Disgusted with the Tea Party

[big daddy russ]

I've always been a huge supporter of the Tea Party. Went to the one in Huntsville on tax day and one here in Houston a couple of months ago. Sat next to a few Dems at the tea party, loved the fact that it brought everyone together for a common purpose.

I've always been a huge fan. Until I got this email from the Huntsville Tea Party (the chapter I'm a member of).





Hello everyone,

Obama is visiting College Station. There will be a tea party event on
Friday, October 16, 2009 to protest his presence. Right now, it's
scheduled for 12:00-4:30, and there is no location set. I'll keep
ya'll informed.

I'm thinking having a meeting place in Huntsville, where we can all
meet and caravan/carpool to college station. Let me know what you
guys think of this.

Below is an email that I was sent about the tea party, please read through it.

If you have any questions, ask. I don't know much about Obamas visit
or the planned event, but can try to get some more info.

Thank you!

XXXXXX (Name deleted for privacy reasons.)


Really? I thought we were protesting an issue, not a person or a party. Seems like we're becoming everything the media originally said we were. Does this disturb anyone else that shares my views?

Figured I'd put this out there to see the response of all of you.

[rockdale80]

Originally posted by big daddy russ
I've always been a huge supporter of the Tea Party. Went to the one in Huntsville on tax day and one here in Houston a couple of months ago. Sat next to a few Dems at the tea party, loved the fact that it brought everyone together for a common purpose.

I've always been a huge fan. Until I got this email from the Huntsville Tea Party (the chapter I'm a member of).




Really? I thought we were protesting an issue, not a person or a party. Seems like we're becoming everything the media originally said we were. Does this disturb anyone else that shares my views?

Figured I'd put this out there to see the response of all of you.

I am sure there is/was intent there, but when it became a corporate affair it went south. Now it is hate mongering against a party and president.

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by big daddy russ
I've always been a huge supporter of the Tea Party. Went to the one in Huntsville on tax day and one here in Houston a couple of months ago. Sat next to a few Dems at the tea party, loved the fact that it brought everyone together for a common purpose.

I've always been a huge fan. Until I got this email from the Huntsville Tea Party (the chapter I'm a member of).




Really? I thought we were protesting an issue, not a person or a party. Seems like we're becoming everything the media originally said we were. Does this disturb anyone else that shares my views?

Figured I'd put this out there to see the response of all of you.

Because the email says
to protest his presence it looks bad.
Whoever wrote this doesn't do the movement any good. It is shallow at best... and more disturbing than that if read as it actually is possibly meant to read. I'd write back and explain why issues/topics are more important than protesting the head of a party.

[rockdale80]

Originally posted by SintonFan
Because the email says it looks bad.
Whoever wrote this doesn't do the movement any good. It is shallow at best... and more disturbing than that if read as it actually is possibly meant to read. I'd write back and explain why issues/topics are more important than protesting the head of a party.

Maybe we should send it Glenn Beck so he can roll everyone involved with the teabag party into one big stereotype. :)

[SintonFan]

Glenn has his points...
I take it you don't like him.:p

[rockdale80]

Originally posted by SintonFan
Glenn has his points...
I take it you don't like him.:p


Glenn Beck is scared of his own shadow...

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by rockdale80
Glenn Beck is scared of his own shadow...

Does it matter if he is sometimes right on his topics?

[rockdale80]

Originally posted by SintonFan
Does it matter if he is sometimes right on his topics?

When you are a crazy right wing hack then no it doesnt matter. Making sense for 5 minutes then ranting about something asinine doesnt win any points with me. GB is very rarely right about anything...

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by rockdale80
When you are a crazy right wing hack then no it doesnt matter. Making sense for 5 minutes then ranting about something asinine doesnt win any points with me. GB is very rarely right about anything...

So does Keith Doberman make sense to you?

[rockdale80]

Originally posted by SintonFan
So does Keith Doberman make sense to you?

hahaha...not much. Talking heads have their place in the entertainment category with their vicious diatribes and half-truths. They have done more to poison the political sphere than they could ever understand. People watch these guys and buy into the propaganda rather than research anything for themselves, but they are "experts" after one episode of punditry.

[SintonFan]

Gni R80... gotta big day tomorrow.:)

[Move The Chains]

Rockdale80 is DD's protoge (sp.).


But, he's making sense today.

:clap:


I'm here in CS and when Obama comes, I'm going to respect him like I would any other president. We (the student body) have been formally asked to do so.


I may not agree with all that he does, but he is the president of the US. I'll take my opportunity to hear him out and have the experience of seeing the president first hand. Should be fun.



:)


There are always the whack jobs who will protest him. For the record, I don't like him.... but geez. Let him make his speech and go on.

[big daddy russ]

Originally posted by rockdale80
I am sure there is/was intent there, but when it became a corporate affair it went south. Now it is hate mongering against a party and president.
It's sad, too. Something that I was passionate about as were many people of other parties. Dems, Republicans, Libertarians, Constitutionalists and all sorts of other fringe party loyalists came together for the first couple of Tea Parties (I wasn't at the first one, but heard about it from my Dem buddies at the one on tax day).

I'm disgusted with both parties, so when people of one party or the other try to use a platform like this to hate monger, I leave and take all my friends with me. I'm ready to do that here.

They're starting to sound like Hannity IMO. Just trying to find stuff wrong with the Democratic party instead of sifting through the agenda issue by issue and praising them for the actions they take that he agrees with.


Originally posted by SintonFan
Because the email says it looks bad.
Whoever wrote this doesn't do the movement any good. It is shallow at best... and more disturbing than that if read as it actually is possibly meant to read. I'd write back and explain why issues/topics are more important than protesting the head of a party.
Sad thing is, it's probably meant to read that way from this particular person. I've been receiving increasingly partisan emails from this same person and, being someone who gets the idea that most of the "conservative leadership" (which right now is an oxymoron) simply has an axe to grind, I'm ready to part ways.

SF, you know me. I'm pretty conservative at heart. Not a neo-con, definitely not in the mold of a Hannity or a Rush, but a true conservative. Someone who wants to see less gov't involvement, a balanced budget, a repeal of all laws meant to protect you from yourself (NOT the gov't's job), greater power to the states, etc, etc, etc. Basically, I'm someone closer to a Libertarian than a Republican, but not quite either one.

On that note, you're absolutely right. It is a great idea and one that I hope will survive as something larger than a GOP/conservative sub-platform. It deserves better than that, but that's exactly where this particular chapter seems headed.

[carter08]

Originally posted by Move The Chains
Rockdale80 is DD's protoge (sp.).


But, he's making sense today.

:clap:


I'm here in CS and when Obama comes, I'm going to respect him like I would any other president. We (the student body) have been formally asked to do so.


I may not agree with all that he does, but he is the president of the US. I'll take my opportunity to hear him out and have the experience of seeing the president first hand. Should be fun.



:)


There are always the whack jobs who will protest him. For the record, I don't like him.... but geez. Let him make his speech and go on.

what?
you actually making sense?

i remember seeing dubya speak back in 04. i didn't agree with him, but it was just so cool to see the president of my country. it was the same way when i saw the pope, i don't believe a word of catholic ideology but was so enamored that the leader of an entire religion was in the same square as me.

when it comes down to it, these are people. powerful people, but still people, and unless you are a severe left or right wing nutcase, just the chance to see the leader of our country in person is enough to put personal politics aside for a moment.

[Move The Chains]

Originally posted by carter08
what?
you actually making sense?

i remember seeing dubya speak back in 04. i didn't agree with him, but it was just so cool to see the president of my country. it was the same way when i saw the pope, i don't believe a word of catholic ideology but was so enamored that the leader of an entire religion was in the same square as me.

when it comes down to it, these are people. powerful people, but still people, and unless you are a severe left or right wing nutcase, just the chance to see the leader of our country in person is enough to put personal politics aside for a moment.

My thoughts exactly. :clap:

[Gobbla2001]

Sean Hannity.... that is the most annoying cat there is... I listen to him every now and then and want to throw the radio across the room... most of the time he is the prime example of what is wrong with anyone right of center...

Rush? I can listen to him a little more because he cracks me up... he thinks more for himself... don't agree with him all of the time, don't like him all of the time, but he has that sense of humor that just cracks me up...

Glenn? Love Glenn, he's for sure not perfect, but I get where he's coming from... he's the only personality, right or left, that you'll hear change his mind on things from month to month (You catch Lou Dobbs doing it from time to time as well).. you can tell he's actually thinking about what he wants to/should believe instead of saying "well, hannity is going to feel this way, which means Rush does since hannity just repeats Rush's talking points, so every right of center person will feel that way so I need to feel that way"...

Laura Ingram? Hannity with female parts mostly...

[turbostud]

Originally posted by Gobbla2001


Laura Ingram? Hannity with female parts mostly...

What about Ann Coulter?

[Gobbla2001]

Originally posted by turbostud
What about Ann Coulter?

she's just phsyco and I hate her voice... I'd say Rush and Sean had a baby without a sense of humor and named it Ann....

[BwdLion73]

Answer my question....NO ANSWER MY QUESTION! let me finish....LET ME FINISH! If you would take that out along with all the repeated sayings and stuff I think you could have a pretty entertaining 30 minute program and save 2 and 1/2 hours for yard work.
:p

[Move The Chains]

I like GB and O'reilly, but I can't stand Sean Hannity, and I don't even bother listening to Rush or Savage....... as far as conservative media goes. I can't even bring myself to turn to CNN or MSNBC.:doh: ...... but having said that..... I haven't watched any of them since august. Now that I got to college, I'm taking a couple polisci classes and have a lot of reading to do. I'm learning a lot and I'm really liking the classes. Anyway, I just keep up with the news by using internet. I've strayed from those talking heads. Dd, that's for you.:)

[STANG RED]

I think your right on the money with your thoughts Russ. I feel the same way. And I think the only real answer is a legit third party. The Dems come no where close to reflecting my views, and have allowed themselves to be taken over by the far left fringes of the party. The GOP only gives mouth service to the issues I believe in, and how I think this country should be governed. I'm not sure which party disgusts me more, but I know I want no part of either. I really hope the rest of Americans start seeing both for what they are, and maybe get most of those chumps out of office in the next couple of elections.

[sinton66]

I understand the frustration, it should be applied to BOTH parties equally. Instead of turning one's back on a GREAT idea, why not stick it out and do what you can to steer it in the correct direction? If you walk away, that won't get it back on track. Stay in and fight for what's right.

[rockdale80]

Originally posted by sinton66
I understand the frustration, it should be applied to BOTH parties equally. Instead of turning one's back on a GREAT idea, why not stick it out and do what you can to steer it in the correct direction? If you walk away, that won't get it back on track. Stay in and fight for what's right.

