"...And if you choose not to, you suffer the consequences and pay for services out of your own pocket. I know it sounds a bit cruel, but life is also. ..."
"When the poor die, society is benefited".
Herbert Spencer, economist and philosopher, father of social darwinism.
Some people "choose" between food, rent, and health insurance. I do not want to live in a social darwinist society, but it seems to me that conservatives are pushing us in exactly that direction.
'...Take away that mandate to the hospitals, and people would be lining up for insurance. ..."
This mandate is relatively recent (about 30 years ago). It was put in place because people were not buying insurance then, and they aren't buying it now.
And they will continue to not purchase it. It's human nature. If the law stands, you'll see people reporting less income to get out of the penalty. And I also see this could be a vehicle for massive amounts of fraud. I have a hard time trusting any of those cats in DC.
I haven't seen people behaving like this regarding auto insurance, and I don't expect to see it regarding health insurance.
"...And if you choose not to, you suffer the consequences and pay for services out of your own pocket. I know it sounds a bit cruel, but life is also. ..."
"When the poor die, society is benefited".
Herbert Spencer, economist and philosopher, father of social darwinism.
Some people "choose" between food, rent, and health insurance. I do not want to live in a social darwinist society, but it seems to me that conservatives are pushing us in exactly that direction.
Wow, Spencer? Yea, even the right started out with high-minded extremists. Actually, he was writing about evolution before Darwin. And he surely took survival of the fittest way too far, but even concerning that, it still exists and society has caught up in odd ways. Think of Stephen Hawkings. He has survived because he IS one of the fittest, intellectually. Yes, greater minds than ours have contemplated these things.
"...And if you choose not to, you suffer the consequences and pay for services out of your own pocket. I know it sounds a bit cruel, but life is also. ..."
"When the poor die, society is benefited".
Herbert Spencer, economist and philosopher, father of social darwinism.
Some people "choose" between food, rent, and health insurance. I do not want to live in a social darwinist society, but it seems to me that conservatives are pushing us in exactly that direction.
Wow, Spencer? Yea, even the right started out with high-minded extremists. Actually, he was writing about evolution before Darwin. And he surely took survival of the fittest way too far, but even concerning that, it still exists and society has caught up in odd ways. Think of Stephen Hawkings. He has survived because he IS one of the fittest, intellectually. Yes, greater minds than ours have contemplated these things.
The fact remains that much of the current American Conservative viewpoint is precisely social darwinist in nature and in goals, and is perfectly willing to remove everything that is good and decent in our civil society in order to get to a more "libertarian" state. I do not want to live in a world that the current batch of American "conservatives" would make, and I fear for the lives of my children and grandchildren.
"...And if you choose not to, you suffer the consequences and pay for services out of your own pocket. I know it sounds a bit cruel, but life is also. ..."
"When the poor die, society is benefited".
Herbert Spencer, economist and philosopher, father of social darwinism.
Some people "choose" between food, rent, and health insurance. I do not want to live in a social darwinist society, but it seems to me that conservatives are pushing us in exactly that direction.
Wow, Spencer? Yea, even the right started out with high-minded extremists. Actually, he was writing about evolution before Darwin. And he surely took survival of the fittest way too far, but even concerning that, it still exists and society has caught up in odd ways. Think of Stephen Hawkings. He has survived because he IS one of the fittest, intellectually. Yes, greater minds than ours have contemplated these things.
The fact remains that much of the current American Conservative viewpoint is precisely social darwinist in nature and in goals, and is perfectly willing to remove everything that is good and decent in our civil society in order to get to a more "libertarian" state. I do not want to live in a world that the current batch of American "conservatives" would make, and I fear for the lives of my children and grandchildren.
I don't think its fair to lump all conservatives with libertarians. And for you to assume you know what the current American Conservative's viewpoint is like me telling you that I know the views of all Socialist Democrats. Your perception of conservatives is a bit skewed. I'm conservative, yet not a member of any political party. And I don't share that viewpoint.
"...And if you choose not to, you suffer the consequences and pay for services out of your own pocket. I know it sounds a bit cruel, but life is also. ..."
"When the poor die, society is benefited".
Herbert Spencer, economist and philosopher, father of social darwinism.
Some people "choose" between food, rent, and health insurance. I do not want to live in a social darwinist society, but it seems to me that conservatives are pushing us in exactly that direction.
Wow, Spencer? Yea, even the right started out with high-minded extremists. Actually, he was writing about evolution before Darwin. And he surely took survival of the fittest way too far, but even concerning that, it still exists and society has caught up in odd ways. Think of Stephen Hawkings. He has survived because he IS one of the fittest, intellectually. Yes, greater minds than ours have contemplated these things.
The fact remains that much of the current American Conservative viewpoint is precisely social darwinist in nature and in goals, and is perfectly willing to remove everything that is good and decent in our civil society in order to get to a more "libertarian" state. I do not want to live in a world that the current batch of American "conservatives" would make, and I fear for the lives of my children and grandchildren.
I don't think its fair to lump all conservatives with libertarians. And for you to assume you know what the current American Conservative's viewpoint is like me telling you that I know the views of all Socialist Democrats. Your perception of conservatives is a bit skewed. I'm conservative, yet not a member of any political party. And I don't share that viewpoint.
The fact that you readily associate Democrats with "Socialists" is evidence of a bias that I have not, nor will I ever display. It's also a bit presumptious of you to decide that I have no knowledge of American conservatives. In fact, I have many traditional conservative viewpoints, and regularly read many conservative writers, as well as many "liberal" ones. I quite often agree with George Will, and Cal Thomas (and many others) and am a great admirer of the late William Buckley. I do not admire the activist conservatives on the Supreme Court, especially Scalia and Thomas, and the direction these men will lead this country is frightening to me. These guys aren't calling "balls & strikes" as Roberts pledged to do in his confirmation hearing. They are re-writing the rules of the game, and consequently may well destroy everything that is good and decent in our civil society, leaving us with a quite un-civil society, much like the one we had in 1890.
"...And if you choose not to, you suffer the consequences and pay for services out of your own pocket. I know it sounds a bit cruel, but life is also. ..."
"When the poor die, society is benefited".
Herbert Spencer, economist and philosopher, father of social darwinism.
Some people "choose" between food, rent, and health insurance. I do not want to live in a social darwinist society, but it seems to me that conservatives are pushing us in exactly that direction.
Wow, Spencer? Yea, even the right started out with high-minded extremists. Actually, he was writing about evolution before Darwin. And he surely took survival of the fittest way too far, but even concerning that, it still exists and society has caught up in odd ways. Think of Stephen Hawkings. He has survived because he IS one of the fittest, intellectually. Yes, greater minds than ours have contemplated these things.
The fact remains that much of the current American Conservative viewpoint is precisely social darwinist in nature and in goals, and is perfectly willing to remove everything that is good and decent in our civil society in order to get to a more "libertarian" state. I do not want to live in a world that the current batch of American "conservatives" would make, and I fear for the lives of my children and grandchildren.
I don't think its fair to lump all conservatives with libertarians. And for you to assume you know what the current American Conservative's viewpoint is like me telling you that I know the views of all Socialist Democrats. Your perception of conservatives is a bit skewed. I'm conservative, yet not a member of any political party. And I don't share that viewpoint.
