The glaring evidence that Obamacare is a catastrophic FAILURE continues to mount

[antiquity]

‘Let me get this straight … We’re going to be “gifted” with a health care plan we are forced to purchase and fined if we don’t. Which purportedly covers at least ten million more people, without adding a single new doctor, but provides for 16,000 new IRS agents, written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn’t understand it, passed by a Congress that didn’t read it, but exempted themselves from it, and signed by a President who smokes, with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn’t pay his taxes, for which we’ll be taxed for four years before any benefits take effect, by a government which has already bankrupted Social Security and Medicare, all to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that’s broke!

What the Hell could possibly go wrong?’

 

[PMZ]

‘Let me get this straight … We’re going to be “gifted” with a health care plan we are forced to purchase and fined if we don’t. Which purportedly covers at least ten million more people, without adding a single new doctor, but provides for 16,000 new IRS agents, written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn’t understand it, passed by a Congress that didn’t read it, but exempted themselves from it, and signed by a President who smokes, with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn’t pay his taxes, for which we’ll be taxed for four years before any benefits take effect, by a government which has already bankrupted Social Security and Medicare, all to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that’s broke!

What the Hell could possibly go wrong?’

This is an accurate recital of Fox Opinions propaganda as prepared by THE PARTY.

As good a statement of the problem as I've seen.

 

[RKMBrown]

I can't wait to hear how the government created the dust bowl!

The dust bowl was quite literally caused by a lack of regulation of the farming of prairie lands. The farmers over produced wheat, the price fell through the floor, then the farmers left the land bare instead of replacing the bare dirt with natural prairie grasses. The result of this miss-management was the dust bowl. Govco failed to do it's job.

So, the government, in your opinion, has the responsibility to prevent, through regulations, people from doing stupid, irresponsible things.

Just as liberty does not include the liberty to murder people, preventing someone from causing damage to our country does not include preventing people from having liberty.

Said another way, in my opinion, the government has the responsibility to prevent, through regulations, people from doing stupid irresponsible things that cause harm to other people. For example, laws regulating use of the highway system. As another example, mandating farmers put the land back to good condition after harvesting. Still another example to the OP, mandating minimum requirements for physicians to be able to be licensed to practice.

 

[PMZ]

The dust bowl was quite literally caused by a lack of regulation of the farming of prairie lands. The farmers over produced wheat, the price fell through the floor, then the farmers left the land bare instead of replacing the bare dirt with natural prairie grasses. The result of this miss-management was the dust bowl. Govco failed to do it's job.

So, the government, in your opinion, has the responsibility to prevent, through regulations, people from doing stupid, irresponsible things.

Just as liberty does not include the liberty to murder people, preventing someone from causing damage to our country does not include preventing people from having liberty.

Said another way, in my opinion, the government has the responsibility to prevent, through regulations, people from doing stupid irresponsible things that cause harm to other people. For example, laws regulating use of the highway system. As another example, mandating farmers put the land back to good condition after harvesting. Still another example to the OP, mandating minimum requirements for physicians to be able to be licensed to practice.

Liberty is an abstraction. Rights are defined as very specific areas of life that the government is prohibited from relating.

"to prevent, through regulations, people from doing stupid irresponsible things that cause harm to other people."

The only word that I would eliminate is "stupid" because it's so subjective.

None of the real threats to my pursuit of happiness come from the government. They all come from other people. They are, as near as I can tell, all illegal.

 

[RKMBrown]

So, the government, in your opinion, has the responsibility to prevent, through regulations, people from doing stupid, irresponsible things.

Just as liberty does not include the liberty to murder people, preventing someone from causing damage to our country does not include preventing people from having liberty.

Said another way, in my opinion, the government has the responsibility to prevent, through regulations, people from doing stupid irresponsible things that cause harm to other people. For example, laws regulating use of the highway system. As another example, mandating farmers put the land back to good condition after harvesting. Still another example to the OP, mandating minimum requirements for physicians to be able to be licensed to practice.

Liberty is an abstraction. Rights are defined as very specific areas of life that the government is prohibited from relating.

"to prevent, through regulations, people from doing stupid irresponsible things that cause harm to other people."

The only word that I would eliminate is "stupid" because it's so subjective.

None of the real threats to my pursuit of happiness come from the government. They all come from other people. They are, as near as I can tell, all illegal.