What should be applied to both parties? The tea parties turned into an anti democrat and anti obama protest long ago. It started as a grass roots campaign and went downhill when Fox jumped on as a sponsor. I remember a thread where several people were trying to convince me that these events were for all parties...clearly they are not.

[big daddy russ]

Originally posted by STANG RED
I think your right on the money with your thoughts Russ. I feel the same way. And I think the only real answer is a legit third party. The Dems come no where close to reflecting my views, and have allowed themselves to be taken over by the far left fringes of the party. The GOP only gives mouth service to the issues I believe in, and how I think this country should be governed. I'm not sure which party disgusts me more, but I know I want no part of either. I really hope the rest of Americans start seeing both for what they are, and maybe get most of those chumps out of office in the next couple of elections.
Absolutely. I can't decide what I am, but I know I voted for more Libertarians last election than Republicans.

BTW: If you ever get a chance, check out Ron Paul. He's one of the last true conservatives out there. Not someone like Hannity who only backs conservative ideals when he has some Dems to bash.


Originally posted by sinton66
I understand the frustration, it should be applied to BOTH parties equally. Instead of turning one's back on a GREAT idea, why not stick it out and do what you can to steer it in the correct direction? If you walk away, that won't get it back on track. Stay in and fight for what's right.
Nah, I'm out. Rockdale80's pretty close with what seems to have happened. While it's been a more recent development than one that's been around as long as the media's focused on it (the one a couple months ago was bi-partisan), it seems to have attracted to plenty of fringe nutjobs whose voices outweigh the people who legitimately care about the issues. The same thing that happened to the Dems with all the fringe NE liberals back in the 60's.

If it was a salvageable situation, I'd be all over it. But it doesn't seem that way. And I honestly just don't have the energy or the want-to to change something that, from what I'm hearing from friends elsewhere, is pretty much state-wide.

It's basically devolved into what the media's been calling it. And what's sad is that it was the media that started out looking like the douchebags. The CNN reporter getting mad and yelling at the Tea Bag dad with his kid, etc. The Hunstville Tea Party has now justified all those claims by the media.

I don't hate Democrats. I don't hate liberals. I simply disagree with them. And I just want an organization that focuses on the issues. That's all I'm asking. Which is increasingly tough to find.

[sinton66]

Hmmmmmmm, a 3ADL Tea Party???????;)

[STANG RED]

Originally posted by big daddy russ
Absolutely. I can't decide what I am, but I know I voted for more Libertarians last election than Republicans.

BTW: If you ever get a chance, check out Ron Paul. He's one of the last true conservatives out there. Not someone like Hannity who only backs conservative ideals when he has some Dems to bash.

I've listened to Ron Paul on several occasions, and really like what he has to say. Problem is, I see him as being completely unelectable, much like Ross Perot was a few years back. If we could just take those thoughts and ideas from Ron Paul and stuff them into the head of a polarizing figure much like Obama is for the Dems, I think we would finally have somebody that could get this country turned around and headed in the right direction. But most of the old guard from both parties on capitol hill would need to be replaced as well, before any real progress could be made. It's a long uphill climb for sure. But I sure hope to see it some day. Maybe enough people will see the light and force it to happen before this country is brought completely down to its knees.

[sinton66]

Therein lies the whole key. Both parties engage in "finger pointing". It's ALWAYS the other guy's fault. The truth is it's both of them's fault. But, as long as they can keep us befuddled with the "blame game", we tend not to pay attention to the truth. We should be closely examining their individual voting records.

Personally, I'd like to see each Congressional District be required to have a website (a STANDING district one, not a personal one) on which they could poll opinions from their constituents in their respective districts on any and all pending legislation. It should also contain their voting record on all past legislation. It could be made very secure by having constituents sign in with their name and voter registration number. This would be far cheaper than the "town hall" meetings they occasionally do and we have to pay for (government provided air transportation and hall rentals, etc).

[rockdale80]

Originally posted by STANG RED
I've listened to Ron Paul on several occasions, and really like what he has to say. Problem is, I see him as being completely unelectable, much like Ross Perot was a few years back. If we could just take those thoughts and ideas from Ron Paul and stuff them into the head of a polarizing figure much like Obama is for the Dems, I think we would finally have somebody that could get this country turned around and headed in the right direction. But most of the old guard from both parties on capitol hill would need to be replaced as well, before any real progress could be made. It's a long uphill climb for sure. But I sure hope to see it some day. Maybe enough people will see the light and force it to happen before this country is brought completely down to its knees.

I like some of the ideals Ron Paul brings to the table, but the idea of a flat, consumer based tax is ridiculous. It is a tax increase for the bottom of the spectrum and a decrease for the wealthiest americans. I think that is a terrible idea. It is a wolf wrapped in sheeps skin because on the surface it sounds like a good idea, but is actually absolutely horrible...

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by rockdale80
I like some of the ideals Ron Paul brings to the table, but the idea of a flat, consumer based tax is ridiculous. It is a tax increase for the bottom of the spectrum and a decrease for the wealthiest americans. I think that is a terrible idea. It is a wolf wrapped in sheeps skin because on the surface it sounds like a good idea, but is actually absolutely horrible... IMO it was a horrible idea to make people who make more money pay more taxes to begin with. Everyone contributing the same percentage of income is the most fair way to do it. Any other way makes it too subjective.

[rockdale80]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
IMO it was a horrible idea to make people who make more money pay more taxes to begin with. Everyone contributing the same percentage of income is the most fair way to do it. Any other way makes it too subjective.


So you can carry the brunt of the spending of our country as a middle class citizen? Genius....

[Gobbla2001]

Originally posted by rockdale80
So you can carry the brunt of the spending of our country as a middle class citizen? Genius....

isn't the middle class the biggest class?

I do not think you could just go to that flat tax right off without there being some type of negative result (short or long term)... but gradually working toword that would be a great idea... the fact is #1 it's only fair... #2 rich people are stingey which in a lot of cases is WHY they are rich... naturally if they were taxed a tad less there'd be more money to throw down the line...

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by Gobbla2001
isn't the middle class the biggest class?

I do not think you could just go to that flat tax right off without there being some type of negative result (short or long term)... but gradually working toword that would be a great idea... the fact is #1 it's only fair... #2 rich people are stingey which in a lot of cases is WHY they are rich... naturally if they were taxed a tad less there'd be more money to throw down the line... :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[rockdale80]

Originally posted by Gobbla2001
isn't the middle class the biggest class?

I do not think you could just go to that flat tax right off without there being some type of negative result (short or long term)... but gradually working toword that would be a great idea... the fact is #1 it's only fair... #2 rich people are stingey which in a lot of cases is WHY they are rich... naturally if they were taxed a tad less there'd be more money to throw down the line...

Just follow this thought Gobbla, because I know you are sharp enough to.

Just for the sake of making a point lets say that a person must make 24k a year just to get by. I am not talking about buying or having anything nice in their life with this 24k. I am talking rent/mortgage, utilities, food, etc, but nothing that is not a necessity, and we will call that cost of living. So if you make 36k a year then you are being taxed on this 24k or roughly 2/3 of your income no matter what else you buy or dont buy. If you make 250k, then you must still spend that same 24k as a cost of living but it is a smaller proportionate to your income.

I understand that the middle class is the largest in terms of numbers, but not of wealth. 90% of the wealth in our country in terms of value is controlled by 1% of the population. How would a consumer tax be a fair tax?

This idea was created by the rich 1% and pushed off to the american people as a "fair tax" when it is actually a tax cut for the wealthy. Rich people having more money doesnt promote the economy...

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by rockdale80
Rich people having more money doesnt promote the economy... To quote Charles Barkley "I never got a job from a poor man." When people are allowed to keep more of their money then that money makes it's way back into the economy through investments. Investments in the financial institutions of this country help create jobs. If you continue to take more and more from those evil rich people, then the entire economy suffers. (See Jimmy Carter)

[sinton66]

R80, they aren't talking about a "sales tax". They are talking about a standard percentage of income tax. If the rate is 25%(just as an example) and you make $1,000, the tax on it would be $250.00. If you make $100,000, the tax on it would be $25,000. All they're saying is that's the fairest way to do it. Penalizing people who are simply better at making money than the little guy is somehow just? Are you suggesting that ALL rich people are crooks and need to be penalized?

[Gobbla2001]

Originally posted by rockdale80
Just follow this thought Gobbla, because I know you are sharp enough to.

Just for the sake of making a point lets say that a person must make 24k a year just to get by. I am not talking about buying or having anything nice in their life with this 24k. I am talking rent/mortgage, utilities, food, etc, but nothing that is not a necessity, and we will call that cost of living. So if you make 36k a year then you are being taxed on this 24k or roughly 2/3 of your income no matter what else you buy or dont buy. If you make 250k, then you must still spend that same 24k as a cost of living but it is a smaller proportionate to your income.

I understand that the middle class is the largest in terms of numbers, but not of wealth. 90% of the wealth in our country in terms of value is controlled by 1% of the population. How would a consumer tax be a fair tax?

This idea was created by the rich 1% and pushed off to the american people as a "fair tax" when it is actually a tax cut for the wealthy. Rich people having more money doesnt promote the economy...

I understand where you're trying to go and agree to an extent... deal is that if I spent 24k for my basic needs when my salary was 36k, I'm thinking I may spend more than 24k on my basic needs when my salary is 250k (bigger house, more utilities, more expensive food etc...).. but yes I see where you see the problem there...

As for rich people having more money not promoting the economy I think we'll have to disagree on that issue.. just saying that it is fair they pay the same percentage everyone else does, and slowly moving toword that would not destroy us, the rich would have more money to send down the pipe period, which would relieve what slack the middle class picked up...

[rockdale80]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
To quote Charles Barkley "I never got a job from a poor man." When people are allowed to keep more of their money then that money makes it's way back into the economy through investments. Investments in the financial institutions of this country help create jobs. If you continue to take more and more from those evil rich people, then the entire economy suffers. (See Jimmy Carter)

I know you are going to come back with some retort about how I am blaming Bush, but we had tax cuts for the rich for 8 years and how many jobs were created? So point taken and countered. The tax rates for the highest earners are lower than they have ever been currently, so I wonder how I country ever exploded to where we are today with all these top earners being taxed to death. I didnt say anything about rich people being evil.

[rockdale80]

Originally posted by sinton66
R80, they aren't talking about a "sales tax". They are talking about a standard percentage of income tax. If the rate is 25%(just as an example) and you make $1,000, the tax on it would be $250.00. If you make $100,000, the tax on it would be $25,000. All they're saying is that's the fairest way to do it. Penalizing people who are simply better at making money than the little guy is somehow just? Are you suggesting that ALL rich people are crooks and need to be penalized?