The fact that you readily associate Democrats with "Socialists" is evidence of a bias that I have not, nor will I ever display. It's also a bit presumptious of you to decide that I have no knowledge of American conservatives. In fact, I have many traditional conservative viewpoints, and regularly read many conservative writers, as well as many "liberal" ones. I quite often agree with George Will, and Cal Thomas (and many others) and am a great admirer of the late William Buckley. I do not admire the activist conservatives on the Supreme Court, especially Scalia and Thomas, and the direction these men will lead this country is frightening to me. These guys aren't calling "balls & strikes" as Roberts pledged to do in his confirmation hearing. They are re-writing the rules of the game, and consequently may well destroy everything that is good and decent in our civil society, leaving us with a quite un-civil society, much like the one we had in 1890.
I want and expect moderation and the willingness to compromise from ALL the branches of government. I want men who sit in power to be of strong character good will and conviction to act in the best interests of the nation, not their party or ideology. We don't have that. We have extremists who are pulling the fabric of this country apart. The moderates have been driven out, and we are left with men of extreme views and uncompromising ways who are determined to re-make our society.
"...And if you choose not to, you suffer the consequences and pay for services out of your own pocket. I know it sounds a bit cruel, but life is also. ..."
"When the poor die, society is benefited".
Herbert Spencer, economist and philosopher, father of social darwinism.
Some people "choose" between food, rent, and health insurance. I do not want to live in a social darwinist society, but it seems to me that conservatives are pushing us in exactly that direction.
Wow, Spencer? Yea, even the right started out with high-minded extremists. Actually, he was writing about evolution before Darwin. And he surely took survival of the fittest way too far, but even concerning that, it still exists and society has caught up in odd ways. Think of Stephen Hawkings. He has survived because he IS one of the fittest, intellectually. Yes, greater minds than ours have contemplated these things.
The fact remains that much of the current American Conservative viewpoint is precisely social darwinist in nature and in goals, and is perfectly willing to remove everything that is good and decent in our civil society in order to get to a more "libertarian" state. I do not want to live in a world that the current batch of American "conservatives" would make, and I fear for the lives of my children and grandchildren.
I don't think its fair to lump all conservatives with libertarians. And for you to assume you know what the current American Conservative's viewpoint is like me telling you that I know the views of all Socialist Democrats. Your perception of conservatives is a bit skewed. I'm conservative, yet not a member of any political party. And I don't share that viewpoint.
The fact that you readily associate Democrats with "Socialists" is evidence of a bias that I have not, nor will I ever display. It's also a bit presumptious of you to decide that I have no knowledge of American conservatives. In fact, I have many traditional conservative viewpoints, and regularly read many conservative writers, as well as many "liberal" ones. I quite often agree with George Will, and Cal Thomas (and many others) and am a great admirer of the late William Buckley. I do not admire the activist conservatives on the Supreme Court, especially Scalia and Thomas, and the direction these men will lead this country is frightening to me. These guys aren't calling "balls & strikes" as Roberts pledged to do in his confirmation hearing. They are re-writing the rules of the game, and consequently may well destroy everything that is good and decent in our civil society, leaving us with a quite un-civil society, much like the one we had in 1890.
I want and expect moderation and the willingness to compromise from ALL the branches of government. I want men who sit in power to be of strong character good will and conviction to act in the best interests of the nation, not their party or ideology. We don't have that. We have extremists who are pulling the fabric of this country apart. The moderates have been driven out, and we are left with men of extreme views and uncompromising ways who are determined to re-make our society.
I agree with you on that point whole heartedly. That's why I am not a card carrier.
The mandates is lame, was never a fan of it. However it does help drive costs down. Same is with car insurance. Difference is, you can choose not to drive, not have healthcare. My wife and I got slapped with a 9,000 dollar bill for going to the ER for a asthma attack at night and WE have insurance. However through some BS loopholes we got slammed. So I'm all for getting private insurer's out of the insurance arena, at least medical. I only have insurance through my employer because of my wife, I use to use the VA. I am/was hoping medicare would be allowed to open up to lower aged people and eventually be open for all. And do away with medicare part d.
GOP Attorney General Buddy Caldwell of Louisiana said this: "Insurance companies are the absolute worst people to handle this kind of business. I trust the government more than insurance companies. If the government wants to put forth a policy where they will pay for everything and you won’t have to go through an insurance policy, that’d be a whole lot better."
so this is his reason in challenging the health care individual mandate.
its needed tho... WAY too many people dont get coverage and the rest of us who follow the rules and work our assess off have to foot it all... MAKE those idiots get covered and problem solved. it's really not as bad as people are making it out to be... look it up, but from a REPUTABLE source... no Fox or anyone else who will lie through their teeth...
its needed tho... WAY too many people dont get coverage and the rest of us who follow the rules and work our assess off have to foot it all... MAKE those idiots get covered and problem solved. it's really not as bad as people are making it out to be... look it up, but from a REPUTABLE source... no Fox or anyone else who will lie through their teeth...
I don't think it will change things. The people who can't get coverage now will get subsidies, footed by the rest of us who follow the rules and work our asses off. There really should be an incentive to work.
its needed tho... WAY too many people dont get coverage and the rest of us who follow the rules and work our assess off have to foot it all... MAKE those idiots get covered and problem solved. it's really not as bad as people are making it out to be... look it up, but from a REPUTABLE source... no Fox or anyone else who will lie through their teeth...
I don't think it will change things. The people who can't get coverage now will get subsidies, footed by the rest of us who follow the rules and work our asses off. There really should be an incentive to work.
If incentives are needed, they are to bring back every single American job that has been shipped overseas to China or Vietnam or India so that CEO's can take advantage of slave wages and make obscene profits for themselves, while squeezing the hell out of workers here at home. Nobldy in this country should have to choose between getting medical care or bankruptcy, and those who do not have the means or the inclination to get health insurance should not be allowed to continue to drive up the ever increasing cost of health insurance for the rest of us. How is it that every single other "developed" nation on the face of the earth has universal healthcare for their populations at lower costs than the US? We are facing a fundamental choice now; do we become a social darwinist nation that says , "let 'em die!!!" to those who need medical care, but who have no insurance, or do we solve this problem in a civilized manner, like so many other countries have.
its needed tho... WAY too many people dont get coverage and the rest of us who follow the rules and work our assess off have to foot it all... MAKE those idiots get covered and problem solved. it's really not as bad as people are making it out to be... look it up, but from a REPUTABLE source... no Fox or anyone else who will lie through their teeth...
I don't think it will change things. The people who can't get coverage now will get subsidies, footed by the rest of us who follow the rules and work our asses off. There really should be an incentive to work.
If incentives are needed, they are to bring back every single American job that has been shipped overseas to China or Vietnam or India so that CEO's can take advantage of slave wages and make obscene profits for themselves, while squeezing the hell out of workers here at home. Nobldy in this country should have to choose between getting medical care or bankruptcy, and those who do not have the means or the inclination to get health insurance should not be allowed to continue to drive up the ever increasing cost of health insurance for the rest of us. How is it that every single other "developed" nation on the face of the earth has universal healthcare for their populations at lower costs than the US? We are facing a fundamental choice now; do we become a social darwinist nation that says , "let 'em die!!!" to those who need medical care, but who have no insurance, or do we solve this problem in a civilized manner, like so many other countries have.
