Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Oh man, not one of you got it right. We believe that liberty is the ultimate form of political expression. We believe in individual liberty, voluntary association and political freedom. We do not espouse the ideals of hating the rich or promoting them. We just want them to be allowed to be rich. See we believe it is the right of any person to to own their own property and make their own money, without the thing of government rigging the entire process. We want to limit government to the point where it is no longer coercive but cooperative with it's people. We would much rather have it work for us than us for it. We don't want to sell it out to anyone, we want it to do what it was originally designed to do, protect us from coercion and violent threats.
OohPah is just launching a smear campaign on me and members of my party, with piddly liberal class warfare rhetoric. How lame. I cannot believe it, you guys are more scared of us than you are the Republicans. Go on, we won't be going anywhere. Our movement is growing, now more than ever since this government has gone completely out of control.
The ONE main goal of libertarianism: Sell out all of America to a small group of oligarchs.
Too bad you folks did a good job of selling us out to china and outsourcing tons of jobs overseas. Yes, Granny, our corporate taxes are the highest in the world. Who in their right minds would want to set up shop here, and employ people when they would never be able to survive the pressure of our business environment?
The main goal of liberalism is to tax the rich out of existence, make everyone prosper the same, equality in everyone and everything. Forgive me, but you people sound more like a bunch of utiopianists. You have more to do with communism and socialism than you do with capitalism. It's written all over your party's platform.
Yanno.................in the 1950's and 1960's, there was enough money for everyone. One of the main perks of serving a company for 20 or 30 years was you got a gold watch and a pension when you hit those marks.
The military still gives a person a pension at 20 years. I know, because I'm living on one right now.
And......................I don't have to work for some corporation now, because I'm able to make it on my pension (and still have enough for a dinner out every now and again, as well as a vacation once a year).
BTW...................you want to know what is killing capitalism? It's not the communists or the socialists....................
It's the greed at the top in the form of CEO's and "corporate managers".
Does forcing people to pay cartels ransom money every single month and STILL have no assurance when you have a life threatening illness your treatment will be covered or refuse to pay ransom money and face bankruptcy or even death sound like liberty to you?
Not at all. It sounds like PPACA. What argument are you making here?
No, I think that corporate taxes at least partially address the externalities that OhhPooPahDoo made reference to. If that raises the cost of the final product, it's still a more realistic price than it would have been without it.
All taxes are paid by people.
Let me clarify that for you.
All taxes are paid by people.
Not even poop in the pants can figure out a way to argue with that, and he routinely argues that people are not corporations.
Corporations produce products or services. There are costs involved. The corporations try to externalize as many of those costs as they can because it means more profit for themselves. If one corporation externalizes more costs than another, they have an unfair advantage. Taxes help neutralize that advantage. Then it is up to the consumer to patronize the company that provides the best product for the price with those costs included. See how that works?
To: Bfgrn
Explain how you plan to force health care workers to provide you with health care for less money.
Explain how you plan to dump the cost of your health care onto my paycheck.
All taxes are paid by people.
Let me clarify that for you.
All taxes are paid by people.
Not even poop in the pants can figure out a way to argue with that, and he routinely argues that people are not corporations.
Corporations produce products or services. There are costs involved. The corporations try to externalize as many of those costs as they can because it means more profit for themselves. If one corporation externalizes more costs than another, they have an unfair advantage. Taxes help neutralize that advantage. Then it is up to the consumer to patronize the company that provides the best product for the price with those costs included. See how that works?
Allow me to explain what JoeFuckTard just said:
Football teams compete. There is a game involved. Each time tries to score more than the other team. If one team manages to score more TD's and FG's, they have an unfair advantage. Refs should help "neutralize" that advantage to ensure that the better team does not win. See how that works?
Does forcing people to pay cartels ransom money every single month and STILL have no assurance when you have a life threatening illness your treatment will be covered or refuse to pay ransom money and face bankruptcy or even death sound like liberty to you?
Not at all. It sounds like PPACA. What argument are you making here?
Really? It's the same, except totally different. Especially the 'STILL have no assurance when you have a life threatening illness your treatment will be covered' part.
Corporations produce products or services. There are costs involved. The corporations try to externalize as many of those costs as they can because it means more profit for themselves. If one corporation externalizes more costs than another, they have an unfair advantage. Taxes help neutralize that advantage. Then it is up to the consumer to patronize the company that provides the best product for the price with those costs included. See how that works?
You should head on back to the library and read up on economics, Cork. That's a pretty fucking stupid thing to say over all. No, it's really fucking stupid.
Don't you believe you should take a step back, TakeAStepBack? Someone should talk to you about where babies come from before you try to tackle economics.
