Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;568527]Certainly the crisis of the Civil War constituted extreme measures (income tax). Even so, the tax was less than the SS tax alone is today.

And I'm not saying there should be "no oversight" into the financial system, but not the monstrosity of regulations/legal burdens companies must jump through for the government.

You really should read Chapter 1 of The Fair Tax Book by Neal Boortz to understand how the Income Tax really came to be. As is the same today, the Income Tax (or expansion of taxes) was a Democrat creation, and unfortunatley a few liberal Republicans signed on.

Again, as usual with lefties, my original point wasn't countered....at all, only nit-picking minor details. [B]Please enlighten me, how does the federal government/infrastructure allow/facilitate private individuals & companies to make money? And do you believe the cost of that is worth about 33% of a mid-high end workers income?[/B][/quote]
Far be it from me to be defending the government per se; but I think it is safe to say that the federal government has a major role in the US's ability to be an effective marketplace. Remember the reason the federal portion was needed was otherwise the individual colonies/states would have bickered endlessly and we would have grown as a country much more like Europe. The Articles of Confederation through their failure to provide the stability and accountability to a greater good certainly showed a need for Federal intervention, and establishment of commerce, roads, a common military defense etc. I am sure you aren't saying we don't need these things.

Your second half saying that should it be 33% of your income. Absolutely not. But the 33% does not pay just for the government necessary to provide the safe and honest transactions conducted over a billion times over the course of a normal business day. It is required to be 33% (and growing) because of the misguided belief that government, better than individuals and charities, can help solve individual hardship, and that in a country as grand as ours, no one should go without. As Schneed said, if a person needs urgent medical attention, all hospitals are required to provide it. However, if a person chooses, or has thrust on them, the option of not securing health insurance, that is where the debate lies. I say each individual/family must come to terms themselves. Others would disagree.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;568536]Far be it from me to be defending the government per se; but I think it is safe to say that the federal government has a major role in the US's ability to be an effective marketplace. Remember the reason the federal portion was needed was otherwise the individual colonies/states would have bickered endlessly and we would have grown as a country much more like Europe. The Articles of Confederation through their failure to provide the stability and accountability to a greater good certainly showed a need for Federal intervention, and establishment of commerce, roads, a common military defense etc. [B]I am sure you aren't saying we don't need these things.[/B] [/quote]You are absolutely correct, these things were in place with a minimal income tax.

[quote]Your second half saying that should it be 33% of your income. Absolutely not. But the 33% does not pay just for the government necessary to provide the safe and honest transactions conducted over a billion times over the course of a normal business day. [B]It is required to be 33% (and growing) because of the misguided belief that government, better than individuals and charities, can help solve individual hardship, and that in a country as grand as ours, no one should go without.[/B] As Schneed said, if a person needs urgent medical attention, all hospitals are required to provide it. However, if a person chooses, or has thrust on them, the option of not securing health insurance, that is where the debate lies. I say each individual/family must come to terms themselves. Others would disagree.[/quote]Very well stated and agree

Re: Obama Care
 

The "invisible hand" card being played again? LOL...I recognize that I am a wishful thinker but damn if I'm more of wishful thinker than you lot.

Children, children...invisible things don't exist neither does magic.

[yt]Km-pNen3HeA[/yt]

Re: Obama Care
 

In my post yesterday I said I was going to play golf which we tried. On the 6th hole it begain to lighting and thunder so we headed for the club house. As I pulled up to the club house I joked with my buddy that I needed some new clubs so I'll parked under tree and maybe lighting will hit the tree and melt my clubs. Not five minutes latter as we gathered our stuff everything lit up and a loud BANG as lighting hit that tree. It was pretty wild and my ears rang for about a 1/2 hour and I think my buddy craped on himself but he wouldn't say.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=firstdown;568602]In my post yesterday I said I was going to play golf which we tried. On the 6th hole it begain to lighting and thunder so we headed for the club house. As I pulled up to the club house I joked with my buddy that I needed some new clubs so I'll parked under tree and maybe lighting will hit the tree and melt my clubs. Not five minutes latter as we gathered our stuff everything lit up and a loud BANG as lighting hit that tree. It was pretty wild and my ears rang for about a 1/2 hour and I think my buddy craped on himself but he wouldn't say.[/quote]Maybe Obama was trying to tell you something?

