Obama Healthcare

[RagnaToad]

Ah, that's what I love about liberals -- the hypocrisy. If I want to keep the money I work for, I'm selfish. But if I want the money YOU work for, I'm "needy" or "less fortunate".

Again, you are generalising. If I were to criticise republicans remotely as arrogantly as you do, you would freak out.

It wouldn't be paid for as much. They wouldn't get the same equipment, they wouldn't get the same training, and they wouldn't have nearly the same work ethic.

What? Health insurance has nothing to do with the way doctors and nurses are being trained, nor with what equipment hospitals would buy. If anything, they would have more money, since more operations etc. would be actually paid for.

I'll give you a situation, and I'd like you to answer a question for me. You and I are both just graduating high school. You want more -- I don't. I go out and get a minimum-wage unskilled labor job. You go to college. You have a better work ethic than I do. Since you don't have the money to pay for college, you get a full-time job while you're in school, like millions upon millions of people have before. In five years, I move up another couple dollars an hour, not because of my work ethic but because I've been there for a while -- you finish college, having worked a full-time job that paid all of your bills and some of your college off. You get a good job that pays a decent salary -- say, twice as much as I would make in a year working the unskilled labor job that I have. In another five years, your supervisors and managers have recognized your superior work ethic -- you stay late after work and come in early or work on weekends, you try to take night classes to give you more education in your field, etc. -- and you get promoted. If I'm still at the same job, I'm making twelve or fifteen dollars an hour, because I only work what I have to, and I only work as hard as I have to work, and I only got the education that I had to. Your work ethic has helped you get an education, a better job, and a higher position within that job.

Now: if you were going to make the same amount of money I would, why would you have a better work ethic?

I'm not sure what the question here is.

Not all, of course not. Canada and Britain, yes -- at least in comparison.

I have no idea about the Canadian health care, but you may be right about the British health care system. Over here in Belgium we have one of the most efficiently working health insurance systems in the world AND the best health care possible. I'm not trying to be patriottic. It really is one of my country's main assets. We have lots of flaws (like shortage of prisons etc.), like any country.

We'd be forced to pay the medical bills of people who don't take care of themselves.

And you're not doing that right now? You're saying all the people ho have the same health insurance are taking care of themselves as well as you do?

The problem with that idea is that our government isn't some omnipotent being -- it bends to the whim of the people. The citizens don't answer to the government, the government answers to the civilians. The government does not have ANY obligation to "take care of her citizens" other than protecting them from outside forces. The CITIZENS have the obligation to protect THEMSELVES.

I understand what you're saying. And I think this is one of those US vs. The World situations where an idea doesn't seem to fit a certain society due to it's history and cultural differences. I respect that, but I think it's a shame.

Because it's not like the government is controlling what we learn at school or what kind of health care we get, taking over some of our largest businesses, using taxpayer money to buy out private corporations ... Wait, no, that's not right.

That is how ALL politicians in the US work... I don't see the relevance of this issue.

I do see the quality of Fox News -- but honestly, I can't say that I thought you were better than someone who shouts "bias" at whatever you disagree with without looking at the facts or the logic.

I didn't say they were biased. And I never said I criticised them for making points that I don't agree with. If they were to praise Obama for things he never did, I would be annoyed in the same way.

Yes, O'Reilly is on Fox News Channel. So? Kieth Olbermann is on MSNBC, and he's more liberal than O'Reilly is Republican. That doesn't automatically mean that everything MSNBC reports has a liberal bias, of course not -- MSNBC's liberal bias would exist whether Olbermann was there or not.

Whether MSNBC is liberally biased or not is not the issue. And frankly, I don't know if it's true what you're saying or not.
But you can have your opinions all you want, I think it is only healthy to remain objective about matters like politics. I just can't seriously watch Fox News, due to those minor discrepancies, but mostly the dramatic tone and the twists they give some news stories. Maybe it's a matter of taste? But you have to admit that a LOT of not-so-smart people get fired up just by watching Fox News and the shows on the Fox News Channel, nodding at everything. Whether they are conservatives or liberals doesn't really matter. Being biased is not an attractive feature to me. But I must say that the 'liberal' media, bisaed or not, tend to reconsider their own ideas from time to time, more than most conservative media do. That's healthy, in my opinion.

And it's not the President's job to be a parent to America's children -- I'm sure the time he spent doing that could have been better spent doing something else, like his job.

If I were to use this argument against a president you had voted for, you wouldn't agree. Be honest. The president is more than the guy who decides important things.

And if I was Obama, I would have said something about it. The lack of a liberal outrage shows a clear double-standard -- that people who support Obama can be disrespectful and improper, even enough to use the word nigget, but people who support Republicans or conservatives are attacked for everything they do.

There is no double standard here. I was just explaining how Fox News used that rapper as another argument to prove how bad a president Obama can be. Are you among the people that believe Obama should show his birth certificate?

I'm going to quote you:
"I'm sure the time he spent doing that could have been better spent doing something else, like his job."

You don't have to be 65 or over to receive Medicare.

Ummm.
YES YOU DO.
(Or meet some other 'special criteria'.)

And because you don't like what he says, you automatically discount it as false. No need to listen to people you don't like, right? I mean, if you don't like what they have to say, there's no possible way that it could have any truth to it!

I'm not talking about the content. I'm talking about how ridiculous his methods are to make his points. He circles the first letter of a few big words, and they form the word Oligarchy. How is that using logic?

Like you wouldn't piss on anyone else who tried to make a point by circling words and letters? Come on...

And I'll try to find a source about those sponsors. I even read WHAT sponsors wanted to be moved to another hour, but I can't remember, as they were (obviously) American sponsors, and I wasn't familiar with them. You can believe me, if my word is worth anything to you.

[Clint]

The idea that American healthcare is expensive because the leaders of insurance companies, doctors, etc. are somehow overcharging so they can crap on solid - gold toilets and wipe their ass with hundred-dollar-bills is extremely ignorant.

No, it's expensive because purging all the hard earned dollars from the middle class is how the good ol' boys operate. That's how they've always operated, and that's how they always will operate.

Government officials do not receive healthcare from private insurers, they receive a form of government healthcare -- a form much, much more expensive than anything offered to the public, and with much, much better care.

Where do you think they get the money to pay for that? They increase taxes on the middle class. So now, not only do I have to pay full price for my own health care, now I have to chip in for good ol' boys who can damn well afford to pay for it themselves. This is why socialized health care isn't going to work. The middle class can't afford to pay for every American's health care.

If health care providers actually did what you're accusing them of and gave free care to rich people, that would be one thing. But you're claiming something that is incredibly false. Try again.

