| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/19/2009 05:01:21 AM · #1 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
...Anarcho-Syndicalism... |
I seriously never thought I'd hear this outside of this. :) |
Be quiet! |
|
|
|
11/18/2009 05:30:12 PM · #2 |
Originally posted by farfel53:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by farfel53:
HaHaHa...you mean like illegal immigrants you want to cover? |
Nobody here has ever suggested covering illegal immigrants. |
You mean the people that come here to take part in the American dream and get free health care and education, but won't do it within the boundaries of the law, and eventuall become citizens and pay THEIR fair share of the taxes? Sorry, my mistake.
Aren't about 13 million illegals included in the supposed 45 million "uninsured" that we are talking about? |
No, they aren't.
And many illegal immigrants do pay their share of taxes, yet they are ineligible for the benefits of doing so. And, no, I don't have a problem with illegal immigrants not getting benefits. If I went to a civilized country like France and got sick, I would be treated, but I'm not eligible for care under their national health care plan, so I'd have to pay.
So far, you've done nothing, but rant about how "unfair" this proposed plan is, but you have yet to suggest any solution that would result in at least basic coverage for all citizens. |
|
|
|
11/18/2009 05:24:23 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by farfel53:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by farfel53:
:)
And my only beef with any of the whole discussion stems from a matter of liberty: whether my duty becomes the governments' business. We are duty bound as members of society to perform charitable works. Which, how much, to whom and how often shouldn't be anybody's decision but mine, IMHO. I respect the opposite viewpoint to some degree, and see the motivation, but disagree with the execution, efficacy, and the morality of forcing a choice based on somebody elses political considerations. |
And those who choose to shirk their societal duty to perform charitable works while reaping the benefits of that same society to excess? |
HaHaHa...you mean like illegal immigrants you want to cover? |
No, I mean the wealthy. The 5% who hold 95% of the wealth.
Why do you bring up illegal immigrants? No one is suggesting that.
|
|
|
|
11/18/2009 05:15:13 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by farfel53:
Aren't about 13 million illegals included in the supposed 45 million "uninsured" that we are talking about? |
None of the health care bills currently proposed in Congress provide for coverage of "illegal" aliens ... they may be uninsured, but will not be able to buy insurance under any of these plans. Instead they will go to the ER and be treated (more expensive than if they DID have insurance and a primary care provider) and we will STILL pay the cost, just not through as rational and cost-effective system.
BTW, a lot of "illegals" who come here to work DO pay taxes now. For example, if they use someone else's (or a phony) Social Security number to get a job, they'll still have SSA taxes and Federal/State income taxes withheld, but they'll never be able to file/collect on those deductions. They also pay sales taxes, gasoline taxes, taxes on their utility bills, etc. |
|
|
|
11/18/2009 04:37:59 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by farfel53:
HaHaHa...you mean like illegal immigrants you want to cover? |
Nobody here has ever suggested covering illegal immigrants. |
You mean the people that come here to take part in the American dream and get free health care and education, but won't do it within the boundaries of the law, and eventuall become citizens and pay THEIR fair share of the taxes? Sorry, my mistake.
Aren't about 13 million illegals included in the supposed 45 million "uninsured" that we are talking about? |
|
|
|
11/18/2009 04:34:48 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
With that stance, public schools, community sanitation, roads, libraries and rural electricity would not exist. I might want those things, but the government has no business forcing me to pay for them, dagnabbit! Why should I have to pay taxes to insure my savings account, put a weather satellite in orbit or defend the country? I'll take my chances hunkered down in the bathroom with my money and a gun. How dare the government say I have to yield the right of way at an intersection! I have a duty to take my turn, but I'll do it when I darn well feel like it! Social security or healthcare? Bah! Those poor people should have known better than to invest their money with someone as ill-qualified as the former chairman of the SEC— too bad for them, and how could my neighbors having smallpox possibly affect me anyway?
Social animals, Michael. You'd be much worse off without "forced contributions." |
I appreciate you caricature, however inaccurate it might be. No, I'm not an anarchist...lean toward libertarian, somewhat maybe...the less government generally the better. I'm not talking about infrastructure or basic societal rules and regulations that keep us from killing each other and generally doing harm. No, we're not savages, we don't need a return to the stone age.
You guys STILL seem to think I don't want my charity decided for me because I don't want the poor taken care of...go back and read again...