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=gibbsisgod;568605]Maybe Obama was trying to tell you something?[/quote]
No he only thinks he is God.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=saden1;568548]The "invisible hand" card being played again? LOL...I recognize that I am a wishful thinker but damn if I'm more of wishful thinker than you lot.

Children, children...invisible things don't exist neither does magic.[/quote]

So what is your point? That an economic metaphor used to analyze the correlation between self interest and effect on large scale economics is pointless? Or is it that self-interest on large scale has effect has no effect on economics of scale? That the question raised by SS33

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;568527] Please enlighten me, how does the federal government/infrastructure allow/facilitate private individuals & companies to make money? And do you believe the cost of that is worth about 33% of a mid-high end workers income?[/quote]

And arguments raised by CRedskin:

[quote=CRedskinsRule;568536] It is required to be 33% (and growing) because of the misguided belief that government, better than individuals and charities, can help solve individual hardship, and that in a country as grand as ours, no one should go without. As Schneed said, if a person needs urgent medical attention, all hospitals are required to provide it. However, if a person chooses, or has thrust on them, the option of not securing health insurance, that is where the debate lies. I say each individual/family must come to terms themselves. Others would disagree.[/quote]

Are without value?

Enlighten me, oh brilliant self righteous one, on why the concept of statistical probability as it relates to the correlation of maximizing public good through self interest is irrelevant, invalid or otherwise meaningless in the health care setting. Apparently, it is your belief that your understanding of economic theory is clearly far superior to any and all comers and is equally applicable in all markets regardless of the goods and services being exchanged. I wish to understand the facts, assumptions and reasoning of this flawless theory.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;568646]
...
Apparently, it is your belief that your understanding of economic theory is clearly far superior to any and all comers and is equally applicable in all markets regardless of the goods and services being exchanged. I wish to understand the facts, assumptions and reasoning of this flawless theory.[/quote]

It's not a mere claim to understanding of such simplistic things as an economic theory that drives the one you speak of. It is the claim of understanding all that encompasses the gravitas of life. It is the claim of a knowledge of good and evil, and the knowledge that all which the government can do is achieve the greatness of human evolution to the final and great wondrous utopia of all through a simple sharing of all that is, that which may be, and that which never was but should have been. Ask the mice they understand.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;568527][B]Certainly the crisis of the Civil War constituted extreme measures [/B](income tax). Even so, the tax was less than the SS tax alone is today.

And I'm not saying there should be "no oversight" into the financial system, but not the monstrosity of regulations/legal burdens companies must jump through for the government.

You really should read Chapter 1 of The Fair Tax Book by[B] Neal Boortz to understand how the Income Tax really came to be[/B]. As is the same today, the Income Tax (or expansion of taxes) was a Democrat creation, and unfortunatley a few liberal Republicans signed on.

Again, as usual with lefties, my original point wasn't countered...[B].at all, only nit-picking minor details.[/B] Please enlighten me, how does the federal government/infrastructure allow/facilitate private individuals & companies to make money? And do you believe the cost of that is worth about 33% of a mid-high end workers income?[/quote]

1) Okay, then, for starters, we can agree that you were flatly wrong with your original post.
2) Will do. I'm sure it's a very unbiased account.
3) "Minor details"? Then what was the relevance of the point you made, which, again, we can agree was entirely inaccurate?

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=BringBackJoeT;568705]1) Okay, then, for starters, we can agree that you were flatly wrong with your original post.[/quote]

To be fair about the statement regarding the income tax, I think the point was that it was a measure to raise revenue only for an extraordinary purpose -- in this case to pay for the Civil War. It was never meant to be the primary source of funding for the routine functions of the federal government. That didn't happen until 1913 with passage of the 16th amendment.