My comment was directed to the fact that the law is written to punish (negative) those who don't get on board. As Krieger said "make those people" do it. Or penalize them. Those evil users. Not a humane approach in my opinion. And definitely not one born from Liberty. The only other alternative in there plan is to ask for relief. Then the state owns you. It should be set up so it encourages business growth and entrepreneurialism. I guess its just a different paradigm.
Just a thought, to put things in perspective. A couple years ago, the CFO of our hospital, overhearing a conversation about this subject asked some of us "How much of your paycheck do you think comes from government-run health care?"
the answer was 87 out of every 100 dollars.
The next question then, is Why are we so worked up about saving the for-profit industry that's only covering 13% of the costs? .
its needed tho... WAY too many people dont get coverage and the rest of us who follow the rules and work our assess off have to foot it all... MAKE those idiots get covered and problem solved. it's really not as bad as people are making it out to be... look it up, but from a REPUTABLE source... no Fox or anyone else who will lie through their teeth...
I don't think it will change things. The people who can't get coverage now will get subsidies, footed by the rest of us who follow the rules and work our asses off. There really should be an incentive to work.
If incentives are needed, they are to bring back every single American job that has been shipped overseas to China or Vietnam or India so that CEO's can take advantage of slave wages and make obscene profits for themselves, while squeezing the hell out of workers here at home. Nobldy in this country should have to choose between getting medical care or bankruptcy, and those who do not have the means or the inclination to get health insurance should not be allowed to continue to drive up the ever increasing cost of health insurance for the rest of us. How is it that every single other "developed" nation on the face of the earth has universal healthcare for their populations at lower costs than the US? We are facing a fundamental choice now; do we become a social darwinist nation that says , "let 'em die!!!" to those who need medical care, but who have no insurance, or do we solve this problem in a civilized manner, like so many other countries have.
My comment was directed to the fact that the law is written to punish (negative) those who don't get on board. As Krieger said "make those people" do it. Or penalize them. Those evil users. Not a humane approach in my opinion. And definitely not one born from Liberty. The only other alternative in there plan is to ask for relief. Then the state owns you. It should be set up so it encourages business growth and entrepreneurialism. I guess its just a different paradigm.
its needed tho... WAY too many people dont get coverage and the rest of us who follow the rules and work our assess off have to foot it all... MAKE those idiots get covered and problem solved. it's really not as bad as people are making it out to be... look it up, but from a REPUTABLE source... no Fox or anyone else who will lie through their teeth...
I don't think it will change things. The people who can't get coverage now will get subsidies, footed by the rest of us who follow the rules and work our asses off. There really should be an incentive to work.
If incentives are needed, they are to bring back every single American job that has been shipped overseas to China or Vietnam or India so that CEO's can take advantage of slave wages and make obscene profits for themselves, while squeezing the hell out of workers here at home. Nobldy in this country should have to choose between getting medical care or bankruptcy, and those who do not have the means or the inclination to get health insurance should not be allowed to continue to drive up the ever increasing cost of health insurance for the rest of us. How is it that every single other "developed" nation on the face of the earth has universal healthcare for their populations at lower costs than the US? We are facing a fundamental choice now; do we become a social darwinist nation that says , "let 'em die!!!" to those who need medical care, but who have no insurance, or do we solve this problem in a civilized manner, like so many other countries have.
My comment was directed to the fact that the law is written to punish (negative) those who don't get on board. As Krieger said "make those people" do it. Or penalize them. Those evil users. Not a humane approach in my opinion. And definitely not one born from Liberty. The only other alternative in there plan is to ask for relief. Then the state owns you. It should be set up so it encourages business growth and entrepreneurialism. I guess its just a different paradigm.
...and your solution is ...WHAT?
Reduce corporate tax rates, lift the drilling moratorium, build the pipeline, give tax relief and incentives to small farmers and small business, let the states run education,quit sending our money to other countries,simplify the tax code, eliminate the tsa, dept education, epa, close the border, drug test anyone receiving gov aid, hold congress accountable with our money and their jobs,"..........i could go on and onand you can puntch holes in every one of my points, butmy overall message is that i dont think punishing individual americans is the answer. All of these actions would improve the entire economy and healthcare costs will then become more attainablr to every one.
Notice there are no punishments for writing bad law.
its needed tho... WAY too many people dont get coverage and the rest of us who follow the rules and work our assess off have to foot it all... MAKE those idiots get covered and problem solved. it's really not as bad as people are making it out to be... look it up, but from a REPUTABLE source... no Fox or anyone else who will lie through their teeth...
I don't think it will change things. The people who can't get coverage now will get subsidies, footed by the rest of us who follow the rules and work our asses off. There really should be an incentive to work.
If incentives are needed, they are to bring back every single American job that has been shipped overseas to China or Vietnam or India so that CEO's can take advantage of slave wages and make obscene profits for themselves, while squeezing the hell out of workers here at home. Nobldy in this country should have to choose between getting medical care or bankruptcy, and those who do not have the means or the inclination to get health insurance should not be allowed to continue to drive up the ever increasing cost of health insurance for the rest of us. How is it that every single other "developed" nation on the face of the earth has universal healthcare for their populations at lower costs than the US? We are facing a fundamental choice now; do we become a social darwinist nation that says , "let 'em die!!!" to those who need medical care, but who have no insurance, or do we solve this problem in a civilized manner, like so many other countries have.
My comment was directed to the fact that the law is written to punish (negative) those who don't get on board. As Krieger said "make those people" do it. Or penalize them. Those evil users. Not a humane approach in my opinion. And definitely not one born from Liberty. The only other alternative in there plan is to ask for relief. Then the state owns you. It should be set up so it encourages business growth and entrepreneurialism. I guess its just a different paradigm.
...and your solution is ...WHAT?
Reduce corporate tax rates, lift the drilling moratorium, build the pipeline, give tax relief and incentives to small farmers and small business, let the states run education,quit sending our money to other countries,simplify the tax code, eliminate the tsa, dept education, epa, close the border, drug test anyone receiving gov aid, hold congress accountable with our money and their jobs,"..........i could go on and onand you can puntch holes in every one of my points, butmy overall message is that i dont think punishing individual americans is the answer. All of these actions would improve the entire economy and healthcare costs will then become more attainablr to every one.
Notice there are no punishments for writing bad law.
In other words, you have no solution or alternative whatsoever to the health care dilemma in the United States, just a lot of hoey that has nothing to do with our "health care system".
"...drug test anyone receiving gov aid..."
Based on what probable cause? Talk about an overreach of government authority and the destruction of "liberty". That means every single government employee should be drug tested; for what reason? You don't believe in protecting "liberty". Why not advocate that the Feds send police into every single government employee home for a thorough search, without probable cause? "Liberty" my a$$.
"...reduce corporate tax rates..."
Every single war the US has ever engaged in has been paid for by RAISING TAXES, until now. The avoidance of raising tax revenue as a part of the solution to our debt problem is nothing but nihilistic national suicide based on selfishness and greed.
"...give tax relief and incentives to small farmers..."
