



## dblack (Nov 13, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Read this a few days ago, and found it really striking, because the author's reaction is exactly the same as my reaction to the idea that a service someone else provides can be claimed as a right. THAT seems morally bizarre to me.
> ...



Why?

Do you at least recognize the contradiction of claiming the service of others as a right?


----------



## American Horse (Nov 13, 2014)

People with earnings too low to afford decent health insurance qualified for Medicaid. Virtually all elderly over 65 qualified and still qualify for Medicare.

Before Obamacare, and as recently as 2004, a 63 year old male could purchase a good health plan with drug coverage and a $1,000 deductible for just $200 a month.  

Now with Obamacare we see deductibles as high as $12,000 and premiums as high as $20k per year for a "gold" or first line policy.

All these outrageous price increases resulted from government intervention and mandates in and to the health insurance markets with what we are supposed to believe was the best of intentions.  

I was able to afford health insurance on the individual  (not group and not as an employee) market since 1965 in good times and bad without a lapse and some years I had negative income and never a really windfall year but I always put my insurance premiums first.

Problem is people have lied about health insurance being unaffordable or companies  being able to just cancel someone when a claim was made, and gullible people not really wanting to accept responsibility have been deceived into those beliefs and convinced to not really try to explore or shop the healthcare insurance markets.


----------



## Mr. H. (Nov 13, 2014)

_All these predictions have failed._

This is a lie. All these "predictions" have come to fruition. 

And we have not even reached the Employer Mandate. 

This ACA is neither affordable nor is it an "act". 

It is a lop-sided legislative edict imposed upon the American public, based upon blatant lies. 

"If you like your shit, you can keep your shit". PERIOD

Fuck you Liberal dipshit lying sacks of shit. 

Affordable Care Act architect on camera bashing American voters - CBS News


----------



## georgephillip (Nov 14, 2014)

dblack said:


> Do you at least recognize the contradiction of claiming the service of others as a right?


What do you mean by "the service of others?"
I recognize health care and education are rights independent of an individual's ability to pay.


----------



## Roadrunner (Nov 14, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Do you at least recognize the contradiction of claiming the service of others as a right?
> ...


You recognize the right of the irresponsible, non-productive, dependent class to vote themselves into other people's wallets.

Why not be honest and say it?


----------



## dblack (Nov 14, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Do you at least recognize the contradiction of claiming the service of others as a right?
> ...



In this case, healthcare. Unless the supposed "right to healthcare" simply means the right to take care of one's own health (which I'd obviously support), it requires the service of others.



> I recognize health care and education are rights independent of an individual's ability to pay.



Health care and education are services, not freedoms.


----------



## georgephillip (Nov 14, 2014)

dblack said:


> Health care and education are services, not freedoms.







For profit healthcare has little in common with freedom.
If the First Amendment guarantees the right of assembly, doesn't that require the service of others?


----------



## georgephillip (Nov 14, 2014)

Roadrunner said:


> You recognize the right of the irresponsible, non-productive, dependent class to vote themselves into other people's wallets.
> 
> Why not be honest and say it?


*I recognized brain-washed capitalists find the concept of service to others threatening to the Divine Rights of the Rich:
*
"Economist Branko Horvat stated: '... it is now well known that capitalist development leads to the concentration of capital, employment and power. It is somewhat less known that it leads to the almost complete destruction of economic freedom."

Criticism of capitalism - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## dblack (Nov 14, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Health care and education are services, not freedoms.
> ...



Huh?


----------



## georgephillip (Nov 15, 2014)

dblack said:


> Huh?


How are individual rights like the freedom to assemble implemented without requiring the service of others?


----------



## dblack (Nov 15, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Huh?
> ...


By not violating them. I guess I'm not sure what you mean.


----------



## georgephillip (Nov 15, 2014)

dblack said:


> By not violating them. I guess I'm not sure what you mean.


I'm not doing a very good job of communicating or maybe we are talking past each other again. I'm trying to say our individual freedoms don't exist in any practical sense without the service of others.


----------



## dblack (Nov 15, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > By not violating them. I guess I'm not sure what you mean.
> ...



And I'd say that's not the case at all. All that is required to preserve freedom is a mutual agreement to avoid violating it. The freedom to act doesn't require that anyone else facilitate your action, merely that they refrain from interfering. I don't know how you can compare such a concession to a deliberate, proactive service like healthcare.


----------



## georgephillip (Nov 16, 2014)

dblack said:


> And I'd say that's not the case at all. All that is required to preserve freedom is a mutual agreement to avoid violating it


Is there not also a mutual agreement to collectively defend freedom for it to have any practical individual value?


----------



## dblack (Nov 16, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > And I'd say that's not the case at all. All that is required to preserve freedom is a mutual agreement to avoid violating it
> ...


You're missing the point. All anyone must do to accommodate the freedoms of others is to avoid violating them. But when we try to make services like healthcare "rights", it implies someone (who?) must perform said service.


----------



## midcan5 (Nov 16, 2014)

OMG the usual whining, half truths, and total BS from the 'can't do American right wing.' You guys are such cry babies I wonder how you even have time to post your nonsense? Don't tears get in your sorry eyes? The right is the right to buy health insurance and that is what the ACA does, it provides affordable options, something you wingnut corporate tools wouldn't understand. Cry on losers cry on.

Burwell 100 000 people submitted applications for ACA coverage - The Washington Post


----------



## georgephillip (Nov 16, 2014)

dblack said:


> You're missing the point. All anyone must do to accommodate the freedoms of others is to avoid violating them


Everyone depends on the service of others to protect their rights or did you miss that point too.


----------



## dblack (Nov 16, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > You're missing the point. All anyone must do to accommodate the freedoms of others is to avoid violating them
> ...



That's a diversion. I'm discussing what demands a "right" makes on others. Exercising a freedom requires only that other people leave you alone. When you claim a service like healthcare as a "right", it requires that other people take care of your health, doesn't it? Isn't that what you mean by a right to healthcare?


----------



## dblack (Nov 16, 2014)

midcan5 said:


> OMG the usual whining, half truths, and total BS from the 'can't do American right wing.' You guys are such cry babies I wonder how you even have time to post your nonsense? Don't tears get in your sorry eyes? The right is the right to buy health insurance and that is what the ACA does, it provides affordable options, something you wingnut corporate tools wouldn't understand. Cry on losers cry on.
> 
> Burwell 100 000 people submitted applications for ACA coverage - The Washington Post



Good answer! Good answer!


----------



## georgephillip (Nov 16, 2014)

dblack said:


> Exercising a freedom requires only that other people leave you alone


Really?
Exercising your right to free speech requires "only that other people leave you alone?"
Who's going to listen?


----------



## dblack (Nov 16, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Exercising a freedom requires only that other people leave you alone
> ...



Whoever wants to. 

Are you seriously suggesting government must force people to listen to you in order to protect your freedom of speech?


----------



## idb (Nov 16, 2014)

Quite apart from the economic benefits (treating a sick person is more expensive that providing primary healthcare), any civilised first-world nation should take pride in being able to provide certain essential services as 'rights' to its citizens - healthcare is one.


----------



## dblack (Nov 16, 2014)

idb said:


> Quite apart from the economic benefits (treating a sick person is more expensive that providing primary healthcare), any civilised first-world nation should take pride in being able to provide certain essential services as 'rights' to its citizens - healthcare is one.



I can only assume that this point of view is informed by an entirely different conception of "rights" than what I'm referring to. Is a right equivalent to a "service provided by government" in your view?


----------



## idb (Nov 16, 2014)

dblack said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Quite apart from the economic benefits (treating a sick person is more expensive that providing primary healthcare), any civilised first-world nation should take pride in being able to provide certain essential services as 'rights' to its citizens - healthcare is one.
> ...


Surely a right is only something that can be granted to you by the society you live in.


----------



## dblack (Nov 16, 2014)

idb said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



Ok, so you are thinking of something fundamentally different.


----------



## idb (Nov 16, 2014)

dblack said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


Perhaps.
In some countries healthcare, education and housing are rights.
The mechanism for delivering these rights is the government as the representative of the citizenry.
However, these rights are only granted by the collective.

Something as basic as the right to free speech in the US could, presumably, be removed if the collective will was great enough.


----------



## dblack (Nov 16, 2014)

idb said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



I'm conceiving of rights as liberties that are protected by government. That's why we need a government, and why we grant it the exclusive power to use violence to achieve its ends. We create government to protect our freedom. We don't need government to acquire the goods and services we want and need; we don't need to resort to violence to take care of ourselves.


----------



## idb (Nov 16, 2014)

dblack said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


But those rights are defined by the society served by the government.
If a society decided that healthcare was a right then there would be no 'acquisition' involved - it would be there for everyone to use as required.


----------



## dblack (Nov 17, 2014)

idb said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



What do you mean by "it would be there"? Society can't alter the nature of reality. Society can't just decree that everyone should have healthcare and expect it to be so. We have to make that happen somehow.

Healthcare isn't an innate freedom, it's a service that someone else must provide. I suppose that's what you're failing to grasp about "rights". Government doesn't (and in fact, can't) *create* rights. They are innate by-products of volition, not gifts from on high.


----------



## georgephillip (Nov 17, 2014)

dblack said:


> Are you seriously suggesting government must force people to listen to you in order to protect your freedom of speech?


I'm seriously suggesting others are required to enforce your right to freedom of speech in much the same way as others are required to facilitate your right to health care.


----------



## dblack (Nov 17, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Are you seriously suggesting government must force people to listen to you in order to protect your freedom of speech?
> ...



That doesn't hold up. Your freedom of speech requires no one else to do anything for you. As long as no one acts to silence you, your freedom is intact. Services, like healthcare, are the inverse of that. They demand the services of others. If you need healthcare, and no one provides it to you, has your right to healthcare been violated? Who violated it? Everyone? It's just not a coherent conception of a political 'right' in my view.

Healthcare might be a service that you think government should provide and, if it is established as such, all taxpayers should have equal access to it. But to call it a "right" is to misname it. I think this misnaming is a deliberate attempt (though not necessarily _your_ intent) to persuade voters to accept it as a function of government without the hard word of writing and passing a Constitutional amendment.


----------



## idb (Nov 17, 2014)

dblack said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


I understand your point, I just don't agree.
Your suggestion is that a right is something that requires nothing but passive acquiescence from others.
That's not necessarily the case.
For example, the right to freedom of assembly can impact on others' activities so they have to alter their behaviour to accommodate the freedom of others.
Of course the right to free speech can impact on others in all sorts of ways.

The society you live in grants you your rights.
No right is handed down by nature.
If a country decides that one free Mars Bars a day is a universal right then it is.
If that same country decides that the people have no right to privacy then...oops!
What you might consider to be the most basic of rights are only granted to you by the society you live in.


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 17, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Do you at least recognize the contradiction of claiming the service of others as a right?
> ...



You can recognize it all you like..you don't have a RIGHT to the fruits of others' labor/education/resources. 

People pay to educate themselves, they pay for their licenses, they pay for their supplies, they pay for their assistants and garbage service and rent.

You don't have a RIGHT to the services they provide. Those things don't belong to you. They belong to THEM. And they have the RIGHT to share them with you, for a fee, to repay them for their hard work, the years of effort, the hundreds of thousands of dollars they have spent, in order to acquire the knowledge and the resources to provide a service.


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 17, 2014)

The elitist attitude that "you are obligated to give things that I want to me for nothing" never fails to floor me.


----------



## Ravi (Nov 17, 2014)

It's as immoral as expecting other people to fight and die for your freedom.


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 17, 2014)

It would be immoral if we didn't have an entirely volunteer army.