Re: Obama Care
 

Here is a good link to the history of our nations income tax.
[url=http://www.treasury.gov/education/fact-sheets/taxes/ustax.shtml]U.S. Treasury - Fact Sheet on the History of the U.S. Tax System[/url]

Re: Obama Care
 

•"The U. S. health system spends a higher portion of its gross domestic product than any other country but ranks 37 out of 191 countries according to its performance, the report finds." "World Health Organization Assesses The World's Health Systems," Press Release, WHO/44, June 21, 2000. [url=http://www.who.int/inf-pr-2000/en/pr2000-44.html]PR-2000-43/ WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION : ASSESSES THE WORLD'S HEALTH SYSTEMS[/url]
back to the facts...

Re: Obama Care
 

firstdown -Very interesting reading, has an interesting quote from Thomas Jefferson (I am still reading it, but this quote really struck me)
[quote]Though social policies sometimes governed the course of tax policy even in the early days of the Republic, the nature of these policies did not extend either to the collection of taxes so as to equalize incomes and wealth, or for the purpose of redistributing income or wealth. As Thomas Jefferson once wrote regarding the "general Welfare" clause:

[B]To take from one[/B], because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, [B]in order to spare to others[/B] who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, [B]is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.[/B]"[/quote]

Re: Obama Care
 

and this
[quote]The Act expired in 1902, so that Federal receipts fell from 1.7 percent of Gross Domestic Product to 1.3 percent.[/quote]

So 108 years later, anyone know what percent of Gross Domestic product the the Federal receipts is now?

edit: if these numbers are right, our GDP is 14.2 Trillion, and [URL="http://www.fms.treas.gov/annualreport/cs2008/receipt.pdf"]the federal receipts[/URL] is 2.52 Trillion. So, again if my math is right, it is about 18%.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=dmek25;568729]•"The U. S. health system spends a higher portion of its gross domestic product than any other country but ranks 37 out of 191 countries according to its performance, the report finds." "World Health Organization Assesses The World's Health Systems," Press Release, WHO/44, June 21, 2000. [URL="http://www.who.int/inf-pr-2000/en/pr2000-44.html"]PR-2000-43/ WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION : ASSESSES THE WORLD'S HEALTH SYSTEMS[/URL]
back to the facts...[/quote]
The world health organization is left leaning and wants universal health coverage for the world. Little facts and little research.

Re: Obama Care
 

Duplicate Post

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=dmek25;568729]•"The U. S. health system spends a higher portion of its gross domestic product than any other country but ranks 37 out of 191 countries according to its performance, the report finds." "World Health Organization Assesses The World's Health Systems," Press Release, WHO/44, June 21, 2000. [url=http://www.who.int/inf-pr-2000/en/pr2000-44.html]PR-2000-43/ WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION : ASSESSES THE WORLD'S HEALTH SYSTEMS[/url]
back to the facts...[/quote]

This flaws in this statement have already been debated and discussed.

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;565492][URL="http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_12667987"]Carroll: U.S. health care is not inferior - The Denver Post[/URL]

[URL]http://www.cato.org/pubs/bp/bp101.pdf[/URL]

Evidence from countires with socialized medicine show higher mortality rates than the U.S. for cancer and significantly longer wait times for treatments. Do some research and don't drink the Obam-Aid.[/quote]

I believe there was a more detailed breakdown of the flaws, I just couldn't find it. To me, the factaul basis of the WHO raniking are debatable and the factual conclusions and the reasoning used to reach those conclusions are faulty.

Re: Obama Care
 

I'm with you bro. Socialized medicine is a nightmare, and we've only to look no further than Canada and the UK for all the evidence we need. If you get cancer or any serious disease in the UK, it's practically a death sentence. If you're in Canada...well, at least you can come to the USA for treatment, but with Obamacare, that's about to change.

It's good to see that ABC has given up its attempts to hide its liberal bias. Those guys are in the tank for the the hard left and will do anything they can to help further their agenda, even if it means distorting the facts and not giving voice to dissenters. Many of those dissenters are Blue Dog Democrats and other moderates.