Well, it is free. You don't see them paying for it, do you? We're paying for it. They're not.

Yes, of course -- everybody who saves money, everybody who goes to college, everybody who works two jobs, they all just want to screw other people over. It has nothing to do with having money, it's all about making sure that nobody else has as much as you do.

That's why the world is in such of an awry state. Everybody wants to be rich, and they don't give a damn about anybody except for number one.

Please tell me, what "cutbacks" are "only available to the rich"? You failed miserably trying to point out one so-called "cutback" not long ago, I would find it highly entertaining to see what other "cutbacks" you claim the rich get.

Think way back to the Bush administration. Remember yet? He gave tax cuts to the wealthy and hiked up taxes for the middle class. When you're down and out and have very very little money, you tend to remember these things. Nothing much has changed since then. People thought Obama was going to be a different kind of politician, but everybody seemed to forget that he's half white.

Of course there's a cure for AIDS and Cancer -- and Bush was behind 9/11, the '93 WTC attack was done by the FBI, the moon landing was faked, aliens landed at Roswell, LBJ had Kennedy assassinated, contrails from planes are actually filled with biological agents, Elvis Presley is still alive, carburetors exist that give your car five hundred miles to the gallon, the war in Iraq is all about oil, the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy really does exist, the government assassinated Tupac Shakur, Jews are trying to control the world, Courtney Love killed Kurt Kerbang (sorry, "Cobain"), Paul McCartney has just been a look-alike since '66, O.J. really didn't do it ... anything else?

Uh, yeah. You really suck at arguing. First off, in an argument, you don't blatantly insult the intelligence of the person you're arguing against. That means one thing; that you have a weak case. Now I made my point and made my opinion from a political standpoint. Care to try again?

Or because the boys at the bottom want good quality healthcare. That's got a lot to do with it, too -- as shown by the fact that the majority of the population doesn't support Obama's healthcare plan.

It's not about good quality health care. It's merely about the security of having health care. I mean, for Christ sake, inmates get free medical treatment. If people who break the law are allowed health care, then there should be a minimalist for everybody.

People seem to not understand this health care system that President Obama has been proposing. It won't eliminate private health care insurers, it will merely give a minimalist for anybody who can't afford to pay for health care. Getting the money to put the plan into action is a huge problem, though, because the middle class will be dirt poor if the good ol' boys try to hike up taxes even further.

[Che]

Reading this I can at least draw one conclusion: the US government needs a complete wipeout of corruption and the people holding onto power.

Also, stop quoting shit from Fox "news". The less we talk about them, the more we can forget about them.

[Sean]

If he paid nothing at all, yes. (Like I said, five bucks a month will do.) If he didn't pay his insurance, yes. (That's not the hospital, it's completely separate.) But the claim that hospitals will refuse treatment for people without insurance or money, or that medical bills will affect one's credit score, is completely false, even with your anecdotal evidence.

But you say that your dad was hospitalized, and that your brother went through years of cancer treatments? Did they have insurance at the time? Or did the hospitals refuse to treat them because they didn't think they'd get their money?

Apparently you missed the point, kid. Medicaid (or some form of his insurance, I'm not even positive anymore since it was so long ago) was supposed to take care of my father's bills, they did not, they fell back on him immediately for nonpayment and credit reports were hit. Collection agencies called weekly demanding more money than we were sending, hitting the credit reports every month as a result.

My dad has multiple forms of insurance, and most of his health conditions now are linked to a work-related injury that led to his permanent, painful, and never-ending agony that is now his disability, which is also covered by a form of insurance. We fought for a LONG time to get the bills that they were sending us taken care of by his insurance(s).

My brother has never had insurance, has been on social security disability from his cancer treatments, and is unable to work due to a variety of health conditions that are a side effect of radiation therapy. He basically has the same immune deficiency of AIDS, without ****ing the hooker to get it.


Again, your "fact" was false. Hospital bills do affect credit rating, and they expect you to pay them back in a timely manner to avoid this. It's no different than missing or not fully paying your monthly loan or rent/mortgage payments.

Did I mention we were sending money, and they were still calling demanding more? That throws your "five bucks a month" comment right out the window. I know, from multiple, personal experiences, you're full of shit on this.

[Sasquatch]

Got RAE's name wrong for the millionth time. It's actually Research Assessment Exercise. There's one involving Europe which has a very close acronym, though.

Your claim was that "Over 85% of universities in the UK have research departments rated at 'internationally distinguished', five-star level by the RAE."

The RAE 2008 website itself goes against you on multiple aspects: First, there is no five-star rating. There's only 1-4. Second, there is no "internationally distinguished" rating. Third, the RAE is not "independent", as you claimed, it is commissioned by the UK government.

What you might have been referring to is that it found that 87% of UK universities were ranked at "quality that it recognized internationally" -- or that 84% of UK research projects "were judged to contain at least 5% of world-leading quality research".

I'm not exactly sure what you were getting at with that anyway, considering that not every university or research project was judged ... but still, those that were were of international quality of some sort, so that must be good. I'm not sure what they would consider "international quality" in Europe, since the U.S. has states that are bigger than some European countries (so "international" in Europe would be "interstate" in America), but kudos. They've definitely got something to be proud of.

Also, you backtracked yourself on the point of America giving away its technology. You backed me up.

I didn't back you up, I didn't even address the idea that America overcharges, or charges at all. The only thing I mentioned was one sarcastic comment suggesting than overcharging is bad for profit.

Where's this survey that says 1/20th of the UK self-treat? I've never even heard of it. And I live here.

[ur=http://www.euronews.net/2007/10/15/nhs-failings-pushing-britons-to-pull-their-own-teeth/]It's not much, but at least it mentions it.[/url] I don't know where I'd find the actual survey, but at least you can see that I'm not pulling it out of my ass. (1/20th is 5% -- the truth is that 6%, close to 1/17th about, reported resorting to treating themselves.)

Have you honestly never heard of people treating themselves because the NHS isn't competent enough?

I take it you hate CNN?

Meh, not really hate. I'll use it for news if I have to. They're not as biased as MSNBC or CBS, but they're still not neutral.

I guess we just have to accept that Americans and Europeans are different. We think it is patriotic to take care of one another and better our society, because we like our countries. ... Americans think it is patriotic to try to improve the country by only taking care of themselves and theirs. Good luck with that.

If you want to go with a "different strokes for different folks" approach, I'm all for it. Some Americans take the view that bettering themselves so that they don't have to rely on others makes their country better. Apparently, some Europeans take the view that forcing everybody to help each other makes the country better. America values individual liberty more than they value the collective good, and Europe values the collective good over individual liberty. To each their own.