Incorrect. Ron Paul is for a consumer based tax that is based on what you spend and not what you earn. It is in essence a sales tax.

[Gobbla2001]

Originally posted by rockdale80
I know you are going to come back with some retort about how I am blaming Bush, but we had tax cuts for the rich for 8 years and how many jobs were created? So point taken and countered. The tax rates for the highest earners are lower than they have ever been currently, so I wonder how I country ever exploded to where we are today with all these top earners being taxed to death. I didnt say anything about rich people being evil.

Yah but you could argue the money they gained in tax-cuts was spent-up in buying fuel/other oil related products ha...

As for how our country ever exploded to where we are today with higher tax-rates for the rich in the past it's quite simple, America was still a free, capitalistic country...

[Old Cardinal]

People who are affluent usually own a small business; however, the harder workers and more intelligent turn these small business into major business and have Initial Public Offerings. Thus the wealth of this nation expands and prospers making jobs for many more people.

Grabbing their money and giving it to the lazy, dropouts, and those who have not caught the vision of the possibilities afforded for centuries, will cause a major US shutdown!

If they tax the rich any more or bilk the corporations any more: they move their headquarters to other more favorable countries!

I know folks right now that plan to move to Costa Rica, Panama, New Zealand etc:
The moment Nobama and his Liberals decide to siphon off the funds of the folks that provide the jobs of Americans--by grabbing more taxes on their hard earned money.

If they are smart enough and innovative enough to make it--they are smart enough to keep Nobama from buying more votes with their money they earned. LOL

[rockdale80]

Originally posted by Old Cardinal
People who are affluent usually own a small business; however, the harder workers and more intelligent turn these small business into major business and have Initial Public Offerings. Thus the wealth of this nation expands and prospers making jobs for many more people.

Grabbing their money and giving it to the lazy, dropouts, and those who have not caught the vision of the possibilities afforded for centuries, will cause a major US shutdown!

If they tax the rich any more or bilk the corporations any more: they move their headquarters to other more favorable countries!

I know folks right now that plan to move to Costa Rica, Panama, New Zealand etc:
The moment Nobama and his Liberals decide to siphon off the funds of the folks that provide the jobs of Americans--by grabbing more taxes on their hard earned money.

If they are smart enough and innovative enough to make it--they are smart enough to keep Nobama from buying more votes with their money they earned. LOL

How about actually giving tax breaks to companies that are expaning within our country and punishing those that leave? Realistically, we dont. Corporations are the consumers of welfare and tax breaks in this country, yet they continue to move overseas. To simplify it the way you have is inaccurate and to blame Obama is absurd. These companies were leaving under Bush and his tax cuts for the wealthy as well.

[rockdale80]

Originally posted by Gobbla2001
Yah but you could argue the money they gained in tax-cuts was spent-up in buying fuel/other oil related products ha...

As for how our country ever exploded to where we are today with higher tax-rates for the rich in the past it's quite simple, America was still a free, capitalistic country...

These rich investors and speculators are the reason fuel costs went up. Plenty of the affluent of this country made windfall profits so that argument is moot. America is free and capitalistic still, but people are more ingenuitive about how they get their money and it isnt always fair, honest, or the product of hard work. Sometimes yes, but that isnt the norm.

[Gobbla2001]

Originally posted by rockdale80
how they get their money and it isnt always fair, honest, or the product of hard work. Sometimes yes, but that isnt the norm. really??

[big daddy russ]

Originally posted by rockdale80
Incorrect. Ron Paul is for a consumer based tax that is based on what you spend and not what you earn. It is in essence a sales tax.
That's the "Fair Tax," an idea that Mike Huckabee shares.

The Flat Tax is what Sinton66 was referring to.



Originally posted by rockdale80
These rich investors and speculators are the reason fuel costs went up. Plenty of the affluent of this country made windfall profits so that argument is moot...
I thought that was all because of OPEC decreasing production, not because of American investors and speculators. I may be wrong on that, but I do remember Bush appealing to the OPEC nations to increase exports.

[rockdale80]

Originally posted by big daddy russ
That's the "Fair Tax," an idea that Mike Huckabee shares.

The Flat Tax is what Sinton66 was referring to.



I thought that was all because of OPEC decreasing production, not because of American investors and speculators. I may be wrong on that, but I do remember Bush appealing to the OPEC nations to increase exports.

Look into the trading of pertroleum futures and the impact it had on the fuel price. I will let you read into it and form your own opinion.

[big daddy russ]

Originally posted by rockdale80
Look into the trading of pertroleum futures and the impact it had on the fuel price. I will let you read into it and form your own opinion.
Thanks. I'll definitely check into it.

[sinton66]

To be fair to R80, I thought that's what the other posters were referring to. I missed the references to Ron Paul.

Originally posted by big daddy russ
That's the "Fair Tax," an idea that Mike Huckabee shares.

The Flat Tax is what Sinton66 was referring to.



I thought that was all because of OPEC decreasing production, not because of American investors and speculators. I may be wrong on that, but I do remember Bush appealing to the OPEC nations to increase exports.

[lulu]

Originally posted by carter08
what?
you actually making sense?

i remember seeing dubya speak back in 04. i didn't agree with him, but it was just so cool to see the president of my country. it was the same way when i saw the pope, i don't believe a word of catholic ideology but was so enamored that the leader of an entire religion was in the same square as me.

when it comes down to it, these are people. powerful people, but still people, and unless you are a severe left or right wing nutcase, just the chance to see the leader of our country in person is enough to put personal politics aside for a moment.

I wouldn't go if he were a mile down the road. Now I'm not usually that way but I have no trust for this man. I have never felt this way before,

[Farmersfan]

Rockdale80,
If you had two children about the same age of your own and 1 was very attentive and efficient and the other was lazy and inefficient, would you assign them house hold chores in equal amounts or is it ok in your mind to give the efficient child the bulk of the work?????? And if you deem it OK to give the efficient child the majority of the work, do you also think it is appropriate to give them both the exact same allowance every week?????

[rockdale80]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
Rockdale80,
If you had two children about the same age of your own and 1 was very attentive and efficient and the other was lazy and inefficient, would you assign them house hold chores in equal amounts or is it ok in your mind to give the efficient child the bulk of the work?????? And if you deem it OK to give the efficient child the majority of the work, do you also think it is appropriate to give them both the exact same allowance every week?????




If I have a lazy kid that doesnt want to work on the chores I give him, a belt will take care of that. Reagardless, that is a loaded question meant to evoke a response you can use to prove a point about something unrelated. Not everyone has the same opportunities in life regardless of their work ethic and desire to succeed.

[BleedOrange]

Originally posted by rockdale80
If I have a lazy kid that doesnt want to work on the chores I give him, a belt will take care of that. Reagardless, that is a loaded question meant to evoke a response you can use to prove a point about something unrelated. Not everyone has the same opportunities in life regardless of their work ethic and desire to succeed.

Of course you won't answer as you have already acknowledged it proves a point. A very good point I might add. It would be appreciated if you would explain this quote:

"..how they get their money and it isnt always fair, honest, or the product of hard work. Sometimes yes, but that isnt the norm. "

That is probably one of the most offensive things I have ever seen you post. You discredit a majority of hard working Americans. I guess this is your justification for redistribution of wealth. They didn't earn it fairly so lets just take it from them.

[rockdale80]

Originally posted by BleedOrange
Of course you won't answer as you have already acknowledged it proves a point. A very good point I might add. It would be appreciated if you would explain this quote:

"..how they get their money and it isnt always fair, honest, or the product of hard work. Sometimes yes, but that isnt the norm. "

That is probably one of the most offensive things I have ever seen you post. You discredit a majority of hard working Americans. I guess this is your justification for redistribution of wealth. They didn't earn it fairly so lets just take it from them.

No, I didnt answer because you are trying to make a comparison using apples and oranges. I am not going to treat one of my kids like royalty and beat the other one like a red headed step child and expect the same results in life.

If you are offended I am sorry. Go warm up a bottle of milk and cry yourself to sleep. My statement didnt take away from any hard working american. I think you confused me talking about middle class with the Bernie Madoffs and Kenneth Lays. :hand:

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by rockdale80
If I have a lazy kid that doesnt want to work on the chores I give him, a belt will take care of that. Reagardless, that is a loaded question meant to evoke a response you can use to prove a point about something unrelated. Not everyone has the same opportunities in life regardless of their work ethic and desire to succeed.



I didn't need your response to prove the point. I posted it to hopefully get you to acknowledge or to see that you truly DON"T advocate creating actual laws that support inequities. The analogy that I posted simply showed in a very basic way that all people should be treated equally regardless of how efficient they are. Based on what you have advocated on here you would support giving the lazy kid less work and more allowance becuase the lazy kid didn't have the same opportunities. It's nonsense and you know it. The funny thing is none of us are even claiming that people should be given opportunites based on their contribution in this society which should actually be a fundemental right also. The "free thinkers" have brow beat us so badly with this PC crap that we can't even suggest that people receive benefits from the government in direct porportion to what they contribute. Instead we accept that those who don't contribute at all or very little are actually equals in the eyes of our government. Now you and Obama want to make them more "Entitled".

[BleedOrange]

Originally posted by rockdale80
No, I didnt answer because you are trying to make a comparison using apples and oranges. I am not going to treat one of my kids like royalty and beat the other one like a red headed step child and expect the same results in life.

If you are offended I am sorry. Go warm up a bottle of milk and cry yourself to sleep. My statement didnt take away from any hard working american. I think you confused me talking about middle class with the Bernie Madoffs and Kenneth Lays. :hand:

I didn't confuse anything. You show malice towards a group on the account of a few to try an support an untenable position.

[rockdale80]

Originally posted by BleedOrange
I didn't confuse anything. You show malice towards a group on the account of a few to try an support an untenable position.

No malice to the ones that have earned it honest.

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by BleedOrange
I didn't confuse anything. You show malice towards a group on the account of a few to try an support an untenable position.

I don't think he has malice but maybe contempt for those who achieve. I think(don't want to put words on his keyboard) maybe there is a level of distrust with r80 because the majority of those who get ahead can't have done so "fairly" in those who share his opinion.
I could be wrong with him, but I have seen this quite a bit with those of a similar view.

[rockdale80]

Originally posted by SintonFan
I don't think he has malice but maybe contempt for those who achieve. I think(don't want to put words on his keyboard) maybe there is a level of distrust with r80 because the majority of those who get ahead can't have done so "fairly" in those who share his opinion.
I could be wrong with him, but I have seen this quite a bit with those of a similar view.