Oh...and...Hi, Louis!
|
|
|
|
11/18/2009 04:11:15 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by farfel53:
HaHaHa...you mean like illegal immigrants you want to cover? |
Nobody here has ever suggested covering illegal immigrants. |
|
|
|
11/18/2009 04:08:42 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by farfel53:
:)
And my only beef with any of the whole discussion stems from a matter of liberty: whether my duty becomes the governments' business. We are duty bound as members of society to perform charitable works. Which, how much, to whom and how often shouldn't be anybody's decision but mine, IMHO. I respect the opposite viewpoint to some degree, and see the motivation, but disagree with the execution, efficacy, and the morality of forcing a choice based on somebody elses political considerations. |
And those who choose to shirk their societal duty to perform charitable works while reaping the benefits of that same society to excess? |
HaHaHa...you mean like illegal immigrants you want to cover? |
|
|
|
11/18/2009 03:32:42 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
...Anarcho-Syndicalism... |
I seriously never thought I'd hear this outside of this. :) |
|
|
|
11/18/2009 03:30:43 PM · #10 |
With that stance, public schools, community sanitation, roads, libraries and rural electricity would not exist. I might want those things, but the government has no business forcing me to pay for them, dagnabbit! Why should I have to pay taxes to insure my savings account, put a weather satellite in orbit or defend the country? I'll take my chances hunkered down in the bathroom with my money and a gun. How dare the government say I have to yield the right of way at an intersection! I have a duty to take my turn, but I'll do it when I darn well feel like it! Social security or healthcare? Bah! Those poor people should have known better than to invest their money with someone as ill-qualified as the former chairman of the SEC— too bad for them, and how could my neighbors having smallpox possibly affect me anyway?
Social animals, Michael. You'd be much worse off without "forced contributions." |
|
|
|
11/18/2009 03:29:55 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by farfel53:
:)
And my only beef with any of the whole discussion stems from a matter of liberty: whether my duty becomes the governments' business. We are duty bound as members of society to perform charitable works. Which, how much, to whom and how often shouldn't be anybody's decision but mine, IMHO. I respect the opposite viewpoint to some degree, and see the motivation, but disagree with the execution, efficacy, and the morality of forcing a choice based on somebody elses political considerations. |
And those who choose to shirk their societal duty to perform charitable works while reaping the benefits of that same society to excess? |
|
|
|
11/18/2009 03:26:01 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by farfel53:
Which, how much, to whom and how often shouldn't be anybody's decision but mine, IMHO. |
So, you are opposed to representative democracies and favor either Anarcho-Syndicalism (a form of direct democracy) or what most people (mistakenly) call anarchy (i.e. the "law of the jungle" -- everyone for themselves)?
Exactly what do you think the purpose of "society" is, anyway, if not to "promote the general welfare" as stated in the Constitution? I'm tempted to quote a line from the "conservatives" of my youth: "America -- Love It or Leave It." |
|
|
|
11/18/2009 03:10:17 PM · #13 |
:)
And my only beef with any of the whole discussion stems from a matter of liberty: whether my duty becomes the governments' business. We are duty bound as members of society to perform charitable works. Which, how much, to whom and how often shouldn't be anybody's decision but mine, IMHO. I respect the opposite viewpoint to some degree, and see the motivation, but disagree with the execution, efficacy, and the morality of forcing a choice based on somebody elses political considerations. |
|
|
|
11/18/2009 02:43:36 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by farfel53:
My duty as a Christian is my main concern. If yours as a human being is your main motivator, why would I question that? Do you see a distinction? |
I'm not the one making a distinction. I'm saying we all have a duty to help others, period. United we stand, divided we argue over the right religion or politician until we kill ourselves. |
|
|
|
11/18/2009 02:25:10 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by farfel53:
Interesting to see the Christian question to come in from non-believers who want us to go along with their bigger government schemes.
Jesus never called on the Roman govt to help people, he did it himself or instructed his disciples to do it. Paul wrote that we should "visit the widows and fatherless in their affliction", not turn them over to the govt to take care of with our tax money. It is a personal one-on-one responsibility, not a collective.
As a Christian it is my duty to contribute to the welfare of the less fortunate. Whether or not I actually do and to what extent is not any of your business. As a Christian it is NOT my duty to provide assistance to abortion seekers or able-bodied people who will not work. These are scriptural points of view. If you get your way my duty as a taxpaying American will override my religious beliefs.
You guys really interested in invoking Christianity? |
No, I just find it amusing that so many "Christians" find a way cop out when it comes to supporting things that would really help those less fortunate...strikes me as...what's that word? Oh yeah...hypocritical, that's it.
And what do you know about my faith or lack thereof?
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."
-- Mahatma Gandhi |
I really wasn't aiming at you, your faith or lack thereof. I was merely stating that what I believe is going to probably eventually be at odds with whatever the left succeeds in pushing through as "health care reform". And I do agree to a large extent that Christians are hypocrits. And to a large extent all the rest of us are as well. But this is still the USA, and it's still legal and one is still free to be any kind of asshole one wishes to be, until it interferes directly with ones neighbors "rights", which were at one time defined in our constitution as endowed by the creator, but are being more and more defined as granted by government.
I see hypocrisy to also include denying economic reality and human nature in favor of that warm fuzzy you get when you succeed in making other people pay for your charities. It's what some of us on the right see as those pesky liberal "unintended consequences" of those bright shiny policies.
I won't blame you for implying that I, along with "Christians" in general, are hypocrits. Like I said, that's a pretty universal human malady.
As this conversation is going down the road of finger-pointing and name calling, and I have a very bad habit of joining right in, I may be back to read more, but probably won't try to add much.
Scalvert: "Do you not have the same duty as a citizen, or even as a human being? The most basic difference between social animals and solitary ones is their willingness to help each other."
