Why exactly are you unwilling to pay for other people's medical care?

[dblack]

... I think it's far better we use those dollars for healthcare for the poor than blow up hospitals killing women and children.

Oh I totally agree with that. Dismantling the welfare state is low on my list of priorities. But it IS part of the problem, especially in the way it encourages people to accept corporatist government.

I don't think it's possible to dismantle the welfare state, not when half the country is receiving benefits. I think at the root of the problem is globalization and that's not going away.

Better trained workers abroad, increased foreign worker productivity, and increased investments abroad, a more stable international climate, and international free trade has put US workers in direct competition with foreign workers who command much lower wages and benefits. This means less jobs at lower pay, particularly for low skilled workers. This trend began years ago and it's not likely to reverse until foreign workers wages and benefits approach that of US workers.

Cutting benefits for the unemployed and low income workers will only drive more people into the workplace pushing wages lower. The result would be more poverty and more demand for government assistance.

The answer is of course creating more jobs for low skilled workers and increasing the productive of the American worker so he is better able to compete with workers abroad.

That last bit is exactly what I'm talking about when I say that the welfare state encourages people to accept corporatist government.

We can dismantle the welfare state, and the warfare state - and pretty much any other corrosive institution of government - if we decide it's worth doing.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by globalism. In my view it's nationalism that's feeding our move to corporatism, not globalism. The view that each country is in competition with the rest tempts us to view our people as resources to apply toward that goal, rather than individuals with rights to protect.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Cartoons now. They're very convincing, though not in the way you intended.

Post more.

You're not competent to evaluate my intentions.

I disagree. Post another cartoon.

You're not competent to disagree with me.

Prove it.

You've done just fine by yourself. Thank you.

Not many people make a meaningless laughingstock of themselves quite as quickly as he has. We should really admire his diligence, at the very least.

 

[Flopper]

... I think it's far better we use those dollars for healthcare for the poor than blow up hospitals killing women and children.

Oh I totally agree with that. Dismantling the welfare state is low on my list of priorities. But it IS part of the problem, especially in the way it encourages people to accept corporatist government.

I don't think it's possible to dismantle the welfare state, not when half the country is receiving benefits. I think at the root of the problem is globalization and that's not going away.

Better trained workers abroad, increased foreign worker productivity, and increased investments abroad, a more stable international climate, and international free trade has put US workers in direct competition with foreign workers who command much lower wages and benefits. This means less jobs at lower pay, particularly for low skilled workers. This trend began years ago and it's not likely to reverse until foreign workers wages and benefits approach that of US workers.

Cutting benefits for the unemployed and low income workers will only drive more people into the workplace pushing wages lower. The result would be more poverty and more demand for government assistance.

The answer is of course creating more jobs for low skilled workers and increasing the productive of the American worker so he is better able to compete with workers abroad.

That last bit is exactly what I'm talking about when I say that the welfare state encourages people to accept corporatist government.

We can dismantle the welfare state, and the warfare state - and pretty much any other corrosive institution of government - if we decide it's worth doing.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by globalism. In my view it's nationalism that's feeding our move to corporatism, not globalism. The view that each country is in competition with the rest tempts us to view our people as resources to apply toward that goal, rather than individuals with rights to protect.

You say we can dismantle the welfare state. How? Half of this country receives benefits from the welfare state. Do you think beneficiaries of Medicare, Medicaid, AFDC, SNAP, SSD, SSDI, Veterans Benefits, Student Aid, Obamacare subsidies, Head Start, and 50 other programs are just going to say hey take away my benefits so government can reduce taxes on those that have plenty? I don't think so.

I'm sure there are some programs that could be reduced and some eliminated but that's not going happen in the current political climate because the control of government swings back and forth between the Right and Left.
.

 

[Arianrhod]

You're not competent to evaluate my intentions.

I disagree. Post another cartoon.

You're not competent to disagree with me.