Even if you don't know all the specifics of Obamacare... why pass it NOW, when we're in the worst economic times in 80 years? What is the rush to push this through without any open debate about it? And if you trust Obama...why? The stimulus was a massive failure, yet will cost us for generations. He promised it would curb unemployment, and that by NOT passing it, it would go all the way to 9%. Well, they passed it, and now we're on our way to 10% unemployment. But we have added 10 TRILLION in debt (most of it earmarks) for the next decade. Obama attempts to allay our fears by making up unquantifiable statistics such as "jobs saved" -- which cannot be identified or tracked by the census bureau.

The simple truth--and one that should piss off ALL Americans irrespective of their political leanings--is that this administration and this congress is hurrying to pass this train-wreck of a bill before the American people have a chance to learn what's in it. We are being lied to about what it will cost us over time, and we are being fed a lie about how we will get to keep the coverage many of us already have. No one who is voting for it will read it in its entirety, and none of us will have an opportunity to, either.

A big NO on socialized heathcare.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;568646]So what is your point? That an economic metaphor used to analyze the correlation between self interest and effect on large scale economics is pointless? Or is it that self-interest on large scale has effect has no effect on economics of scale? That the question raised by SS33



And arguments raised by CRedskin:



Are without value?

Enlighten me, oh brilliant self righteous one, on why the concept of statistical probability as it relates to the correlation of maximizing public good through self interest is irrelevant, invalid or otherwise meaningless in the health care setting. Apparently, it is your belief that your understanding of economic theory is clearly far superior to any and all comers and is equally applicable in all markets regardless of the goods and services being exchanged. I wish to understand the facts, assumptions and reasoning of this flawless theory.[/quote]

Finally Joe, you're using something other than a jab. Now that the jabs are out of the way let me get right to the heart of the matter, the invisible hand with respect to universal healthcare. I am bewildered by the notion that the invisible hand can and does play a role in the healthcare setting. How does the invisible hand help Aunt Jane avoid medical bankruptcy or help Uncle Joe get his two kids, himself and his wife covered whilst making $10 an hour? Sure, nothing precludes them from making more money thanks to the invisible hand but do you realize that poor people have been with us since the dawn of time? I know, it's hard to believe right?

Now here come [URL="http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov2.html"]the numbers[/URL] that aught to interest you Joe. Are you ready for the next round Joe? First lets define what it means to be poor in this country. [URL="http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/09poverty.shtml"]Per federal guidelines[/URL] an individual making less $10,830 is considered below poverty line and so is a family of four making $22,050. I hear you whisper so? So here's the thing Joe...in 1959 (the date the feds started tracking poverty stats) the the percentage of American below the poverty line was 22.4% of individuals and 20.8% of families. Disgusting numbers right? By 1969 that number dropped down to 12.1% of individuals and 10.4% of families. That's a precipitous drop isn't it?

You being the second smartest Republican on this forum I'm sure you can look at the the actual historical numbers and figure out what precipitated the decline in poverty but just in case though here's a hint...[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_legislation#1961_to_1971"]the government was involved[/URL] with Civil Rights Act of 1960/1964, Pilot Food Stamp Program 1961-1664, Food Stamp Act of 1964, Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, Equal Pay Act of 1963, Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965, Vocational Rehabilitation Act of 1965, and Social Security Act of 1965. After the 60s the national poverty percentages stabilized with minor fluctuation due to the the economy. Note the Ronald Reagan era when the invisible hand was the most active (we can lay all the blame for the high numbers on Carter if you want). The poverty rate for 2006 was 12.3% of individuals and 10.6% of families (the numbers are probably much worse for 2008). Peeewwww, nothing seems to have changed since the 70's.

Now I figure you know the tremendous strides we have made in the last 50 years with respect to our [URL="http://www.bea.gov/national/xls/gdplev.xls"]GDP[/URL] and [URL="http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/p01AR.html"]per capita income[/URL]. Given that the market has been functioning why hasn't the invisible hand improved our poverty rate since the 70's even though we're significantly economically stronger? Do we have to give the invisible hand more time? How long do you expect us to wait? In the mean time how do you expect these people below the poverty line to afford health insurance? What role does the invisible hand play in income inequality? What about the people hovering just above the poverty line?