Close, but not accurate. It is contempt for the wealthy and corporations that work the tax system and structure to get tax breaks because it allegedly creates jobs, then they ship them overseas to maximize profit. If we are giving corporate tax breaks to build "our" economy then we should penalize the ones that utilize the relief given to sell jobs to the lowest bidding country overseas. It is also contempt for those that manipulate the market then reap the benefits of doing so while leaving debt for the tax payers to take care of.

I have the same contempt for the lazy, useless people that will never amount to anything and manipulate the system as well. If you live in low income housing that is funded by tax payer money then you damned sure shouldnt be driving an Escalade. I am not helping pay your rent so you can make a bloated car payment.

Personally, I dont think we should help either of the two, but I do believe firmly in helping the people that do work and try hard to live a reasonable life and get ahead, so dont take my disdain for some of the wealthy to mean it isnt conversly applied to the other end of the social spectrum. I am all for helping the people that do try to get ahead but havent been afforded the same opportunities I have. I hope that explains it better...

[BleedOrange]

Originally posted by rockdale80
Close, but not accurate. It is contempt for the wealthy and corporations that work the tax system and structure to get tax breaks because it allegedly creates jobs, then they ship them overseas to maximize profit. If we are giving corporate tax breaks to build "our" economy then we should penalize the ones that utilize the relief given to sell jobs to the lowest bidding country overseas. It is also contempt for those that manipulate the market then reap the benefits of doing so while leaving debt for the tax payers to take care of.

I have the same contempt for the lazy, useless people that will never amount to anything and manipulate the system as well. If you live in low income housing that is funded by tax payer money then you damned sure shouldnt be driving an Escalade. I am not helping pay your rent so you can make a bloated car payment.

Personally, I dont think we should help either of the two, but I do believe firmly in helping the people that do work and try hard to live a reasonable life and get ahead, so dont take my disdain for some of the wealthy to mean it isnt conversly applied to the other end of the social spectrum. I am all for helping the people that do try to get ahead but havent been afforded the same opportunities I have. I hope that explains it better...

Couple of question for you R80. Who pays a majority of the taxes? Who has one of the highest corporate tax structures in the world? Answer those honestly and you will realize that the "wealthy" pay more than their fair share. A good portion of hard working Americans pay little if any in taxes. Do you suggest that the wealthy pay more in taxes and pay those amounts to the middle and lower class who pay very little? Maybe you are suggesting that those who create the jobs pay more in taxes which will ultimately be refelected in higher prices which affects the lower and middle class more than anyone else. By penalizing those who achieve you increase the burden on the lower and middle class because you will force the wealthy individuals and corporations to cut expenses to deal with higher tax burdens. This will eliminate jobs and thus have an adverse affect on those you seek to assist. The free market is the way to achieve success no matter whehter you are lower, middle, or upper class. Opportunites abound for everyone if the federal government stays out of the way.

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by rockdale80
Close, but not accurate. It is contempt for the wealthy and corporations that work the tax system and structure to get tax breaks because it allegedly creates jobs, then they ship them overseas to maximize profit. If we are giving corporate tax breaks to build "our" economy then we should penalize the ones that utilize the relief given to sell jobs to the lowest bidding country overseas. It is also contempt for those that manipulate the market then reap the benefits of doing so while leaving debt for the tax payers to take care of.

I have the same contempt for the lazy, useless people that will never amount to anything and manipulate the system as well. If you live in low income housing that is funded by tax payer money then you damned sure shouldnt be driving an Escalade. I am not helping pay your rent so you can make a bloated car payment.

Personally, I dont think we should help either of the two, but I do believe firmly in helping the people that do work and try hard to live a reasonable life and get ahead, so dont take my disdain for some of the wealthy to mean it isnt conversly applied to the other end of the social spectrum. I am all for helping the people that do try to get ahead but havent been afforded the same opportunities I have. I hope that explains it better...

I think very few people don't have contempt for those who either take advantage of people, the laws or the government. Sadly, there are many many more(poor) who take advantage of the government by fleecing us hard-working taxpayers for everything they can get not nailed down(sometimes even if nailed down). We both know this fleecing sometimes happens with a blind eye or ear from our reps because those that do so are a block of voters that happens to vote a certain way.

My view differs with yours because I know that those in power now(think Washington) don't really care about the redistribution of wealth, it is about making and keeping themselves in power. They will bankrupt this great country to achieve this... no matter the consequences.
I always have contempt for those who hide behind "intelligent thought", with noses high in the air, who know more than us poor stupid regular folks. People can think for themselves...
I always have contempt for those who break laws for monetary gain while the rest of us work for what we have.
I have contempt for Hollywood types who aren't punished because of their popularity or sway.
I have the most contempt for those who won't prosecute the lawless or just ignore our LAWS today!!!

I hope that explains my point, too.
:)

[rockdale80]

Originally posted by BleedOrange
Couple of question for you R80. Who pays a majority of the taxes? Who has one of the highest corporate tax structures in the world? Answer those honestly and you will realize that the "wealthy" pay more than their fair share. A good portion of hard working Americans pay little if any in taxes. Do you suggest that the wealthy pay more in taxes and pay those amounts to the middle and lower class who pay very little? Maybe you are suggesting that those who create the jobs pay more in taxes which will ultimately be refelected in higher prices which affects the lower and middle class more than anyone else. By penalizing those who achieve you increase the burden on the lower and middle class because you will force the wealthy individuals and corporations to cut expenses to deal with higher tax burdens. This will eliminate jobs and thus have an adverse affect on those you seek to assist. The free market is the way to achieve success no matter whehter you are lower, middle, or upper class. Opportunites abound for everyone if the federal government stays out of the way.

I think if you reflect back and see what happened with the repeal of the Glass-Steagall and the Public Utility Holding Company Act I strongly disagree with this notion that a purely free market benefits everyone. An unregulated "free market" is corrupt by definition, because if there are no rules, the law of the jungle prevails.

[BleedOrange]

Originally posted by SintonFan
I think very few people don't have contempt for those who either take advantage of people, the laws or the government. Sadly, there are many many more(poor) who take advantage of the government by fleecing us hard-working taxpayers for everything they can get not nailed down(sometimes even if nailed down). We both know this fleecing sometimes happens with a blind eye or ear from our reps because those that do so are a block of voters that happens to vote a certain way.

My view differs with yours because I know that those in power now(think Washington) don't really care about the redistribution of wealth, it is about making and keeping themselves in power. They will bankrupt this great country to achieve this... no matter the consequences.
I always have contempt for those who hide behind "intelligent thought", with noses high in the air, who know more than us poor stupid regular folks. People can think for themselves...
I always have contempt for those who break laws for monetary gain while the rest of us work for what we have.
I have contempt for Hollywood types who aren't punished because of their popularity or sway.
I have the most contempt for those who won't prosecute the lawless or just ignore our LAWS today!!!

I hope that explains my point, too.
:)

:thumbsup: :clap:

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by rockdale80
I think if you reflect back and see what happened with the repeal of the Glass-Steagall and the Public Utility Holding Company Act I strongly disagree with this notion that a purely free market benefits everyone. An unregulated "free market" is corrupt by definition, because if there are no rules, the law of the jungle prevails.

So if an unregulated free market is "corrupt by definition"(I disagree btw) what do you propose?
How do you propose to change human nature because some will undoubtedly will be better than others? How can you change the fact that there are some who are inherently better than other people in the same jobs?

Isn't "the law of the jungle" a cliche from Darwinism?
[This next question is very very important] What are your stated goals for "equality"?
It sure smacks of trying to right an inequity because some are better at and can make more money than others...
seriously, do I have that right?

[rockdale80]

Originally posted by SintonFan
So if an unregulated free market is "corrupt by definition"(I disagree btw) what do you propose?
How do you propose to change human nature because some will undoubtedly will be better than others? How can you change the fact that there are some who are inherently better than other people in the same jobs?

Isn't "the law of the jungle" a cliche from Darwinism?
[This next question is very very important] What are your stated goals for "equality"?
It sure smacks of trying to right an inequity because some are better at and can make more money than others...
seriously, do I have that right?

We should base economic policy on the history of how people actually conducted themselves rather than how we presume people should have acted.

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by rockdale80
We should base economic policy on the history of how people actually conducted themselves rather than how we presume people should have acted.

That is preposterous! Are you talking about the "Madoffs" or the "Rockefellers"? Or what?

Who decides what conduct is acceptable? (We already have laws in the books for crooks, prosecute the crooks!)

What presumptions are you advocating in how they acted right or wrong?
Do you know these answers?

How do you change human nature in that some will win and some will lose(anti-Darwinism)?
It is not possible without the GOVERNMENT telling everyone what they can make, how much they can make and how much they will earn.
If that doesn't work(or pass the mustard) then take from those who work their a$$es off and give to those who take things for granted or are unwilling, unable to work.

I did actually say unable. Why? Because many for the most part who are unable to work get by with government subsidies... but no more. They live on their food stamps, medicare/medicaid and disability checks and can pay for living here in this country right now.
Why does that need to change now and why do we need to further burden those who are paying for all those generous benefits we all now provide?

Yes we live in the Greatest Country on the face of the planet.

That doesn't mean we need to be more European or Asian in our ways.
Look to what made us the Greatest Country in the first place...
it starts with personal responsibility and entrepreneurial spirit.

[rockdale80]

Originally posted by SintonFan
That is preposterous! Are you talking about the "Madoffs" or the "Rockefellers"? Or what?

Who decides what conduct is acceptable? (We already have laws in the books for crooks, prosecute the crooks!)

What presumptions are you advocating in how they acted right or wrong?
Do you know these answers?

How do you change human nature in that some will win and some will lose(anti-Darwinism)?
It is not possible without the GOVERNMENT telling everyone what they can make, how much they can make and how much they will earn.
If that doesn't work(or pass the mustard) then take from those who work their a$$es off and give to those who take things for granted or are unwilling, unable to work.

I did actually say unable. Why? Because many for the most part who are unable to work get by with government subsidies... but no more. They live on their food stamps, medicare/medicaid and disability checks and can pay for living here in this country right now.
Why does that need to change now and why do we need to further burden those who are paying for all those generous benefits we all now provide?

Yes we live in the Greatest Country on the face of the planet.

That doesn't mean we need to be more European or Asian in our ways.
Look to what made us the Greatest Country in the first place...
it starts with personal responsibility and entrepreneurial spirit.

Everyone's financial success and failure is a result of their work ethic, skill set, integrity, and mettle? Greed and corruption will disappear? We prosecute all those that benefit from duping the public, manipulating the market, and cheat the tax system? What country are you living in? Who said the government should decide a persons earnings?

If you are going to attack me then do it factually and dont put words in my mouth. I didnt say half the bs you put into your incessant rambling above.