As it is, no it's not immoral at all. And my children and my uncles and my father all volunteered to fight for my freedom. So freedom is absolutely my right.

And in fact it is the right of everybody.


----------



## Ravi (Nov 17, 2014)

koshergrl said:


> It would be immoral if we didn't have an entirely volunteer army.
> 
> As it is, no it's not immoral at all. And my children and my uncles and my father all volunteered to fight for my freedom. So freedom is absolutely my right.
> 
> And in fact it is the right of everybody.


Cool, then it isn't immoral to cover basic health care insurance for the poor.


----------



## idb (Nov 17, 2014)

koshergrl said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


Where in this discussion has it been said that you shouldn't get rewarded for the services you provide?
Your black or white arguments are so clownish I bet that you could fit 50 of them in a Volkswagen.


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 17, 2014)

Ravi said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > It would be immoral if we didn't have an entirely volunteer army.
> ...



Oh it's random association day. I get it.

Flipping moron.


----------



## Ravi (Nov 17, 2014)

koshergrl said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...


There's no need to sign your posts.


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 17, 2014)

idb said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



Er...."I recognize health care and education are rights independent of an individual's ability to pay."

You're welcome. I see you suffer short term memory loss. That can be a difficult cross to bear in this venue.


----------



## dblack (Nov 17, 2014)

idb said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



No, you really don't understand what I'm saying. But I won't belabor the point anymore.


----------



## idb (Nov 17, 2014)

koshergrl said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...


Eer...
A/ That's not my statement.
2/ Where does it say that the people that provide it don't get any reward?

I see that you suffer from comprehension issues...keep trying though...you're as special as everyone else.


----------



## georgephillip (Nov 17, 2014)

koshergrl said:


> You can recognize it all you like..you don't have a RIGHT to the fruits of others' labor/education/resources.
> 
> People pay to educate themselves, they pay for their licenses, they pay for their supplies, they pay for their assistants and garbage service and rent


I'm not saying I have a right that requires others to provide me with a service for free; what I am trying to suggest is my right to health care and education is no different from my right to courts, police, and other public service institutions which we have all collectively agreed to pay for in order to enhance our individual benefit.


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 17, 2014)

And you're wrong.


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 17, 2014)

Judges do not provide individual services to people for particular ailments. 
They act to preserve the order of our land and our government. 

Physicians do not. We do not have to have physicians in order to preserve the order of our nation. We do not have to be healthy in order to ensure that our freedom and liberty is preserved.

Our bodies belong to us..they are the only thing that we are guaranteed, and it is our own responsibility to tend them. My health has nothing to do with anybody else. I don't expect or want anyone else dictating, paying for, or involving themselves in my medical issues. The whole idea that anybody in this country has ever been denied medical care because they're unable to pay was a complete LIE.....until we jumped into the nightmare that is Obamacare. Now people are being denied medical care on a regular basis.


----------



## idb (Nov 17, 2014)

koshergrl said:


> Judges do not provide individual services to people for particular ailments.
> They act to preserve the order of our land and our government.
> 
> Physicians do not. We do not have to have physicians in order to preserve the order of our nation. We do not have to be healthy in order to ensure that our freedom and liberty is preserved.
> ...


Relax - rights aren't forced on you.
You also have the right *not* to exercise your right to free speech.
Likewise, if you have access to free medical care it's still your choice whether you take it up or not.

Really...no one was ever refused medical care before the ACA?


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 17, 2014)

I didn't say rights were forced on me.

I said you don't have a right to free health care.

And you don't.


----------



## idb (Nov 17, 2014)

koshergrl said:


> I didn't say rights were forced on me.
> 
> I said you don't have a right to free health care.
> 
> And you don't.


You do if the people of the country decide that you do.


----------



## dblack (Nov 17, 2014)

idb said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > I didn't say rights were forced on me.
> ...



No edict of "the people" can change the nature of reality. What you're talking has nothing to with rights. Instead, it's a new power of government. And powers of government are a Constitutional issue, not subject to the whim of simple majority rule. Our government was deliberately framed that way to prevent an ignorant populace from voting themselves "bread and circuses".

The purpose of government isn't to supply us with goodies. It's to protect our rights, which is why you nimrods are trying so hard pretend that the goodies are rights. But they're not. They're services that must be provided by others. And claiming you have a right to force others to provide services for you is, indeed, morally bizarre.


----------



## idb (Nov 17, 2014)

dblack said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...


No, reality is that 'rights' are granted to you.
Racial equality is a right that has been granted by the people (via the government)...it wasn't always so.


----------



## dblack (Nov 17, 2014)

idb said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



Yes, and outside the legitimate reinforcement of equal protection, it's equally incoherent and contradictory. 

Listen, you're decidedly impervious to explanations of the difference between a right and a service, so I won't bother with that - but let me ask you, how far would you take this "rights by majority decree" notion? If we could pass a law declaring that "good sex" was a right that government must ensure, would that make sense to you as well? How would you propose they implement it? A 'draft' perhaps?


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 17, 2014)

idb said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > I didn't say rights were forced on me.
> ...



Er..no, you just said rights weren't being forced on me. Make up your mind, scum.

Meanwhile, in the real world..I said YOU don't have a right to free  health care.

And you don't.


----------



## idb (Nov 17, 2014)

dblack said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


You're right...we're clearly not going to agree.
I can see no reason why a service can't be granted as a right - how about the right to an attorney...surely that's a service provided as a right?

I can't propose how a good sex right would be granted because I have no intention of proposing such a thing.
Carrying on an argument to an absurdity is a lost argument.


----------



## idb (Nov 17, 2014)

koshergrl said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...


Scum?!


----------



## georgephillip (Nov 17, 2014)

koshergrl said:


> Judges do not provide individual services to people for particular ailments.
> They act to preserve the order of our land and our government.
> 
> Physicians do not. We do not have to have physicians in order to preserve the order of our nation. We do not have to be healthy in order to ensure that our freedom and liberty is preserved.


Judges, police officers, firemen, teachers, and doctors all provide services that protect the health of Americans individually and collectively. If you believe "We the People" are the sovereign authority in this country, isn't the health of the people necessary for the health of the state?


----------



## idb (Nov 17, 2014)

koshergrl said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...


You really are as dumb as a bag of spanners.
Being granted a right doesn't make it mandatory...sheesh!
I have a right to have children...it doesn't mean I have to!


----------



## dblack (Nov 17, 2014)

idb said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



No, it's not. The right in question is the right to due process. You have no "right" to the services of an attorney, but if the state wants to prosecute you, and potentially take away you real rights, they must ensure you have adequate legal advice.



> I can't propose how a good sex right would be granted because I have no intention of proposing such a thing.
> Carrying on an argument to an absurdity is a lost argument.



Extending the basic principles of a position to see if they many any sense when applied generally is a good test of the basic concepts involved. I'm not surprised you don't want to go there.


----------



## dblack (Nov 17, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Judges do not provide individual services to people for particular ailments.
> ...



The criteria for how we grant government power should never be the "health of the state". That's a recipe for fascism.

No one has a "right" to the services of a fireman, a teacher, or a doctor. They serve voluntarily. Judges, police officers and other agents of the justice system are hired by the people, via government, to protect our rights. And it's in observing what they must do to protect our rights that the inanity of your conception of "services as rights" becomes clear:

What must a policeman do to protect your freedom of speech (or any other freedoms)? Well, if no one is interfering with your freedom, the police don't have to do anything. If a bad actor comes along and tries to silence you, or otherwise violate your rights, we enlist the police to make them stop, with violent force if necessary.  Now, what must the police to do "protect" your right to healthcare? If you can't get the healthcare you need, who is violating your rights? Is it the last doctor who refuse you service? Everyone in your community?


----------



## idb (Nov 17, 2014)

dblack said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


How do they ensure that you have adequate legal advice if you have no means to pay for it yourself?

Sorry, extending another's position to absurdity and then claiming that it invalidates their argument is a logical fallacy.


----------



## georgephillip (Nov 17, 2014)

dblack said:


> The criteria for how we grant government power should never be the "health of the state". That's a recipe for fascism.


Depending on whatever distinction you draw between "government" and "state", wouldn't the health of "We the People" be a recipe for democracy?


----------



## dblack (Nov 17, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > The criteria for how we grant government power should never be the "health of the state". That's a recipe for fascism.
> ...



I don't think democracy should be a goal of government. It's a reasonable way to choose our leaders, but government shouldn't be a tool for the majority to force its will on minorities.

I know most modern liberals don't recognize this, but what distinguishes government from all other public institutions is its authority to use force to achieve its goals. And I don't think we should resort to force to solve our problems unless it's truly justified. Essentially, I want government constrained by the same moral code that we expect each other to follow. Depending on the situation, I would feel justified in using violence to protect my family and community from bullies and foreign invaders, and I expect my government to do likewise on my behalf. Likewise, I would not feel justified in using violence to acquire food and shelter, or healthcare, and I wouldn't, in all but the most extreme circumstances, resort to violence to get them. I expect the same restraint in my government.


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 20, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Read this a few days ago, and found it really striking, because the author's reaction is exactly the same as my reaction to the idea that a service someone else provides can be claimed as a right. THAT seems morally bizarre to me.
> ...


 
How is it that when one Republican speaks it applies to all yet those saying it does bitch and whine that what one Democrat says shouldn't be applied to all Democrats.


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 20, 2014)

Roadrunner said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


 
While they won't say it, they believe that the group that votes themselves a living should be able to tell those that work for one they have to fund it.


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 20, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Health care and education are services, not freedoms.
> ...


 
Nothing in the Constitution says one person deserves the fruits of another person's labor. 

The government didn't have to do a damn thing in order for those you say needed healthcare to have it.  You and the rest of the bleeding hearts could have gotten together, pooled your money, and paid their premiums without any government involvement.  If you didn't or couldn't doesn't mean, by default, that the government should fund subsidies by the taxpayers to do it.


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 20, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> I recognize health care and education are rights independent of an individual's ability to pay


 
Are you saying that one person has a right and is owed another person's money is they can't afford those?  Do you apply education to college education?


----------



## georgephillip (Nov 20, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> Are you saying that one person has a right and is owed another person's money is they can't afford those? Do you apply education to college education?


I'm saying all people have rights to education and healthcare just as they have rights to freedom of assembly and expression. When a few hundred billionaires amass greater wealth than 26 million families, that comes at the expense of the majority's right to education and healthcare.


----------



## dblack (Nov 20, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Are you saying that one person has a right and is owed another person's money is they can't afford those? Do you apply education to college education?
> ...



I guess I'm still struggling with what that's actually supposed to mean. The freedoms of assembly and expression assert that no one can rightfully stop you from peaceful assembly or self-expression. But they don't require anyone to assist you. They don't have to give you a podium or an advertising budget. If you're saying our freedoms to pursue education and healthcare are similar I'd agree, and, ironically, government efforts to regulate those services would properly be seen as a _violation _of those freedoms.


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 20, 2014)

dblack said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...



Since the right to peacefully assemble isn't absolute, localities can establish rules by which people wanting to assemble have to follow.  If those wanting to assemble don't follow the rules (i.e. - a permit), they can be stopped.


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 20, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Are you saying that one person has a right and is owed another person's money is they can't afford those? Do you apply education to college education?
> ...



I'm sure you can show me in the Constitution where the right to assemble is a right.  When you can show me that a right to education and healthcare is expressed in the same manner as assembly, you have a claim.  Until then, what you think are rights and what you can prove are rights aren't the same thing. 

Their amassing of that wealth does not keep someone from getting healthcare or an education.  You believe that those billionaires should fund healthcare and education for those who claim they can't afford it.  What the hell gives you any right to demand someone else's money be used a certain way?