If you are looking for socialism in the American economy, just look at farm subsidies (and taxes) and our military budgets, but don't cuss them with your mouth full or without forgetting the sacrifices made by our ever dwindling number of troops (because so few men of military age are "volunteering" for service).
"...quit sending our money to other countries..."
I haven't a clue what this means. If you are referring to our debt, be damned glad there are other countries still willing to purchase US bonds for that purpose.
"...eliminate the tsa, dept education, epa,..."
Right, and why not repeal the clean water and air acts while you're at it, and do away with all government oversight of air transportation safety, and let the states outlaw science in their schools. Brilliant!
"...close the border..."
Like the Soviets did in Berlin? Don't you realize the illegals are here because business wants them here, and because there are so few real economic opportunities in Mexico for their poor? The illegals are here because they seek economic opportunity. If you want to stop that opportunity, then you must go after the businesses that hire them. All other efforts will be futile. Unfortunately, the supply-siders won't stop the influx of illegals because they see it as open-border commerce, and as just one more way to establish a floor for wages in the US (driving down labor costs and increasing profits; destroying our middle class for fun and profit).
I have no problem with building a pipeline, or drilling more, but one must understand that we live in a global economy now, and whatever oil we produce will not be for “our” exclusive use, it will be for the exclusive use of the oil companies, and they will sell to the highest bidders on the world market.
"...but my overall message is that i dont think punishing individual americans is the answer...."
Allowing someone to be excluded from health insurance because of a pre-existing condition is punishing the individual, allowing people to be bankrupted because they have the audacity to get sick is punishing the individual, allowing those without insurance to drive up the costs for those with insurance is punishing the individuals who have insurance. Requiring those without insurance to get covered is only a market - based solution to the problem that requires "personal responsibility", something that conservatives like to talk about a lot, until it applies to them, then it's "punishing the individual" and the "destruction of liberty", and "totalitarianism". CRAP
I think ( and I don't mean to speak for another brother ) that beatnic meant by quit sending our money to other countries : Stop providing funding for any damn thing to hostile countries and pretend allies . And I don't care what it is for . This may not be popular with some , but I'll be damned if I were President if one USA dollar went to a country that had ill intent toward the USA or its citizens at home or abroad . I don't care if its for Food , Medicine , infra-structure , building or suppling the materials for , or anything else . If you hate my country that much that it is your government's desire and your citizens ( see flag burnings ) to see us fail and cease to exist as a country you and your govt . ( and I dont care what type of govt it is ) can go f#*k yourselves and starve to damn death for all I care . Callous , uncivilized , un-christian , whatever ... I would rather be called all those things in one sentence and be alive to hear it , rather than be killed , maimed , injured or otherwise harmed because I gave you the means with which to do these things to me or my citizens or my country !!!!!!
I don't believe his intent ( again , hate to speak for another , beatnic you can correct me if I'm wrong ) had anything to do with other countries buying our debt . I would love to know how much money we could save as a nation if money we know about and don't know about was stopped from being given to countries who are activly trying to destroy us !!! Gene
I think ( and I don't mean to speak for another brother ) that beatnic meant by quit sending our money to other countries : Stop providing funding for any damn thing to hostile countries and pretend allies . And I don't care what it is for . This may not be popular with some , but I'll be damned if I were President if one USA dollar went to a country that had ill intent toward the USA or its citizens at home or abroad . I don't care if its for Food , Medicine , infra-structure , building or suppling the materials for , or anything else . If you hate my country that much that it is your government's desire and your citizens ( see flag burnings ) to see us fail and cease to exist as a country you and your govt . ( and I dont care what type of govt it is ) can go f#*k yourselves and starve to damn death for all I care . Callous , uncivilized , un-christian , whatever ... I would rather be called all those things in one sentence and be alive to hear it , rather than be killed , maimed , injured or otherwise harmed because I gave you the means with which to do these things to me or my citizens or my country !!!!!!
I don't believe his intent ( again , hate to speak for another , beatnic you can correct me if I'm wrong ) had anything to do with other countries buying our debt . I would love to know how much money we could save as a nation if money we know about and don't know about was stopped from being given to countries who are activly trying to destroy us !!! Gene
Even if that's what he ment, what the hell does that have to do with repairing a broken helath care system?
its needed tho... WAY too many people dont get coverage and the rest of us who follow the rules and work our assess off have to foot it all... MAKE those idiots get covered and problem solved. it's really not as bad as people are making it out to be... look it up, but from a REPUTABLE source... no Fox or anyone else who will lie through their teeth...
I don't think it will change things. The people who can't get coverage now will get subsidies, footed by the rest of us who follow the rules and work our asses off. There really should be an incentive to work.
If incentives are needed, they are to bring back every single American job that has been shipped overseas to China or Vietnam or India so that CEO's can take advantage of slave wages and make obscene profits for themselves, while squeezing the hell out of workers here at home. Nobldy in this country should have to choose between getting medical care or bankruptcy, and those who do not have the means or the inclination to get health insurance should not be allowed to continue to drive up the ever increasing cost of health insurance for the rest of us. How is it that every single other "developed" nation on the face of the earth has universal healthcare for their populations at lower costs than the US? We are facing a fundamental choice now; do we become a social darwinist nation that says , "let 'em die!!!" to those who need medical care, but who have no insurance, or do we solve this problem in a civilized manner, like so many other countries have.
My comment was directed to the fact that the law is written to punish (negative) those who don't get on board. As Krieger said "make those people" do it. Or penalize them. Those evil users. Not a humane approach in my opinion. And definitely not one born from Liberty. The only other alternative in there plan is to ask for relief. Then the state owns you. It should be set up so it encourages business growth and entrepreneurialism. I guess its just a different paradigm.
...and your solution is ...WHAT?
Reduce corporate tax rates, lift the drilling moratorium, build the pipeline, give tax relief and incentives to small farmers and small business, let the states run education,quit sending our money to other countries,simplify the tax code, eliminate the tsa, dept education, epa, close the border, drug test anyone receiving gov aid, hold congress accountable with our money and their jobs,"..........i could go on and onand you can puntch holes in every one of my points, butmy overall message is that i dont think punishing individual americans is the answer. All of these actions would improve the entire economy and healthcare costs will then become more attainablr to every one.
Notice there are no punishments for writing bad law.
In other words, you have no solution or alternative whatsoever to the health care dilemma in the United States, just a lot of hoey that has nothing to do with our "health care system".
"...drug test anyone receiving gov aid..."
Based on what probable cause? Talk about an overreach of government authority and the destruction of "liberty". That means every single government employee should be drug tested; for what reason? You don't believe in protecting "liberty". Why not advocate that the Feds send police into every single government employee home for a thorough search, without probable cause? "Liberty" my a$$.
"...reduce corporate tax rates..."
Every single war the US has ever engaged in has been paid for by RAISING TAXES, until now. The avoidance of raising tax revenue as a part of the solution to our debt problem is nothing but nihilistic national suicide based on selfishness and greed.
"...give tax relief and incentives to small farmers..."
If you are looking for socialism in the American economy, just look at farm subsidies (and taxes) and our military budgets, but don't cuss them with your mouth full or without forgetting the sacrifices made by our ever dwindling number of troops (because so few men of military age are "volunteering" for service).
"...quit sending our money to other countries..."
I haven't a clue what this means. If you are referring to our debt, be damned glad there are other countries still willing to purchase US bonds for that purpose.
