Obama Care

[Skyab23]

The financial burden brought about by this way of thinking must also be taken into consideration. But the upper echelon of American society has more expendable income, and can therefore alleviate some of this burden through various means of financial support for the lower levels of democratic society. This is one of the cornerstones of a democratic republic, as outlined by the founding fathers all those years ago.

So just because they have the money means that they should be forced by the government to spend it? What about using that money to invest in the economy therefore creating more jobs, new wealth, and giving more people a chance to improve their lives? If we take that route, then more people will be able to afford healthcare.

No one should have to be forced to buy into something like this.

mmm hmmm...you go girl.

[Nelson]

So just because they have the money means that they should be forced by the government to spend it? What about using that money to invest in the economy therefore creating more jobs, new wealth, and giving more people a chance to improve their lives? If we take that route, then more people will be able to afford healthcare.

No one should have to be forced to buy into something like this.

mmm hmmm...you go girl.

lol, except the rich don't do that. That's the problem.

My uncle is pretty wealthy. I don't know if he is in the "1%", but he is wealthy enough to have some clout in the business arena where he lives. For years he was a conservative, and for years he professed that same form of "freedom". A few years ago, he turned completely. He said he was sitting in a meeting and realized it was nothing but rich men looking to get more rich, and trying to figure out how to do it essentially at the expense of the little guy. He realized that these people should be paying their fair share, even if they don't want to, because they've spent so much time and energy working to screw everyone else. He now sits in confusion as to why anyone can be so greedy to think that being told to pay your fair share is an affront to "freedom", when that extra cash being used to help people hurts him/them none and helps others a lot.

Basically, the Republican Party is selling a full-on free market as a way to make everything like 50s TV families/towns; everyone helps each other, everyone knows each other, and no one fucks the poorer guy over to make more money. The only time someone looks into his neighbor's bowl is to see whether he has enough and all that good stuff. It's a glorious place. But the Republican Party is never going to allow that to happen, because they sell their followers this fantasy then go backstage and take part in rigging it so it will never happen.

[Skyab23]

mmm hmmm...you go girl.

lol, except the rich don't do that. That's the problem.

My uncle is pretty wealthy. I don't know if he is in the "1%", but he is wealthy enough to have some clout in the business arena where he lives. For years he was a conservative, and for years he professed that same form of "freedom". A few years ago, he turned completely. He said he was sitting in a meeting and realized it was nothing but rich men looking to get more rich, and trying to figure out how to do it essentially at the expense of the little guy. He realized that these people should be paying their fair share, even if they don't want to, because they've spent so much time and energy working to screw everyone else. He now sits in confusion as to why anyone can be so greedy to think that being told to pay your fair share is an affront to "freedom", when that extra cash being used to help people hurts him/them none and helps others a lot.

Basically, the Republican Party is selling a full-on free market as a way to make everything like 50s TV families/towns; everyone helps each other, everyone knows each other, and no one fucks the poorer guy over to make more money. The only time someone looks into his neighbor's bowl is to see whether he has enough and all that good stuff. It's a glorious place. But the Republican Party is never going to allow that to happen, because they sell their followers this fantasy then go backstage and take part in rigging it so it will never happen.

The Republican party isn't free markets as much as they'd like every one to believe. Supporting the bail-outs and then supporting the Federal Reserve to print more money, is advocating more government intervention. You say that people are out to make more money. Exactly, that's what everyone's goal is to do. To make more money and to promote a better life for themselves. I presume you're not for making less money?

Now, I'm all against the rich bankers who got bailed out. Are you against the bail-out of these rich banking institutions? And if you are, then I presume you'd be against the automotive bail-outs as well? Yet most liberals I know (and I don't know if you are one but I presume you're not Republican by your manner of speaking, I'm a libertarian so I take the best positions from the Democrats and the Republicans) support the automotive bail-outs but not the banking bail-outs. Again, their hypocrisy is apparent. Same concept with supporting a woman's right to choose but then supporting Obama Care and the ability of the government to tell you to purchase insurance for your body and health. Hypocrisy personified.

[Nelson]

lol, except the rich don't do that. That's the problem.

My uncle is pretty wealthy. I don't know if he is in the "1%", but he is wealthy enough to have some clout in the business arena where he lives. For years he was a conservative, and for years he professed that same form of "freedom". A few years ago, he turned completely. He said he was sitting in a meeting and realized it was nothing but rich men looking to get more rich, and trying to figure out how to do it essentially at the expense of the little guy. He realized that these people should be paying their fair share, even if they don't want to, because they've spent so much time and energy working to screw everyone else. He now sits in confusion as to why anyone can be so greedy to think that being told to pay your fair share is an affront to "freedom", when that extra cash being used to help people hurts him/them none and helps others a lot.

Basically, the Republican Party is selling a full-on free market as a way to make everything like 50s TV families/towns; everyone helps each other, everyone knows each other, and no one fucks the poorer guy over to make more money. The only time someone looks into his neighbor's bowl is to see whether he has enough and all that good stuff. It's a glorious place. But the Republican Party is never going to allow that to happen, because they sell their followers this fantasy then go backstage and take part in rigging it so it will never happen.