----------



## georgephillip (Nov 20, 2014)

dblack said:


> I guess I'm still struggling with what that's actually supposed to mean. The freedoms of assembly and expression assert that no one can rightfully stop you from peaceful assembly or self-expression. But they don't require anyone to assist you.


Don't they require the collective assistance of all the society to become useful to an individual?


----------



## georgephillip (Nov 20, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> I'm sure you can show me in the Constitution where the right to assemble is a right. When you can show me that a right to education and healthcare is expressed in the same manner as assembly, you have a claim. Until then, what you think are rights and what you can prove are rights aren't the same thing


*I can't point to a constitutional right to privacy in the same way I can for assembly, but that doesn't mean such a right doesn't exist. Education and healthcare might well fall into those provisions of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, at least according to some House Dems:
Dem says Constitution implies right to healthcare education TheHill*


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 20, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm sure you can show me in the Constitution where the right to assemble is a right. When you can show me that a right to education and healthcare is expressed in the same manner as assembly, you have a claim. Until then, what you think are rights and what you can prove are rights aren't the same thing
> ...



I know I have a right to assemble and protest because the Constitution says I can.  Being that no right is unlimited, since I can't point to a right to privacy in the Constitution, for the Dems to say the Constitution implies that it exists is nothing more than giving them a way to justify someone that doesn't have it getting it even if someone else is forced to pay for it.  That's how they operate.  Everything someone wants the Dems take and run with it, claiming it to be a right so they can mandate the costs be paid by a redistribution of wealth. 

When it comes to education, my wife and I have saved since out children were born in order to pay for college.  We didn't save so someone else's kid whose parents didn't do that could go at our expense. 

The concepts of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness aren't in the Constitution.  While people may have those rights, the rights of one cannot be exercised beyond where they violate the rights of others.


----------



## dblack (Nov 20, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > I guess I'm still struggling with what that's actually supposed to mean. The freedoms of assembly and expression assert that no one can rightfully stop you from peaceful assembly or self-expression. But they don't require anyone to assist you.
> ...



I suppose so. But is it the responsibility of government to ensure that our rights are "useful" to each individual? What if we protected our other rights the same way ACA protects our "right" to healthcare? Would it make sense to you if government, in order to protect our freedom of religion, mandated that everyone join a religion? Or, to ensure our freedom of speech was "useful", required everyone to go to weekly town meetings and listen to their neighbors bloviate?

I know that sounds silly, but if you want healthcare and education to be treated the same as rights like freedom of speech or religion, then they should be handled the same - as protected freedoms rather than promises of empowerment.


----------



## georgephillip (Nov 20, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> When it comes to education, my wife and I have saved since out children were born in order to pay for college. We didn't save so someone else's kid whose parents didn't do that could go at our expense.


*Here's a big reason why you've had to work so hard to provide something your children and everyone else's should receive as a birthright:*
"At the other extreme, the 400 wealthiest Americans own as much wealth as 80 million families -- 62% of America. 

"The reason, once again, is the stock market. 

"Since 1980 the American GDP has approximately doubled. 

"Inflation-adjusted wages have gone down. But the stock market has increased by over ten times, and the richest quintile of Americans owns 93% of it."
Five Ugly Extremes of Inequality in America -- The Contrasts Will Drop Your Chin to the Floor Alternet


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 21, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > When it comes to education, my wife and I have saved since out children were born in order to pay for college. We didn't save so someone else's kid whose parents didn't do that could go at our expense.
> ...



No one should receive as a birthright what belongs to someone else no matter how many excuses are made to do it.  I didn't stay in school, earn academic/athletic scholarships in order to go to college, earn 2 advanced degrees, and do what I was taught to do and work hard in order that someone else get a penny of it.


----------



## georgephillip (Nov 21, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> No one should receive as a birthright what belongs to someone else no matter how many excuses are made to do it.


*What do you mean by "belongs to someone else?" You didn't acquire your education or lifestyle without availing yourself of the cultural inheritance of humanity.*
"He (CH Douglas) defined cultural inheritance as the knowledge, techniques and processes that have been handed down to us incrementally from the origins of civilization (i.e.progress). 

"Consequently, mankind does not have to keep 'reinventing the wheel'. 'We are merely the administrators of that cultural inheritance, and to that extent the cultural inheritance is the property of all of us, without exception.'"
*Billionaires and other parasites have been hoarding the cultural inheritance of society for thousands of years, and that's why education and health care are currently available only to those who earn enough money to obtain them through the market place.
Social credit - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia*


----------



## Roadrunner (Nov 21, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > When it comes to education, my wife and I have saved since out children were born in order to pay for college. We didn't save so someone else's kid whose parents didn't do that could go at our expense.
> ...


Solution, buy stocks instead of crack, booze, porn, tattoos, rims, Jordans..........................................!


----------



## georgephillip (Nov 21, 2014)

Roadrunner said:


> Solution, buy stocks instead of crack, booze, porn, tattoos, rims, Jordans.


*Good advice which only applies to about 20% of Americans:*
"At the other extreme, the 400 wealthiest Americans own as much wealth as 80 million families -- 62% of America. The reason, once again, is the stock market. Since 1980 the American GDP has approximately doubled. Inflation-adjusted wages have gone down. But the stock market has increased by over ten times, and the richest quintile of Americans owns 93% of it."
http://www.nobillionaires.com/
Five Ugly Extremes of Inequality in America -- The Contrasts Will Drop Your Chin to the Floor Alternet


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 21, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > No one should receive as a birthright what belongs to someone else no matter how many excuses are made to do it.
> ...


 
I am the one that goes out and earns the paycheck I get not someone else that think it belong to him/her.  I see you use the typical and brainwashed mindset of the affirmative aciton President of you didn't build that.  I did build it.  I am the one that acquired the education that allows me to live the lifestyle I have.  No one sat in the classes for me or took the tests for me.  If they want what I have earned, let them do what I did to earn it of fucking do without. 

The only parasites are those who think someone else's hard work should benefit them.  The remaining parasites are those like you that think they should benefit.  I earned scholarships to pay for my school.  They didn't come to me because I demanded someone give it.  Hard work did it and I'm the one, not some gimme mindset leech.  If they want what I earned, let them do what I did.  Otherwise, they can go screw themselves.  Yes, I got mine because I put in the work.


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 21, 2014)

Roadrunner said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...


 

Exactly.  Let those who think they have a birthright to what took years of hard work and sacrifice to get start sacrificing and putting in that same hard work.


----------



## georgephillip (Nov 21, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> I earned scholarships to pay for my school. They didn't come to me because I demanded someone give it. Hard work did


I'm not saying your hard work didn't result in the success you claim you've achieved; I am saying you should not have required "scholarships" to pay for it. If you attended public elementary schools, who paid for your literacy? In some countries the same principle extends through grad school. The only reason that doesn't apply in the richest country in the world is because billionaires would not exist if it did.


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 21, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > I earned scholarships to pay for my school. They didn't come to me because I demanded someone give it. Hard work did
> ...


 
Scholarships were a result of my hard work.  Taxpayers should not be required to fund a college education for anyone.  If someone can't afford to send their kid through college, you are more than welcome to pay the tuition on their behalf.  You aren't welcome to demand I should.  

Who paid for my literacy when I attended elementary school?  Actually my parents did.  I attended private school through the 12th grade jackass.  On top of that, they paid and have continue to pay to fund the literacy of those when the schools they fund weren't used by their children.  On a side note, I was ahead of where I should have been with literacy when I started school.  That's because my parents spent time with me as they felt it was important.  I did the same with mine and it produced the same results.  Not my place to overcome that if someone's parents didn't espeically if I'm forced to do it.


----------



## jillian (Nov 21, 2014)

dblack said:


> http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/10/republican-admits-why-republicans-hate-obamacare.html
> 
> 
> 
> ...



you are confused about the "author's reaction".  the reaction being described is the rightwing reaction. 

you also seem to be confused about what a right is and what the role of health care is in civilized countries.


----------



## georgephillip (Nov 21, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> Scholarships were a result of my hard work. Taxpayers should not be required to fund a college education for anyone. If someone can't afford to send their kid through college, you are more than welcome to pay the tuition on their behalf. You aren't welcome to demand I should.


If taxpayers are required to fund a future MD's elementary school education, why shouldn't they accept the same obligation for med school? Is it logical that poor countries like Armenia can fund their MDs school expenses and living expenses but the US can fund neither? Or do you harbor hopes of being a billionaire one day...


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 21, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Scholarships were a result of my hard work. Taxpayers should not be required to fund a college education for anyone. If someone can't afford to send their kid through college, you are more than welcome to pay the tuition on their behalf. You aren't welcome to demand I should.
> ...


 

If someone is in med school, they are actually doing something toward being an MD.  If someone in elementary school says they want to be an MD, they are doing nothing more than talking.  Either way, it's not my place to be forced to fund college for anyone regardless of their aspirations. 

If you like what Armenia is doing, move there.  If you're not willing to move where you like it, STFU about us doing it their way. 

I likely won't ever be a billionaire.  Doesn't change that what I earned should be used to pay for my kid's college, if I choose to do that for what scholarships they won't get, not someone other person's kid. 

Sor the sake of argument, let's say college is funded and the person flunks out or quits.  Should they be required to pay it back?   Without some sort of incentive, what's to stop those having no business going to college going just to occupy time?


----------



## georgephillip (Nov 21, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> ither way, it's not my place to be forced to fund college for anyone regardless of their aspirations.


How is that any different from funding elementary school for those you don't know? Do you actually believe you would have accomplished all you have without past generations of society creating the infrastructure for your success?


----------



## dblack (Nov 21, 2014)

jillian said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/10/republican-admits-why-republicans-hate-obamacare.html
> ...



Oh, well maybe you can clear things up for me. What did I get wrong?


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 21, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > ither way, it's not my place to be forced to fund college for anyone regardless of their aspirations.
> ...


 
The funding of local elementary schools is done based on a State level decision through property taxes.  If you'll read the Constitution you bleeding hearts claim to hold so  near and dear to your hearts, there is nothing in it that gives the federal government authority to deal with education.  The 10th Amendment, however, gives States the authority to deal with things that aren't a federal level power.  Education is one of them.  While I may not agree specifically with using property taxes to fund it, if my State under it's reserved powers chooses to do it, they have that authority.  If they don't or don't do it the way federal level officials want, that doens't, by default, give the federal government authority. 

What I believe is that my success was due to MY hard work in school and afterwards.  I didn't do it to pay for someone else's kid to go to school especially if doing so takes away a penny of my ability to do it for mine.  You are more than welcome to fund college for any person of your choosing.  You won't but you will damn sure demand others be forced to do it your way.


----------



## dblack (Nov 21, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > ither way, it's not my place to be forced to fund college for anyone regardless of their aspirations.
> ...



It's not


> Do you actually believe you would have accomplished all you have without past generations of society creating the infrastructure for your success?



Of course not. None of us is an island. But the pertinent question is whether people should be forced to create such an infrastructure. I don't think they should. Moreover, I don't think much would change if such public goods were no longer maintained by government. Society promotes education and welfare because it's in our interests to do so. Such functions can, and do, exist without coercive government.


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 21, 2014)

dblack said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...


 

To people like georgephillip, the only way something can get done is by government intervention.  He doesn't take into account that a lot was done prior to the mindset of entitlement and if one person has it but another doesn't, the one that does got it by cheating out the one that doesn't.  Any time he want to pay the tuition for someone he doesn't, I'm sure the college/university taking the money wouldn't care whether it came from him or the parents of the kid he's funding.