Prove it.

You've done just fine by yourself. Thank you.

Not many people make a meaningless laughingstock of themselves quite as quickly as he has. We should really admire his diligence, at the very least.

You two should get together someday. You have soooo much in common.

 

[dblack]

... I think it's far better we use those dollars for healthcare for the poor than blow up hospitals killing women and children.

Oh I totally agree with that. Dismantling the welfare state is low on my list of priorities. But it IS part of the problem, especially in the way it encourages people to accept corporatist government.

I don't think it's possible to dismantle the welfare state, not when half the country is receiving benefits. I think at the root of the problem is globalization and that's not going away.

Better trained workers abroad, increased foreign worker productivity, and increased investments abroad, a more stable international climate, and international free trade has put US workers in direct competition with foreign workers who command much lower wages and benefits. This means less jobs at lower pay, particularly for low skilled workers. This trend began years ago and it's not likely to reverse until foreign workers wages and benefits approach that of US workers.

Cutting benefits for the unemployed and low income workers will only drive more people into the workplace pushing wages lower. The result would be more poverty and more demand for government assistance.

The answer is of course creating more jobs for low skilled workers and increasing the productive of the American worker so he is better able to compete with workers abroad.

That last bit is exactly what I'm talking about when I say that the welfare state encourages people to accept corporatist government.

We can dismantle the welfare state, and the warfare state - and pretty much any other corrosive institution of government - if we decide it's worth doing.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by globalism. In my view it's nationalism that's feeding our move to corporatism, not globalism. The view that each country is in competition with the rest tempts us to view our people as resources to apply toward that goal, rather than individuals with rights to protect.

You say we can dismantle the welfare state. How? Half of this country receives benefits from the welfare state. Do you think beneficiaries of Medicare, Medicaid, AFDC, SNAP, SSD, SSDI, Veterans Benefits, Student Aid, Obamacare subsidies, Head Start, and 50 other programs are just going to say hey take away my benefits so government can reduce taxes on those that have plenty? I don't think so.

I'm sure there are some programs that could be reduced and some eliminated but that's not going happen in the current political climate because the control of government swings back and forth between the Right and Left.
.

Maybe. Maybe not. Depends on what kind of consensus forms among voters. Not everyone is short-sighted and solely self-interested.

What's your opinion? Do you think it's a good idea to merge economic and state power?

 

[Arianrhod]

... I think it's far better we use those dollars for healthcare for the poor than blow up hospitals killing women and children.

Oh I totally agree with that. Dismantling the welfare state is low on my list of priorities. But it IS part of the problem, especially in the way it encourages people to accept corporatist government.

I don't think it's possible to dismantle the welfare state, not when half the country is receiving benefits. I think at the root of the problem is globalization and that's not going away.

Better trained workers abroad, increased foreign worker productivity, and increased investments abroad, a more stable international climate, and international free trade has put US workers in direct competition with foreign workers who command much lower wages and benefits. This means less jobs at lower pay, particularly for low skilled workers. This trend began years ago and it's not likely to reverse until foreign workers wages and benefits approach that of US workers.

Cutting benefits for the unemployed and low income workers will only drive more people into the workplace pushing wages lower. The result would be more poverty and more demand for government assistance.

The answer is of course creating more jobs for low skilled workers and increasing the productive of the American worker so he is better able to compete with workers abroad.

That last bit is exactly what I'm talking about when I say that the welfare state encourages people to accept corporatist government.

We can dismantle the welfare state, and the warfare state - and pretty much any other corrosive institution of government - if we decide it's worth doing.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by globalism. In my view it's nationalism that's feeding our move to corporatism, not globalism. The view that each country is in competition with the rest tempts us to view our people as resources to apply toward that goal, rather than individuals with rights to protect.