"...eliminate the tsa, dept education, epa,..."
Right, and why not repeal the clean water and air acts while you're at it, and do away with all government oversight of air transportation safety, and let the states outlaw science in their schools. Brilliant!
"...close the border..."
Like the Soviets did in Berlin? Don't you realize the illegals are here because business wants them here, and because there are so few real economic opportunities in Mexico for their poor? The illegals are here because they seek economic opportunity. If you want to stop that opportunity, then you must go after the businesses that hire them. All other efforts will be futile. Unfortunately, the supply-siders won't stop the influx of illegals because they see it as open-border commerce, and as just one more way to establish a floor for wages in the US (driving down labor costs and increasing profits; destroying our middle class for fun and profit).
I have no problem with building a pipeline, or drilling more, but one must understand that we live in a global economy now, and whatever oil we produce will not be for “our” exclusive use, it will be for the exclusive use of the oil companies, and they will sell to the highest bidders on the world market.
"...but my overall message is that i dont think punishing individual americans is the answer...."
Allowing someone to be excluded from health insurance because of a pre-existing condition is punishing the individual, allowing people to be bankrupted because they have the audacity to get sick is punishing the individual, allowing those without insurance to drive up the costs for those with insurance is punishing the individuals who have insurance. Requiring those without insurance to get covered is only a market - based solution to the problem that requires "personal responsibility", something that conservatives like to talk about a lot, until it applies to them, then it's "punishing the individual" and the "destruction of liberty", and "totalitarianism". CRAP
I said that you could punch holes in all of the references. Ididn't think you would. Lmao. My point is that its the state of the economy that's the problem. Deal with jobs and progress and growth and all things will be more affordable to all Americans. Its the economy!
I think ( and I don't mean to speak for another brother ) that beatnic meant by quit sending our money to other countries : Stop providing funding for any damn thing to hostile countries and pretend allies . And I don't care what it is for . This may not be popular with some , but I'll be damned if I were President if one USA dollar went to a country that had ill intent toward the USA or its citizens at home or abroad . I don't care if its for Food , Medicine , infra-structure , building or suppling the materials for , or anything else . If you hate my country that much that it is your government's desire and your citizens ( see flag burnings ) to see us fail and cease to exist as a country you and your govt . ( and I dont care what type of govt it is ) can go f#*k yourselves and starve to damn death for all I care . Callous , uncivilized , un-christian , whatever ... I would rather be called all those things in one sentence and be alive to hear it , rather than be killed , maimed , injured or otherwise harmed because I gave you the means with which to do these things to me or my citizens or my country !!!!!!
I don't believe his intent ( again , hate to speak for another , beatnic you can correct me if I'm wrong ) had anything to do with other countries buying our debt . I would love to know how much money we could save as a nation if money we know about and don't know about was stopped from being given to countries who are activly trying to destroy us !!! Gene
Even if that's what he ment, what the hell does that have to do with repairing a broken helath care system?
Absolutely nothing . Its just a pet peeve of mine and I used this thread and topic as a place/time to vent . Nothing more . I understand it has absolutely not one single thing to do with fixing a broken health care system and am sorry if I got in the middle of a heated discussion involving such . Not the proper place for my post ? You are correct . But it is something I am passionate about and makes me very angry . With no disrespect intended please carry on with attempting to find solutions to fix the health care system . This has been a interesting thread to check in on !!!
I think ( and I don't mean to speak for another brother ) that beatnic meant by quit sending our money to other countries : Stop providing funding for any damn thing to hostile countries and pretend allies . And I don't care what it is for . This may not be popular with some , but I'll be damned if I were President if one USA dollar went to a country that had ill intent toward the USA or its citizens at home or abroad . I don't care if its for Food , Medicine , infra-structure , building or suppling the materials for , or anything else . If you hate my country that much that it is your government's desire and your citizens ( see flag burnings ) to see us fail and cease to exist as a country you and your govt . ( and I dont care what type of govt it is ) can go f#*k yourselves and starve to damn death for all I care . Callous , uncivilized , un-christian , whatever ... I would rather be called all those things in one sentence and be alive to hear it , rather than be killed , maimed , injured or otherwise harmed because I gave you the means with which to do these things to me or my citizens or my country !!!!!!
I don't believe his intent ( again , hate to speak for another , beatnic you can correct me if I'm wrong ) had anything to do with other countries buying our debt . I would love to know how much money we could save as a nation if money we know about and don't know about was stopped from being given to countries who are activly trying to destroy us !!! Gene
Even if that's what he ment, what the hell does that have to do with repairing a broken helath care system?
Absolutely nothing . Its just a pet peeve of mine and I used this thread and topic as a place/time to vent . Nothing more . I understand it has absolutely not one single thing to do with fixing a broken health care system and am sorry if I got in the middle of a heated discussion involving such . Not the proper place for my post ? You are correct . But it is something I am passionate about and makes me very angry . With no disrespect intended please carry on with attempting to find solutions to fix the health care system . This has been a interesting thread to check in on !!!
And my posts were a collection of pet peaves that add up. Its a mindset. Broken healthcare system? Just find the problems and throw a lot of other people's money at it. Problem solved! As i mentioned earlier the care system we have is less than 100 years old. Now it takes up about a half on our economy? And its not because more people are getting any sicker or dying, its because the government has taken control of most of it. Now do we just say ok and give them the rest?
its needed tho... WAY too many people dont get coverage and the rest of us who follow the rules and work our assess off have to foot it all... MAKE those idiots get covered and problem solved. it's really not as bad as people are making it out to be... look it up, but from a REPUTABLE source... no Fox or anyone else who will lie through their teeth...
I don't think it will change things. The people who can't get coverage now will get subsidies, footed by the rest of us who follow the rules and work our asses off. There really should be an incentive to work.
If incentives are needed, they are to bring back every single American job that has been shipped overseas to China or Vietnam or India so that CEO's can take advantage of slave wages and make obscene profits for themselves, while squeezing the hell out of workers here at home. Nobldy in this country should have to choose between getting medical care or bankruptcy, and those who do not have the means or the inclination to get health insurance should not be allowed to continue to drive up the ever increasing cost of health insurance for the rest of us. How is it that every single other "developed" nation on the face of the earth has universal healthcare for their populations at lower costs than the US? We are facing a fundamental choice now; do we become a social darwinist nation that says , "let 'em die!!!" to those who need medical care, but who have no insurance, or do we solve this problem in a civilized manner, like so many other countries have.
My comment was directed to the fact that the law is written to punish (negative) those who don't get on board. As Krieger said "make those people" do it. Or penalize them. Those evil users. Not a humane approach in my opinion. And definitely not one born from Liberty. The only other alternative in there plan is to ask for relief. Then the state owns you. It should be set up so it encourages business growth and entrepreneurialism. I guess its just a different paradigm.
...and your solution is ...WHAT?
Reduce corporate tax rates, lift the drilling moratorium, build the pipeline, give tax relief and incentives to small farmers and small business, let the states run education,quit sending our money to other countries,simplify the tax code, eliminate the tsa, dept education, epa, close the border, drug test anyone receiving gov aid, hold congress accountable with our money and their jobs,"..........i could go on and onand you can puntch holes in every one of my points, butmy overall message is that i dont think punishing individual americans is the answer. All of these actions would improve the entire economy and healthcare costs will then become more attainablr to every one.