How did you know my IQ? Irregardless, I did not say what you accuse me of saying. I did not say not all people pay taxes. You apparently can't keep up. I said, and I'll quote it again highlighting the part that your brain keeps misfiring on, "not all people pay all taxes." Assuming you understand what all people and not all people means, all taxes includes more than one type of tax. Most people do not pay all taxes. For example, most people do not pay personal income tax. Most people do not corporate taxes. Some people don't even pay SS taxes, priest etc. Some states do not charge sales taxes, thus some people do not pay sales taxes. So you see the number of people that do not pay particular type of taxes is quite significant. Thus the phrase, "not all people pay all taxes" esp. in the context that it was used, is quite correct. Though I must admit, confusing to such as yourself. If you prefer when you read "not all people pay all taxes" you may substitute that for "while it is true that some people do not pay some types of taxes, it is almost impossible for someone to successfully avoid all types of taxes."What the fuck? Seriously? Does someone have to bitch slap you to explain what the word not means?
Tell me something, genius, what the fuck do you think "Not all people pay taxes" means? Either all people pay taxes, which is irrefutable when you factor in sales, use, and all the other taxes that you cannot avoid if you live in the US, or some people do not pay taxes, which is it?
Damn, I have to back up and admit I screwed up, which is a shame because I was really enjoying my rant. I missed the second all in your statement, and kept missing it.
I wish I had a dollar for every time I screwed up. To be honest, my sentence structure was horrible and I was being too subtle / clever when I wrote it. I also enjoyed your rant To: Bfgrn
Explain how you plan to force health care workers to provide you with health care for less money.
Explain how you plan to dump the cost of your health care onto my paycheck.
Let's have a little econ 101 quiz.
You work for ABC corporation, it includes health insurance for you and your family. WHO pays for the health insurance?
To: Bfgrn
Explain how you plan to force health care workers to provide you with health care for less money.
Explain how you plan to dump the cost of your health care onto my paycheck.
Let's have a little econ 101 quiz.
You work for ABC corporation, it includes health insurance for you and your family. WHO pays for the health insurance?
Who pays? There are a number of alternatives here:
ABC may take the form of the health insurance company and or the health insurance management company. ABC may use ABC assets, customer assets or other third party assets to cover the health care claims. ABC may require a portion of the employee's salary to fund all or a portion of the employee's premium cost. In some cases the employee may accepts the insurance through ABC and in other cases the employee may reject the insurance through ABC.
At any rate, when the rubber hits the road the employee works to receive compensation. Compensation is typically in the form of wages and benefits, but may also be in the form of stock and other assets, or the work may be gratis. When the corporate accountants write a check for your premium it is a check for your labor. You see we work for compensation usually. When someone writes a check in your behalf, they are usually doing so with your permission, with the exception of mandated government deposits. For example, 401k deposits are optional as are health care premium deposits.
Even though the company writes the checks, in a very real sense the employee is the one paying for his health care by providing labor. The check is remittance for work provided as a part of an employment contract. The funding for the check comes from investors, the worker, and customers. Who's paying... you could say the customers are paying. You could say the employee is paying with his labor. You could say the company writes the checks, but sometimes they are just the middle men and managers of the relationship between the work and customer sales. Really it "depends" on the situation and your perspective.
Let's have a little econ 101 quiz.
You work for ABC corporation, it includes health insurance for you and your family. WHO pays for the health insurance?
Who pays? There are a number of alternatives here:
ABC may take the form of the health insurance company and or the health insurance management company. ABC may use ABC assets, customer assets or other third party assets to cover the health care claims. ABC may require a portion of the employee's salary to fund all or a portion of the employee's premium cost. In some cases the employee may accepts the insurance through ABC and in other cases the employee may reject the insurance through ABC.
At any rate, when the rubber hits the road the employee works to receive compensation. Compensation is typically in the form of wages and benefits, but may also be in the form of stock and other assets, or the work may be gratis. When the corporate accountants write a check for your premium it is a check for your labor. You see we work for compensation usually. When someone writes a check in your behalf, they are usually doing so with your permission, with the exception of mandated government deposits. For example, 401k deposits are optional as are health care premium deposits.
Even though the company writes the checks, in a very real sense the employee is the one paying for his health care by providing labor. The check is remittance for work provided as a part of an employment contract. The funding for the check comes from investors, the worker, and customers. Who's paying... you could say the customers are paying. You could say the employee is paying with his labor. You could say the company writes the checks, but sometimes they are just the middle men and managers of the relationship between the work and customer sales. Really it "depends" on the situation and your perspective.
An awful lot of words to say: The EMPLOYEE pays.
Again, I will quote one of the right's beloved handlers; The Heritage Foundation:
A Snare And A Delusion
Employer-based health insurance in this country is the product of wartime economic and tax policy of the 1940s. There is no reason why health reform in the 1990s should be governed by those unique circumstances and outdated tax policies.
Uwe Reinhardt and Alan Krueger tell us that the tax treatment of employment-based health insurance now is sharply regressive. And, Mark Pauly confirms, it contributes to market distortions, high costs, and lack of portability in health insurance. Americans today get tax relief for health insurance on only one condition: that they get it from their employer. This has tied health insurance to the workplace in a way that no other insurance is treated. It means that if we lose or change a job, we lose our health coverage.