My duty as a Christian is my main concern. If yours as a human being is your main motivator, why would I question that? Do you see a distinction? If the end result is the same, the poor are fed, clothed and doctored, are you dissatisfied because my motivation isn't the same as yours? |
|
|
|
11/18/2009 02:12:54 PM · #16 |
You might try Mark Levin.....if you respect The Constitution....and Liberty.
//www.marklevinshow.com/home.asp |
|
|
|
11/18/2009 12:54:06 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
From what I've seen, if you placed Obama on the Canadian political spectrum, he'd be far from Liberal. |
You're quite right (liberal with a small 'l' that is). As far as the parties go, it's often said that American Democrats are closer to Canadian Conservative Party members, though the current Conservatives are a tad different from the Progressive Conservatives of old. |
One could also argue that true conservatives no longer exist in this country. :O)
Ray |
It doesn’t matter what they call themselves. There are very few professional politicians that I respect or trust. And I only say very few because I haven’t looked into all, off the top of my head I can’t name one. |
|
|
|
11/18/2009 12:18:39 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
From what I've seen, if you placed Obama on the Canadian political spectrum, he'd be far from Liberal. |
You're quite right (liberal with a small 'l' that is). As far as the parties go, it's often said that American Democrats are closer to Canadian Conservative Party members, though the current Conservatives are a tad different from the Progressive Conservatives of old. |
One could also argue that true conservatives no longer exist in this country. :O)
Ray |
|
|
|
11/18/2009 11:34:10 AM · #19 |
Originally posted by SandyP:
I wonder why just because Bush screwed up and way over-spent, putting our country in terrible debt, Obama should get a pass for quadrupling the error. |
Could you elaborate on the so-called "quadrupling"? And what "error" are you referring to? Are you talking about deficits or debt, or something else? Because as far as I can tell, Obama's programs that are unrelated to the bank bailout and stimulus package amount to a tiny sliver of the overall deficit of about $50 to $60 billion. The stimulus spending is temporary and only in response to the recession and unemployment and will not go on forever. The bank bailout funds are expected to all be repaid, with interest, to the Treasury, and fairly soon. So I don't understand where this claim of "quadrupling" is coming from. |
|
|
|
11/18/2009 11:04:29 AM · #20 |
Originally posted by farfel53:
As a Christian it is my duty to contribute to the welfare of the less fortunate. |
Do you not have the same duty as a citizen, or even as a human being? The most basic difference between social animals and solitary ones is their willingness to help each other. |
|
|
|
11/18/2009 11:00:42 AM · #21 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
It's not charity if you're forced to give it. That's called extortion. |
I can see the devolution of this thread now, but... doesn't that then make God the ultimate extortionist? |
|
|
|
11/18/2009 10:53:39 AM · #22 |
Originally posted by farfel53:
As a Christian it is my duty to contribute to the welfare of the less fortunate. Whether or not I actually do and to what extent is not any of your business. As a Christian it is NOT my duty to provide assistance to abortion seekers or able-bodied people who will not work. These are scriptural points of view. If you get your way my duty as a taxpaying American will override my religious beliefs. |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
No, I just find it amusing that so many "Christians" find a way cop out when it comes to supporting things that would really help those less fortunate...strikes me as...what's that word? Oh yeah...hypocritical, that's it. |
It's not charity if you're forced to give it. That's called extortion.
|
|
|
|
11/18/2009 10:43:05 AM · #23 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
From what I've seen, if you placed Obama on the Canadian political spectrum, he'd be far from Liberal. |
You're quite right (liberal with a small 'l' that is). As far as the parties go, it's often said that American Democrats are closer to Canadian Conservative Party members, though the current Conservatives are a tad different from the Progressive Conservatives of old.
|
|
|
|
11/18/2009 10:38:02 AM · #24 |
Originally posted by farfel53:
Interesting to see the Christian question to come in from non-believers who want us to go along with their bigger government schemes.
Jesus never called on the Roman govt to help people, he did it himself or instructed his disciples to do it. Paul wrote that we should "visit the widows and fatherless in their affliction", not turn them over to the govt to take care of with our tax money. It is a personal one-on-one responsibility, not a collective.
As a Christian it is my duty to contribute to the welfare of the less fortunate. Whether or not I actually do and to what extent is not any of your business. As a Christian it is NOT my duty to provide assistance to abortion seekers or able-bodied people who will not work. These are scriptural points of view. If you get your way my duty as a taxpaying American will override my religious beliefs.
You guys really interested in invoking Christianity? |
No, I just find it amusing that so many "Christians" find a way cop out when it comes to supporting things that would really help those less fortunate...strikes me as...what's that word? Oh yeah...hypocritical, that's it.
And what do you know about my faith or lack thereof?
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."
-- Mahatma Gandhi |
|
|
|
11/18/2009 07:55:33 AM · #25 |
Originally posted by farfel53:
You guys really interested in invoking Christianity? |
NO.
Already so many threads going on about Christianity.
This is the reason i have 75% lost my interest here. |
|