----------



## georgephillip (Nov 21, 2014)

dblack said:


> Society promotes education and welfare because it's in our interests to do so. Such functions can, and do, exist without coercive government.


Is it likely corporate rule would be any less coercive?


----------



## dblack (Nov 21, 2014)

I'm not sure what you mean by 'corporate rule'.  Although the term might describe what we have now.


----------



## georgephillip (Nov 21, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> To people like georgephillip, the only way something can get done is by government intervention. He doesn't take into account that a lot was done prior to the mindset of entitlement and if one person has it but another doesn't, the one that does got it by cheating out the one that doesn't.


While those who "think" the way you do can't imagine a government that doesn't serve its richest citizens first and foremost, and there is good historical evidence to support your ignorance since all governments ever created have behaved in just that manner. Your fatal flaw is believing individuals concerned solely with their own selfish ends can ever change that particular tyranny. You can't.


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 21, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > To people like georgephillip, the only way something can get done is by government intervention. He doesn't take into account that a lot was done prior to the mindset of entitlement and if one person has it but another doesn't, the one that does got it by cheating out the one that doesn't.
> ...




Selfish ends?  Nothing selfish about me wanting to keep what I've earned to use on me and my family.  However, selfishness abounds when someone that didn't earn it thinking a portion of what I earned should support them and their kids.  All I ask is to keep what I did the work to get.  They are asking to get a portion of what they didn't work to earn.


----------



## georgephillip (Nov 22, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> Selfish ends? Nothing selfish about me wanting to keep what I've earned to use on me and my family. However, selfishness abounds when someone that didn't earn it thinking a portion of what I earned should support them and their kids. All I ask is to keep what I did the work to get. They are asking to get a portion of what they didn't work to earn.


It isn't likely you're rich enough to be affected by the changes required to fund health care and education in the US as human rights. When you earn your first billion, then you can embrace greed and selfishness.


----------



## dblack (Nov 22, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Society promotes education and welfare because it's in our interests to do so. Such functions can, and do, exist without coercive government.
> ...



I'd like to come back to this - because I think the assumption behind this question is really one of our biggest problems You seem to be assuming that we have a choice between surrendering our freedom to government, or to corporations, and I really don't get where that comes from. I know a lot of liberals see it that way but I don't see why. Corporations don't rule anything, only government does that. The question is how we want government to rule. 

In that context, I suppose you might say that it's then a choice between government that rules in favor of corporations, or "the people" (nevermind, for now, that corporations are owned by "the people"). But even that seems like a false dilemma. Why can't we have government that protects economic freedom for everyone?


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 22, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Selfish ends? Nothing selfish about me wanting to keep what I've earned to use on me and my family. However, selfishness abounds when someone that didn't earn it thinking a portion of what I earned should support them and their kids. All I ask is to keep what I did the work to get. They are asking to get a portion of what they didn't work to earn.
> ...



Neither are human rights especially if another person is forced to fund it for some sorry piece of shit, which likely includes you, because you won't do it for yourself. 

No ones owes another person a damn thing in life nor is it greedy to want to keep what you've earned.  However, it is greedy to think a penny of what another person has is yours.


----------



## georgephillip (Nov 22, 2014)

dblack said:


> In that context, I suppose you might say that it's then a choice between government that rules in favor of corporations, or "the people" (nevermind, for now, that corporations are owned by "the people"). But even that seems like a false dilemma. Why can't we have government that protects economic freedom for everyone?


Possibly because every government yet devised exists to enrich a few of its citizens at the expense of its majority? Maybe we should consider the concept of "the greatest good for the greatest number?" What does that say in regard to your claim that people own the corporation?

If it's true the poorest 47% of Americans have no wealth today, as opposed to the 2.5% of national wealth they owned in 1983, and, at the other extreme, the 400 richest Americans own 62% of US wealth today primarily due to the stock market increasing over ten times since '83, it is a false dilemma to blame corporations or government because the corporations' richest shareholders vet the candidates for government before you or I decide if we want to vote or fart.

Since the richest quintile of Americans own 93% of the stock market, I would suggest economic freedom begins by finding a way to replace hundreds of Republican AND Democrats in the House and Senate with representatives that will mandate a Wall of Separation between the government and private wealth.

BTW, (knocks on wood) I don't believe we are talking past each other has much as we have been before now; common ground exists and maybe its located first in cyberspace?

http://www.nobillionaires.com/
Five Ugly Extremes of Inequality in America -- The Contrasts Will Drop Your Chin to the Floor Alternet


----------



## georgephillip (Nov 22, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> Neither are human rights especially if another person is forced to fund it for some sorry piece of shit, which likely includes you, because you won't do it for yourself.


If you believe all humans are born free and equal in dignity, and everyone is entitled to rights including life, liberty, and security, how would you propose we pay for them?


----------



## dblack (Nov 22, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > In that context, I suppose you might say that it's then a choice between government that rules in favor of corporations, or "the people" (nevermind, for now, that corporations are owned by "the people"). But even that seems like a false dilemma. Why can't we have government that protects economic freedom for everyone?
> ...



I don't know. I'm not sure what you mean here. I mean, I agree with the observation that every government yet devised exists to enrich a few at the expense of the majority - which is why I find it hard to think of as an "alternative" to corporate power.



> If it's true the poorest 47% of Americans have no wealth today, as opposed to the 2.5% of national wealth they owned in 1983, and, at the other extreme, the 400 richest Americans own 62% of US wealth today primarily due to the stock market increasing over ten times since '83, it is a false dilemma to blame corporations or government because the corporations' richest shareholders vet the candidates for government before you or I decide if we want to vote or fart.
> 
> Since the richest quintile of Americans own 93% of the stock market, I would suggest economic freedom begins by finding a way to replace hundreds of Republican AND Democrats in the House and Senate with representatives that will mandate a Wall of Separation between the government and private wealth.



Well, I certainly agree with that. It's what I'm referring to as "economic freedom". But I'm not sure you're taking into account that such a "Wall" would go in both directions. The only way to keep wealth from dominating politics is to keep government from controlling wealth.


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 22, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Neither are human rights especially if another person is forced to fund it for some sorry piece of shit, which likely includes you, because you won't do it for yourself.
> ...



Just like any other right, someone's ability to exercise stops where it takes away another person's right to life, liberty, and security.  They have all the right to whatever they want up to the point that someone else if forced to pay for it.  Someone's inability to pay for something doesn't mean someone's rights are to be taken to pay for it.  My liberty to say no when someone asks for my help is as much of a liberty and freedom as you claim they have to it.  As for paying for it, I propose, if you think someone has a right to your money, give it to them.  You don't have a right to demand I do it a certain way because you want to do it that way.  That violates my rights.


----------



## georgephillip (Nov 22, 2014)

dblack said:


> I don't know. I'm not sure what you mean here. I mean, I agree with the observation that every government yet devised exists to enrich a few at the expense of the majority - which is why I find it hard to think of as an "alternative" to corporate power.


Agreed. Corporations control governments today in ways that are similar to Royal Houses in the past. If the problem is private wealth and its influence on government, my solution is to strengthen democracy instead of weakening government.


----------



## georgephillip (Nov 22, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> Just like any other right, someone's ability to exercise stops where it takes away another person's right to life, liberty, and security. They have all the right to whatever they want up to the point that someone else if forced to pay for it


You are forced to pay for the right to assemble and bear arms for yourself and others, right?


----------



## georgephillip (Nov 22, 2014)

dblack said:


> The only way to keep wealth from dominating politics is to keep government from controlling wealth.


This seems to be a point of departure for me. If private wealth is a threat to democracy, I don't see any institution capable of changing that except government, do you?


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 22, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Just like any other right, someone's ability to exercise stops where it takes away another person's right to life, liberty, and security. They have all the right to whatever they want up to the point that someone else if forced to pay for it
> ...



Those are in the Constitution dickhead.  Education and healthcare aren't.  If you think I pay for someone else's right to assemble and bear arms, perhaps you can tell me how.


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 22, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > The only way to keep wealth from dominating politics is to keep government from controlling wealth.
> ...



Private wealth isn't a threat to democracy except to you bleeding hearts who think the government should be able to tell I have to support some single mother with multiple kids by multiple runaway sperm donors as just one example.


----------



## dblack (Nov 22, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know. I'm not sure what you mean here. I mean, I agree with the observation that every government yet devised exists to enrich a few at the expense of the majority - which is why I find it hard to think of as an "alternative" to corporate power.
> ...



I don't think it's a question of strong or weak government, but a matter of constraining it to a proper scope. And I certainly don't see democracy solving anything - it's proven even easier to manipulate than dictatorial power.

The decision we face is how we want to distribute economic power. We can do it voluntarily, via a free market, or we can do it coercively through government. In either case, ambitious people will be vying for greater control.


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 22, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 22, 2014)

dblack said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



At least with the free market and voluntary giving those doing the giving are using their money as they see fit.  With government, they are telling someone else how they should see fit to do it.


----------



## georgephillip (Nov 22, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> If you think I pay for someone else's right to assemble and bear arms, perhaps you can tell me how.


*If you pay Federal Income Taxes you are supporting the rights of others to assemble and bear arms, and for their educations:*
"The federal government allocated approximately $141 billion on education in fiscal year 2014. Calculating that figure is challenging. Federal programs administered by the U.S. Department of Education appear in two separate parts of the federal budget, and other agencies administer large programs as well. Furthermore, measuring spending on the federal student loan program is not straightforward, and the government provides significant subsidies for higher education in the form of tax benefits."
Background Analysis


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 22, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know. I'm not sure what you mean here. I mean, I agree with the observation that every government yet devised exists to enrich a few at the expense of the majority - which is why I find it hard to think of as an "alternative" to corporate power.
> ...



Strengthening government weakens democracy.


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 22, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > If you think I pay for someone else's right to assemble and bear arms, perhaps you can tell me how.
> ...



The problem is that the federal government is involved in education at all.  They have no constitutional authority to do so unless you can show me where the word education appears in the delegated powers of Congress.

I don't take those government subsidies for higher education.  When scholarships pays for school, you can't.

Where do you think the federal government got the money you claim THEY allocated for education.   They got it from the people in the STATES where education should be regulated.  The government can't give to something unless they take from someone first.  That's how it works in case you didn't know.


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 22, 2014)

idb said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > I didn't say rights were forced on me.
> ...



I thought the left has said that a majority vote can't take away someone's rights.  They claim that on same sex marriage when the voters said no to it.  Seems it's OK when it comes to someone else's money.  Typical left wing hypocrites.


----------



## georgephillip (Nov 22, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> Private wealth isn't a threat to democracy except to you bleeding hearts who think the government should be able to tell I have to support some single mother with multiple kids by multiple runaway sperm donors as just one example


Shit-for-brains cons would rather pump up the profits of parasites earning $3 million an hour instead of the working poor earning $2.13 an hour in addition to tips. Maybe conservatives just don't understand the class war?
Five Ugly Extremes of Inequality in America -- The Contrasts Will Drop Your Chin to the Floor Alternet


----------



## georgephillip (Nov 22, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> The problem is that the federal government is involved in education at all. They have no constitutional authority to do so unless you can show me where the word education appears in the delegated powers of Congress


Show me where the word "privacy" appears in the Constitution. See Article I Section 8 for the authority for congress to provide for the common defense and general welfare of all Americans. If you feel threatened, please leave.


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 22, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Private wealth isn't a threat to democracy except to you bleeding hearts who think the government should be able to tell I have to support some single mother with multiple kids by multiple runaway sperm donors as just one example
> ...