The Republican party isn't free markets as much as they'd like every one to believe. Supporting the bail-outs and then supporting the Federal Reserve to print more money, is advocating more government intervention. You say that people are out to make more money. Exactly, that's what everyone's goal is to do. To make more money and to promote a better life for themselves. I presume you're not for making less money?

Now, I'm all against the rich bankers who got bailed out. Are you against the bail-out of these rich banking institutions? And if you are, then I presume you'd be against the automotive bail-outs as well? Yet most liberals I know (and I don't know if you are one but I presume you're not Republican by your manner of speaking, I'm a libertarian so I take the best positions from the Democrats and the Republicans) support the automotive bail-outs but not the banking bail-outs. Again, their hypocrisy is apparent. Same concept with supporting a woman's right to choose but then supporting Obama Care and the ability of the government to tell you to purchase insurance for your body and health. Hypocrisy personified.

Not really. You're too damn black-and-white here. Letting people do whatever they want never works out. Money ≠ health and the prospect of having to take care of a child. I don't like the idea that "freedom" means that rich dickholes get to fuck over the little guy. It's okay 'cause freedom! You're just substituting one power for another at that point. It's only "freedom" for those who have. For those who have not it is hell.

[Skyab23]

The Republican party isn't free markets as much as they'd like every one to believe. Supporting the bail-outs and then supporting the Federal Reserve to print more money, is advocating more government intervention. You say that people are out to make more money. Exactly, that's what everyone's goal is to do. To make more money and to promote a better life for themselves. I presume you're not for making less money?

Now, I'm all against the rich bankers who got bailed out. Are you against the bail-out of these rich banking institutions? And if you are, then I presume you'd be against the automotive bail-outs as well? Yet most liberals I know (and I don't know if you are one but I presume you're not Republican by your manner of speaking, I'm a libertarian so I take the best positions from the Democrats and the Republicans) support the automotive bail-outs but not the banking bail-outs. Again, their hypocrisy is apparent. Same concept with supporting a woman's right to choose but then supporting Obama Care and the ability of the government to tell you to purchase insurance for your body and health. Hypocrisy personified.

Not really. You're too damn black-and-white here. Letting people do whatever they want never works out. Money ≠ health and the prospect of having to take care of a child. I don't like the idea that "freedom" means that rich dickholes get to fuck over the little guy. It's okay 'cause freedom! You're just substituting one power for another at that point. It's only "freedom" for those who have. For those who have not it is hell.

Ok so you speak about me taking things black and white, yet you're punishing all financially successful people. Even if they worked their ass of to get there and they did it in a legitimate way, you look down upon them because of their success. I'm only black and white when it comes to liberty. That means, if you do something that I disagree with, but it doesn't hurt me or infringe on my rights as a human being, then that is your right to do it. I wish people wouldn't smoke cigarettes, but I wouldn't dare tell them they didn't have the right to.

You say that when someone legitimately works hard for the money that they earn, that the government automatically owns whatever percentage they deem fair. Is that a correct assumption?

[RIFA]

I said it in another thread... Democracy is flawed.

[Celestin]

I said it in another thread... Democracy is flawed.

As a concept it isn't, but if you're talking about the way it is handled in some contries, I agree.

[Nelson]

Not really. You're too damn black-and-white here. Letting people do whatever they want never works out. Money ≠ health and the prospect of having to take care of a child. I don't like the idea that "freedom" means that rich dickholes get to fuck over the little guy. It's okay 'cause freedom! You're just substituting one power for another at that point. It's only "freedom" for those who have. For those who have not it is hell.

Ok so you speak about me taking things black and white, yet you're punishing all financially successful people. Even if they worked their ass of to get there and they did it in a legitimate way, you look down upon them because of their success. I'm only black and white when it comes to liberty. That means, if you do something that I disagree with, but it doesn't hurt me or infringe on my rights as a human being, then that is your right to do it. I wish people wouldn't smoke cigarettes, but I wouldn't dare tell them they didn't have the right to.

You say that when someone legitimately works hard for the money that they earn, that the government automatically owns whatever percentage they deem fair. Is that a correct assumption?

I don't look down on rich people. I look down on rich dickholes. If a rich person isn't a dickhole they're not gonna gripe about a little extra money being taken from them to help the country/its citizens.

Also, I'll think you'll notice that there is a point at which the more money someone makes, the less actual "hard work" they are doing. As a general rule, of course. There are exceptions. But a rich person who really values hard work probably values his country as a whole and wouldn't have any problems with paying his fair share. Those who gripe about the prospect fo paying a little extra are corporate schemers who cut corners and step on everyone in their path en route to underserved billions. Then the government is wrong for wanting to take a little extra? C'mon.

[Bacon]

I don't like Obama. Or his care.
/thread

[steveportee]

I don't like Obama. Or his care.
/thread

You can't vote.

Continue thread.