As for SS33's post, if your tax rate is 33% you're not a mid-high end worker...if single and you make $171,550-$372,950 annual you're a high end worker and so is a married couple making 208,850-$372,950 annually (we're talking top 5% income earners here not top 25%-50)%. We've really addressed the issue of tax fairness before on many occasions and if you wish to revisit subject [URL="http://www.thewarpath.net/parking-lot/28699-how-low-can-it-go-3.html#post533395"]this exchange with FRPLG[/URL] is one of my favorite on the matter.

With respect to CRR's post it is clear to me that neither individuals nor charities (invisible hands) have been able to solve the problem. And if I'm not mistaken S10's original gripe was with the pending proposal to cut DSH funding by the [I]government[/I]. It was pretty obvious to me that he shitted on the first part of the quote with the second part.

I'm not entirely sure what is meant by self-righteous Joe. This label is quite perplexing seeing how it's being placed by you. Try as you may you still can't land an effective punch Joe, you really need to work on your lower/upper body strength.

Re: Obama Care
 

So let's see, in the 60's the poverty rate declined because the government pointed their guns at the heads of the producers, stole more money from them and gave it to the bums. Well, I guess that's one way to do something about poverty.

As you pointed out, poverty has been around a very long time; but sorry to say, it will always be here. There will always be poor people. There won't be an economic system ever devised that will save absolutely everyone.

Re: Obama Care
 

Case in point on the poor -- anecdotal, I know, but it's worth mentioning.

There's a homeless person that hangs around the area in which I live. He has a dog and a bicycle and has the familiar sign which reads: "Homeless. Need work. God Bless." So he stands around at red lights, and inevitably someone will roll down their window and give him a few bucks.

I've seen this guy for at least three years -- the amount of time I've lived in this area. Every now and then, someone will approach this person, talk to him for a few minutes and hand him a business card, or maybe it's just some way to contact them.

So the other day I'm in the grocery store getting some things for lunch and the homeless guy walks in. He walks in, and comes back to the clerk in less than a minute (I'm still in the 20 items or more lane). So what is he purchasing?

A twelve-pack of Natural Light.

I guess he has to buy food at some point, so the money that people are giving him do help out. But I can't help wondering, in all the time he's been carrying that sign, no one has ever offered him work? I know of churches that will take these people in, clean them up, give them food, and provide odd jobs to give them some money to get on their feet. There are numerous charities that do this.

But what's the one thing that has to happen for that to work? Initiative. That's right -- the homeless person has to [I]want [/I]to do it. They have to want a better life for themselves. Many times they don't want the help. I think they actually prefer the life they have. No place they have to be, and an endless supply of people who have some pity who can provide just enough money for beer. Now, the government could throw gobs of cash at these people if it wanted to -- but the question is what would they do with it?

Sometimes you actually have to [U]reach[/U] for the helping hand.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=Beemnseven;568752][B]So let's see, in the 60's the poverty rate declined because the government pointed their guns at the heads of the producers, stole more money from them and gave it to the bums. Well, I guess that's one way to do something about poverty.[/B]

As you pointed out, poverty has been around a very long time; but sorry to say, it will always be here. There will always be poor people. There won't be an economic system ever devised that will save absolutely everyone.[/quote]

I expect nothing less from a know-nothing-conservative. You look good with a red nose.

See Joe, you got people like this clown on forum. If this joker actually knew anything he would know that taxes were reduced during the early 60's and the rich got richer.

Re: Obama Care
 

I was at the grocery store today, and some idiot in front of me was trying to pay for his food with his food stamps card. It kept getting declined, and I sat there waiting for a good 10 minutes while he tried to get it figured out. In the meantime, while he was berating the cashier, I was checking out his nice new looking cell phone and shiny new sneakers. Good thing we give him food stamps so he can use his extra cash for the best kicks and hottest cell phone. I'm so happy my taxes are paying for his meals. :doh:

But yeah, government needs to keep getting bigger (while our deficit becomes more and more comical). Politics are so broken.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=Beemnseven;568767]Case in point on the poor -- anecdotal, I know, but it's worth mentioning.