You say we can dismantle the welfare state. How? Half of this country receives benefits from the welfare state. Do you think beneficiaries of Medicare, Medicaid, AFDC, SNAP, SSD, SSDI, Veterans Benefits, Student Aid, Obamacare subsidies, Head Start, and 50 other programs are just going to say hey take away my benefits so government can reduce taxes on those that have plenty? I don't think so.

I'm sure there are some programs that could be reduced and some eliminated but that's not going happen in the current political climate because the control of government swings back and forth between the Right and Left.
.

I've found "get rid of the welfare state" tends to be code for "leave the ones I like and get rid of the rest." It's a mental exercise without any basis in real life.

Ask any one of them (not dblack, whom I find eminently reasonable), "Okay, say we got rid of Medicare. Would you be willing/able to pay for your grandmother's medical bills?"

They'll either give you some cockamamie story about how their grandmother doesn't accept Medicare even now because, yanno, reasons, or they'll just flake off.

It's a child's-eye view of the world. The difference is, a child's mind is flexible, and new information results in new conclusions. With these people, not so much.

 

[Conservative65]

Every human society, even atheism, has some form of the Golden Rule...except the Internet.

Even Asimov's Robot Laws cover moral behavior...for non-human intelligent life.

But the Mighty Keyboard Warriors don't need no stinkin' morality...until they come up against a problem they can't handle themselves, like the S.C. legislators who vetoed aid to states hit by Hurricane Sandy, but have tears in their eyes and their hands out after the flooding.

Morality or hypocrisy. Can any of you "not me, go fuck yourself" types tell me there's a third choice?

Every human society, even atheism, has some form of the Golden Rule...except the Internet.

Even Asimov's Robot Laws cover moral behavior...for non-human intelligent life.

But the Mighty Keyboard Warriors don't need no stinkin' morality...until they come up against a problem they can't handle themselves, like the S.C. legislators who vetoed aid to states hit by Hurricane Sandy, but have tears in their eyes and their hands out after the flooding.

Morality or hypocrisy. Can any of you "not me, go fuck yourself" types tell me there's a third choice?

Compassion comes from the willingness of the giver not a mandate by the taker.

 

[Conservative65]

... I think it's far better we use those dollars for healthcare for the poor than blow up hospitals killing women and children.

Oh I totally agree with that. Dismantling the welfare state is low on my list of priorities. But it IS part of the problem, especially in the way it encourages people to accept corporatist government.

I don't think it's possible to dismantle the welfare state, not when half the country is receiving benefits. I think at the root of the problem is globalization and that's not going away.

Better trained workers abroad, increased foreign worker productivity, and increased investments abroad, a more stable international climate, and international free trade has put US workers in direct competition with foreign workers who command much lower wages and benefits. This means less jobs at lower pay, particularly for low skilled workers. This trend began years ago and it's not likely to reverse until foreign workers wages and benefits approach that of US workers.

Cutting benefits for the unemployed and low income workers will only drive more people into the workplace pushing wages lower. The result would be more poverty and more demand for government assistance.

The answer is of course creating more jobs for low skilled workers and increasing the productive of the American worker so he is better able to compete with workers abroad.

That last bit is exactly what I'm talking about when I say that the welfare state encourages people to accept corporatist government.

We can dismantle the welfare state, and the warfare state - and pretty much any other corrosive institution of government - if we decide it's worth doing.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by globalism. In my view it's nationalism that's feeding our move to corporatism, not globalism. The view that each country is in competition with the rest tempts us to view our people as resources to apply toward that goal, rather than individuals with rights to protect.

You say we can dismantle the welfare state. How? Half of this country receives benefits from the welfare state. Do you think beneficiaries of Medicare, Medicaid, AFDC, SNAP, SSD, SSDI, Veterans Benefits, Student Aid, Obamacare subsidies, Head Start, and 50 other programs are just going to say hey take away my benefits so government can reduce taxes on those that have plenty? I don't think so.

I'm sure there are some programs that could be reduced and some eliminated but that's not going happen in the current political climate because the control of government swings back and forth between the Right and Left.
.