Notice there are no punishments for writing bad law.
In other words, you have no solution or alternative whatsoever to the health care dilemma in the United States, just a lot of hoey that has nothing to do with our "health care system".
"...drug test anyone receiving gov aid..."
Based on what probable cause? Talk about an overreach of government authority and the destruction of "liberty". That means every single government employee should be drug tested; for what reason? You don't believe in protecting "liberty". Why not advocate that the Feds send police into every single government employee home for a thorough search, without probable cause? "Liberty" my a$$.
"...reduce corporate tax rates..."
Every single war the US has ever engaged in has been paid for by RAISING TAXES, until now. The avoidance of raising tax revenue as a part of the solution to our debt problem is nothing but nihilistic national suicide based on selfishness and greed.
"...give tax relief and incentives to small farmers..."
If you are looking for socialism in the American economy, just look at farm subsidies (and taxes) and our military budgets, but don't cuss them with your mouth full or without forgetting the sacrifices made by our ever dwindling number of troops (because so few men of military age are "volunteering" for service).
"...quit sending our money to other countries..."
I haven't a clue what this means. If you are referring to our debt, be damned glad there are other countries still willing to purchase US bonds for that purpose.
"...eliminate the tsa, dept education, epa,..."
Right, and why not repeal the clean water and air acts while you're at it, and do away with all government oversight of air transportation safety, and let the states outlaw science in their schools. Brilliant!
"...close the border..."
Like the Soviets did in Berlin? Don't you realize the illegals are here because business wants them here, and because there are so few real economic opportunities in Mexico for their poor? The illegals are here because they seek economic opportunity. If you want to stop that opportunity, then you must go after the businesses that hire them. All other efforts will be futile. Unfortunately, the supply-siders won't stop the influx of illegals because they see it as open-border commerce, and as just one more way to establish a floor for wages in the US (driving down labor costs and increasing profits; destroying our middle class for fun and profit).
I have no problem with building a pipeline, or drilling more, but one must understand that we live in a global economy now, and whatever oil we produce will not be for “our” exclusive use, it will be for the exclusive use of the oil companies, and they will sell to the highest bidders on the world market.
"...but my overall message is that i dont think punishing individual americans is the answer...."
Allowing someone to be excluded from health insurance because of a pre-existing condition is punishing the individual, allowing people to be bankrupted because they have the audacity to get sick is punishing the individual, allowing those without insurance to drive up the costs for those with insurance is punishing the individuals who have insurance. Requiring those without insurance to get covered is only a market - based solution to the problem that requires "personal responsibility", something that conservatives like to talk about a lot, until it applies to them, then it's "punishing the individual" and the "destruction of liberty", and "totalitarianism". CRAP
I said that you could punch holes in all of the references. Ididn't think you would. Lmao. My point is that its the state of the economy that's the problem. Deal with jobs and progress and growth and all things will be more affordable to all Americans. Its the economy!
If you are truly concerned about the "state of the economy", then you have to consider why the economy just underwent a 1930's collapse, and focus on those things that contributed to and caused the collapse of 2008-2009.
Personally, I believe that conservative politicians are taking advantage of this economic crisis, in the hope of achieving one of their long-term goals (held near and dear for 100 years); the destruction of our Progressive social safety net. This attack on the safety net is not focusing on the causes of the economic collapse, but is rather a diversion away from those causes of the recent economic collapse.
The simple fact of the matter is that trickle down never did, and never will accomplish anything except the concentration of wealth at the top of the economic pyramid. Lowering taxes for those at the top doesn't create jobs in the US, it only makes those at the top richer.
The conservative solutions I've seen don't attack the root of the problems that caused our economic collapse; lack of regulation of our banking system, lack of regulation of wall st, the replacement of US manufacturing with Wall St. as an economic driver of our economy, the glorification of greed, too many US jobs shipped overseas, the stagnation and decline of middle class earnings (a factor that is crippling our consumer-driven economy and forcing too many households to rely on debt instead of earnings to keep up with the cost of living), an unwillingness to tax (and therefore pay for our expenditures) the wealthiest among us for our wars, and the dependence on foreign debt to pay for those wars. Throw into that list of over-looked economic problems the empowering of the wealthiest among us to manipulate and control our electoral process and you have an America that could easily become a third world country with an obscenely wealthy top 10%.
its needed tho... WAY too many people dont get coverage and the rest of us who follow the rules and work our assess off have to foot it all... MAKE those idiots get covered and problem solved. it's really not as bad as people are making it out to be... look it up, but from a REPUTABLE source... no Fox or anyone else who will lie through their teeth...
I don't think it will change things. The people who can't get coverage now will get subsidies, footed by the rest of us who follow the rules and work our asses off. There really should be an incentive to work.
If incentives are needed, they are to bring back every single American job that has been shipped overseas to China or Vietnam or India so that CEO's can take advantage of slave wages and make obscene profits for themselves, while squeezing the hell out of workers here at home. Nobldy in this country should have to choose between getting medical care or bankruptcy, and those who do not have the means or the inclination to get health insurance should not be allowed to continue to drive up the ever increasing cost of health insurance for the rest of us. How is it that every single other "developed" nation on the face of the earth has universal healthcare for their populations at lower costs than the US? We are facing a fundamental choice now; do we become a social darwinist nation that says , "let 'em die!!!" to those who need medical care, but who have no insurance, or do we solve this problem in a civilized manner, like so many other countries have.
My comment was directed to the fact that the law is written to punish (negative) those who don't get on board. As Krieger said "make those people" do it. Or penalize them. Those evil users. Not a humane approach in my opinion. And definitely not one born from Liberty. The only other alternative in there plan is to ask for relief. Then the state owns you. It should be set up so it encourages business growth and entrepreneurialism. I guess its just a different paradigm.
...and your solution is ...WHAT?
Reduce corporate tax rates, lift the drilling moratorium, build the pipeline, give tax relief and incentives to small farmers and small business, let the states run education,quit sending our money to other countries,simplify the tax code, eliminate the tsa, dept education, epa, close the border, drug test anyone receiving gov aid, hold congress accountable with our money and their jobs,"..........i could go on and onand you can puntch holes in every one of my points, butmy overall message is that i dont think punishing individual americans is the answer. All of these actions would improve the entire economy and healthcare costs will then become more attainablr to every one.
Notice there are no punishments for writing bad law.
In other words, you have no solution or alternative whatsoever to the health care dilemma in the United States, just a lot of hoey that has nothing to do with our "health care system".
"...drug test anyone receiving gov aid..."
Based on what probable cause? Talk about an overreach of government authority and the destruction of "liberty". That means every single government employee should be drug tested; for what reason? You don't believe in protecting "liberty". Why not advocate that the Feds send police into every single government employee home for a thorough search, without probable cause? "Liberty" my a$$.
"...reduce corporate tax rates..."
Every single war the US has ever engaged in has been paid for by RAISING TAXES, until now. The avoidance of raising tax revenue as a part of the solution to our debt problem is nothing but nihilistic national suicide based on selfishness and greed.
"...give tax relief and incentives to small farmers..."