Pauly also tells us that employer-based insurance hides the true costs of health care. Thus, there is no normal collision between the forces of supply and demand on even the most basic level. Most workers do not purchase health insurance; it is purchased by somebody else, usually the company. For most workers, it is a free good, an extra, that automatically comes with the job. At least, we live with that comfortable illusion. But, in fact, it is not free at all, and the employer gives us nothing. Because too many people think that the employers contribution is the employers money and not theirs, the consumers perception is distorted (as is the providers), and health spending is not subject to market discipline. Likewise, because too many people still do not understand this reality, hidden taxes through the employer mandate are politically attractive. Such a mandate thus serves as a psychological snare and an economic delusion.
Karen Davis and Cathy Schoen suggest a payroll tax to finance reform, whereby the employer pays 8 percent and the employee pays 2 percent. If one of our tasks is to make the true costs transparent, this suggestion does not help very much.
In his otherwise enlightening paper, Reinhardt calls attention to the virtues of a mandated purchase of health insurance. And he warns that calling an employers mandated purchase a tax comes close to debasing the English language. But, in a similar context, Reinhardt uses the word contribution to describe suspiciously similar functions. Suffice it to say, the campaign for linguistic precision is hardly advanced by using the word contibution to describe the states forcible extraction of citizens money.
In another context, Reinhardt proposes perhaps the best single reform idea to date. He suggests a simple financial disclosure on the part of the nations employers, requiring every employer to put periodically on the pay stub of every worker in America something like the following: We have paid you X thousand dollars in health benefits. This has reduced your wages by X thousand dollars. We would add: Have a nice day!5
Not at all. It sounds like PPACA. What argument are you making here?
Really? It's the same, except totally different. Especially the 'STILL have no assurance when you have a life threatening illness your treatment will be covered' part.
Totally different than what? I thought you were talking about PPACA? Under what other law are we forced to pay cartels ransom? (I know there are some, but which one are you talking about?)
Really? It's the same, except totally different. Especially the 'STILL have no assurance when you have a life threatening illness your treatment will be covered' part.
Totally different than what? I thought you were talking about PPACA? Under what other law are we forced to pay cartels ransom? (I know there are some, but which one are you talking about?)
First of all it is totally different in the fact the PPACA outlaws insurance cartel Death Panels via the 'preexisting condition'
Let's make this clear...CRYSTAL; when someone 'opts out' of buying health insurance they are not exercising personal responsibility, they are exercising personal IRresponsibility. They are welshers, with a welfare queen mentality.
Tell me something; libertarians PREACH personal responsibility and not infringing of their rights. But they have NO problem with their distorted idea of 'liberty' costing everyone else their 'liberty' and they have no problem with insurance cartels and the government lifting my wallet to pay for their IRresponsibility.
If you are an adult and you don't have health insurance you are what's called FREE RIDER.
One reason the individual mandate appealed to conservatives is because it called for individual responsibility to address what economists call the "free-rider effect." That's the fact that if a person is in an accident or comes down with a dread disease, that person is going to get medical care, and someone is going to pay for it.
Does forcing people to pay cartels ransom money every single month and STILL have no assurance when you have a life threatening illness your treatment will be covered or refuse to pay ransom money and face bankruptcy or even death sound like liberty to you?
Not at all. It sounds like PPACA. What argument are you making here?
Really? It's the same, except totally different. Especially the 'STILL have no assurance when you have a life threatening illness your treatment will be covered' part.
Corporations produce products or services. There are costs involved. The corporations try to externalize as many of those costs as they can because it means more profit for themselves. If one corporation externalizes more costs than another, they have an unfair advantage. Taxes help neutralize that advantage. Then it is up to the consumer to patronize the company that provides the best product for the price with those costs included. See how that works?
Allow me to explain what JoeFuckTard just said:
Football teams compete. There is a game involved. Each time tries to score more than the other team. If one team manages to score more TD's and FG's, they have an unfair advantage. Refs should help "neutralize" that advantage to ensure that the better team does not win. See how that works?
Hey, guess what? There are penalties in football for things like pass interference, jumping the snap, unneccessary roughness... They all involve loss of yardage and they have nothing to do with one team outscoring another.
And JoeFuckTard huh? Wow, you've really put some work into your insults lately.
Allow me to explain what JoeFuckTard just said:
Football teams compete. There is a game involved. Each time tries to score more than the other team. If one team manages to score more TD's and FG's, they have an unfair advantage. Refs should help "neutralize" that advantage to ensure that the better team does not win. See how that works?
Hey, guess what? There are penalties in football for things like pass interference, jumping the snap, unneccessary roughness... They all involve loss of yardage and they have nothing to do with one team outscoring another.
And JoeFuckTard huh? Wow, you've really put some work into your insults lately.
So you think there should be a penalty for being smarter and working harder?
Hey, guess what? There are penalties in football for things like pass interference, jumping the snap, unneccessary roughness... They all involve loss of yardage and they have nothing to do with one team outscoring another.
And JoeFuckTard huh? Wow, you've really put some work into your insults lately.
So you think there should be a penalty for being smarter and working harder?
I pay it every day. I'm just glad that I'm smarter and able to work harder.
..........meanwhile...... the troll who initiated this septic field skipped on it.....