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by rockdale80
Close, but not accurate. It is contempt for the wealthy and corporations that work the tax system and structure to get tax breaks because it allegedly creates jobs, then they ship them overseas to maximize profit. If we are giving corporate tax breaks to build "our" economy then we should penalize the ones that utilize the relief given to sell jobs to the lowest bidding country overseas. It is also contempt for those that manipulate the market then reap the benefits of doing so while leaving debt for the tax payers to take care of.

I have the same contempt for the lazy, useless people that will never amount to anything and manipulate the system as well. If you live in low income housing that is funded by tax payer money then you damned sure shouldnt be driving an Escalade. I am not helping pay your rent so you can make a bloated car payment.

Personally, I dont think we should help either of the two, but I do believe firmly in helping the people that do work and try hard to live a reasonable life and get ahead, so dont take my disdain for some of the wealthy to mean it isnt conversly applied to the other end of the social spectrum. I am all for helping the people that do try to get ahead but havent been afforded the same opportunities I have. I hope that explains it better...



I don't think anybody would disagree with anything you said here. What I want to know is, what does ObamaCare have to do with this???? You claim to have equal disdain for the Cheating wealthy and the lazy poor yet you support a measure that will help one at the expense of the other.
Perhaps if you look at it as the lesser of two evils it might help. Which whould you keep if only one could exist in this country. The wealthy who create jobs, build the economy and always strive to improve (regardless of how) or the lazy poor people who do nothing but drain the economy and complain about their opportunities????

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by rockdale80
Everyone's financial success and failure is a result of their work ethic, skill set, integrity, and mettle? Greed and corruption will disappear? We prosecute all those that benefit from duping the public, manipulating the market, and cheat the tax system? What country are you living in? Who said the government should decide a persons earnings?

If you are going to attack me then do it factually and dont put words in my mouth. I didnt say half the bs you put into your incessant rambling above.




Isn't sitting at home during the day waiting for a freebie government check also greed????? Is "Lazy" greed any better than "Ambitious" greed?

[rockdale80]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
I don't think anybody would disagree with anything you said here. What I want to know is, what does ObamaCare have to do with this???? You claim to have equal disdain for the Cheating wealthy and the lazy poor yet you support a measure that will help one at the expense of the other.
Perhaps if you look at it as the lesser of two evils it might help. Which whould you keep if only one could exist in this country. The wealthy who create jobs, build the economy and always strive to improve (regardless of how) or the lazy poor people who do nothing but drain the economy and complain about their opportunities????

I never said one was better than the other because they are both useless as far as I am concerned. I never said I supported Obamacare because I wanted coverage for the lazy bottom feeders that are content riding the proverbial government teat. I do support healthcare for the people that work their ass off to get ahead.

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by rockdale80
I never said one was better than the other because they are both useless as far as I am concerned. I never said I supported Obamacare because I wanted coverage for the lazy bottom feeders that are content riding the proverbial government teat. I do support healthcare for the people that work their ass off to get ahead.





As does almost every single other person in America.

But it seems to me that you are willing to support a law that quarantees free healthcare to those "lazy bottom feeders" and punishes the ambitious wealthy for their success just so you can make sure the people that work their asses off also get it????? It's a case of cutting off your nose to spite your face!! Obama will push for it because the "Lazy bottom feeders" are the ones that got him elected in the first place and will keep him in power. But you should not have the same agenda. UNLESS????? Rockdale80? Where do YOU feed??????:D

[Move The Chains]

Originally posted by rockdale80
I am all for helping the people that do try to get ahead but havent been afforded the same opportunities I have. I don't understand how some people aren't given the same opportunities. Everyone has a chance to go to college and better themselves. Don't tell me otherwise, because my situation explains it perfectly.


My dad is disabled. He makes very little money. I had the grades to get into any university just about, but without assistance from the University, wouldn never be able to afford to go to school, unless I racked up about $80,000 in loans.


Instead, the state of Texas and A&M got together and awarded me $84,000 in scholarships and grants and are practically paying me to go to college. My family's (EFC) expected family contribution is $0.00.



So basically, with enough effort, regardless of your financial situation, you CAN go to college and get a degree, and be on your way to being an "upper" class citizen of the US.



When I hear "weren't afforded the same opportunities" I think: "Didn't give a sh*t about their grades in HS" and had no motivation to do well, then end up working at mcdonalds or something.


The way I look at it, everyone has an opportunity.... some take advantage... some don't.

[Gobbla2001]

Originally posted by Move The Chains



When I hear "weren't afforded the same opportunities" I think: "Didn't give a sh*t about their grades in HS"



WOW, if the nail has ever been hit on the head...

wish I would have given a hoot about my grades in HS, I'd probably be better off and enjoying how I make my income a bit more...

[rockdale80]

Originally posted by Move The Chains
I don't understand how some people aren't given the same opportunities. Everyone has a chance to go to college and better themselves. Don't tell me otherwise, because my situation explains it perfectly.


My dad is disabled. He makes very little money. I had the grades to get into any university just about, but without assistance from the University, wouldn never be able to afford to go to school, unless I racked up about $80,000 in loans.


Instead, the state of Texas and A&M got together and awarded me $84,000 in scholarships and grants and are practically paying me to go to college. My family's (EFC) expected family contribution is $0.00.



So basically, with enough effort, regardless of your financial situation, you CAN go to college and get a degree, and be on your way to being an "upper" class citizen of the US.



When I hear "weren't afforded the same opportunities" I think: "Didn't give a sh*t about their grades in HS" and had no motivation to do well, then end up working at mcdonalds or something.


The way I look at it, everyone has an opportunity.... some take advantage... some don't.

If it only were that simple....Sounds like a good theory though, but isnt true. Some kids attend inner city schools where they arent going to get a good education no matter how hard they try. Your position is flawed. Was your scholarship based solely on academics or was it based in part on your families low level income as well?

[Move The Chains]

Originally posted by rockdale80
If it only were that simple....Sounds like a good theory though, but isnt true. Some kids attend inner city schools where they arent going to get a good education no matter how hard they try. Your position is flawed. Was your scholarship based solely on academics or was it based in part on your families low level income as well? Both, but what I'm saying is that even if their parents make that little amount of money, they can go to college. If their parents make more, great, they can still go.


And it doesn't matter, if they graduate in the top 10 % they can go to any public university. My HS education was hardly a good one. Went to a pretty pathetic academic school.

[BleedOrange]

Originally posted by Move The Chains
I don't understand how some people aren't given the same opportunities. Everyone has a chance to go to college and better themselves. Don't tell me otherwise, because my situation explains it perfectly.


My dad is disabled. He makes very little money. I had the grades to get into any university just about, but without assistance from the University, wouldn never be able to afford to go to school, unless I racked up about $80,000 in loans.


Instead, the state of Texas and A&M got together and awarded me $84,000 in scholarships and grants and are practically paying me to go to college. My family's (EFC) expected family contribution is $0.00.



So basically, with enough effort, regardless of your financial situation, you CAN go to college and get a degree, and be on your way to being an "upper" class citizen of the US.



When I hear "weren't afforded the same opportunities" I think: "Didn't give a sh*t about their grades in HS" and had no motivation to do well, then end up working at mcdonalds or something.


The way I look at it, everyone has an opportunity.... some take advantage... some don't.

Very well said and kudos to you for not falling into the leftist trap that because you have little you cannot succeed theory and therefore everyone else should pay your way. Opportunity abounds in this country with a little hard work and ambition.

[BleedOrange]

Originally posted by rockdale80
If it only were that simple....Sounds like a good theory though, but isnt true. Some kids attend inner city schools where they arent going to get a good education no matter how hard they try. Your position is flawed. Was your scholarship based solely on academics or was it based in part on your families low level income as well?

What does it matter. There is ample opportunity for those with both good grades average grades, and even poor grades. Try student loans and getting a job to pay for your education. That is available to all regardless of the socioeconomic background. The inner city argument is a complete cop out.

[rockdale80]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
As does almost every single other person in America.

But it seems to me that you are willing to support a law that quarantees free healthcare to those "lazy bottom feeders" and punishes the ambitious wealthy for their success just so you can make sure the people that work their asses off also get it????? It's a case of cutting off your nose to spite your face!! Obama will push for it because the "Lazy bottom feeders" are the ones that got him elected in the first place and will keep him in power. But you should not have the same agenda. UNLESS????? Rockdale80? Where do YOU feed??????:D

Well I feed a little higher up than the bottom...

And you are darn right that I will stick up for the middle class every single day...even if I am one of the people paying more in taxes to do so.

;)

[rockdale80]

Originally posted by Move The Chains
Both, but what I'm saying is that even if their parents make that little amount of money, they can go to college. If their parents make more, great, they can still go.


And it doesn't matter, if they graduate in the top 10 % they can go to any public university. My HS education was hardly a good one. Went to a pretty pathetic academic school.

So you are taking a hand out to get where you are now? You are taking money from tax payers to go to school because your parents couldnt afford it? How is that different from providing healthcare to people that cant afford it either?

[rockdale80]

Originally posted by BleedOrange
What does it matter. There is ample opportunity for those with both good grades average grades, and even poor grades. Try student loans and getting a job to pay for your education. That is available to all regardless of the socioeconomic background. The inner city argument is a complete cop out.

Very well said and kudos to you for not falling into the leftist trap that because you have little you cannot succeed theory and therefore everyone else should pay your way. Opportunity abounds in this country with a little hard work and ambition.



Glad you two have it figured out. :rolleyes:

I have maintained that I think healthcare is something we as a country should provide to all of our citizens, much like an education. Now we are off on all sorts of tangents and having multiple discussions to distract from the point. Realistically all of you are a product of government welfare. Blast away, but all of you know it is true.

[BleedOrange]

Originally posted by rockdale80
Glad you two have it figured out. :rolleyes:

I have maintained that I think healthcare is something we as a country should provide to all of our citizens, much like an education. Now we are off on all sorts of tangents and having multiple discussions to distract from the point. Realistically all of you are a product of government welfare. Blast away, but all of you know it is true.

Why should the Gov't provide it? To control costs? LOL. They can't manage anything and continue to rob from trust funds created the to protect peoples investments. Allow the government to get more involved in healthcare and you will ultimately decrease quality of care. By the way healthcare is available to all now. May not be as convenient as some would like but so what. The current proposals on the table already acknowledge that 25 million will still be unisured. What the heck are they trying to accomplish other than to bankrupt the country and create more gov't reliance. I guess they plan on taxing me even more to help pay for everyone else. I already pay more than my fair share. I wonder if you even pay taxes and have felt some of our pain. I am always amazed at a some of the young and their complete naivety.