There's a homeless person that hangs around the area in which I live. He has a dog and a bicycle and has the familiar sign which reads: "Homeless. Need work. God Bless." So he stands around at red lights, and inevitably someone will roll down their window and give him a few bucks.

I've seen this guy for at least three years -- the amount of time I've lived in this area. Every now and then, someone will approach this person, talk to him for a few minutes and hand him a business card, or maybe it's just some way to contact them.

So the other day I'm in the grocery store getting some things for lunch and the homeless guy walks in. He walks in, and comes back to the clerk in less than a minute (I'm still in the 20 items or more lane). So what is he purchasing?

A twelve-pack of Natural Light.

I guess he has to buy food at some point, so the money that people are giving him do help out. But I can't help wondering, in all the time he's been carrying that sign, no one has ever offered him work? I know of churches that will take these people in, clean them up, give them food, and provide odd jobs to give them some money to get on their feet. There are numerous charities that do this.

But what's the one thing that has to happen for that to work? Initiative. That's right -- the homeless person has to [I]want [/I]to do it. They have to want a better life for themselves. Many times they don't want the help. I think they actually prefer the life they have. No place they have to be, and an endless supply of people who have some pity who can provide just enough money for beer. Now, the government could throw gobs of cash at these people if it wanted to -- but the question is what would they do with it?

Sometimes you actually have to [U]reach[/U] for the helping hand.[/quote]

There are [URL="http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-01-10-homeless_x.htm"]an estimated 744K homeless people[/URL] in this country. If you do the math that's 0.0025% of the population (744000 /296410404 = 0.0025%). Furthermore, it is estimated that nearly 40% of homeless people suffer from mental illness. Given all of this what about those that aren't homeless? The remaining ~12%+ of the population? Why play the f'ing homeless card when it clearly doesn't help your cause?

It's really getting harder and hard to think much of you or take you seriously dude.

Re: Obama Care
 

I realize that last post has zero to do with health care. Random rant.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=saden1;568769]I expect nothing less from a know-nothing-conservative. You look good with a red nose.

See Joe, you got people like this clown on forum. If this joker actually knew anything he would know that taxes were reduced during the early 60's and the rich got richer.[/quote]

[quote=Saden]You being the second smartest Republican on this forum I'm sure you can look at the the actual historical numbers and figure out what precipitated the decline in poverty but just in case though here's a hint...the government was involved with Civil Rights Act of 1960/1964, Pilot Food Stamp Program 1961-1664, Food Stamp Act of 1964, Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, Equal Pay Act of 1963, Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965, Vocational Rehabilitation Act of 1965, and Social Security Act of 1965. After the 60s the national poverty percentages stabilized with minor fluctuation due to the the economy. Note the Ronald Reagan era when the invisible hand was the most active (we can lay all the blame for the high numbers on Carter if you want). The poverty rate for 2006 was 12.3% of individuals and 10.6% of families (the numbers are probably much worse for 2008). Peeewwww, nothing seems to have changed since the 70's.[/quote]



I took the information you provided here as the reason for "the decline in poverty" in the sixties Saden. Good Christ, read your own posts.

You get mighty belligerent around bedtime. Get some sleep and stop embarassing yourself.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=GMScud;568774]I realize that last post has zero to do with health care. Random rant.[/quote]

But do you realize that you're expecting them not to have a phone they can reached by and that the cell phone can replace the landline? How is your expectation reasonable? You're also assuming quite a bit about this person's situation? They could be unemployed or fetching food for their grandmother.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=saden1;568773]There are [URL="http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-01-10-homeless_x.htm"]an estimated 744K homeless people[/URL] in this country. If you do the math that's 0.0025% of the population (744000 /296410404 = 0.0025%). Furthermore, it is estimated that nearly 40% of homeless people suffer from mental illness. Given all of this what about those that aren't homeless? The remaining ~12%+ of the population? Why play the f'ing homeless card when it clearly doesn't help your cause?[/quote]

And again, the point remains that no matter what you do there will always be homeless people no matter what you do, no matter what economic system you're trying to change, no matter how much money you throw at them.