Again, you are generalising. If I were to criticise republicans remotely as arrogantly as you do, you would freak out.

Not if it was true. A common liberal/Democratic argument is that people are "greedy" for wanting to keep the money they make without sharing it -- but those that don't have money, for whatever reason, are "less fortunate" and we should all give them money.

What? Health insurance has nothing to do with the way doctors and nurses are being trained, nor with what equipment hospitals would buy.

There was no reference to health insurance -- that was talking about medical costs. Medical costs include the costs of training and employing medical personnel, purchasing and upkeep of medical equipment and facilities, etc. etc. etc.

If anything, they would have more money, since more operations etc. would be actually paid for.

Not if the operations are paid a fraction of what they're worth.

I'm not sure what the question here is.

... The last line of that, clearly distinguished from the rest of the paragraph, was, "Now: if you were going to make the same amount of money I would, why would you have a better work ethic?" Do you not know what the question is?

And you're not doing that right now? You're saying all the people ho have the same health insurance are taking care of themselves as well as you do?

People in worse health -- those who don't take care of themselves -- pay more for their insurance. Just like people who get into more car accidents pay more for their car insurance.

I understand what you're saying. And I think this is one of those US vs. The World situations where an idea doesn't seem to fit a certain society due to it's history and cultural differences. I respect that, but I think it's a shame.

Do you respect it or do you think it's a shame?

That is how ALL politicians in the US work... I don't see the relevance of this issue.

Please, Belgian, tell me more about politics in the United States. Are you trying to say that all politicians in the United States want to expand the power and control of the federal government?

... I think it is only healthy to remain objective about matters like politics. I just can't seriously watch Fox News, due to those minor discrepancies, but mostly the dramatic tone and the twists they give some news stories.

So you think it's good to remain objective, but don't like Fox News -- not because it's actually biased, but because they emphasize issues -- in another country, with another culture, four thousand miles away -- that you don't think should be emphasized?

But you have to admit that a LOT of not-so-smart people get fired up just by watching Fox News and the shows on the Fox News Channel, nodding at everything.

And nothing is to say that those "not-so-smart people" wouldn't get "fired up" at anything else, or that other networks don't have the same issue.

But I must say that the 'liberal' media, bisaed or not, tend to reconsider their own ideas from time to time, more than most conservative media do. That's healthy, in my opinion.

That's also your opinion as a whole, that the more liberal media supposedly reconsiders their ow ideas. Now wait, are you talking about actual reconsideration, or are you talking about being sued for defamation or making stories up, like Dan Rather? Hell, of course they're going to be forced to reconsider their own ideas, when they get called out for making shit up to badmouth Republicans and have to stop saying it.

If I were to use this argument against a president you had voted for, you wouldn't agree. Be honest. The president is more than the guy who decides important things.

Bush Sr. and Reagan both did it as well, and if I had been old enough at the time, I would have disagreed with it both times. It's not the President's job to parent America's children, and frankly, I don't want any politician talking to my kids.

There is no double standard here.

There was absolutely no outrage in the liberal media or by Obama about the impropriety and disrespect. Of course there was a double-standard.

I was just explaining how Fox News used that rapper as another argument to prove how bad a president Obama can be.

While it wouldn't reflect on his Presidency, it would indeed reflect on Obama. But then, he's already proven that he has absolutely no problem accepting support for less-than-honorable people -- racists, terrorists, etc. -- so why would he have a problem with this?

Are you among the people that believe Obama should show his birth certificate?

Do I think that the President of the United States should prove his eligibility before taking office? Of course.

I'm not talking about the content. I'm talking about how ridiculous his methods are to make his points. He circles the first letter of a few big words, and they form the word Oligarchy. How is that using logic?

Like you wouldn't piss on anyone else who tried to make a point by circling words and letters? Come on...

He wasn't making a point by doing that, he was illustrating his point.

No, it's expensive because purging all the hard earned dollars from the middle class is how the good ol' boys operate. That's how they've always operated, and that's how they always will operate.

Except for the fact that people with more money pay much more taxes, you might have a point. Instead, you insist on perpetuating the bullshit lie that conservatives, Republicans, and capitalists only get rich off the backs of others.

If you make one dollar, I make ten dollars, and Joe Schmoe over there makes a hundred dollars, there are multiple ways to tax all three of us. What COULD happen -- and what I support -- is a flat tax, where everybody pays the same percentage. You would pay ten cents, I would pay one dollar, and Joe Schmoe would pay ten dollars -- all in relation to how much we make. The extreme version (socialism) would be to make everybody equal, taking $63 from Joe, giving $27 of it to me and $36 to you, ensuring that we all have the same $37 dollars. What happens in America -- and what's been happening for decades, and is getting worse -- is similar to this. Joe gets about 45%-55% of his income forcibly taken from him, and it is redistributed to you and me and everybody else that doesn't make as much money as Joe. You not only don't have to pay taxes, you actually GET money from the government. And the same with me -- the middle class.

And thus, as I said, the idea that people in the middle class pay more taxes than people in the upper class is a complete falsity. (That's a nicer way to say that it's a steaming pile of bullshit.)

Where do you think they get the money to pay for that?

It's the federal government. It's tax money.

They increase taxes on the middle class.

And increase taxes on the upper class to a much greater proportion. I wonder why you keep ignoring that fact ...

So now, not only do I have to pay full price for my own health care, now I have to chip in for good ol' boys who can damn well afford to pay for it themselves. This is why socialized health care isn't going to work. The middle class can't afford to pay for every American's health care.

Yes and no. Of course the middle class couldn't afford to pay for every American's healthcare -- but under the proposed system, they wouldn't. Under our current tax system, it would be the upper class, not the middle class, that foots the bill.

Well, it is free. You don't see them paying for it, do you?

No, I see us paying for it. Which means it's not free, it's paid for, just not by them.

That's why the world is in such of an awry state. Everybody wants to be rich, and they don't give a damn about anybody except for number one.

Hell no. Why should I give a damn about the kid beside me who doesn't care enough to put in as much work as I do? Why should I be forced to give up some of my money because he hasn't tried to be as successful as I have?

Think way back to the Bush administration. Remember yet? He gave tax cuts to the wealthy and hiked up taxes for the middle class.

You're leaving out the fact that the "wealthy" have always -- and still under Bush -- paid proportionally much, much more than the middle class.

When you're down and out and have very very little money, you tend to remember these things.

Only if you believe your money comes from the government and not yourself.

Nothing much has changed since then. People thought Obama was going to be a different kind of politician, but everybody seemed to forget that he's half white.