The only reason I used the word stupid was to relate my statement to your statement where you used stupid

>> None of the real threats to my pursuit of happiness come from the government. They all come from other people.

As there is no such person named "government" I agree with your statement that the real threats to pursuit of happiness come from people.

>> They are, as near as I can tell, all illegal.

Yes, no one is without sin. Thus the need to have laws and law enforcement, and national defense, and personal defense, and multiple political parties, and intellectual property rights, and yes even welfare for the needy.

I'm sure we would agree to that point.

Usually the only issue between honest men of differing politics, is the means with which we go forward with some of these items. For example, authoritarian personalities vs. people who believe in liberty.

 

[PMZ]

Just as liberty does not include the liberty to murder people, preventing someone from causing damage to our country does not include preventing people from having liberty.

Said another way, in my opinion, the government has the responsibility to prevent, through regulations, people from doing stupid irresponsible things that cause harm to other people. For example, laws regulating use of the highway system. As another example, mandating farmers put the land back to good condition after harvesting. Still another example to the OP, mandating minimum requirements for physicians to be able to be licensed to practice.

Liberty is an abstraction. Rights are defined as very specific areas of life that the government is prohibited from relating.

"to prevent, through regulations, people from doing stupid irresponsible things that cause harm to other people."

The only word that I would eliminate is "stupid" because it's so subjective.

None of the real threats to my pursuit of happiness come from the government. They all come from other people. They are, as near as I can tell, all illegal.

The only reason I used the word stupid was to relate my statement to your statement where you used stupid

>> None of the real threats to my pursuit of happiness come from the government. They all come from other people.

As there is no such person named "government" I agree with your statement that the real threats to pursuit of happiness come from people.

>> They are, as near as I can tell, all illegal.

Yes, no one is without sin. Thus the need to have laws and law enforcement, and national defense, and personal defense, and multiple political parties, and intellectual property rights, and yes even welfare for the needy.

I'm sure we would agree to that point.

Usually the only issue between honest men of differing politics, is the means with which we go forward with some of these items. For example, authoritarian personalities vs. people who believe in liberty.

I believe that "authoritarian personalities vs. people who believe in liberty" is fully resolved by democracy.

More than half the voters have to be happy with where that line is drawn at any given time.

Every alternative to democracy lowers that percentage.

 

[dblack]

Liberty is an abstraction. Rights are defined as very specific areas of life that the government is prohibited from relating.

"to prevent, through regulations, people from doing stupid irresponsible things that cause harm to other people."

The only word that I would eliminate is "stupid" because it's so subjective.

None of the real threats to my pursuit of happiness come from the government. They all come from other people. They are, as near as I can tell, all illegal.

The only reason I used the word stupid was to relate my statement to your statement where you used stupid

>> None of the real threats to my pursuit of happiness come from the government. They all come from other people.

As there is no such person named "government" I agree with your statement that the real threats to pursuit of happiness come from people.

>> They are, as near as I can tell, all illegal.

Yes, no one is without sin. Thus the need to have laws and law enforcement, and national defense, and personal defense, and multiple political parties, and intellectual property rights, and yes even welfare for the needy.

I'm sure we would agree to that point.

Usually the only issue between honest men of differing politics, is the means with which we go forward with some of these items. For example, authoritarian personalities vs. people who believe in liberty.

I believe that "authoritarian personalities vs. people who believe in liberty" is fully resolved by democracy.

More than half the voters have to be happy with where that line is drawn at any given time.

That line is drawn before voting comes into play. That's the whole point of the Constitution.

 

[PMZ]

The only reason I used the word stupid was to relate my statement to your statement where you used stupid

>> None of the real threats to my pursuit of happiness come from the government. They all come from other people.

As there is no such person named "government" I agree with your statement that the real threats to pursuit of happiness come from people.

>> They are, as near as I can tell, all illegal.

Yes, no one is without sin. Thus the need to have laws and law enforcement, and national defense, and personal defense, and multiple political parties, and intellectual property rights, and yes even welfare for the needy.

I'm sure we would agree to that point.

Usually the only issue between honest men of differing politics, is the means with which we go forward with some of these items. For example, authoritarian personalities vs. people who believe in liberty.

I believe that "authoritarian personalities vs. people who believe in liberty" is fully resolved by democracy.