The only shit for brains are those who because they offer skills worth no more than $2.13/hour plus tips think someone that has worked their way to more per hour or a high salary owe them something more for those low skills.  When the skills someone has is only one step above what a monkey could be trained to do, getting paid a low wage is fitting. 

The war is being declared by the low skilled and equivalently paid low wage worker who thinks they should be paid on existence while thinking the pay of others should be based on skill level.  Again, shit for brains think they are special and should be paid in a manner differently from how they think others should be paid.


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 22, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > The problem is that the federal government is involved in education at all. They have no constitutional authority to do so unless you can show me where the word education appears in the delegated powers of Congress
> ...



I never claimed privacy did. Show me where the word food stamps, healthcare, WIC, government housing, or any other wasteful program you support has delegated authority.  Until you can, the money I'VE earned is mine and those you think have more of a right to it can do without unless you're willing to give them yours.  You're not because that would require you actually do what you say needs to be done for the compassion you claim you have. 

The general welfare the Constitution speaks of does not nor have it ever meant social welfare where one person because they can't make it deserves another person's money.  If you think so, you are the shit for brains you referred to in the other recent post. 

If you like the way socialist countries do thing, go there and leave MY country to people who want it to be run like the founders would have wanted.


----------



## georgephillip (Nov 22, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> The only shit for brains are those who because they offer skills worth no more than $2.13/hour plus tips think someone that has worked their way to more per hour or a high salary owe them something more for those low skills. When the skills someone has is only one step above what a monkey could be trained to do, getting paid a low wage is fitting.


Human rights aren't dependent upon the amount of money you make, unless you subscribe to the fascist-fool party line. Billionaires and fascists currently hoard trillions of dollars which they never would have acquired had wages kept pace with productivity gains over the last forty years; that waitress earning $2.13 an hour today would be earning closer to $21.30 an hour had wages matched productivity gains, and she could pay for your simian health care.


----------



## idb (Nov 22, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...


What?!
I'm talking about granting rights...not taking them away!


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 23, 2014)

idb said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 23, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > The only shit for brains are those who because they offer skills worth no more than $2.13/hour plus tips think someone that has worked their way to more per hour or a high salary owe them something more for those low skills. When the skills someone has is only one step above what a monkey could be trained to do, getting paid a low wage is fitting.
> ...



No right should be dependent on forcing another person to pay for it on your behalf including healthcare.  Like I've said, if you know someone that can't buy it, pay their premium with your money.  You have that right.  You do not have the right, even with a majority vote, to force anyone else to do it.  People like you claim that a majority vote can't take away a right, as you use that argument with same sex marriage, yet when it comes to things you want to do, you think you can vote to simply take away mine to keep the money I've earned.

As far as the waitress earning more than $2.13/hour, when that waitress does something to improve her skills to the same degree someone running a big company has done to improve his/hers, her wages will go up to the same degree.  Minimum skill and wage jobs require today the same skill level they did 50 years ago.  Jobs where marketable skills are required have people that have had to actually do something  in order for their wages to grow.  That's why wages on higher skills ed positions or jobs that take education/training have grown exponentially while jobs that are flooded with people doing something a monkey could be trained to do have grown only arithmetically.  Since I spent thousands and thousands of hours getting an education, furthering my skills as a professional, and providing something that not everyone can do, my wages should be thousands and thousand higher.  Since those who work low skilled jobs had to do nothing to be able to do their jobs, their wages should be thousands and thousands lower.  If they don't like it, they should do something about it and that doesn't include demanding someone else pay for it on their behalf.


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 23, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> simian health care.



I had spinal fusion surgery a few years ago under the same healthcare plan I have now.  It costs me $500 out of pocket for bills totally over $90,000.  The problem with that is, because of Obozocare, that $500 would now be higher.  People like you want me to thank that ass clown for improving healthcare.  Don't see it.


----------



## georgephillip (Nov 23, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> People like you want me to thank that ass clown for improving healthcare. Don't see it.


Except I don't see the ACA as an improvement to healthcare.
Now, don't you feel stupid?


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 23, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > People like you want me to thank that ass clown for improving healthcare. Don't see it.
> ...



So, you're one of those single payer proponents?


----------



## georgephillip (Nov 23, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> I had spinal fusion surgery a few years ago under the same healthcare plan I have now. It costs me $500 out of pocket for bills totally over $90,000


I had a malignant melanoma that had been festering for years because I had no insurance removed in 2013 by a plastic surgeon on Rodeo Drive in Beverly Hills. the initial procedure lasted hours with multiple follow up with a total bill running into the tens of thousand of dollars, and I paid zero $, proving health care is a right for those who live long enough to benefit from Medicare.


----------



## georgephillip (Nov 23, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> So, you're one of those single payer proponents?


Exactly. Medicare for all.


----------



## dblack (Nov 23, 2014)

C-65,

You need to understand that modern liberals aren't making a distinction between "rights" and "things we ought to provide as government services". I share your frustration because I agree there's an important distinction to be made there. Rights are more fundamental. We protect rights, not only _with _government but, _from_ government, via Constitutional limits. Secondary services, like the post office, minting money, education, etc... aren't rights in the same sense, and should only be taken up as government services when the cost is minimal (both in terms of finances and loss of liberty) and the consensus is very broad. That's why they should be implemented as Constitutional amendments that clearly establish them as new functions of government. 

In my opinion, the overall campaign to declare certain services as "rights" is a deliberate trojan, to evade the onerous process of amending the Constitution and instead to piggyback on the accepted notion that protecting "rights" is a core function of government. It's bad government in my opinion, and will ultimately destroy a free democracy.


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 23, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > So, you're one of those single payer proponents?
> ...



That's worse and even more so of a redistribution of wealth program.  Why can't you do for yourself instead of expecting someone else to do it for you?  Are you really that irresponsible?


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 23, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > I had spinal fusion surgery a few years ago under the same healthcare plan I have now. It costs me $500 out of pocket for bills totally over $90,000
> ...



Then someone else was forced to pay for it on your behalf.  You sound like you're proud to be a leech.


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 23, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > People like you want me to thank that ass clown for improving healthcare. Don't see it.
> ...



What you support is worse.  Why can't you provide to yourself what you should be doing? It's not my responsibility to do it for you.


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 23, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > So, you're one of those single payer proponents?
> ...



Nothing more than those of paying more into the system to fund those paying less into it then getting the same thing.  Sorry, not interested in socialism.


----------



## georgephillip (Nov 23, 2014)

dblack said:


> *Secondary services, like the post office, minting money, education*, etc... aren't rights in the same sense, and should only be taken up as government services when the cost is minimal (both in terms of finances and loss of liberty) and the consensus is very broad. That's why they should be implemented as Constitutional amendments that clearly establish them as new functions of government.



*Establishing post offices and minting money are powers given to congress in Article I, yet education isn't. Is the provision of education any less of  a right than post offices and money?*


----------



## BlackSand (Nov 23, 2014)

dblack said:


> Read this a few days ago, and found it really striking, because the author's reaction is exactly the same as my reaction to the idea that a service someone else provides can be claimed as a right. THAT seems morally bizarre to me.



Maybe it has something to do with the fact employer provided health-coverage became pretty much a staple in employee compensation packages. Add the fact that corporations introduced the concept of employer provided healthcare insurance to circumvent wage caps instituted by President Roosevelt ... And better compete for quality employees.

The Progressive Liberals cannot let corporations take the credit for providing healthcare coverage ... They had to turn the privilege into a right to make them the heroes.

.


----------



## georgephillip (Nov 23, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> What you support is worse. Why can't you provide to yourself what you should be doing? It's not my responsibility to do it for you.


Current paradigms for funding Medicare for All require employers and employees to pay a modest payroll tax thereby producing a sizable savings for private and public employers who currently have to purchase coverage for their employees from private insurance corporations. Assuming it's true that 95% of Americans will pay less for their healthcare than they are currently paying, the collective responsibility lies with changing the corporate status quo, no?


----------



## dblack (Nov 23, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > *Secondary services, like the post office, minting money, education*, etc... aren't rights in the same sense, and should only be taken up as government services when the cost is minimal (both in terms of finances and loss of liberty) and the consensus is very broad. That's why they should be implemented as Constitutional amendments that clearly establish them as new functions of government.
> ...



I'd consider none of those "rights". Post offices and minting money are legitimate (constitutionally authorized) services of the federal government. Education is not.


----------



## georgephillip (Nov 23, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> Nothing more than those of paying more into the system to fund those paying less into it then getting the same thing. Sorry, not interested in socialism.


Does for-profit insurance appeal more to you? You seem completely ignorant of how Medicare for All would reduce US medical costs by more than $400 billion a year despite a massive expansion of medical care to those currently under served by capitalism. Like a classic conservative you can't put aside your selfish contempt for those who earn less than you do even when the changes they support will work to your economic advantage as well as theirs.


----------



## BlackSand (Nov 23, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> Does for-profit insurance appeal more to you? You seem completely ignorant of how Medicare for All would reduce US medical costs by more than $400 billion a year despite a massive expansion of medical care to those currently under served by capitalism. Like a classic conservative you can't put aside your selfish contempt for those who earn less than you do even when the changes they support will work to your economic advantage as well as theirs.



Since when is it the responsibility of for-profit insurance companies to make medical costs cheaper for anyone? Are you suggesting for-profit companies like paying high medical costs?

If you mean adding a 40% tax to insurance policies the rich can afford is reducing their medical costs ... You are fricken stoned.

.


----------



## georgephillip (Nov 23, 2014)

dblack said:


> I'd consider none of those "rights". Post offices and minting money are legitimate (constitutionally authorized) services of the federal government. Education is not.


*Doesn't the word "power" describe congressional authority better than "right" or "service?"*
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and *general Welfare of the United States*; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States..."
Transcript of the Constitution of the United States - Official Text


----------



## dblack (Nov 23, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > I'd consider none of those "rights". Post offices and minting money are legitimate (constitutionally authorized) services of the federal government. Education is not.
> ...


Sure. "Right" doesn't describe Congressional authority at all.



> "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and *general Welfare of the United States*; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States..."
> Transcript of the Constitution of the United States - Official Text



Yeah, yeah. I don't even wanna go there. That quote describes the power to collect taxes, not the power to conduct wide-ranging social engineering projects in the name of 'general welfare'. The argument's been beat to death, and was thoroughly resolved in Federalist 41. Everything else on the matter is just lawyers angling for more power.


----------



## georgephillip (Nov 23, 2014)

BlackSand said:


> Since when is it the responsibility of for-profit insurance companies to make medical costs cheaper for anyone? Are you suggesting for-profit companies like paying high medical costs?


I'm simply pointing out how profits increase by denying needed medical coverage under our current capitalistic insurance model. I'm not sure what you're getting at when you mention a 40% tax on insurance policies for the rich; if that's part of the ACA, it simply proves you can't change anything of substance by "choosing" between Democrat OR Republican in the voting booth.


----------



## BlackSand (Nov 23, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> > Since when is it the responsibility of for-profit insurance companies to make medical costs cheaper for anyone? Are you suggesting for-profit companies like paying high medical costs?
> ...



Cadillac plans will have a 40% tax added by 2017 ... An attempt to punish the rich for simply wanting to buy a product they can afford and that suits their desires.

The person I was responding to was touting the benefit the rich would receive from the ACA's attempt to ensure everyone suffers equally.

.


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 23, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Nothing more than those of paying more into the system to fund those paying less into it then getting the same thing. Sorry, not interested in socialism.
> ...



For profit insurance has worked for ME for years. 