Is there something wrong with him being half white?

Uh, yeah. You really suck at arguing. First off, in an argument, you don't blatantly insult the intelligence of the person you're arguing against.

I didn't blatantly insult you, I pointed out some other misguided, ignorant, completely stupid conspiracy theories, like the idea that cures for AIDS and cancer exist but are being kept secret because treatments make more money. If you take stupid, ignorant conspiracy theories to be an insult, stop buying into them.

That means one thing; that you have a weak case.

You've presented less facts than I have and have had to be corrected on more occasions than I have. And you've got the arrogance to claim that I have a weak case because I pointed out how stupid your belief in cures for cancer and AIDS is?

It's not about good quality health care.

I hope not, because they're not going to get it.

It's merely about the security of having health care.

Just because somebody's poor does not mean that they can't get health care. Everybody in America has health care, period. Anybody and everybody who needs medical attention -- hell, they don't even have to be a United States citizen -- will receive medical attention, regardless of whether or not they can pay for it.

People seem to not understand this health care system that President Obama has been proposing. It won't eliminate private health care insurers, it will merely give a minimalist for anybody who can't afford to pay for health care.

Nah, it won't eliminate private health insurance -- it'll just drive them out of business by ensuring that only the rich can afford private health care, since everybody (who makes money) will be taxed more whether they use the lower-quality public health care or not.

Getting the money to put the plan into action is a huge problem, though, because the middle class will be dirt poor if the good ol' boys try to hike up taxes even further.

Except for the fact that the rich are footing more of the bill, and the middle class is already having money redistributed to them, despite their underachievement in life.

Apparently you missed the point, kid. Medicaid (or some form of his insurance, I'm not even positive anymore since it was so long ago) was supposed to take care of my father's bills ...

Medicaid is public health insurance for low-income people. Might want to learn a little about your little anecdote before you try to use it to prove a point. Might also want to not tell stories about how incompetent public health insurance is while you're advocating for public health insurance. Whoops.

Did I mention we were sending money, and they were still calling demanding more? That throws your "five bucks a month" comment right out the window. I know, from multiple, personal experiences, you're full of shit on this.

You can offer up all the anecdotal evidence you want, and that still won't make your bullshit any more credible. I've got family that had medical care without insurance, and none of them ever had a problem with it. The hospital knows that it's the responsibility of the insurance agency (if there is one) to pay, not the patient, and wouldn't harass the patient for money they know they won't get out of them. That's just plain common sense.

I've got more personal experience than you, here. I know ten -- no, HUNDRED -- medical lawyers, and all of them agree with me! So I must be right, because even though I don't have any credible evidence to back me up on something that seems implausible to logic and common sense, I make unverifiable claims that I personally have more experience in this subject than you do.

[RagnaToad]

Not if it was true. A common liberal/Democratic argument is that people are "greedy" for wanting to keep the money they make without sharing it -- but those that don't have money, for whatever reason, are "less fortunate" and we should all give them money.

Not entirely true. The money that would have to be sacrifised would make a huge difference in the long run. Or do you think once the public option or something of the like is set in motion, it will reamin the same for ever? (Although that isn't that unlikely, seeing how a lot of Americans are against any change really.)

Not if the operations are paid a fraction of what they're worth.

I don't see why they would.

"Now: if you were going to make the same amount of money I would, why would you have a better work ethic?"

The money you earn is not necessarily representative for your work ethic. But our economy isn't based on work ethic, it's based on money.

Do you respect it or do you think it's a shame?

Like I said, both. I'll rephrase it: I respect that there's a difference, but I think it's a shame that some things aren't being done like in Europe. And don't think I want to change the USA into Europe. Not at all. I like American culture. You have the best guitars, a lot of great motorcycle brands and your cars are high quality (if only they would have started investing in greener cars when Asia started to do that...).

Please, Belgian, tell me more about politics in the United States. Are you trying to say that all politicians in the United States want to expand the power and control of the federal government?

That's not what I meant.
Please, American, are you trying to tell me that the corporations in America have no influence whatsoever on what happens in Congress etc?

And nothing is to say that those "not-so-smart people" wouldn't get "fired up" at anything else, or that other networks don't have the same issue.

Very true.

Hell, of course they're going to be forced to reconsider their own ideas, when they get called out for making shit up to badmouth Republicans and have to stop saying it.

That's not really what I was going for.
I'll give you an example: If you're familiar with a radio show called The Young Turks, you know they are (or at least some of them) liberals. When they are talking about yet another crazy idea or drama from the conservative side (not necessarily politicans though) they naturally talk about how it is not uncommon for conservatives to pull things like that. But they are always careful with their statements. They try not to generalise. They make sure they remain objective about it. They don't try to get their crowd at home worked up. They criticise democrats for not having balls and they criticise republicans for the techniques they use.
It would be wrong for me to think that because of this little show, all more liberal media are totally objective, just like it would be wrong for me to think that there is no conservative channel that can be objective.

It's really a different world though. In the USA, the news channels aren't really neutral. Why would they, right? But over here, news people would get shot down if they were biased in any way. It's really a cultural difference. But don't you feel the need for neutral news sometimes? I understand that one would enjoy watching Fox News if he was a conservative himself, but doesn't it feel right to gain more perspective? (And I'm not trying to accuse you of not having perspective here.)

Bush Sr. and Reagan both did it as well, and if I had been old enough at the time, I would have disagreed with it both times.

I'm glad to hear that, although I would expect someone to criticise Bush for many other reasons.

There was absolutely no outrage in the liberal media or by Obama about the impropriety and disrespect. Of course there was a double-standard.

That's not a double standard. That's two parties having taken a different approach.

Do I think that the President of the United States should prove his eligibility before taking office? Of course.

Seriously? Why should he do something that no president before him has done? If he starts obeying a few 'birthers', soon he's going to be obliged to answer to every lunatic who is frustrated about him being in office. You conveniently ignored me quoting you about how the president has better things to do.

He wasn't making a point by doing that, he was illustrating his point.

Then where was his point being made? Ok, he has a tv show. He can say whatever he wants without any explanation. But that just doesn't do it for me. If I want to hear a conservative approach, Glenn Beck would be the last person to listen to. He looks crazy.

I respect people like John McCain though. Like most Europeans, I didn't want him to win at all, but I was sorry for him that he had chosen Sarah Palin as running mate.

That was a smart move, until she opened her mouth. Too bad.

[Alpha]

Hell no. Why should I give a damn about the kid beside me who doesn't care enough to put in as much work as I do? Why should I be forced to give up some of my money because he hasn't tried to be as successful as I have?