If you are looking for socialism in the American economy, just look at farm subsidies (and taxes) and our military budgets, but don't cuss them with your mouth full or without forgetting the sacrifices made by our ever dwindling number of troops (because so few men of military age are "volunteering" for service).
"...quit sending our money to other countries..."
I haven't a clue what this means. If you are referring to our debt, be damned glad there are other countries still willing to purchase US bonds for that purpose.
"...eliminate the tsa, dept education, epa,..."
Right, and why not repeal the clean water and air acts while you're at it, and do away with all government oversight of air transportation safety, and let the states outlaw science in their schools. Brilliant!
"...close the border..."
Like the Soviets did in Berlin? Don't you realize the illegals are here because business wants them here, and because there are so few real economic opportunities in Mexico for their poor? The illegals are here because they seek economic opportunity. If you want to stop that opportunity, then you must go after the businesses that hire them. All other efforts will be futile. Unfortunately, the supply-siders won't stop the influx of illegals because they see it as open-border commerce, and as just one more way to establish a floor for wages in the US (driving down labor costs and increasing profits; destroying our middle class for fun and profit).
I have no problem with building a pipeline, or drilling more, but one must understand that we live in a global economy now, and whatever oil we produce will not be for “our” exclusive use, it will be for the exclusive use of the oil companies, and they will sell to the highest bidders on the world market.
"...but my overall message is that i dont think punishing individual americans is the answer...."
Allowing someone to be excluded from health insurance because of a pre-existing condition is punishing the individual, allowing people to be bankrupted because they have the audacity to get sick is punishing the individual, allowing those without insurance to drive up the costs for those with insurance is punishing the individuals who have insurance. Requiring those without insurance to get covered is only a market - based solution to the problem that requires "personal responsibility", something that conservatives like to talk about a lot, until it applies to them, then it's "punishing the individual" and the "destruction of liberty", and "totalitarianism". CRAP
I said that you could punch holes in all of the references. Ididn't think you would. Lmao. My point is that its the state of the economy that's the problem. Deal with jobs and progress and growth and all things will be more affordable to all Americans. Its the economy!
If you are truly concerned about the "state of the economy", then you have to consider why the economy just underwent a 1930's collapse, and focus on those things that contributed to and caused the collapse of 2008-2009.
Personally, I believe that conservative politicians are taking advantage of this economic crisis, in the hope of achieving one of their long-term goals (held near and dear for 100 years); the destruction of our Progressive social safety net. This attack on the safety net is not focusing on the causes of the economic collapse, but is rather a diversion away from those causes of the recent economic collapse.
The simple fact of the matter is that trickle down never did, and never will accomplish anything except the concentration of wealth at the top of the economic pyramid. Lowering taxes for those at the top doesn't create jobs in the US, it only makes those at the top richer.
The conservative solutions I've seen don't attack the root of the problems that caused our economic collapse; lack of regulation of our banking system, lack of regulation of wall st, the replacement of US manufacturing with Wall St. as an economic driver of our economy, the glorification of greed, too many US jobs shipped overseas, the stagnation and decline of middle class earnings (a factor that is crippling our consumer-driven economy and forcing too many households to rely on debt instead of earnings to keep up with the cost of living), an unwillingness to tax (and therefore pay for our expenditures) the wealthiest among us for our wars, and the dependence on foreign debt to pay for those wars. Throw into that list of over-looked economic problems the empowering of the wealthiest among us to manipulate and control our electoral process and you have an America that could easily become a third world country with an obscenely wealthy top 10%.
That is not someplace I would want to live.
Ok. Just kill the wealthy people and business. We'll be fine then.
Jdh. You've said twice that that's not the kind of country you would want to live in. Which other country do you prefer. Who has your ideal utopian lifestyle?
I think ( and I don't mean to speak for another brother ) that beatnic meant by quit sending our money to other countries : Stop providing funding for any damn thing to hostile countries and pretend allies . And I don't care what it is for . This may not be popular with some , but I'll be damned if I were President if one USA dollar went to a country that had ill intent toward the USA or its citizens at home or abroad . I don't care if its for Food , Medicine , infra-structure , building or suppling the materials for , or anything else . If you hate my country that much that it is your government's desire and your citizens ( see flag burnings ) to see us fail and cease to exist as a country you and your govt . ( and I dont care what type of govt it is ) can go f#*k yourselves and starve to damn death for all I care . Callous , uncivilized , un-christian , whatever ... I would rather be called all those things in one sentence and be alive to hear it , rather than be killed , maimed , injured or otherwise harmed because I gave you the means with which to do these things to me or my citizens or my country !!!!!!
I don't believe his intent ( again , hate to speak for another , beatnic you can correct me if I'm wrong ) had anything to do with other countries buying our debt . I would love to know how much money we could save as a nation if money we know about and don't know about was stopped from being given to countries who are activly trying to destroy us !!! Gene
Even if that's what he ment, what the hell does that have to do with repairing a broken helath care system?
Absolutely nothing . Its just a pet peeve of mine and I used this thread and topic as a place/time to vent . Nothing more . I understand it has absolutely not one single thing to do with fixing a broken health care system and am sorry if I got in the middle of a heated discussion involving such . Not the proper place for my post ? You are correct . But it is something I am passionate about and makes me very angry . With no disrespect intended please carry on with attempting to find solutions to fix the health care system . This has been a interesting thread to check in on !!!
And my posts were a collection of pet peaves that add up. Its a mindset. Broken healthcare system? Just find the problems and throw a lot of other people's money at it. Problem solved! As i mentioned earlier the care system we have is less than 100 years old. Now it takes up about a half on our economy? And its not because more people are getting any sicker or dying, its because the government has taken control of most of it. Now do we just say ok and give them the rest?
The US is the only "developed" nation that relies on employers to provide healthcare for the population. This is one hell of a huge cost for employers, and in a global market, a cost that is crippling the ability of many US business to compete. Our healthcare "system" is the most expensive in the world, and one of the least efficient.
As I see it, the largest hurdle to solving this problem is a complete unwillingness of conservatives to WANT to improve it, and their complete willingness to obstruct and prevent compromise and cooperation with their percieved "enemies". There is a blind willingness among conservatives to allow this President to fail in all endeavors, even if that means that the US economy must suffer the consequences. Partisian politics has gotten so poisionous that it is crippling our government and preventing it from working as it was designed. Congress is a deliberative body that requires compromise and moderation and a willingness to act in the best interest of the Nation, not the best interests of the Party or a particular ideology.
I long for the days when Republicans and Democrats would argue like hell with each other, but with respect for each other as human beings with deeply held convictions and positions, and be able to socialize with each other after the argument. I long for the days when moderation and compromise in the interests of the National good was not seen as a traitorous act to the party and the ideology. I long for the days when it would have been unthinkable for any member of the US Congress to interrupt a newly elected President as he was addressing the body and by shouting out, "YOU LIE!".
But those days are long gone. Now too many of our Representatives behave more like radio talk show hosts than Statesmen and Stateswomen or Leaders, and We the People are suffering for this loss.
Jdh. You've said twice that that's not the kind of country you would want to live in. Which other country do you prefer. Who has your ideal utopian lifestyle?
The United States of America; the one I grew up in and dearly love.
"...Ok. Just kill the wealthy people and business. We'll be fine then. ..."