No, they believe they are owed something from programs that many of them do not fund.

If you're going to make a list, you really should separate them according to whether or not they're means tested. Programs like SNAP, MediCAID, Obamacare subsidies and many of the other 50 programs are means tested. That means if you qualify, you aren't paying the taxes that fund the programs and vice versa. Why should someone not funding a program benefit from that program? You raise hell when suggestions to lower the taxes on those who fund them yet don't benefit from them are made. You seem to forget that those doing the funding aren't doing the getting.

 

[Arianrhod]

Every human society, even atheism, has some form of the Golden Rule...except the Internet.

Even Asimov's Robot Laws cover moral behavior...for non-human intelligent life.

But the Mighty Keyboard Warriors don't need no stinkin' morality...until they come up against a problem they can't handle themselves, like the S.C. legislators who vetoed aid to states hit by Hurricane Sandy, but have tears in their eyes and their hands out after the flooding.

Morality or hypocrisy. Can any of you "not me, go fuck yourself" types tell me there's a third choice?

Every human society, even atheism, has some form of the Golden Rule...except the Internet.

Even Asimov's Robot Laws cover moral behavior...for non-human intelligent life.

But the Mighty Keyboard Warriors don't need no stinkin' morality...until they come up against a problem they can't handle themselves, like the S.C. legislators who vetoed aid to states hit by Hurricane Sandy, but have tears in their eyes and their hands out after the flooding.

Morality or hypocrisy. Can any of you "not me, go fuck yourself" types tell me there's a third choice?

Compassion comes from the willingness of the giver not a mandate by the taker.

So, again, you're willing to give to the Waltons and their peers who get billion-dollar tax breaks, and to the Waltons' employees because their masters underpay them.

Not everyone is happy with that arrangement.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Every human society, even atheism, has some form of the Golden Rule...except the Internet.

Even Asimov's Robot Laws cover moral behavior...for non-human intelligent life.

But the Mighty Keyboard Warriors don't need no stinkin' morality...until they come up against a problem they can't handle themselves, like the S.C. legislators who vetoed aid to states hit by Hurricane Sandy, but have tears in their eyes and their hands out after the flooding.

Morality or hypocrisy. Can any of you "not me, go fuck yourself" types tell me there's a third choice?

Every human society, even atheism, has some form of the Golden Rule...except the Internet.

Even Asimov's Robot Laws cover moral behavior...for non-human intelligent life.

But the Mighty Keyboard Warriors don't need no stinkin' morality...until they come up against a problem they can't handle themselves, like the S.C. legislators who vetoed aid to states hit by Hurricane Sandy, but have tears in their eyes and their hands out after the flooding.

Morality or hypocrisy. Can any of you "not me, go fuck yourself" types tell me there's a third choice?

Compassion comes from the willingness of the giver not a mandate by the taker.

So, again, you're willing to give to the Waltons and their peers who get billion-dollar tax breaks, and to the Waltons' employees because their masters underpay them.

Not everyone is happy with that arrangement.

I'm willing to give everyone the same tax code as everyone else. If you're not successful enough to make use of some of the provisions, that's YOUR fucking problem, not mine or anyone else's. I'm not going to punish other people for not being the same lazy, parasitic piece of shit you are.

 

[Arianrhod]

I'm willing to give everyone the same tax code as everyone else.

Excellent! So you're against giving the Waltons a $6 billion tax break every year. Now we're getting somewhere...

 

[Conservative65]

Every human society, even atheism, has some form of the Golden Rule...except the Internet.

Even Asimov's Robot Laws cover moral behavior...for non-human intelligent life.

But the Mighty Keyboard Warriors don't need no stinkin' morality...until they come up against a problem they can't handle themselves, like the S.C. legislators who vetoed aid to states hit by Hurricane Sandy, but have tears in their eyes and their hands out after the flooding.