Do you seriously believe this? Do you really think that the reason people are poor is because they don't try hard enough? I'm going to be you for a second: "You're so ignorant, kid". Sure, I don't deny that hard work breeds success, but I don't deny that money = opportunity = more money. I.e., if you're already poor, it is harder to get money to create opportunity to make more money.

A good example is private schools. Imagine two people, say you and me. Lets assume that your family is already wealthier than mine, and you can afford a flash private school, while I'm forced to attend some shit public school. Now, lets assume we work as hard as each other. If you're anything like I am, you'd have to work your ass off, but lets assume you can. With the same amount of effort exerted, you will still have better access to resources, better quality teachers, faster computers, more recent text books, etc. They're generalisations, but I'm sure their fair. You're are much more likely to come out of high schools better equipped for the world, be it university, or something else, than I am, as I (most likely) did not receive as good as an education as you, even though we worked just as hard.

Now, the reason wealthier people should give up some of their wealth is also quite a simple concept. Say you have a pie for dinner, and your parent decides that because you've worked harder than your sibling that day, you should receive more pie. Sounds fair in principle, right? Well, I'm forced to agree thus far. But what if you receive so much pie that your sibling is still a little hungry, and you're quite full. Would it make sense to give some of your pie to your sibling, as they're hungry, and you're full? Applied to something such as healthcare, rich people can afford healthcare (mostly), while poorer people have more difficulty in this regard. But we all require healthcare, so why not give a bit of your excess to someone else, because you both have an equal need to the same care, but they do not have the same means with which to access it?

Oh, if/when you quote me, stop breaking it apart into sentences. Most people write with complete paragraphs in mind, and to pick it apart is to to take it out of context and misrepresent what they have said. It's inaccurate and annoying.

[Govinda]

Re. the RAE - 'five star' was me saying that it got the top rating available. I haven't looked at their website for months, whoops. Got recognised and distinguished mixed up, oops. The reason I mentioned it was to show that medical research continues even with socialised healthcare. Doesn't matter what I say though, because you're just going to say that America's is better.

That's all I have to say. I've got a sandwich to eat.

[Sean]

NCO reporting/never contacted me - Credit Talk Forum

SUCCESS!!!!!!!!!! - CreditBoards

Confused about medical collection options - CreditBoards

CreditBoards > Just beginning credit repair

If not for the fact my own NCO FIN/55 collections were pulled off my report, I'd copy/paste them for you as well.

Do you need more "anecdotal" evidence to prove to you that medical billing DOES go after your credit rating?

But it's okay. Keep telling yourself you're right and that I'm lying. Whatever helps you sleep at night.

I made a (without links) post to this about an hour ago, and decided to delete it. But what the hell, I'm enjoying how oblivious you are to the fact that I'm telling you you're wrong. Too bad my evidence is only anecdotal.

Note: Two collection accounts from NCO FIN/55 for hospitalization fees dropped my credit score by over 100.

[Clint]

Except for the fact that people with more money pay much more taxes, you might have a point. Instead, you insist on perpetuating the bullshit lie that conservatives, Republicans, and capitalists only get rich off the backs of others.

You have a point. The wealthy do pay more taxes, however, they're also the ones who have gotten high-distributed tax cuts. I'm not saying that the middle class hasn't gotten tax cuts. I'm saying that the wealthy have gotten larger tax cuts. And I'm not saying that conservatives and capitalists are the only ones who get rich off of other people's money. All politicians and big business do.

You not only don't have to pay taxes, you actually GET money from the government. And the same with me -- the middle class.

That sounds like a wonderful plan. I'd love to get money from the government. I don't, however.

And increase taxes on the upper class to a much greater proportion. I wonder why you keep ignoring that fact ...

I keep ignoring that little fact because of all the tax breaks given to the upper class. Yes they pay more in taxes, but their tax breaks in relation to our tax breaks are much greater, which makes no sense, considering that they can actually afford to pay taxes.

Under our current tax system, it would be the upper class, not the middle class, that foots the bill.

Yeah, I heard that, too. I, however, don't agree with it. Everybody who's proposing that bill is upper class and money hungry, which is the exact reason why the bill is never going to see the light of day.

No, I see us paying for it. Which means it's not free, it's paid for, just not by them.

It's free to them.

Hell no. Why should I give a damn about the kid beside me who doesn't care enough to put in as much work as I do? Why should I be forced to give up some of my money because he hasn't tried to be as successful as I have?

That's a very ignorant statement. My grandfather was a house painter. He owned his own business and worked until he retired in 1969. My dad was a delivery man for various baking companies for thirty years, and then retired, and got into construction. Both were very hard working, yet didn't make much money.

You're leaving out the fact that the "wealthy" have always -- and still under Bush -- paid proportionally much, much more than the middle class.

Yes, but they're the ones who got the larger tax cuts.

Only if you believe your money comes from the government and not yourself.

I have to say, that makes absolutely no sense at all.

Is there something wrong with him being half white?

People thought he was going to be a different kind of president because he's black. The point is, he's just another good ol' boy. There's nothing wrong with being half white, but if you're a white male politician, you have that stereotype.

I didn't blatantly insult you, I pointed out some other misguided, ignorant, completely stupid conspiracy theories, like the idea that cures for AIDS and cancer exist but are being kept secret because treatments make more money. If you take stupid, ignorant conspiracy theories to be an insult, stop buying into them.

You're still insulting my intelligence, you realize that, right? AIDS and cancer treatments are a business, as I've said before. There's a cure for them, but it's kept secret for two reasons. One, people make big bucks off of treatment, and two, population control.

You've presented less facts than I have and have had to be corrected on more occasions than I have. And you've got the arrogance to claim that I have a weak case because I pointed out how stupid your belief in cures for cancer and AIDS is?

Well, I'm kind of ignoring the fact that you corrected me on a few things, because I've taken the time to correct your corrections, thus I correct you. You're welcome. And if you blatantly insult the intelligence of the person you're arguing your case against, then you do have a weak cause, hence the reason why you resort to insults.

Everybody in America has health care, period.

That's not true. My brother doesn't have health care. He can't get it due to the way he lost his job. He was going to be laid off, he found out about it, and just no-showed. Sure, he can get medical treatment, but he'll have to pay for it out the ass, which he doesn't have the money for. His car would probably get repossessed, but that's about all they could do to him.

Nah, it won't eliminate private health insurance -- it'll just drive them out of business by ensuring that only the rich can afford private health care, since everybody (who makes money) will be taxed more whether they use the lower-quality public health care or not.