Your claims about Medicare for All saving medical costs by more than $400 is pure speculation.  Since it hasn't happened, the only thing you have to base that on is a PREDICTION.   Since you can't prove it would be an advantage for me, I'll stick with what I've had that I can show objective proof where it has. 

I don't have contempt for those who make less than me.  I have contempt for anyone, because they do, thinking that because I make more I should be willing to share more of it with them.  It is that group that shows its selfish contempt for the rest of us by demanding we provide them with a share of what we've earned.  Call me selfish if you will but anyone thinking that what I've earned should be given to them because they have but if you really think they give a damn about where it comes from as long as they get it, you're quite foolish.  Also, you should look up the word share before you misuse it again.  Sharing involves a willful act by the one from which the funding would come.  Sharing, just like compassion, can't be a mandate.


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 23, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > What you support is worse. Why can't you provide to yourself what you should be doing? It's not my responsibility to do it for you.
> ...



There's the kicker.  Employers and employees are already paying a payroll tax that goes to Medicare under the current system.  At least be honest and say an ADDITIONAL payroll tax.  Also, there is nothing modest about forcing someone to pay something on another person's behalf.  If it's a penny more out of MY check so it can be handed to someone else, it's ONE CENT too much.

You base your support on it on an ASSUMPTION.  I base what I have now on how it's worked in the past.  When you say modest payroll tax, what percentage do you use?  If it's more than 1% each for the employee and employer, that percentage already places a higher costs taken out of my check than what I would pay out of pocket in a contract year under my current policy.  Since it would do that, I'm not interested.  What I have now works fine for ME.  Again, you can call that selfish but looking out for me is no different than someone else supporting it because it would be cheaper on them to do it your way.


----------



## georgephillip (Nov 23, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> For profit insurance has worked for ME for years.
> 
> Your claims about Medicare for All saving medical costs by more than $400 is pure speculation. Since it hasn't happened, the only thing you have to base that on is a PREDICTION. Since you can't prove it would be an advantage for me, I'll stick with what I've had that I can show objective proof where it has


Are you saying only those who earn enough money to afford corporate for-profit health care have a right to that service?


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 23, 2014)

at I


georgephillip said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > For profit insurance has worked for ME for years.
> ...



Not at all.  I want to say I've made it clear that if someone you know can't afford it, YOU are more than welcome to pay their premiums with your own money.  If you think it is a right, prove it by doing just that and keeping your hands off my wallet.  What I am saying is that their ability to have it shouldn't be based on someone else being forced to fund it simply because they make  more money.   That's socialism and I'm not interested in it. 

I sat in high school classes with the very people who argue the issue from your viewpoint.  They were the screw-ups and goof offs, many of whom quit before graduating.  That they now want the rest of us to make up for their bad choices gives me the opportunity to say touch shit, you shouldn't have made that decision.


----------



## georgephillip (Nov 23, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> ot at all. I want to say I've made it clear that if someone you know can't afford it, YOU are more than welcome to pay their premiums with your own money. If you think it is a right, prove it by doing just that and keeping your hands off my wallet.


So, in your view rights exist only for those who can arrange the private financing of those rights, right?


----------



## dblack (Nov 23, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > ot at all. I want to say I've made it clear that if someone you know can't afford it, YOU are more than welcome to pay their premiums with your own money. If you think it is a right, prove it by doing just that and keeping your hands off my wallet.
> ...



What do you mean by saying that "rights exist"? In the context of government policy, the question is whether or not your rights are protected by government, and that is unrelated to whether or not you currently have the capacity to utilize them. Does my freedom of speech "exist" if I have laryngitis?  It's still a right that's protected by the Constitution, regardless of whether or not I can speak.


----------



## dblack (Nov 23, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> at I
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> ...



I don't know why you wouldn't just answer "yes" here. No one has a right to the services of others.


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 23, 2014)

dblack said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > at I
> ...



That's why I didn't answer yes.   I won't say people can't do something.  I said that it shouldn't come at the forced  expense of another person.


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 23, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > ot at all. I want to say I've made it clear that if someone you know can't afford it, YOU are more than welcome to pay their premiums with your own money. If you think it is a right, prove it by doing just that and keeping your hands off my wallet.
> ...



That's why you bleeding heart morons want everything considered as a right.  That way you can convince yourself one person should be forced to provide it for another person.   My right to keep what I've earned is as important to me as the right you claim someone has to healthcare and if they, as you say, have a right to healthcare, I have a right to keep MY money.  Not one dime of what I have earned can be taken to fulfill anything for another person without violating mine.


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 23, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > ot at all. I want to say I've made it clear that if someone you know can't afford it, YOU are more than welcome to pay their premiums with your own money. If you think it is a right, prove it by doing just that and keeping your hands off my wallet.
> ...



Are you saying that my right to keep what I'VE earned is less of one than you consider healthcare as one?  If so, go screw yourself.


----------



## georgephillip (Nov 23, 2014)

dblack said:


> I don't know why you wouldn't just answer "yes" here. No one has a right to the services of others.


How are your rights protected without requiring the service of others?


----------



## dblack (Nov 23, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know why you wouldn't just answer "yes" here. No one has a right to the services of others.
> ...


Didn't you ask that exact same question a few pages back?


----------



## georgephillip (Nov 24, 2014)

dblack said:


> Didn't you ask that exact same question a few pages back?


Probably.
Did I get an answer?


----------



## georgephillip (Nov 24, 2014)

dblack said:


> Yeah, yeah. I don't even wanna go there. That quote describes the power to collect taxes, not the power to conduct wide-ranging social engineering projects in the name of 'general welfare'. The argument's been beat to death, and was thoroughly resolved in Federalist 41. Everything else on the matter is just lawyers angling for more power.


When did Federalist 41 resolve this issue, and what has changed since that time?


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 24, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > I had spinal fusion surgery a few years ago under the same healthcare plan I have now. It costs me $500 out of pocket for bills totally over $90,000
> ...



Correction..you had a malignant melanoma that was festering for years because you chose not to get it treated.


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 24, 2014)

koshergrl said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...


 
Sounds like to me he waited until someone else paid for it.


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 24, 2014)

Yup. Apparently he didn't want the docs to think poorly of him for going ahead with treatment he couldn't pay for, so he waited until the state would fund his dead beatedness, thereby making it acceptable and him a stand-up dude.


----------



## dblack (Nov 24, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Didn't you ask that exact same question a few pages back?
> ...



I thought so. But we can circle back around if you like. Maybe with a different approach. Rights, as I conceive of them, aren't grants of power. They're simply a criteria we can use to decide if someone "in the right" or not. And such criteria exists, even if there's no one around to actively protect a given right. So, for example, if we agree that you have a right to free speech, when you express yourself, you have that right. If anyone tries to silence you, they're in the wrong.


----------



## dblack (Nov 24, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, yeah. I don't even wanna go there. That quote describes the power to collect taxes, not the power to conduct wide-ranging social engineering projects in the name of 'general welfare'. The argument's been beat to death, and was thoroughly resolved in Federalist 41. Everything else on the matter is just lawyers angling for more power.
> ...



Before the Constitution was signed.

Things started to change soon thereafter, as power and ambition took hold.


----------



## georgephillip (Nov 24, 2014)

koshergrl said:


> Correction..you had a malignant melanoma that was festering for years because you chose not to get it treated.


The melanoma went untreated because I couldn't afford for-profit health insurance.


----------



## georgephillip (Nov 24, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> Sounds like to me he waited until someone else paid for it.


I waited until I was 65 when Medicare that I paid into covered part of it.


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 24, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Correction..you had a malignant melanoma that was festering for years because you chose not to get it treated.
> ...



It went untreated because you're an idiot who prefers to force the state to pay for your medical care, as opposed to accepting charity from your doctor.


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 24, 2014)

Psst..it's still charity. Only now people are pissed off that they had to pay for it.


----------



## georgephillip (Nov 24, 2014)

koshergrl said:


> It went untreated because you're an idiot who prefers to force the state to pay for your medical care, as opposed to accepting charity from your doctor.


*Exactly, Moron.
If you don't count the 45 years I paid into Medicare.*
"In the 1960s, Medicare was introduced to rectify the fourth problem (health care for the elderly). The FICA tax was increased in order to pay for this expense."
Federal Insurance Contributions Act tax - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 24, 2014)

That's because I don't give a shit, and I really doubt you paid anything in.


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 24, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Sounds like to me he waited until someone else paid for it.
> ...



You never paid as much into Medicare as you got out of it.  You waiting for that purpose proves you're a leech.


----------



## georgephillip (Nov 25, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> You never paid as much into Medicare as you got out of it. You waiting for that purpose proves you're a leech.


And you never paid enough in premiums to cover the full cost of the $90,000 spinal surgery you mentioned previously; does that make you a parasite or just another simplistic conservative engaged in economic self-destruction?


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 25, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > You never paid as much into Medicare as you got out of it. You waiting for that purpose proves you're a leech.
> ...


 
I am fully aware that I hadn't paid that much into it.  What you fail to acknolwedge is that when each of us that is part of that group policy signed up, we did so by choice not by government mandate.  I could have very easily chosen not to join.  With Medicare I don't have the choice.  That's the difference.


----------



## georgephillip (Nov 25, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> I am fully aware that I hadn't paid that much into it. What you fail to acknolwedge is that when each of us that is part of that group policy signed up, we did so by choice not by government mandate. I could have very easily chosen not to join. With Medicare I don't have the choice. That's the difference


Yet, private plans typically have administrative costs of 17 percent versus Medicare's 3%. If you had the choice between Medicare and private insurance, which would you choose?


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 25, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > I am fully aware that I hadn't paid that much into it. What you fail to acknolwedge is that when each of us that is part of that group policy signed up, we did so by choice not by government mandate. I could have very easily chosen not to join. With Medicare I don't have the choice. That's the difference
> ...



I prefer you provide yours and I provide mine.  I see you divert from what we were discussing about getting more out of something that put in.  Your medicare is funded by those of us who don't have a choice but to pay into it.  At least with my insurance, those in it are in it because they made the choice to do so knowing how it worked.  If you can't see the difference, it's no wonder you waited until someone else was forced to fund it for you instead of being a man and doing when it would have costs you.


----------



## georgephillip (Nov 25, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> I prefer you provide yours and I provide mine. I see you divert from what we were discussing about getting more out of something that put in. Your medicare is funded by those of us who don't have a choice but to pay into it


Would you support a system where each individual is entitled to a choice between privately or publicly funded medical care?


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 25, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > I prefer you provide yours and I provide mine. I see you divert from what we were discussing about getting more out of something that put in. Your medicare is funded by those of us who don't have a choice but to pay into it
> ...



Not if it involves one group being forced to subsidize it for another.  No one is entitled to what another person has earned unless the one earning it voluntarily gives it to them.  What it seems you support is everyone getting the same thing even if one half of the people are required to fund it for the other half along with their own.


----------



## georgephillip (Nov 25, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> Not if it involves one group being forced to subsidize it for another. No one is entitled to what another person has earned unless the one earning it voluntarily gives it to them. What it seems you support is everyone getting the same thing even if one half of the people are required to fund it for the other half along with their own.


*Every one working in the US pays 1.45% of their earnings into Medicare; which half of the workforce is funding the other?*
Who pays for Medicare - Ultimate Guide to Retirement


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 25, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Not if it involves one group being forced to subsidize it for another. No one is entitled to what another person has earned unless the one earning it voluntarily gives it to them. What it seems you support is everyone getting the same thing even if one half of the people are required to fund it for the other half along with their own.
> ...