[quote=Saden]It's really getting harder and hard to think much of you or take you seriously dude.[/quote]

Funny, I was thinking the same about you, dude.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=saden1;568779]But do you realize that you're expecting them not to have a phone they can reached by and that the cell phone can replace the landline? How is your expectation reasonable? You're also assuming quite a bit about this person's situation? They could be unemployed or fetching food for their grandmother.[/quote]

Thus the post you quoted in this response.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=saden1;568779][B]But do you realize that you're expecting them not to have a phone they can reached by and that the cell phone can replace the landline?[/B] How is your expectation reasonable? You're also assuming quite a bit about this person's situation? They could be unemployed or fetching food for their grandmother.[/quote]

A touchscreen blackberry in a leather belt-clip and fresh all-white nikes don't exactly scream unemployed, but maybe he was. And maybe he was shopping for someone else. Again, that's why called it a random rant. My perception of him was assumptive. It's certainly possible I assumed wrongly. In this case I kind of doubt it though.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=Beemnseven;568777]I took the information you provided here as the reason for "the decline in poverty" in the sixties Saden. Good Christ, read your own posts.

You get mighty belligerent around bedtime. Get some sleep and stop embarassing yourself.[/quote]


I originally intended to include "and poverty was reduced by ~100%" in my response but I figured that was something obvious that I shouldn't have to restate. On a real tip though you know what's really embarrassing? Your utter failure to comprehend my response to you. Let me further simplify for you:

[B][COLOR=Red]You[/COLOR][/B]: The poverty rate declined because the government stole more money from the rich (producers) and gave it to the poor (bums).

[B][COLOR=SeaGreen]Me[/COLOR][/B]: Taxes were reduced in the early 60's (top rate went from 91% to 70%) and poverty was reduced by ~100% (from Information I provided...thanks for the heads-up :rolleyes:).


Your engine light is blinking, time to take it to the shop before you go Buster.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=GMScud;568782]A touchscreen blackberry in a leather belt-clip and fresh all-white nikes don't exactly scream unemployed, but maybe he was. And maybe he was shopping for someone else. Again, that's why called it a random rant. My perception of him was assumptive. It's certainly possible I assumed wrongly. In this case I kind of doubt it though.[/quote]
My first job I had was working at a grocery store which was surrounded by goverment subsidize housing. Thats when I learned first hand how bad the system is abused. They would buy very expensive food products then pay for it with their food stamps and then I would then load them up in their new cars. This was an everyday thing and at that age I just could not figure out how these people could get food stamps in the first place. Then came the next summer (I only worked while on summer break) and the same people using food stamps getting in their even newer car while my family was working for everything we had. I know some people really need food stamps but the abuse from what I saw out weighed the people who actually needed food stamps.

Re: Obama Care
 

it is stupid. why give anyone anything, for the fear of the system being manipulated far outweighs the real need for help? does anyone realize how foolish this sounds?

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=saden1;568751]Finally Joe, you're using something other than a jab. Now that the jabs are out of the way let me get right to the heart of the matter, the invisible hand with respect to universal healthcare. I am bewildered by the notion that the invisible hand can and does play a role in the healthcare setting. How does the invisible hand help Aunt Jane avoid medical bankruptcy or help Uncle Joe get his two kids, himself and his wife covered whilst making $10 an hour? Sure, nothing precludes them from making more money thanks to the invisible hand but do you realize that poor people have been with us since the dawn of time? I know, it's hard to believe right?

...

With respect to CRR's post [B]it is clear to me that neither individuals nor charities (invisible hands) have been able to solve the problem[/B]. And if I'm not mistaken S10's original gripe was with the pending proposal to cut DSH funding by the [I]government[/I]. It was pretty obvious to me that he shitted on the first part of the quote with the second part.

I'm not entirely sure what is meant by self-righteous Joe. This label is quite perplexing seeing how it's being placed by you. Try as you may you still can't land an effective punch Joe, you really need to work on your lower/upper body strength.[/quote]

Saden, First, as you said the invisible hand of charities did not solve the problem, of course like you also pointed out, this is a problem that has always been with us, and the fact is that the invisible wallet of government is a far more inefficient method to take care of the problem.