If it drives them out of business, then people will be paying into the socialized health care in order to receive better treatment, instead of to private insurers, making the socialized health care better, and eliminating the need for private health care.

Except for the fact that the rich are footing more of the bill, and the middle class is already having money redistributed to them, despite their underachievement in life.

That's not true. My family hasn't received a cent. And just for the record, being middle class doesn't mean you're underachieving. If your only goal in life is to get rich, and if you think that the only way to achieve satisfaction is to have money, then you have a really sad life.

[Sasquatch]

Not entirely true. The money that would have to be sacrifised would make a huge difference in the long run. Or do you think once the public option or something of the like is set in motion, it will reamin the same for ever? (Although that isn't that unlikely, seeing how a lot of Americans are against any change really.)

I'm not sure what you're getting at a with this, but remember, the liberals in America have been trying to villainize "the rich" for decades.

I don't see why they would.

Because it's government funding.

The money you earn is not necessarily representative for your work ethic. But our economy isn't based on work ethic, it's based on money.

It's not necessarily representative of your work ethic at the time -- it IS representative of your work ethic throughout life, including in school.

That's not what I meant.
Please, American, are you trying to tell me that the corporations in America have no influence whatsoever on what happens in Congress etc?

That's not what I said. Why don't you clarify what you were trying to say instead of trying to figure out what I said, when I didn't say anything.

That's not really what I was going for.
I'll give you an example: If you're familiar with a radio show called The Young Turks, you know they are (or at least some of them) liberals. When they are talking about yet another crazy idea or drama from the conservative side (not necessarily politicans though) they naturally talk about how it is not uncommon for conservatives to pull things like that. But they are always careful with their statements. They try not to generalise. They make sure they remain objective about it. They don't try to get their crowd at home worked up. They criticise democrats for not having balls and they criticise republicans for the techniques they use.

So a liberal talk radio show, in your opinion, is objective ... and?

It would be wrong for me to think that because of this little show, all more liberal media are totally objective, just like it would be wrong for me to think that there is no conservative channel that can be objective.

If you're trying to say that this one show is not at all representative of all liberal media, why bring it up? Your point was that you think liberal media checks their stories more than Fox News, was it not?

It's really a different world though. In the USA, the news channels aren't really neutral. Why would they, right? But over here, news people would get shot down if they were biased in any way.

It all depends on their market. If liberals watch liberal media, they probably either wouldn't even realize the existence of bias (which is the usual case) or wouldn't care about it.

It's really a cultural difference. But don't you feel the need for neutral news sometimes? I understand that one would enjoy watching Fox News if he was a conservative himself, but doesn't it feel right to gain more perspective?

You've yet to prove that Fox News isn't neutral in their reporting. I can understand if your question might be about neutral commentary, but it wasn't, it was about news.

I'm glad to hear that, although I would expect someone to criticise Bush for many other reasons.

Well, it was Bush Sr. -- Bush 41, George Herbert Walker Bush, the one in office from 89-93. He wasn't too bad. Of course, I had quite a few problems with Bush Jr., Bush 43, George Walker Bush, whichever you want to call him -- the one that recently got out of office. I just waited until he actually did something wrong before I pinned it on him, which is why I had to defend him against all the morons and their accusations.

That's not a double standard. That's two parties having taken a different approach.

A different approach because of who did it. Not because of who's looking at it -- that would be a different standard held by a different group -- but because of who did it, which would be a different standard applied by the same group. It's kind of like how liberals had no problem with Jeremiah Wright's connection with Obama, but you bet your ass that they would have had a fit if somebody lik Fred Phelps had a relationship with a Republican.

Seriously? Why should he do something that no president before him has done? If he starts obeying a few 'birthers', soon he's going to be obliged to answer to every lunatic who is frustrated about him being in office.

If they have a case, yes. The Constitution is more important than the President. And do you believe that no President before him has ever proved their country of birth? Of course they have. It's only a big deal with Obama because he hasn't. Hell, McCain even had to do it.

You conveniently ignored me quoting you about how the president has better things to do.

Because upholding the Constitution IS the job of the President -- and proving his Constitutional eligibility falls within those lines.

I respect people like John McCain though. Like most Europeans, I didn't want him to win at all, but I was sorry for him that he had chosen Sarah Palin as running mate.

That was a smart move, until she opened her mouth. Too bad.

Sarah Palin wasn't nearly as bad as the media made her out to be. If she didn't have to focus on the ruthless attacks, insults, and character defamation by most of America's media, she would have had more time to concentrate on the campaign. Most of the bad opinions people have about her are based on ignorance.

Plus, I'd totally do her.

Do you seriously believe this? Do you really think that the reason people are poor is because they don't try hard enough?

In America, you bet your ass.

I'm going to be you for a second ...

You can try. But lemme tell you, a lot of people try to be me, and it usually doesn't work out too well for them. God luck, though.

... "You're so ignorant, kid".

When have I ever said that?

Sure, I don't deny that hard work breeds success, but I don't deny that money = opportunity = more money. I.e., if you're already poor, it is harder to get money to create opportunity to make more money.

It might be harder, but by no means does that make it less possible.

A good example is private schools.

Oh, goody. You're talking about the quality of a private service over that of a public service, in a thread where you're backing a public service over a private service. This should be interesting.

Imagine two people, say you and me. Lets assume that your family is already wealthier than mine, and you can afford a flash private school, while I'm forced to attend some shit public school.

Those shitty public services! Damn, it's too bad everybody can't get into the private services because the public services are shit!

Now, lets assume we work as hard as each other. If you're anything like I am, you'd have to work your ass off, but lets assume you can. With the same amount of effort exerted, you will still have better access to resources, better quality teachers, faster computers, more recent text books, etc. They're generalisations, but I'm sure their fair. You're are much more likely to come out of high schools better equipped for the world, be it university, or something else, than I am, as I (most likely) did not receive as good as an education as you, even though we worked just as hard.

It's a good thing that high school doesn't "equip" you for anything. Now, if you tried to say that I could afford to get into an Ivy League school and you had to attend a local community college or something, that would have worked better for your little story -- and even in that case, you could work your way up. It would take a little longer for you to be making as much money as I was, but you certainly wouldn't be poor. As long as you made good decisions and tried, you wouldn't be poor.

Now, the reason wealthier people should give up some of their wealth is also quite a simple concept. Say you have a pie for dinner, and your parent decides that because you've worked harder than your sibling that day, you should receive more pie. Sounds fair in principle, right? Well, I'm forced to agree thus far. But what if you receive so much pie that your sibling is still a little hungry, and you're quite full. Would it make sense to give some of your pie to your sibling, as they're hungry, and you're full?