Morality or hypocrisy. Can any of you "not me, go fuck yourself" types tell me there's a third choice?

Every human society, even atheism, has some form of the Golden Rule...except the Internet.

Even Asimov's Robot Laws cover moral behavior...for non-human intelligent life.

But the Mighty Keyboard Warriors don't need no stinkin' morality...until they come up against a problem they can't handle themselves, like the S.C. legislators who vetoed aid to states hit by Hurricane Sandy, but have tears in their eyes and their hands out after the flooding.

Morality or hypocrisy. Can any of you "not me, go fuck yourself" types tell me there's a third choice?

Compassion comes from the willingness of the giver not a mandate by the taker.

So, again, you're willing to give to the Waltons and their peers who get billion-dollar tax breaks, and to the Waltons' employees because their masters underpay them.

Not everyone is happy with that arrangement.

So, now you're determining what a business should pay someone? Seems you're willing to do something for which you have no business doing. I've offered a solution. If the Walmart workers want more income, do something that warrants more income.

 

[Conservative65]

I'm willing to give everyone the same tax code as everyone else.

Excellent! So you're against giving the Waltons a $6 billion tax break every year. Now we're getting somewhere...

So you're against allowing almost half the country to get by without paying income taxes. Now, we're getting somewhere. When you support those who provide nothing to society doing their fair share you can talk about those who provide something you couldn't provide yourself and what they get.

 

[Arianrhod]

I'm willing to give everyone the same tax code as everyone else.

Excellent! So you're against giving the Waltons a $6 billion tax break every year. Now we're getting somewhere...

So you're against allowing almost half the country to get by without paying income taxes.

It's 1%, not "half the country." Get back to me when those loopholes are closed.

 

[Conservative65]

I'm willing to give everyone the same tax code as everyone else.

Excellent! So you're against giving the Waltons a $6 billion tax break every year. Now we're getting somewhere...

So you're against allowing almost half the country to get by without paying income taxes.

It's 1%, not "half the country." Get back to me when those loopholes are closed.

About 1/2 don't pay income taxes.

Get back to me when those that don't pay income taxes no longer get things like the earned income credit allowing them to get back more than was taken out in withholdings. It's one thing to get back everything paid in when filing a return. It's unacceptable to get back more than you had taken out.

 

[Arianrhod]

I'm willing to give everyone the same tax code as everyone else.

Excellent! So you're against giving the Waltons a $6 billion tax break every year. Now we're getting somewhere...

So you're against allowing almost half the country to get by without paying income taxes.

It's 1%, not "half the country." Get back to me when those loopholes are closed.

About 1/2 don't pay income taxes.

Half of the 1%? So the other half aren't taking advantage of the loopholes? I'll need to see some data for that.

 

[Conservative65]

I'm willing to give everyone the same tax code as everyone else.

Excellent! So you're against giving the Waltons a $6 billion tax break every year. Now we're getting somewhere...

So you're against allowing almost half the country to get by without paying income taxes.

It's 1%, not "half the country." Get back to me when those loopholes are closed.

About 1/2 don't pay income taxes.

Half of the 1%? So the other half aren't taking advantage of the loopholes? I'll need to see some data for that.

Almost half of the whole.

www.wsj.com/articles/top-20-of-earners-pay-80-income-tax-1428674384

www.money.cnn.com/2013/08/29/pf/who-doesnt-pay-federal-income-taxes/index.html

 

[Flopper]

... I think it's far better we use those dollars for healthcare for the poor than blow up hospitals killing women and children.

Oh I totally agree with that. Dismantling the welfare state is low on my list of priorities. But it IS part of the problem, especially in the way it encourages people to accept corporatist government.

I don't think it's possible to dismantle the welfare state, not when half the country is receiving benefits. I think at the root of the problem is globalization and that's not going away.