Second, as to Joe's landing punches, sadly you are like a boxer who is badly beaten, yet once out of the ring stands and proclaims the other guy never landed a punch. It is either an amazing amount of arrogance, or pure lunacy, that allows that boxer to make that claim. In your case though it is probably a mix of both.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=dmek25;568816]it is stupid. why give anyone anything, for the fear of the system being manipulated far outweighs the real need for help? does anyone realize how foolish this sounds?[/quote]

If thats in response to what I posted thats not what I said. I just stated that the system is abused. The problem is that there is no real checks and balance in the system.

Re: Obama Care
 

first, its like anything else. any program/ system that is set up by anyone, will eventually be hi-jacked by someone.that someone is always looking for the easy way out. but you cant penalize the people that need it. im not in agreement with the new proposal. but something definitely needs done

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=dmek25;568832]first, its like anything else. any program/ system that is set up by anyone, will eventually be hi-jacked by someone.that someone is always looking for the easy way out. but you cant penalize the people that need it. im not in agreement with the new proposal. but something definitely needs done[/quote]

We agree that people will take advantage of the system but if you have low standars then it allows alot of people to take advantage of the system. Their are family trees that have generations of family members that rely on goverment assistance. At some point we have to make them accountable for themself and their family and tell them they need to get a job.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;568829]Saden, First, as you said the invisible hand of charities did not solve the problem, of course like you also pointed out, this is a problem that has always been with us, and the fact is that the invisible wallet of government is a far more inefficient method to take care of the problem.

Second, as to Joe's landing punches, sadly you are like a boxer who is badly beaten, yet once out of the ring stands and proclaims the other guy never landed a punch. It is either an amazing amount of arrogance, or pure lunacy, that allows that boxer to make that claim. In your case though it is probably a mix of both.[/quote]


I showed you a concrete example of what the government can do with respect to poverty and all you seem to do is talk...blah blah blah. Compared to charities and individuals the government is certainly more effective.


[quote]It is required to be 33% (and growing) because of the [B]misguided belief that government, better than individuals and charities, can help solve individual hardship, [/B]and that in a country as grand as ours, no one should go without.[/quote]Get that weak stuff out of here. Work on your game cause you really can't be in the ring with me let alone throw a punch.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;568508]Please explain how the federal government/infrastructure allows private individuals & companies to make money? As far as the government infrastructure goes we already pay for that, far more than we should. The government provides military to make sure we don't get taken over, OK. Interstate roads receive federal funding, I get it. Possibly some oversight into banking and finance, OK I get that too. What else could the fed possibly do to make sure I have "hard earned money"? I'd gladly keep my 7.8 or so percent of my paycheck for SS and Medicare and handle my own retirement. States/localities provide over 94% of education funding. Police and Fire are provided through state and local taxes.

You will recall, I'm sure, from your history lessons that there was no income tax in the U.S. until the early part of the 20th century. The country was doing just fine economically without it.[/quote]

SS and Medicare are not everything there is to government/infrastructure. How much money do you think you'd make if there was no government? None, because there would be no money. Would you prefer a barter system?

Keep in mind, the Federal government is not the only type.

It also seems you're suggesting that before the income tax, there was no government? Not sure how the income tax has anything to do with the government enabling you to make money.

Re: Obama Care
 

[quote=GMScud;568771]I was at the grocery store today, and some idiot in front of me was trying to pay for his food with his food stamps card. It kept getting declined, and I sat there waiting for a good 10 minutes while he tried to get it figured out. In the meantime, while he was berating the cashier, I was checking out his nice new looking cell phone and shiny new sneakers. Good thing we give him food stamps so he can use his extra cash for the best kicks and hottest cell phone. I'm so happy my taxes are paying for his meals. :doh:

But yeah, government needs to keep getting bigger (while our deficit becomes more and more comical). Politics are so broken.[/quote]

Maybe he was buying food for his disabled mother? Maybe it was for his sister with a few kids, who's husband ran off? Don't be so quick to judge.