If my little brother didn't get some of his pie taken away because he was a lazy little bastard all day, maybe. My little brother had the exact same opportunity as I did to earn more pie and he didn't -- I could give him some of mine, or I could keep it in the fridge and save it.

But giving him some of mine would be charity. Voluntarily giving your money away to causes you deem worthy, that's charity. Having your money stolen from you, by force if necessary, to be redistributed as the federal government sees fit, that's not charity.

Applied to something such as healthcare, rich people can afford healthcare (mostly), while poorer people have more difficulty in this regard. But we all require healthcare, so why not give a bit of your excess to someone else, because you both have an equal need to the same care, but they do not have the same means with which to access it?

First, you're not talking about "giving", you're talking about having it taken from you by force. There's a difference between a man on the street asking for change and a mugger, you know.

Second, I'm more inclined to ask why people don't have the money for their healthcare. What did they do with the opportunities that they had?

And third, while you may consider it a "need", in America, it is not a "right". Sure, a lot of people "need" a car -- that doesn't mean that I should have my money taken from me to provide for those who don't provide for themselves.

Oh, if/when you quote me, stop breaking it apart into sentences. Most people write with complete paragraphs in mind, and to pick it apart is to to take it out of context and misrepresent what they have said. It's inaccurate and annoying.

If I have specific things to say in reply to each sentence, I'll quote just that sentence. It's not inaccurate, and I don't care if it's annoying.

Re. the RAE - 'five star' was me saying that it got the top rating available. I haven't looked at their website for months, whoops. Got recognised and distinguished mixed up, oops. The reason I mentioned it was to show that medical research continues even with socialised healthcare. Doesn't matter what I say though, because you're just going to say that America's is better.

Of course medical research continues. Nobody said otherwise. The fact remains, however, that profit is the driving force of invention. Most things aren't invented because somebody thinks, "hey, this could help people" -- they're invented because somebody thinks, "hey, people will buy this and I'll get money for it!"

Do you need more "anecdotal" evidence to prove to you that medical billing DOES go after your credit rating?

While most of your cites are anecdotal evidence, you did have some credible evidence to prove me wrong on that subject. From my experience, I had always been told that medical bills do not affect credit ratings, and from a few friends and family that have had medical troubles, that has been the trend.

So point conceded, I was wrong. Medical bills can affect credit rating. Thank you.

The fact remains, however, that they shouldn't need to -- even apart from the many insurance providers, there are federal, state, and even per-hospital funding and financing programs. And, of course, that inability to pay will not prevent somebody from receiving medical treatment.

You have a point. The wealthy do pay more taxes, however, they're also the ones who have gotten high-distributed tax cuts.

Because they pay more friggin' taxes! How difficult is that to understand? The people who PAY more GET more back.

Next time your local mall has a 10% off deal, go buy a candy bar, then bitch that you didn't get as much back as somebody who spent a hundred dollars. See how long it takes until they start laughing at you.

I'm not saying that the middle class hasn't gotten tax cuts. I'm saying that the wealthy have gotten larger tax cuts.

Because the more money people make, the more is taken in taxes. This is a very simple concept here.

And I'm not saying that conservatives and capitalists are the only ones who get rich off of other people's money. All politicians and big business do.

Bullshit. Most people get rich off their own work. You can try to make "the rich" look evil all you want, but that doesn't mean that they don't deserve to be were they are.

That sounds like a wonderful plan. I'd love to get money from the government. I don't, however.

You don't get an EITC? You don't get any tax credits? If you don't, it would be because you make too much money already -- which means that you're one of the ones paying for the tax credits of others. Somehow, though, I doubt this.

I keep ignoring that little fact because of all the tax breaks given to the upper class. Yes they pay more in taxes, but their tax breaks in relation to our tax breaks are much greater, which makes no sense, considering that they can actually afford to pay taxes.

Ah, good ol' wealth envy. You know why it makes sense that people who pay more taxes get more money back? BECAUSE THEY PAY MORE TAXES.

Alright, I'm not sure how well these little stories work, because you haven't seemed to be understanding them so far, but I'll try another one. Let's say that you make more money than I do ... let's say you make $100k a year, and let's say I make $50k. Now, under the current tax system, you would be taxed around $40k -- that would be around 40% -- but I would be taxed maybe $10k, around 20%. Now, if we got a tax cut by one percent, you would still pay 99% of that $40,000 that you pay, while I would still pay 99% of that $10,000 that I pay. I would still pay $9,900, which means that I would save one hundred dollars, right? You following me, camera guy? You, however, would pay $39,600, which means you'd save four hundred dollars.

But how can that be? You only make twice as much money as I, how could you get four times as much money back from a tax cut? It's not fair! Eeeeeeeeevil rich!

Yeah, I heard that, too. I, however, don't agree with it. Everybody who's proposing that bill is upper class and money hungry, which is the exact reason why the bill is never going to see the light of day.

Of course, everybody who supports the bill is upper class ... except for, of course, the majority of people who support the bill, who are lower class.

That's a very ignorant statement. My grandfather was a house painter. He owned his own business and worked until he retired in 1969. My dad was a delivery man for various baking companies for thirty years, and then retired, and got into construction. Both were very hard working, yet didn't make much money.

There are three ways to make more money -- work harder, work longer, and work smarter. Either work a more demanding job, work more hours, or get an education. It's pretty simple. I've seen family members work two jobs because they couldn't get enough hours with the one. My father went from being a garbageman to an over-the-road truck driver (can't get much more than that for hours), and eventually settled into an office and used whatever time he had to advance his education so that he could move up the ranks. And that's exactly what happened.

Yes, but they're the ones who got the larger tax cuts.

Because they pay more taxes. *sigh*

I have to say, that makes absolutely no sense at all.

If you're middle-class, you only blame Bush for you not being rich if you think it's the government's responsibility, and not your own, to make sure you have money.

You know what, nevermind, don't worry about it.

People thought he was going to be a different kind of president because he's black. The point is, he's just another good ol' boy. There's nothing wrong with being half white, but if you're a white male politician, you have that stereotype.

YOU have that stereotype against him. I don't give a damn what color he is -- I'm not the one saying, "well he's such-and-such color, so this is to be expected."

You're still insulting my intelligence, you realize that, right?

I'm doing no such thing. Do you feel that your intelligence has been insulted because I mentioned a few other conspiracy theories, like the one you believe?

AIDS and cancer treatments are a business, as I've said before. There's a cure for them, but it's kept secret for two reasons. One, people make big bucks off of treatment, and two, population control.