More than half the voters have to be happy with where that line is drawn at any given time.

That line is drawn before voting comes into play. That's the whole point of the Constitution.

The Bill of Rights were the first amendments to the Constitution. They prohibit the enforcement of legislation that restricts us in certain specific areas of life.

I think that Brown's "authoritarian personalities vs. people who believe in liberty" was bringing up a more subtle distinction. Because, in the real world, everything governmental falls between authoritarian personalities (tyranny) and people who believe in liberty (anarchy).

 

[dblack]

I believe that "authoritarian personalities vs. people who believe in liberty" is fully resolved by democracy.

More than half the voters have to be happy with where that line is drawn at any given time.

That line is drawn before voting comes into play. That's the whole point of the Constitution.

The Bill of Rights were the first amendments to the Constitution. They prohibit the enforcement of legislation that restricts us in certain specific areas of life.

I think that Brown's "authoritarian personalities vs. people who believe in liberty" was bringing up a more subtle distinction. Because, in the real world, everything governmental falls between authoritarian personalities (tyranny) and people who believe in liberty (anarchy).

Wow... you think 'people who believe in liberty' are anarchists???

Also - tyranny isn't just about 'personalities'. You can have tyranny of the majority as well.

 

[PMZ]

That line is drawn before voting comes into play. That's the whole point of the Constitution.

The Bill of Rights were the first amendments to the Constitution. They prohibit the enforcement of legislation that restricts us in certain specific areas of life.

I think that Brown's "authoritarian personalities vs. people who believe in liberty" was bringing up a more subtle distinction. Because, in the real world, everything governmental falls between authoritarian personalities (tyranny) and people who believe in liberty (anarchy).

Wow... you think 'people who believe in liberty' are anarchists???

Also - tyranny isn't just about 'personalities'. You can have tyranny of the majority as well.

I never use the word liberty because, as I said earlier, it is an abstraction.

How would you define it?

 

[PMZ]

That line is drawn before voting comes into play. That's the whole point of the Constitution.

The Bill of Rights were the first amendments to the Constitution. They prohibit the enforcement of legislation that restricts us in certain specific areas of life.

I think that Brown's "authoritarian personalities vs. people who believe in liberty" was bringing up a more subtle distinction. Because, in the real world, everything governmental falls between authoritarian personalities (tyranny) and people who believe in liberty (anarchy).

Wow... you think 'people who believe in liberty' are anarchists???

Also - tyranny isn't just about 'personalities'. You can have tyranny of the majority as well.

Any government that is run by less than a majority is a tyranny. A power class imposing on a ruled class.

 

[dblack]

The Bill of Rights were the first amendments to the Constitution. They prohibit the enforcement of legislation that restricts us in certain specific areas of life.

I think that Brown's "authoritarian personalities vs. people who believe in liberty" was bringing up a more subtle distinction. Because, in the real world, everything governmental falls between authoritarian personalities (tyranny) and people who believe in liberty (anarchy).

Wow... you think 'people who believe in liberty' are anarchists???

Also - tyranny isn't just about 'personalities'. You can have tyranny of the majority as well.

Any government that is run by less than a majority is a tyranny. A power class imposing on a ruled class.

Is any government run by a majority NOT a tyranny, in your view?

 

[P@triot]

Employers who choose to pay minimum wage are choosing to push the rest of the cost of living off to taxpayers.

You still haven't explained this absurd and insane theory (probably because, like all Dumbocrats, you can't explain your theories since there is no thought, facts, or rationale behind them).

If you would have gotten up off of your lazy ass just once in your miserable life and actually provided a job for someone else (instead of being a parasite), you would know that businesses are forced to pay minimum wage in the instances where they do.

But you are far too ignorant of economics and business to understand any of this.

Conservatives who talk about the fair or flat tax are campaigning to make our wealth inequality worse.

We have no "wealth inequality". We never have. We never will. What we do have is effort inequality. Parasites like you expect people like me and RKM to do all of the work and then split the results of that work with you.

Republicans who believe that our indebtedness is because of too much spending instead of not enough revenue do so to avoid accountability and in the belief that richer rich and poorer poor is a good thing despite all of the research that shows our extreme to be the root cause of many of our social ills.

Our revenues to the federal government are the highest they have been in U.S. history. Period. You continue to display your ignorance. Would you like to try a new narrative now?