Like you said, you waited until you could get Medicare before having a surgery.  The 1.45% you paid into didn't come close to covering the total costs.  That means someone else was FORCED to offset that cost.    With Obamacare, those buying insurance on the exchanges receiving a subsidy to make it cheaper are the ones being funding by those having to pay the taxes that fund the subsidies.  It's not hard to understand if you want to understand.  What you don't get is that no one is entitled to any portion of what another person has earned including healthcare unless the one doing the giving does so under their own free will.  Since Medicare is mandated, that's already gone.


----------



## georgephillip (Nov 26, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> It's not hard to understand if you want to understand. What you don't get is that no one is entitled to any portion of what another person has earned including healthcare unless the one doing the giving does so under their own free will. Since Medicare is mandated, that's already gone.


By the same reasoning, no one is entitled to an education beyond the level their taxes directly fund. Human beings form governments to collectively provide services they are unable to afford individually. When millions of Americans began leaving the farm and working in major cities during the early decades of the 20th Century, they were told by the arch-conservatives of their time that they were no longer independent because they weren't providing their own food. By freely choosing the live in the US you are agreeing to provide your fair share to support the General Welfare of all Americans.


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 26, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > It's not hard to understand if you want to understand. What you don't get is that no one is entitled to any portion of what another person has earned including healthcare unless the one doing the giving does so under their own free will. Since Medicare is mandated, that's already gone.
> ...



That's the typical bullshit argument.  Governments were not formed to collectively do that.  Those in government chose to do that in order to pander for votes and they got another old asshole like you to believe it.    When the poor people start paying their fair share, and nothing isn't a share, talk to me about paying more.  You define general welfare on the same level as social welfare and they are not the same.  I bet you think the pursuit of happiness equates to guarantee of happiness. 

By supporting the concept that one person is entitled to another person's money, it's on you you old bastard to provide them your money.  If you're man enough to come and collect what I have on their behalf, come get it.  You won't for many reasons.


----------



## georgephillip (Nov 26, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> That's the typical bullshit argument. Governments were not formed to collectively do that


Why do you think governments were formed if not to provide protection from outside threats, from each other, and security for those who can't be self-sufficient?


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 26, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > That's the typical bullshit argument. Governments were not formed to collectively do that
> ...


 
Read the Constitution and you'll see the purpose of government.  Not one word in it includes food stamps, government housing, WIC, Medicaid, healthcare, etc.  The term "general welfare" does not mean that one person is entitled to another person's money.   If anything, it means you have the voluntary opportunity to give them yours but you don't have one bit of business giving them mine.  
\
There is a big difference between being unable and unwilling.  There is a big difference between being in a situation not of your own doing and being in one where your own mistakes caused it.  I'll use the high school dropout again as an example.  He/She quit school.  Since education is a primary factor in determining income level, their lack of an education is a primary factor is why they have less of an ability to earn more.  They fit into the they caused their own situation.  That being the case, they also fit into the you pay for your own bad choices category.  It's not someone else's responsibility to pay more in taxes becasue of bad choices by another person.  The same goes for many things where the direct cause of a bad economic situation is the person in it.


----------



## georgephillip (Nov 26, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> Read the Constitution and you'll see the purpose of government. Not one word in it includes food stamps, government housing, WIC, Medicaid, healthcare, etc. The term "general welfare" does not mean that one person is entitled to another person's money. If anything, it means you have the voluntary opportunity to give them yours but you don't have one bit of business giving them mine.


*General welfare has been subject to different interpretations over the past 200 years:*
"Shortly after _Butler_, in _Helvering v. Davis_,[22] the Supreme Court interpreted the clause even more expansively, disavowing almost entirely any role for judicial review of Congressional spending policies, thereby conferring upon Congress a plenary power to impose taxes and to spend money for the general welfare subject almost entirely to Congress's own discretion. 

"Even more recently, in _South Dakota v. Dole_[23] the Court held Congress possessed power to indirectly influence the states into adopting national standards by withholding, to a limited extent, federal funds. To date, the Hamiltonian view of the General Welfare Clause predominates in case law."
General Welfare clause - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## dblack (Nov 26, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > By the same reasoning, no one is entitled to an education beyond the level their taxes directly fund. *Human beings form governments to collectively provide services they are unable to afford individually.* When millions of Americans began leaving the farm and working in major cities during the early decades of the 20th Century, they were told by the arch-conservatives of their time that they were no longer independent because they weren't providing their own food. By freely choosing the live in the US you are agreeing to provide your fair share to support the General Welfare of all Americans.
> ...



I don't know why you'd say it's a "bullshit" argument. I agree it's misguided, and a bad idea, but it isn't disingenuous or malicious. That's how many people, probably even the majority of voters today, see government. They see society as, more or less, a corporation that is "managed" by government. If we're to have any hope of turning things around we have to convince people how dangerous this notion really is.


----------



## georgephillip (Nov 26, 2014)

dblack said:


> That's how many people, probably even the majority of voters today, see government. They see society as, more or less, a corporation that is "managed" by government. If we're to have any hope of turning things around we have to convince people how dangerous this notion really is.


*In one of the first exchanges you and I had, I questioned whether we should first define "government" or at least consider why such a beast is formed in the first place. Now, I'm wondering if we agree on the following relationship between society and government:*
"A human *society* is a group of people related to each other through continued relations, or a large social grouping sharing the same geographical or virtual territory, same interests,* subject to the same political authority *and dominant cultural expectations.
*I never had much success with my threads regarding the purpose of an economy, but, perhaps, some discussion of a government's goals beyond providing safe harbor for vast private fortunes (should any exist) is worth a shot?
Portal Society - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia*


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 27, 2014)

General we


georgephillip said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Read the Constitution and you'll see the purpose of government. Not one word in it includes food stamps, government housing, WIC, Medicaid, healthcare, etc. The term "general welfare" does not mean that one person is entitled to another person's money. If anything, it means you have the voluntary opportunity to give them yours but you don't have one bit of business giving them mine.
> ...


general welfare and social welfare are not the same thing.


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 27, 2014)

dblack said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > georgephillip said:
> ...



They aren't willing to be convinced.  When they think one person that has more than they believe the person should have and owes someone that has less a portion of it, there is no convincing them.  Since that is how georgephillip thinks, it's disingenuous especially when he won't do on his own voluntarily what he believes someone else should be forced to do.


----------



## georgephillip (Nov 27, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> general welfare and social welfare are not the same thing.


Was the Works Progress Administration an example of general or social welfare?


----------



## dblack (Nov 27, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > That's how many people, probably even the majority of voters today, see government. They see society as, more or less, a corporation that is "managed" by government. If we're to have any hope of turning things around we have to convince people how dangerous this notion really is.
> ...



Absolutely. A clear and concise understanding of the purpose of government is vital. In my view, the purpose of government is to make it possible for us to live freely and peacefully in a pluralistic society.


----------



## georgephillip (Nov 27, 2014)

dblack said:


> Absolutely. A clear and concise understanding of the purpose of government is vital. In my view, the purpose of government is to make it possible for us to live freely and peacefully in a pluralistic society.


*"Pluralism as a political philosophy is the recognition and affirmation of diversity within a political body, which permits the peaceful coexistence of different interests, convictions and lifestyles. 

"Political pluralists are not inherently liberals (who place liberty and/or equality as their guiding principles) or conservatives (who place order and/or tradition as their guiding principles) but advocate a form of political moderation. 

"Nor are political pluralists necessarily advocates of a democratic plurality, but generally agree that this form of government is often best at moderating discrete values."

Pluralism political philosophy - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia*


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 28, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > general welfare and social welfare are not the same thing.
> ...



Neither.


----------



## georgephillip (Nov 28, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> Neither.


To Promote the General Welfare The Case for Big Government - Google Books


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 28, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Neither.
> ...


General welfare and social welfare are not the same thing.   Forcibly taking then handing one person another person's money is absolutely wrong.  If you want someone to have another person's money give them all of yours.  If you don't, your claim that I owe them something is invalid.  I'll offer you a challenge.  If you think someone does come try to collect it from me on their behalf.


----------



## georgephillip (Nov 28, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> General welfare and social welfare are not the same thing. Forcibly taking then handing one person another person's money is absolutely wrong.


So you think FDR was absolutely wrong to tax the rich to pay for the WPA?


----------



## MrDVS1 (Nov 28, 2014)

> You recognize the right of the irresponsible, non-productive, dependent class to vote themselves into other people's wallets.



You mean like politicians do for their health care.


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 28, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > General welfare and social welfare are not the same thing. Forcibly taking then handing one person another person's money is absolutely wrong.
> ...



FDR was wrong period.  He began an era is socialist programs and they are nothing more than a redistribution of wealth mindset.  His programs were nothing more than those on the low economic end being taken care of by those the government thinks has too much money.


----------



## georgephillip (Nov 28, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> FDR was wrong period. He began an era is socialist programs and they are nothing more than a redistribution of wealth mindset. His programs were nothing more than those on the low economic end being taken care of by those the government thinks has too much money.


The rich destroyed the global economy during the Roaring Twenties resulting in unemployment rates of 25%. FDR saved capitalism by putting its victims back to work. If he hadn't, there wouldn't be any rich left today to suck the government's tits dry.


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 28, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > FDR was wrong period. He began an era is socialist programs and they are nothing more than a redistribution of wealth mindset. His programs were nothing more than those on the low economic end being taken care of by those the government thinks has too much money.
> ...



FDR was a socialist piece of shit.  

As for the rich, if it weren't  for them and the middle class, the leeches would have a tit to suck on with social welfare programs.


----------



## georgephillip (Nov 29, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> FDR was a socialist piece of shit.
> 
> As for the rich, if it weren't for them and the middle class, the leeches would have a tit to suck on with social welfare programs.


"With the coming of the Great Depression in the 1930s, a sharp increase in protest and anticapitalist sentiment threatened to undermine the existing political system and create new political parties. 

"The findings of diverse opinion polls, as well as the electoral support given to local radical, progressive, and prolabor candidates, indicate that a large minority of Americans were ready to back social democratic proposals. 

"It is significant, then, that even with the growth of class consciousness in America, no national third party was able to break the duopoly of the Democratic and Republican Parties. 

"Radicals who operated within the two-party system were often able to achieve local victories, but these accomplishments never culminated in the creation of a sustainable third party or left-wing ideological movement."
How FDR Saved Capitalism Hoover Institution

*The rich have always been parasites consuming far beyond what they produce, and every government yet created has served their interests at the expense of its majority.*


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 29, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > FDR was a socialist piece of shit.
> ...



What jobs have poor people produced compared to the trillions in handouts they've received?


----------



## georgephillip (Nov 29, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> What jobs have poor people produced compared to the trillions in handouts they've received?


Poor people produce the demand that drives 70% of US GDP. Rich parasites shift the poor's jobs to China, the tax burden onto the shoulders of the middle class, then hoard 90% of productivity increases to gamble with in the Wall Street casino.


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 29, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > What jobs have poor people produced compared to the trillions in handouts they've received?
> ...





georgephillip said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > What jobs have poor people produced compared to the trillions in handouts they've received?
> ...



No they don't.  Demand, by definition, involves a willingness and ability to buy.  When the ability to buy is being funded by someone else forced to pay, those using programs that do that have no demand.  Without the handouts, the have no ability, therefore, no demand.  They are parasites that leech in order to have handed to them what the rest of us provide to ourselves then think they provide it to themselves.


----------



## georgephillip (Nov 29, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> Without the handouts, the have no ability, therefore, no demand. They are parasites that leech in order to have handed to them what the rest of us provide to ourselves then think they provide it to themselves.


Are you saying those who receive transfer payments like Unemployment Insurance or SSA don't provide any consumer demand?