Better trained workers abroad, increased foreign worker productivity, and increased investments abroad, a more stable international climate, and international free trade has put US workers in direct competition with foreign workers who command much lower wages and benefits. This means less jobs at lower pay, particularly for low skilled workers. This trend began years ago and it's not likely to reverse until foreign workers wages and benefits approach that of US workers.

Cutting benefits for the unemployed and low income workers will only drive more people into the workplace pushing wages lower. The result would be more poverty and more demand for government assistance.

The answer is of course creating more jobs for low skilled workers and increasing the productive of the American worker so he is better able to compete with workers abroad.

That last bit is exactly what I'm talking about when I say that the welfare state encourages people to accept corporatist government.

We can dismantle the welfare state, and the warfare state - and pretty much any other corrosive institution of government - if we decide it's worth doing.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by globalism. In my view it's nationalism that's feeding our move to corporatism, not globalism. The view that each country is in competition with the rest tempts us to view our people as resources to apply toward that goal, rather than individuals with rights to protect.

By globalism, I mean the barriers between countries, trade, travel restrictions, language, and cultures are slowly disappearing. Thus, a Chinese worker making two dollars an hour produces goods or services sold in the US displacing the US worker being paid $10/hr. In Pakistan, workers making $3/hr who speak English are displacing call center workers making $15/hr. This started years years ago and has increased in 21st century and I suspect it will continue.

The US worker is only able to compete with workers from abroad because of better training, technology, and a shorter distance between the worker and end user of the product. The problem is that these gaps are closing. The foreign worker is becoming better educated relative to the US worker, the same technologies being used in the US are becoming available throughout the world and the cost of transportation is going down. What all this means is the American worker has got to become more productive or his job is going to disappear and add to the number on welfare programs.

I think it's possible, that various social welfare benefits could be reduced, however I don't see anyway to abolish the social welfare system. There are too many voters that are receiving benefits and too many voters believe the programs are needed. One out of every 3 families has at least one family member receiving some form social welfare.

 

[Arianrhod]

Excellent! So you're against giving the Waltons a $6 billion tax break every year. Now we're getting somewhere...

So you're against allowing almost half the country to get by without paying income taxes.

It's 1%, not "half the country." Get back to me when those loopholes are closed.

About 1/2 don't pay income taxes.

Half of the 1%? So the other half aren't taking advantage of the loopholes? I'll need to see some data for that.

Almost half of the whole.

www.wsj.com/articles/top-20-of-earners-pay-80-income-tax-1428674384

www.money.cnn.com/2013/08/29/pf/who-doesnt-pay-federal-income-taxes/index.html

Then all you need to do is close the loopholes and outlaw offshoring and you'll be able to raise far more revenue. Go for it!

 

[LOki]

Every human society, even atheism, has some form of the Golden Rule...except the Internet.

Even Asimov's Robot Laws cover moral behavior...for non-human intelligent life.

But the Mighty Keyboard Warriors don't need no stinkin' morality...until they come up against a problem they can't handle themselves, like the S.C. legislators who vetoed aid to states hit by Hurricane Sandy, but have tears in their eyes and their hands out after the flooding.

Morality or hypocrisy. Can any of you "not me, go fuck yourself" types tell me there's a third choice?

Every human society, even atheism, has some form of the Golden Rule...except the Internet.

Even Asimov's Robot Laws cover moral behavior...for non-human intelligent life.

But the Mighty Keyboard Warriors don't need no stinkin' morality...until they come up against a problem they can't handle themselves, like the S.C. legislators who vetoed aid to states hit by Hurricane Sandy, but have tears in their eyes and their hands out after the flooding.

Morality or hypocrisy. Can any of you "not me, go fuck yourself" types tell me there's a third choice?

Compassion comes from the willingness of the giver not a mandate by the taker.

So, again, you're willing to give to the Waltons and their peers who get billion-dollar tax breaks, and to the Waltons' employees because their masters underpay them.

Presumptuous Straw-man.