[Move The Chains]

Originally posted by rockdale80
So you are taking a hand out to get where you are now? You are taking money from tax payers to go to school because your parents couldnt afford it? How is that different from providing healthcare to people that cant afford it either? LOL. so every american who ever gets a scholarship is taking handouts? Obviously you have no idea how much work it took to get those? Hardly a handout.

And it's different because people EARN the scholarships they get.


Scholarships aren't just provided to everyone for the sake of having them, like healthcare would. I say, provide healthcare to those who earn it, by working. Make it more affordable, so those who choose can have it.


I'm not going to go any further into healthcare, because that's not why I got involved in this thread.

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by rockdale80
Everyone's financial success and failure is a result of their work ethic, skill set, integrity, and mettle? Greed and corruption will disappear? We prosecute all those that benefit from duping the public, manipulating the market, and cheat the tax system? What country are you living in? Who said the government should decide a persons earnings?

If you are going to attack me then do it factually and dont put words in my mouth. I didnt say half the bs you put into your incessant rambling above.

[ramble on]
For the most part, financial success is a direct result of work ethic, skills, integrity and mettle.
The will always be greed and corruption... don't radically change the system because of the fear of what some might do or have done.
As far as prosecuting those that cheat, manipulate and all, I don't think we prosecute enough.:p
Congress has made rumblings about set limiting executives wages.

I wasn't attacking you, but had more questions in general.
:nerd:
[ramble off]:p

[Gobbla2001]

Here's my deal, I think healthcare can be more affordable, as I've said... if we can find a good way of getting this done I'm all for it... but 'when are people denied healthcare?'... 'is the actual, physical health care bad?' those are some of the questions I have...

Do poor, pregnant mothers get turned away at hospital doors? Or do they get a bill? they get a big bill after they and their child receive the best healthcare in the world...

I do not want our government providing our health care, I just don't... it's just another nail in the coffin to me...

I want to find ways to shrink government, I want to find a way that the guys and gals making less than me, the same as me, a little more than me and a LOT more than me can keep more of the money they earn... putting more people on 'our' payroll isn't going to do that...

[big daddy russ]

Originally posted by BleedOrange
Why should the Gov't provide it? To control costs? LOL. They can't manage anything and continue to rob from trust funds created the to protect peoples investments. Allow the government to get more involved in healthcare and you will ultimately decrease quality of care. By the way healthcare is available to all now. May not be as convenient as some would like but so what. The current proposals on the table already acknowledge that 25 million will still be unisured. What the heck are they trying to accomplish other than to bankrupt the country and create more gov't reliance. I guess they plan on taxing me even more to help pay for everyone else. I already pay more than my fair share. I wonder if you even pay taxes and have felt some of our pain. I am always amazed at a some of the young and their complete naivety.
I think R80 is past the age of naivete. Call me crazy, but I don't think people are naive to want government health care. It's actually a movement that's been going on since the late-1800's, but lawmakers back in then didn't want to concede that much. By 1930, the Progressive Movement (which was the movement that started it all) had got pretty much every demand they wanted except gov't health care (minimum wage, health and safety standards at jobs, etc, etc.) and faded off. But health care was one of their ideals that kept going. You can even see it in some episodes of Looney Tunes from the 40's.

Canada has a great health care system, only spends 10% of their GDP on care (we spend over 16%), and everyone's covered. Furthermore, lawsuits in Canada have been reduced dramatically, while care in the Colony has surpassed care in the Mother Country. There are the good arguments.

The bad arguments are that many of Canada's top doctors defect to the US, wait times are extended, and people are prioritized as much by outside factors as seriousness of injury/sickness and whether or not they can pay. Which is why many Canadians living close to the US border will come down here for health care.

Personally, I'm against government health care. And I'm an uninsured American to boot. But to call someone naive because they didn't look at all the arguments is ridiculous. Just because I'm against a government program doesn't mean that there's not a big part of me that wants to see people well-cared for, well-fed, well-clothed, and comfortable. As a bleeding heart conservative Christian, I want these things for everyone and I want these people who have go-nowhere, $8/hr. jobs to have a means to be upwardly mobile.

And there's no reason that everyone shouldn't want the same thing. Which is why the Dems are trying to get this pushed through. It's not naive, it's simply caring more about this program than about government uninvolvement. It's actually a noble cause, but one that I can't and won't support.

And I wish idiots like Rush and Hannity would see that. But then again, I also wish Rush and Hannity were actually conservative. I guess we can't get everything we wish for.

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by big daddy russ
I think R80 is past the age of naivete. Call me crazy, but I don't think people are naive to want government health care. It's actually a movement that's been going on since the late-1800's, but lawmakers back in then didn't want to concede that much. By 1930, the Progressive Movement (which was the movement that started it all) had got pretty much every demand they wanted except gov't health care (minimum wage, health and safety standards at jobs, etc, etc.) and faded off. But health care was one of their ideals that kept going. You can even see it in some episodes of Looney Tunes from the 40's.

Canada has a great health care system, only spends 10% of their GDP on care (we spend over 16%), and everyone's covered. Furthermore, lawsuits in Canada have been reduced dramatically, while care in the Colony has surpassed care in the Mother Country. There are the good arguments.

The bad arguments are that many of Canada's top doctors defect to the US, wait times are extended, and people are prioritized as much by outside factors as seriousness of injury/sickness and whether or not they can pay. Which is why many Canadians living close to the US border will come down here for health care.

Personally, I'm against government health care. And I'm an uninsured American to boot. But to call someone naive because they didn't look at all the arguments is ridiculous. Just because I'm against a government program doesn't mean that there's not a big part of me that wants to see people well-cared for, well-fed, well-clothed, and comfortable. As a bleeding heart conservative Christian, I want these things for everyone and I want these people who have go-nowhere, $8/hr. jobs to have a means to be upwardly mobile.

And there's no reason that everyone shouldn't want the same thing. Which is why the Dems are trying to get this pushed through. It's not naive, it's simply caring more about this program than about government uninvolvement. It's actually a noble cause, but one that I can't and won't support.

And I wish idiots like Rush and Hannity would see that. But then again, I also wish Rush and Hannity were actually conservative. I guess we can't get everything we wish for.



I think you miss the entire subject matter in this discussion. Everyone has their ideas as to what will work or what won't work in a new healthcare plan. but I think everyone agrees that we need to take care of those people who need taken care of. But that's where it ends. We also need to put a boot in the rear ends of those who WANT taken care of but don't need it. Obamacare does nothing to force self-reliance or personal responsibility on those who want to ride the gravy train. If Obamacare passes I see the numbers increasing tremendously. Welfare and government handouts currently carry a certain social stigma and most prideful Americans will avoid that if possible. If Obama creates this healthcare Entitlement then the stigma will go away and the gravy train will quickly become overloaded.

[big daddy russ]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
I think you miss the entire subject matter in this discussion. Everyone has their ideas as to what will work or what won't work in a new healthcare plan. but I think everyone agrees that we need to take care of those people who need taken care of. But that's where it ends. We also need to put a boot in the rear ends of those who WANT taken care of but don't need it. Obamacare does nothing to force self-reliance or personal responsibility on those who want to ride the gravy train. If Obamacare passes I see the numbers increasing tremendously. Welfare and government handouts currently carry a certain social stigma and most prideful Americans will avoid that if possible. If Obama creates this healthcare Entitlement then the stigma will go away and the gravy train will quickly become overloaded.
No, I got all that. The subject matter, all of it. I think I have a firm grasp on it. I think.

That whole post was directed at the suggestion that those who are for this government plan are simply naive, when that's not necessarily the case. Australia's probably the second-most financially and fiscally sound government in the world, following only fellow socialists Norway. PM Kevin Rudd's overseen a perfectly balanced budget handed to him by predacessor and political opponent John Howard. And they have fairly similar ideas on state-run health care. Australia still has a private option, but gives government-sponsored health care to those in need.

Looking elsewhere, the UK hasn't fallen under the weight of it's own government. Same with Canada. All these countries have varying degrees of government health care.

Heck, Germany was among the first countries to pass an increasingly socialist agenda on the heels of French and Marxist theory, with the advent of the world's first welfare program under Otto Von Bismarck back in the 1890's. That actually worked out well for them. They didn't have any problems until the Treaty of Versailles (and, coincidentally, the UK, France, and us) raped them.

Look, I've been in both situations. I've been the giver and the recipient. And I was proud... too proud... for too long for something I needed. Does that mean I support increasing the size of government? No, it doesn't. But it does make me less NAIVE to the topic and problems with the program and the issues with removing it than most people.

[lulu]

Originally posted by big daddy russ
No, I got all that. The subject matter, all of it. I think I have a firm grasp on it. I think.

That whole post was directed at the suggestion that those who are for this government plan are simply naive, when that's not necessarily the case. Australia's probably the second-most financially and fiscally sound government in the world, following only fellow socialists Norway. PM Kevin Rudd's overseen a perfectly balanced budget handed to him by predacessor and political opponent John Howard. And they have fairly similar ideas on state-run health care. Australia still has a private option, but gives government-sponsored health care to those in need.

Looking elsewhere, the UK hasn't fallen under the weight of it's own government. Same with Canada. All these countries have varying degrees of government health care.

Heck, Germany was among the first countries to pass an increasingly socialist agenda on the heels of French and Marxist theory, with the advent of the world's first welfare program under Otto Von Bismarck back in the 1890's. That actually worked out well for them. They didn't have any problems until the Treaty of Versailles (and, coincidentally, the UK, France, and us) raped them.

Look, I've been in both situations. I've been the giver and the recipient. And I was proud... too proud... for too long for something I needed. Does that mean I support increasing the size of government? No, it doesn't. But it does make me less NAIVE to the topic and problems with the program and the issues with removing it than most people.

Wasn't it the Austrailian president that told all illegals to get out of the country?

[big daddy russ]

Originally posted by lulu
Wasn't it the Austrailian president that told all illegals to get out of the country?
I couldn't tell you. I know there are a ton of illegal Americans Down Under.

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by big daddy russ
[That whole post was directed at the suggestion that those who are for this government plan are simply naive, when that's not necessarily the case. Australia's probably the second-most financially and fiscally sound government in the world, following only fellow socialists Norway. [/B]




Are you saying you would support a similar program of healthcare and welfare to what Australia has??? Really?

[big daddy russ]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
Are you saying you would support a similar program of healthcare and welfare to what Australia has??? Really?
What are the positives and negatives of the Australian system in your mind? What would you change about it? Compare and contrast to the American system of health care.

[big daddy russ]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
Are you saying you would support a similar program of healthcare and welfare to what Australia has??? Really?
And by the way, the answer to your question is just a couple posts up. But either way, don't be naive to both the pros and cons of different systems... and how similar they may be to our own current system. :thinking:


Originally posted by big daddy russ
Personally, I'm against government health care. And I'm an uninsured American to boot.
You know what, though, I got sucked into the money talk. Like I said, I'm conservative by nature, so this whole "spending less money" thing got me excited. The money we could save, the budget that could be balanc.....