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 29, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Without the handouts, the have no ability, therefore, no demand. They are parasites that leech in order to have handed to them what the rest of us provide to ourselves then think they provide it to themselves.
> ...


Unemployment isn't a transfer 


georgephillip said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Without the handouts, the have no ability, therefore, no demand. They are parasites that leech in order to have handed to them what the rest of us provide to ourselves then think they provide it to themselves.
> ...


Unemployment isn't a transfer payment where I live.  Employers pay the costs of it.  Employees don't pay into it.  Food stamps and the like don't meet the definition of demand because those getting them don't pay the taxes that fund them.


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 29, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > What jobs have poor people produced compared to the trillions in handouts they've received?
> ...


VALID source for your 70% claim.?


----------



## georgephillip (Nov 29, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> Food stamps and the like don't meet the definition of demand because those getting them don't pay the taxes that fund them.


Whose definition of "demand?"
The goods and services bought with food stamps factor in to GDP.


----------



## georgephillip (Nov 29, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> VALID source for your 70% claim.?


Household final consumption expenditure etc. of GDP Data Table


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 29, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > VALID source for your 70% claim.?
> ...


How much of it is their money vs. someone else's money handed to those leeches?


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 29, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Food stamps and the like don't meet the definition of demand because those getting them don't pay the taxes that fund them.
> ...





georgephillip said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Food stamps and the like don't meet the definition of demand because those getting them don't pay the taxes that fund them.
> ...


THE definition of demand.  If people use food stamps they aren't able to buy their own food when it's someone else's money the leeches are using.  For it to be demand, they would have to be using their own money you dumbass old bastard.


----------



## georgephillip (Nov 30, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> For it to be demand, they would have to be using their own money you dumbass old bastard.


"*Definition of consumer demand*
The amount of goods and services consumers are willing to buy."
*Go to college, Punk.

Consumer Demand Definition from Financial Times Lexicon*


----------



## georgephillip (Nov 30, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> How much of it is their money vs. someone else's money handed to those leeches?


How much of their money was stolen by Wall Street/DC parasites? How many of their jobs were shipped to China by corporate criminals? The leeches you should worry about aren't poor.


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 30, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > How much of it is their money vs. someone else's money handed to those leeches?
> ...


If they're poor, none.  If you don't have anything, nothing can be "stolen".  If the laws allow corporations to do what they do, it's not a crime.  Your problem is you think if someone has less than what you think they should have it's because someone else stole it from them.  That's far from the truth.


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 30, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > For it to be demand, they would have to be using their own money you dumbass old bastard.
> ...


Been there dickhead.  Demand involves an ABILITY to pay.  You can want something all day long .  Unless you can pay for it with your money, there is no demand.   Test that out.  Want in one hand without money to buy and shit in the other. Tell me which one Fills up the quickest.


----------



## georgephillip (Nov 30, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> Your problem is you think if someone has less than what you think they should have it's because someone else stole it from them. That's far from the truth.


I think the vast majority of US workers have seen their share of rising productivity gains over the past four decades stolen by the richest 1% of Americans who've bribed politicians for favorable tax and trade policies. That's the truth you seem to have trouble seeing.


----------



## dblack (Nov 30, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Your problem is you think if someone has less than what you think they should have it's because someone else stole it from them. That's far from the truth.
> ...



How are they stolen?


----------



## georgephillip (Nov 30, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> Demand involves an ABILITY to pay


With no requirement on where a consumer acquired the money to pay; you are beyond the ignorance level of most conservatives. MOOC?
Coursera


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 30, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Demand involves an ABILITY to pay
> ...




It is important where they acquired the money.  You are the typical Liberal who thinks someone handed a check is the same as them having earned it.  If it weren't for those of us who made a contribution to society, those leeches wouldn't have a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of.


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 30, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Your problem is you think if someone has less than what you think they should have it's because someone else stole it from them. That's far from the truth.
> ...



If you have proof of bribes, show it.  The truth is that those who the ability to do something because they use another person's money that was taken from the one that earned it means the leech doesn't have the ability.  If they did, they wouldn't stick their damn  hands out claiming they have a right to something that isn't theirs.


----------



## georgephillip (Nov 30, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> It is important where they acquired the money


In case you missed it ( and I'm sure you did), capitalism is a value neutral economic system. It doesn't make any difference to capitalists whether they earn their money by destroying schools and mosques or by building schools and mosques. All their efforts count equally when computing GDP. Just as consumer demand makes no distinction between wages and transfer payments. Your whining about poor leeches taking whatever minute amount of GDP you're responsible for is pathetic at best and self-destructive at worst.


----------



## georgephillip (Nov 30, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> If you have proof of bribes, show it







40 charts that explain money in politics - Vox


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 30, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > It is important where they acquired the money
> ...



The amount some piece of shit leech gets that I earned is a penny too much if it's only one cent. 

It does make a difference whether the money comes from earning it or having it leeched to you.  If those leeches didn't have it handed to them and those of us earning it spent it on us, they wouldn't have demand as they wouldn't be able to afford it.  While the numbers may be combined, the reason some leech has anything is more important.  You don't get it.  They don't have shit if it isn't for people like me earning it for them.  Remember that fact as it is the important one.


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 30, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > If you have proof of bribes, show it
> ...



That's not proof.  It's your OPINION. Learn the difference dickhead.


----------



## georgephillip (Nov 30, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> That's not proof. It's your OPINION. Learn the difference dickhead.


Exactly, Moron.
That's not proof of bribery to those with their heads stuck up their ass.


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 30, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > That's not proof. It's your OPINION. Learn the difference dickhead.
> ...



It's not proof of bribery to anyone.  It's your opinion and it smells like your ass.


----------



## peach174 (Nov 30, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> Roadrunner said:
> 
> 
> > You recognize the right of the irresponsible, non-productive, dependent class to vote themselves into other people's wallets.
> ...



This economist Branko Horvat needs to read up a little more on the history of countries who rejected Capitalism and caused the destruction of their economy.
Even China woke up and embraced Capitalism.


----------



## georgephillip (Nov 30, 2014)

peach174 said:


> This economist Branko Horvat needs to read up a little more on the history of countries who rejected Capitalism and caused the destruction of their economy.
> Even China woke up and embraced Capitalism.


Capitalism has turned the earth into a planet of slums.
Visit Detroit if still confused.




The Remains of Detroit - Photo Essays - TIME


----------



## Conservative65 (Nov 30, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> > This economist Branko Horvat needs to read up a little more on the history of countries who rejected Capitalism and caused the destruction of their economy.
> ...



Don't blame capitalism for what Democrat officials in charge did.  I'd bet good money if Detroit was thriving you'd give credit to the ones you refuse to blame.


----------



## georgephillip (Dec 1, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> Don't blame capitalism for what Democrat officials in charge did. I'd bet good money if Detroit was thriving you'd give credit to the ones you refuse to blame.


It wasn't Democrat officials who made the decision to send hundreds of thousands of middle class jobs to China; that would be greedy capitalists who have seen their share of national income double since the 1970s.
Income inequality in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## Conservative65 (Dec 1, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Don't blame capitalism for what Democrat officials in charge did. I'd bet good money if Detroit was thriving you'd give credit to the ones you refuse to blame.
> ...


 
It was Democrats that created the environment that gave the businesses a reason to go.  If you're in business to make a profit, you make decisions to increase that profit.  Those like you who say they wouldn't do it either have never been in business or you lie. 

To reach the income level I've reached, I spent thousands more hours furthering my education, doing continuing education within my field, etc. than the low skilled worker who does a job requiring the same skills it took to do that job 50 years ago.  That means when I make thousands of times more, no one should have a problem.  Honest people don't.  Bleeding hearts like you do because you think  the low skilled, uneducated moron is owed a wage based on existence while thinking that the rest of us should be paid on skills.  I don't have a problem multiple times more than the know nothing, low skilled worker.  They should have thought about that when they were doing things other than improving their skills.


----------



## georgephillip (Dec 1, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> It was Democrats that created the environment that gave the businesses a reason to go. If you're in business to make a profit, you make decisions to increase that profit. Those like you who say they wouldn't do it either have never been in business or you lie.


*Corrupt one-party rule played a big role in Detroit's demise, and so did Nixon's decision to delink the dollar from gold in 1971.

Neither Nixon nor Democrats decided to move thousands of good paying union jobs to the wage-slave Southern states in the US and even lower paying jobs across the Pacific.

By comparison, German automakers didn't shift production abroad in the 70s to the same extent the US did possibly because German unions have voting members sitting on the board of directors of the corporations they labor for?

The Unions Didn t Bankrupt Detroit But Great American Cars Did - Forbes *


----------



## Conservative65 (Dec 1, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > It was Democrats that created the environment that gave the businesses a reason to go. If you're in business to make a profit, you make decisions to increase that profit. Those like you who say they wouldn't do it either have never been in business or you lie.
> ...


 
Democrat policies is what bankrupted Detroit.


----------



## georgephillip (Dec 3, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> Democrat policies is what bankrupted Detroit.


Capitalism is what bankrupted Detroit.
Disaster capitalism killed Detroit. Thom Hartmann - News info from the 1 progressive radio show


----------



## peach174 (Dec 3, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Democrat policies is what bankrupted Detroit.
> ...



Not even close George
Liberal policies and labor unions (sanctioned by the government) led to decay and bankruptcy
How Liberal Policies Ruined the City of Detroit


----------



## Conservative65 (Dec 3, 2014)

peach174 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...


 
You can damn well belive george would be giving the Progressives in govenrment credit if Detroit was thriving.


----------



## Conservative65 (Dec 3, 2014)

georgephillip said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > Democrat policies is what bankrupted Detroit.
> ...


 
A Progressive not wanting to say progressive policies killed Detroit.  Hardly a valid source but not surprised you used it.


----------



## georgephillip (Dec 3, 2014)

peach174 said:


> Not even close George
> Liberal policies and labor unions (sanctioned by the government) led to decay and bankruptcy


"*Detroiter*
April 16th, 2010 at 3:21 pm
This video was total bullshit, please don’t come to our city."
*How does your conservative hack spend thirteen minutes assessing Detroit's fall without mentioning the outsourcing of millions of middle class jobs by rich parasites sitting on the boards of directors of major corporations?*

"Conservatives like Neil Munro and Sean Higgins hope that maybe - just maybe - if they can convince the American people that big bad unions and Democrats are to blame for the death of Detroit, then they can get them to forget that *conservatives have destroyed this country with 30-plus years of Reaganomics and voodoo economics.* 

"Union-bashing is bad enough - but there’s another, even uglier dimension to the GOP’s Detroit meme. 

"The Motor City is eighty-five percent African-American. 

"In fact, it has the highest black population - percentage wise - of any major city in the United States. 

"So when Republican pundits and politicians talk about 'mismanagement' and 'bad governance', what they are actually saying is that black-people aren’t capable of running a city."

Disaster capitalism killed Detroit. Thom Hartmann - News info from the 1 progressive radio showDisaster capitalism killed Detroit. Thom Hartmann - News info from the 1 progressive radio show


----------



## georgephillip (Dec 3, 2014)

Conservative65 said:


> A Progressive not wanting to say progressive policies killed Detroit. Hardly a valid source but not surprised you used it.


*I'm not surprised you're not surprised:*
"The real culprit in the city’s decline has been federal policies that put corporate health ahead of community health, such as free-trade agreements that sacrifice U.S. jobs for foreign trade. 

"President Bill Clinton’s NAFTA treaty is particularly reviled among auto workers. 

"Such agreements have made it easier for car companies and others to leave their communities for lower labor costs elsewhere."
Five myths about Detroit - The Washington Post


----------