Like all complex problems there is not a single cause that brought us here or a single solution that will get us out.

Not true at all. The single cause that got us here is liberalism (fact). The single cause that will get us out is conservatism (fact).

But solutions begin from accepting a problem and that's what we have to do first.

Well said [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION]. Now can you accept that your liberalism is the disease which has given America a problem? If so, I think we can make some real progress here today (and you love "progress").

 

[dblack]

The Bill of Rights were the first amendments to the Constitution. They prohibit the enforcement of legislation that restricts us in certain specific areas of life.

I think that Brown's "authoritarian personalities vs. people who believe in liberty" was bringing up a more subtle distinction. Because, in the real world, everything governmental falls between authoritarian personalities (tyranny) and people who believe in liberty (anarchy).

Wow... you think 'people who believe in liberty' are anarchists???

Also - tyranny isn't just about 'personalities'. You can have tyranny of the majority as well.

I never use the word liberty because, as I said earlier, it is an abstraction.

How would you define it?

You never use abstractions???

 

[P@triot]

You demonstrate the key conservative delusion that the only key to wealth is to work hard. That's as compared to the liberal belief that life requires hard work from all responsible participants.

And that what creates responsible participants are family, friends, and schools.

And that combination, like all things human, has a certain failure rate.

Conservatives, who if nothing else are myopicly focused internally, believe that many things given are earned.

Did you pick your family, your schools, your neighborhood, your parents income, your race, your nationality, your gender?

If all of those things worked out for you be thankful, not proud.

Ah yes - the foundation of the liberal ideology: playing the victim!

History is filled with stories of people being born into the most unfortunate and disadvantaged situations and all they did was go on to live the American dream.

Chris Gardner - homeless to millionaire

Michael Ohrer - homeless to millionaire

Steve Jobs - given up for adoption to billionaire

Barack Obama - son of a white woman and foreign black father. Abandoned by father for life, by mother at some points. Now occupies the White House and is a millionaire.

But playing the victim is much easier for you than working, so that's what you choose - the easy way out.

 

[P@triot]

Employers who choose to pay minimum wage are choosing to push the rest of the cost of living off to taxpayers.

So the question remains [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] - why have you refused to do your civic duty and create good paying jobs for your fellow citizens?

Nobody is asking you to create a global conglomerate. How about just 5 people that you provide six-figure salaries for? Just 5 people in your community that you take from minimum wage to a six-figure salary?

How can you cry (like a little bitch) about other people not doing what you yourself also refuses to do?

 

[PMZ]

Wow... you think 'people who believe in liberty' are anarchists???

Also - tyranny isn't just about 'personalities'. You can have tyranny of the majority as well.

Any government that is run by less than a majority is a tyranny. A power class imposing on a ruled class.

Is any government run by a majority NOT a tyranny, in your view?

It's the least tyrannical alternative. Nothing better.

 

[P@triot]

Conservatives who talk about the fair or flat tax are campaigning to make our wealth inequality worse.

So the question remains [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] - why have you refused to do your civic duty and pay more taxes that the bare minimum you are required to close that "wealth inequality" gap?

Nobody is asking you to cover the entire national debt. How about just paying an additional $15,000 per year beyond the minimum taxes you are requires to pay? If every liberal did that, there would be no "wealth inequality".

How can you cry (like a little bitch) about other people not doing what you yourself also refuses to do?

 

[PMZ]

Wow... you think 'people who believe in liberty' are anarchists???

Also - tyranny isn't just about 'personalities'. You can have tyranny of the majority as well.

I never use the word liberty because, as I said earlier, it is an abstraction.

How would you define it?

You never use abstractions???

Can you give us a definition of "liberty"?

 

[PMZ]

Conservatives who talk about the fair or flat tax are campaigning to make our wealth inequality worse.

So the question remains [MENTION=43872]PMZ[/MENTION] - why have you refused to do your civic duty and pay more taxes that the bare minimum you are required to close that "wealth inequality" gap?

Nobody is asking you to cover the entire national debt. How about just paying an additional $15,000 per year beyond the minimum taxes you are requires to pay? If every liberal did that, there would be no "wealth inequality".

How can you cry (like a little bitch) about other people not doing what you yourself also refuses to do?

I pay what I owe. Just like you do. I just don't whine about it.