Nevermind. I got ahead of myself. We'd first need to reform other areas of health care before we could look at saving money, and there's no guarantee that Washington would be good stewards of the money saved anyways.

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by big daddy russ
What are the positives and negatives of the Australian system in your mind? What would you change about it? Compare and contrast to the American system of health care.



Austrailias welfare system is a perfect example of where ours will go if Obama is not stopped. Almost 20% of the population is completely dependant on the government and another 10 to 20% are somewhat dependant. 60% of the population of Australia will never see a penny of welfare or social security yet they pay in each and every pay period. It's the ultimate in Obama style entitlement programs.

The Healthcare system is very similar to what Obamacare will be in the aspect that all people will have a set benefit package that is available to them. They also have the option of purchasing additional benefits from private insurance companies. But heres the problem with this system. Only about 60% of the population are substantial enough to pay into this government in the form of income taxes yet ALL people are covered by the plan. The numbers of people recieving the free benefits has grown 500% in the last 20 years since the changes in the program were implemented. It is reasonable to assume that if the percent of dependant people grows then the costs will grow accordingly and the only options for the government is to either raise the taxes to the 60% paying for it or lower the benefits. (which in essence raises the taxes because the upper classes will be forced to buy private benefits to suppliment). Here are some links:


https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/as.html

http://www.budget.gov.au/2005-06/overview2/html/welfare_02.htm

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0LVZ/is_2_21/ai_n15922895/

http://www.coph.ouhsc.edu/coph/HealthPolicyCenter/Pubs/1992/chpr9202a.pdf

[big daddy russ]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
Austrailias welfare system is a perfect example of where ours will go if Obama is not stopped. Almost 20% of the population is completely dependant on the government and another 10 to 20% are somewhat dependant. 60% of the population of Australia will never see a penny of welfare or social security yet they pay in each and every pay period. It's the ultimate in Obama style entitlement programs.

The Healthcare system is very similar to what Obamacare will be in the aspect that all people will have a set benefit package that is available to them. They also have the option of purchasing additional benefits from private insurance companies. But heres the problem with this system. Only about 60% of the population are substantial enough to pay into this government in the form of income taxes yet ALL people are covered by the plan. The numbers of people recieving the free benefits has grown 500% in the last 20 years since the changes in the program were implemented. It is reasonable to assume that if the percent of dependant people grows then the costs will grow accordingly and the only options for the government is to either raise the taxes to the 60% paying for it or lower the benefits. (which in essence raises the taxes because the upper classes will be forced to buy private benefits to suppliment). Here are some links:


https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/as.html

http://www.budget.gov.au/2005-06/overview2/html/welfare_02.htm

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0LVZ/is_2_21/ai_n15922895/

http://www.coph.ouhsc.edu/coph/HealthPolicyCenter/Pubs/1992/chpr9202a.pdf
Nice work.

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by rockdale80
I know you are going to come back with some retort about how I am blaming Bush, but we had tax cuts for the rich for 8 years and how many jobs were created? So point taken and countered. The tax rates for the highest earners are lower than they have ever been currently, so I wonder how I country ever exploded to where we are today with all these top earners being taxed to death. I didnt say anything about rich people being evil. If you really want my reasoning why we struggled during some of Bush's years I'll tell you:

1. Bush inherited a recession. Albeit a mild recession.

2. 9/11 - This catastrophe set us back a good 18 months to 2 years. The Bush tax cuts actually helped spur economic growth that shortened the financial devastation from 9/11.

3. By the end of the 1st term we were spending a lot of money fighting a war, yet the tax cuts had helped spur some economic growth.

4. By the end of the 2nd term the housing/lending bubble was about to burst, mainly due to easy lending practices and congress refusing to do anything about it.

[rockdale80]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
If you really want my reasoning why we struggled during some of Bush's years I'll tell you:

1. Bush inherited a recession. Albeit a mild recession.

2. 9/11 - This catastrophe set us back a good 18 months to 2 years. The Bush tax cuts actually helped spur economic growth that shortened the financial devastation from 9/11.

3. By the end of the 1st term we were spending a lot of money fighting a war, yet the tax cuts had helped spur some economic growth.

4. By the end of the 2nd term the housing/lending bubble was about to burst, mainly due to easy lending practices and congress refusing to do anything about it.

So we should have banking regulations? That seems anti-capitalistic...;)

[Gobbla2001]

Originally posted by rockdale80
So we should have banking regulations? That seems anti-capitalistic...;)

say that 9 more times you're makin' sense :D

[BleedOrange]

Originally posted by big daddy russ
And by the way, the answer to your question is just a couple posts up. But either way, don't be naive to both the pros and cons of different systems... and how similar they may be to our own current system. :thinking:


You know what, though, I got sucked into the money talk. Like I said, I'm conservative by nature, so this whole "spending less money" thing got me excited. The money we could save, the budget that could be balanc.....

Nevermind. I got ahead of myself. We'd first need to reform other areas of health care before we could look at saving money, and there's no guarantee that Washington would be good stewards of the money saved anyways.

Naive is the word the best describes those who believe the gov't can effectively manage a government sponsored healthcare plan and those who think the current proposals will improve the qualithy of healtcare. The fact is costs will go up and the quality will go down. Again I say naivety abounds for those who think otherwise.

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by rockdale80
So we should have banking regulations? That seems anti-capitalistic...;) Those easy lending practices were put in place by congress so they would make more loans to lower income people. Congress stated they would back the banks (and other lending institutions) so they didn't have to worry about people defaulting. Without congress meddling, do you really think banks would have made those risky loans? No way. There was too much risk.

And I stand by my other three factual statements.

[rockdale80]

Originally posted by BleedOrange
Naive is the word the best describes those who believe the gov't can effectively manage a government sponsored healthcare plan and those who think the current proposals will improve the qualithy of healtcare. The fact is costs will go up and the quality will go down. Again I say naivety abounds for those who think otherwise.

Naive? Naive like questioning the validity of the reports that came out stating insurance premiums would increase under an Obama plan from a review/audit performed by insurance companies? Naive for not thinking that the insurance companies would be quiet as a church mouse if they really had the opportunity to raise premiums and be able to blame it on the government? Does nothing about that sound weird to anyone? Sounds fishy to me considering the source, then again it is probably just me being naive for questioning things...



:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[rockdale80]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
Those easy lending practices were put in place by congress so they would make more loans to lower income people. Congress stated they would back the banks (and other lending institutions) so they didn't have to worry about people defaulting. Without congress meddling, do you really think banks would have made those risky loans? No way. There was too much risk.

And I stand by my other three factual statements.

Actually Congress repealing the Steagall-Glass act made it possible for these loans to even be made. Repealed by several Republicans because it was an unnecessary regulation of the lending institutions....you know...promoting Capitalism. You are right about Congress causing the mess, but not in the way you have it twisted around in your mind.

[BleedOrange]

Originally posted by rockdale80
Naive? Naive like questioning the validity of the reports that came out stating insurance premiums would increase under an Obama plan from a review/audit performed by insurance companies? Naive for not thinking that the insurance companies would be quiet as a church mouse if they really had the opportunity to raise premiums and be able to blame it on the government? Does nothing about that sound weird to anyone? Sounds fishy to me considering the source, then again it is probably just me being naive for questioning things...



:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I would say you are the poster child.

[rockdale80]

Originally posted by BleedOrange
I would say you are the poster child.

Sounds good to me.

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by rockdale80
Naive? Naive like questioning the validity of the reports that came out stating insurance premiums would increase under an Obama plan from a review/audit performed by insurance companies? Naive for not thinking that the insurance companies would be quiet as a church mouse if they really had the opportunity to raise premiums and be able to blame it on the government? Does nothing about that sound weird to anyone? Sounds fishy to me considering the source, then again it is probably just me being naive for questioning things...



:rolleyes: :rolleyes:




Perhaps it is naive to not see that we have 200 years of history to examine to give us an idea of what Obama's plan would do to the country. Perhaps naive would be to ignore the conditions in place in the rest of the world where similar programs are in place. Or perhaps it would be naive to simple assume all people should be "GIVEN" equality rather than allowing them equal opportunities to "ACHIEVE" equality. Remember it's "Life, Liberty and the PURSUIT of Happiness". There is no mention of a guarantee that you will be happy. All men are CREATED equal and gain a certain level of separation based on their drive, ambition, work ethic and ability. Government can't and shouldn't try to close the gap created by individual attributes like ambition and desire.

[rockdale80]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
Perhaps it is naive to not see that we have 200 years of history to examine to give us an idea of what Obama's plan would do to the country. Perhaps naive would be to ignore the conditions in place in the rest of the world where similar programs are in place. Or perhaps it would be naive to simple assume all people should be "GIVEN" equality rather than allowing them equal opportunities to "ACHIEVE" equality. Remember it's "Life, Liberty and the PURSUIT of Happiness". There is no mention of a guarantee that you will be happy. All men are CREATED equal and gain a certain level of separation based on their drive, ambition, work ethic and ability. Government can't and shouldn't try to close the gap created by individual attributes like ambition and desire.


Suck the government teat as long as it benefits you then whine about something as fundamental as healthcare being offered to those less fortunate. You are talking about being able to buy a new home or car and earning the nicer things in life, and I am talking about receiving healthcare. Naive? I dont think so...just less of a pri....nevermind.

Equal financial footing? Who said that? Also, never said I dont want those to work to succeed to be able to.

What is it again? LIFE, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Just wanted to emphasize the life part.

[Gobbla2001]

since this seems to be a political-loaded thread (I know, I'm really good at observing things), with tax discussions etc... I thought I'd share something I heard on the radio yesterday...

For the first time in almost a year, I turned on Sean Hannity (nothing on the radio, I can't stand this guy)... I was just in time for a lady to call in saying that after a person makes $1mil, 50% of their income should be taken in taxes... my jaw dropped... this lady was dead serious... kind of scary...

then the call was over and Hannity began talking so I turned back to sports talk...

[Gobbla2001]

Originally posted by rockdale80
whine about something as fundamental as healthcare

You know where I stand on healthcare... we have the best healthcare in the nation, but it could be more affordable...

I'm concerned about costs right now... we just don't have the money to provide that healthcare...

sure, we could get some of the money by pulling out of Afghanistan (soon please), but then we're just spending it somewhere else...

Most of us are sitting here thinking of ways to cut spending and others are figuring out ways to spend more...

It'd be different if this government hadn't shown me in the past that it likes to add on and add on and add on and add on... more taxes, more fines, more restrictions... all boils down to less freedom...