Don't be absurd. Did President Dwight D. Eisenhower kill wealthy people and businesses? He did not, but he taxed the wealthiest among us in order to pay for WWII, and for the Marshal Plan, and for the National Highway Act, and for the TVA.
Even Ronald Reagan realized that sometimes you have to raise taxes in order to behave in a fiscally conservative and responsible manner, which he did repeatedly. In fact, Mr. Reagan would probably not be elected today because he would be considered to "liberal" for the current Republican primary voters.
Comments
"When the poor die, society is benefited".
Herbert Spencer, economist and philosopher, father of social darwinism.
Some people "choose" between food, rent, and health insurance. I do not want to live in a social darwinist society, but it seems to me that conservatives are pushing us in exactly that direction.
Yes, greater minds than ours have contemplated these things.
so this is his reason in challenging the health care individual mandate.
the answer was 87 out of every 100 dollars.
The next question then, is Why are we so worked up about saving the for-profit industry that's only covering 13% of the costs?
.
"...drug test anyone receiving gov aid..."
Based on what probable cause? Talk about an overreach of government authority and the destruction of "liberty". That means every single government employee should be drug tested; for what reason? You don't believe in protecting "liberty". Why not advocate that the Feds send police into every single government employee home for a thorough search, without probable cause? "Liberty" my a$$.
"...reduce corporate tax rates..."
Every single war the US has ever engaged in has been paid for by RAISING TAXES, until now. The avoidance of raising tax revenue as a part of the solution to our debt problem is nothing but nihilistic national suicide based on selfishness and greed.
"...give tax relief and incentives to small farmers..."
If you are looking for socialism in the American economy, just look at farm subsidies (and taxes) and our military budgets, but don't cuss them with your mouth full or without forgetting the sacrifices made by our ever dwindling number of troops (because so few men of military age are "volunteering" for service).
"...quit sending our money to other countries..."
I haven't a clue what this means. If you are referring to our debt, be damned glad there are other countries still willing to purchase US bonds for that purpose.
"...eliminate the tsa, dept education, epa,..."
Right, and why not repeal the clean water and air acts while you're at it, and do away with all government oversight of air transportation safety, and let the states outlaw science in their schools. Brilliant!
"...close the border..."
Like the Soviets did in Berlin? Don't you realize the illegals are here because business wants them here, and because there are so few real economic opportunities in Mexico for their poor? The illegals are here because they seek economic opportunity. If you want to stop that opportunity, then you must go after the businesses that hire them. All other efforts will be futile. Unfortunately, the supply-siders won't stop the influx of illegals because they see it as open-border commerce, and as just one more way to establish a floor for wages in the US (driving down labor costs and increasing profits; destroying our middle class for fun and profit).
I have no problem with building a pipeline, or drilling more, but one must understand that we live in a global economy now, and whatever oil we produce will not be for “our” exclusive use, it will be for the exclusive use of the oil companies, and they will sell to the highest bidders on the world market.
"...but my overall message is that i dont think punishing individual americans is the answer...."
Allowing someone to be excluded from health insurance because of a pre-existing condition is punishing the individual, allowing people to be bankrupted because they have the audacity to get sick is punishing the individual, allowing those without insurance to drive up the costs for those with insurance is punishing the individuals who have insurance. Requiring those without insurance to get covered is only a market - based solution to the problem that requires "personal responsibility", something that conservatives like to talk about a lot, until it applies to them, then it's "punishing the individual" and the "destruction of liberty", and "totalitarianism". CRAP
I don't believe his intent ( again , hate to speak for another , beatnic you can correct me if I'm wrong ) had anything to do with other countries buying our debt . I would love to know how much money we could save as a nation if money we know about and don't know about was stopped from being given to countries who are activly trying to destroy us !!! Gene
Absolutely nothing . Its just a pet peeve of mine and I used this thread and topic as a place/time to vent . Nothing more . I understand it has absolutely not one single thing to do with fixing a broken health care system and am sorry if I got in the middle of a heated discussion involving such . Not the proper place for my post ? You are correct . But it is something I am passionate about and makes me very angry . With no disrespect intended please carry on with attempting to find solutions to fix the health care system . This has been a interesting thread to check in on !!!
Personally, I believe that conservative politicians are taking advantage of this economic crisis, in the hope of achieving one of their long-term goals (held near and dear for 100 years); the destruction of our Progressive social safety net. This attack on the safety net is not focusing on the causes of the economic collapse, but is rather a diversion away from those causes of the recent economic collapse.
The simple fact of the matter is that trickle down never did, and never will accomplish anything except the concentration of wealth at the top of the economic pyramid. Lowering taxes for those at the top doesn't create jobs in the US, it only makes those at the top richer.
The conservative solutions I've seen don't attack the root of the problems that caused our economic collapse; lack of regulation of our banking system, lack of regulation of wall st, the replacement of US manufacturing with Wall St. as an economic driver of our economy, the glorification of greed, too many US jobs shipped overseas, the stagnation and decline of middle class earnings (a factor that is crippling our consumer-driven economy and forcing too many households to rely on debt instead of earnings to keep up with the cost of living), an unwillingness to tax (and therefore pay for our expenditures) the wealthiest among us for our wars, and the dependence on foreign debt to pay for those wars. Throw into that list of over-looked economic problems the empowering of the wealthiest among us to manipulate and control our electoral process and you have an America that could easily become a third world country with an obscenely wealthy top 10%.
That is not someplace I would want to live.
The US is the only "developed" nation that relies on employers to provide healthcare for the population. This is one hell of a huge cost for employers, and in a global market, a cost that is crippling the ability of many US business to compete. Our healthcare "system" is the most expensive in the world, and one of the least efficient.
As I see it, the largest hurdle to solving this problem is a complete unwillingness of conservatives to WANT to improve it, and their complete willingness to obstruct and prevent compromise and cooperation with their percieved "enemies". There is a blind willingness among conservatives to allow this President to fail in all endeavors, even if that means that the US economy must suffer the consequences. Partisian politics has gotten so poisionous that it is crippling our government and preventing it from working as it was designed. Congress is a deliberative body that requires compromise and moderation and a willingness to act in the best interest of the Nation, not the best interests of the Party or a particular ideology.
I long for the days when Republicans and Democrats would argue like hell with each other, but with respect for each other as human beings with deeply held convictions and positions, and be able to socialize with each other after the argument. I long for the days when moderation and compromise in the interests of the National good was not seen as a traitorous act to the party and the ideology. I long for the days when it would have been unthinkable for any member of the US Congress to interrupt a newly elected President as he was addressing the body and by shouting out, "YOU LIE!".
But those days are long gone. Now too many of our Representatives behave more like radio talk show hosts than Statesmen and Stateswomen or Leaders, and We the People are suffering for this loss.
Don't be absurd. Did President Dwight D. Eisenhower kill wealthy people and businesses? He did not, but he taxed the wealthiest among us in order to pay for WWII, and for the Marshal Plan, and for the National Highway Act, and for the TVA.
Even Ronald Reagan realized that sometimes you have to raise taxes in order to behave in a fiscally conservative and responsible manner, which he did repeatedly. In fact, Mr. Reagan would probably not be elected today because he would be considered to "liberal" for the current Republican primary voters.