[rockdale80]

Originally posted by Gobbla2001
You know where I stand on healthcare... we have the best healthcare in the nation, but it could be more affordable...

I'm concerned about costs right now... we just don't have the money to provide that healthcare...

sure, we could get some of the money by pulling out of Afghanistan (soon please), but then we're just spending it somewhere else...

Most of us are sitting here thinking of ways to cut spending and others are figuring out ways to spend more...

It'd be different if this government hadn't shown me in the past that it likes to add on and add on and add on and add on... more taxes, more fines, more restrictions... all boils down to less freedom... 3

Dig into the medicare/medicaid bill Bush helped push through and the amount of money that cost every American. Dont forget to buckle up too :rolleyes:

[Gobbla2001]

Originally posted by rockdale80
3

Dig into the medicare/medicaid bill Bush helped push through and the amount of money that cost every American. Dont forget to buckle up too :rolleyes:

I'm not at all pleased at Bush's record either, btw... I've just paid a bit more attention the past two years... he did quite a few things to get on my freakin' nerves...

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by rockdale80
Suck the government teat as long as it benefits you then whine about something as fundamental as healthcare being offered to those less fortunate. You are talking about being able to buy a new home or car and earning the nicer things in life, and I am talking about receiving healthcare. Naive? I dont think so...just less of a pri....nevermind.

Equal financial footing? Who said that? Also, never said I dont want those to work to succeed to be able to.

What is it again? LIFE, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Just wanted to emphasize the life part.



WOW! I'm beginning to think that you might just be a little slow.
And since you mentioned LIFE, does that mean you know of someone who was denied life because they were less fortunate and couldn't pay for it?????

[rockdale80]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
WOW! I'm beginning to think that you might just be a little slow.
And since you mentioned LIFE, does that mean you know of someone who was denied life because they were less fortunate and couldn't pay for it?????

Slow? How so?

Plenty of people die everyday from lack of healthcare. About 18000 actually. I say we should have healthcare and I am a socialist, yet you have enjoyed the toils of government intervention on more than one occasion and probably will continue to do so. If I am a socialist, then so are you. I never said everyone should make the same amount of money either, but I was accused of it because I think people should have the opportunity to have healthcare like they have the opportunity to have an education.

So far I am slow, naive, socialist, and a slew of other names because I simply disagree with turning out back on poor people and letting them die because they cant afford to go to the hospital. :hand:

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by rockdale80
Slow? How so?

Plenty of people die everyday from lack of healthcare. About 18000 actually. I say we should have healthcare and I am a socialist, yet you have enjoyed the toils of government intervention on more than one occasion and probably will continue to do so. If I am a socialist, then so are you. I never said everyone should make the same amount of money either, but I was accused of it because I think people should have the opportunity to have healthcare like they have the opportunity to have an education.

So far I am slow, naive, socialist, and a slew of other names because I simply disagree with turning out back on poor people and letting them die because they cant afford to go to the hospital. :hand:



What enjoyment have I gotten from Government intervention?

I think you are confusing healthcare with insurance. The report that you use to get your numbers is based on number of people who died uninsured. A much, much higher number of people die every year WITH insurance and With great healthcare. Here is a quote from your report:

"The estimated death toll includes about 1,400 people with high blood pressure, 400 to 600 with breast cancer and 1,500 diagnosed with HIV."
The problem with this is that about 3 million people die each year with HIV or Aids related complications, 40,000 women die from breast cancer each year and 2600 people die each DAY from high blood pressure or heart related illnesses. I think everyone can see how retarded assumption is that a lack of HEALTHCARE was the reason for those 18000 deaths.

Besides, you are quoting stats conceived by a Insurance company to prove your point. Let me quote you from yesterday:

"Naive? Naive like questioning the validity of the reports that came out stating insurance premiums would increase under an Obama plan from a review/audit performed by insurance companies?"

So do we believe the insurance companies or do we not???



http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/healthcare/2002-05-22-insurance-deaths.htm

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/09/17/eveningnews/main5318652.shtml

[rockdale80]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
What enjoyment have I gotten from Government intervention?

I think you are confusing healthcare with insurance. The report that you use to get your numbers is based on number of people who died uninsured. A much, much higher number of people die every year WITH insurance and With great healthcare. Here is a quote from your report:

"The estimated death toll includes about 1,400 people with high blood pressure, 400 to 600 with breast cancer and 1,500 diagnosed with HIV."
The problem with this is that about 3 million people die each year with HIV or Aids related complications, 40,000 women die from breast cancer each year and 2600 people die each DAY from high blood pressure or heart related illnesses. I think everyone can see how retarded assumption is that a lack of HEALTHCARE was the reason for those 18000 deaths.

Besides, you are quoting stats conceived by a Insurance company to prove your point. Let me quote you from yesterday:

"Naive? Naive like questioning the validity of the reports that came out stating insurance premiums would increase under an Obama plan from a review/audit performed by insurance companies?"

So do we believe the insurance companies or do we not???



http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/healthcare/2002-05-22-insurance-deaths.htm

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/09/17/eveningnews/main5318652.shtml

Those stats dont prove anything other than an answer to your question. Insurance = healthcare.

Poor people should all die and we shouldnt do anything to help them get healthcare.

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by rockdale80
Those stats dont prove anything other than an answer to your question. Insurance = healthcare.

Poor people should all die and we shouldnt do anything to help them get healthcare.




Again with the slowness???? (JK!)

The point was that POOR PEOPLE DIDN"T DIE BECAUSE OF NO HEALTHCARE!!! They died because that's what sick people do. 3 million people died from HIV complications last year so to say that 1500 died because of no insurance is moronic. 2,999,998 others died with healthcare! Get it?

[rockdale80]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
Again with the slowness???? (JK!)

The point was that POOR PEOPLE DIDN"T DIE BECAUSE OF NO HEALTHCARE!!! They died because that's what sick people do. 3 million people died from HIV complications last year so to say that 1500 died because of no insurance is moronic. 2,999,998 others died with healthcare! Get it?

I assume those are deaths that could have been prevented or lives prolonged with healthcare. Just a guess because I see your point. It would be silly to think that people dont die due to lack of healthcare though, right?

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by rockdale80
Actually Congress repealing the Steagall-Glass act made it possible for these loans to even be made. Repealed by several Republicans because it was an unnecessary regulation of the lending institutions....you know...promoting Capitalism. You are right about Congress causing the mess, but not in the way you have it twisted around in your mind. Say what you will but there is no way the banks would have made those loans without backing from congress. Congress wanted more loans for people with risky (or no) credit. The banks were happy to oblige...as long as congress promised to bail them out if the loans went bad. Both sides are to blame, but the banks would have never been in this mess had congress not gotten involved.

[rockdale80]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
Say what you will but there is no way the banks would have made those loans without backing from congress. Congress wanted more loans for people with risky (or no) credit. The banks were happy to oblige...as long as congress promised to bail them out if the loans went bad. Both sides are to blame, but the banks would have never been in this mess had congress not gotten involved.

Republican congress pushed this through, but in fairness Clinton signed it into law. It was deregulation of the banking standards that have been around for years and in the name of capitalism. Corporate and deregulation are to blame.

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by rockdale80
Republican congress pushed this through, but in fairness Clinton signed it into law. It was deregulation of the banking standards that have been around for years and in the name of capitalism. Corporate and deregulation are to blame. Deregulation WITHOUT congress backing the banks would have been better.

Do you honestly believe that these banks would have made these loans, many of which they knew there was no way the people could possibly repay, without congress having their backs? That would be like me loaning money to a crackhead.

[rockdale80]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
Deregulation WITHOUT congress backing the banks would have been better.

Do you honestly believe that these banks would have made these loans, many of which they knew there was no way the people could possibly repay, without congress having their backs? That would be like me loaning money to a crackhead.

What would have happened without congressional intervention?

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by rockdale80
What would have happened without congressional intervention? The banks would not have made all of those risky loans. I'm not saying they wouldn't have made any of them, but no one in their right mind would have made so many risky loans with their own money.

Members of both parties wanted those loans to be made. Republicans wanted the loans to boost bank profits. Democrats wanted the loans to get more people in homes for the first time. Neither is a bad idea, but instead of letting the free market take its course congress had to let the politics of the day get in the way.

BTW - I'm all for accountability, but that accountability should come from stockholders, not congress. If the banks are making bad loans and losing money, the stockholders have the responsibility to solve the problem.

[rockdale80]

Originally posted by JasperDog94
The banks would not have made all of those risky loans. I'm not saying they wouldn't have made any of them, but no one in their right mind would have made so many risky loans with their own money.

Members of both parties wanted those loans to be made. Republicans wanted the loans to boost bank profits. Democrats wanted the loans to get more people in homes for the first time. Neither is a bad idea, but instead of letting the free market take its course congress had to let the politics of the day get in the way.

BTW - I'm all for accountability, but that accountability should come from stockholders, not congress. If the banks are making bad loans and losing money, the stockholders have the responsibility to solve the problem.

I agree to an extent, but there is more to it that you are explaining. Capitalists did this without the thought that congress would bail them out. Congress intervened after the fact and not during. Democrats didnt fight it because they dont have the testicles to do so and Republicans wanted this because they are convinced the free market will make it right. The reality is banks did this without regulation because they assumed AIG had the backing to insure these subprime loans and that wasnt the case. The next scare is the Chinese gypsum with the poor real estate market and the insurance companies denying/ending coverage because the sulfuric acid emitting gypsum is pre-existing. We are about to have a whole wave of foreclosures because of this stuff. Dont forget, I work on the distressed asset side of real estate and probably know slightly more than most. ;)

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by rockdale80
I agree to an extent, but there is more to it that you are explaining. Capitalists did this without the thought that congress would bail them out. Congress intervened after the fact and not during. Democrats didnt fight it because they dont have the testicles to do so and Republicans wanted this because they are convinced the free market will make it right. The reality is banks did this without regulation because they assumed AIG had the backing to insure these subprime loans and that wasnt the case. The next scare is the Chinese gypsum with the poor real estate market and the insurance companies denying/ending coverage because the sulfuric acid emitting gypsum is pre-existing. We are about to have a whole wave of foreclosures because of this stuff. Dont forget, I work on the distressed asset side of real estate and probably know slightly more than most.

*cough cough*
Barney Frank
*cough cough*

[rockdale80]

Originally posted by SintonFan
*cough cough*
Barney Frank
*cough cough*

Calling your boyfriends name out?

[Gobbla2001]

Originally posted by rockdale80
Calling your boyfriends name out?

dude... SintonFan is rubber, you're glue...

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by Gobbla2001
dude... SintonFan is rubber, you're glue...

rofl...:D