Population control too, now? Wow. What's next -- did the American government invent AIDS as a way of controlling the black and gay populations? Just like they did with crack, right?

Well, I'm kind of ignoring the fact that you corrected me on a few things, because I've taken the time to correct your corrections, thus I correct you.

Except that your "corrections" are, well, incorrect. Apology accepted.

And if you blatantly insult the intelligence of the person you're arguing your case against, then you do have a weak cause, hence the reason why you resort to insults.

First, I didn't say anything about your intelligence, the only comments I made were regarding the foolish belief that there's a giant conspiracy to control the population and make more money by not curing some diseases that we know how to cure. I would be insulted by the mere insinuation that I believe that bullshit.

Also, your assumptions are getting you nowhere. If I WAS insulting you -- which I'm not -- it may very well be simply because I like insulting people. Ad hominem consists of insults instead of arguments, not insults along with arguments.

That's not true. My brother doesn't have health care.

Yes, he does. He may not have insurance, but that doesn't mean he can't get care.

He can't get it due to the way he lost his job. He was going to be laid off, he found out about it, and just no-showed.

So your brother just decided to stop showing up for work, and you're trying to bitch that he doesn't have healthcare, even though he does?

You know all those "good decisions" people make to get rich that I was talking about? Skipping out on a job isn't one of them.

Sure, he can get medical treatment, but he'll have to pay for it out the ass, which he doesn't have the money for.

So he doesn't have healthcare (you said), but he can get healthcare (you said)?

His car would probably get repossessed, but that's about all they could do to him.

OR he could be responsible and competent, set up a payment plan, search for outside financial help, sell his car if he needed to, etc. Oh, and stay at a damn job.

If it drives them out of business, then people will be paying into the socialized health care in order to receive better treatment, instead of to private insurers, making the socialized health care better, and eliminating the need for private health care.

The problem with your little idea is that socialized healthcare will receive funding anyway, and provide a lower quality of service anyway. It wouldn't be a situation of "the more you use it, the better it gets" -- it has a certain budget of money that is allocated to it, whether it succeeds or fails. That's one of the reasons why government shouldn't meddle in private business -- the government is the only one that can run at a deficit.

That's not true. My family hasn't received a cent.

If they're lower-middle-class, they have.

And just for the record, being middle class doesn't mean you're underachieving.

Of course not. Financial success isn't all life is about. Just don't bitch about not having enough money when it's your own damn fault.

[Zargabaath]

[Q] RagnaToad – Do you really believe that? Saying that everyone can become a millionaire is both naïve and kind of a paradox. If you love your capitalism, and know something about it, you know that not nearly everyone can get rich [/Q]

1) He wasn’t talking about, in what you quoted of his, about people getting rich but about getting healthcare, but I guess you correlate that you must be rich to get healthcare; sorry to tell you but my dad and mom – my family is not rich and they have health care. As do other people I know who are not rich.

2) Locke4God did not say that everyone can become a millionaire. In capitalism everyone has the opportunity to become a millionaire and if they do achieve that status it will not be taken away from them by people who are envious. At the same time if they so happen to squander their money and are no longer millionaires becoming “poor” they will have to defend for themselves. That is capitalism, allowing people to pursue their goals without interference from the government or other people, achieving or failing at their own expense. I know everyone can’t become rich in capitalism or in any other system, however socialism and communism say “if everybody can’t become a millionaire then we will equal it out and bring those who are millionaires down (i.e. social engineering)”. I found it funny that you say “Saying that everyone can become a millionaire is both naïve and kind of a paradox”, you realize this, yet you have negative feelings toward those who do, seeing that they have cheated others for it.

[Q] RagnaToad - You see the people who don’t have health care and can’t pay for it as ‘just a minority’. I can do exactly the same with people who’s costs would be a little higher.[/Q]

True, you can do that, but with yours it is philosophically different than what he is saying. Health care is a service and services have been paid for since they were created, first with the barter system and then with currency – trading value with value. What you advocate is that the service should be traded for value with no value or someone else’s value in return. A person pays for their own expenses; they cannot take someone else’s money to pay for the service that they received. That is called robbery or enslavement, which I’m sure you don’t advocate in other forms and is ultimately, beside what you say, violating the rights of the person victimized. It is irrelevant how much money they make whether or not they are a victim, robbed, or enslaved – it is a crime nonetheless; a crime is a crime no exceptions.

[Q] Locke4God - Is it fair that my taxes would go up to pay for my pot addicted neighbor who has never tried to improve her life. [/Q]

It is not right! Forget fair; fairness is what socialists use to validate their views. What is right and does not violate the rights of humans is what you should use. It is not right that you should pay to improve her life, but never limit your examples to just drug addicts or people who live a bad lifestyle, for it is not limited to just them. It does not matter if they are or are not drug addicts whether or not you or anyone else should pay for someone else it is still wrong. I’m sure you know this I’m just making sure.

[Q] RagnaToad - The issue is not what the definition of ‘fair’ is. But rather in what way a government should take care of her civilians. And I really don’t get why all those people are so paranoid about the government taking over their lifes. [/Q]

And a government should treat all her civilians equally, giving help or to hinder anyone. Groups or a society does not have any rights as they are not entities. Only individuals have rights; individuals comprising a group have rights, but they do not get special rights for being in a group. And a government favoring some groups over others is not the proper function of a government as it violates some people’s rights – it does not matter how small the number affected are it is still wrong.

Those people know that government is not the answer but is the problem. They are afraid of the government becoming a communist dictatorship that would control their lives because in order for it to come to pass, the shift towards it must happen at some point and they believe it is happening now. Democrats complained about Bush creating too much power for the executive branch, yet Obama has 32 czars, more than any president before him and more than the previous four combined (I’m sure on how many combined but it is pretty close to four). All these czars do not have to answer to Congress, they are the ones making the policy for the country. Talk about increasing the power of the executive branch, but do democrats complain now? No, because they want a bigger government with loads of power for their own agenda.

[Q] RagnaToad - Bill O’Reilly may not be news reporter, but it’s still on Fox News Channel, isn’t it?[/Q]

What about it? People are free, for the time being, to watch whatever news network they want be it: ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, Fox, or whatever else they may get. Now if you have been paying attention, Fox News ratings are going up for Glenn Beck, O’Reilly, Hannity, and On The Record; their numbers are so high, they have more viewers than CNN and MSNBC combined at their respective slots. At the same time that more people are watching Fox lately, CNN and MSNBC are losing viewers! Now when Fox was first created they got the conservative audience from the get go so the people switching to Fox now are more independents and liberals even; the market (the audience) is saying that what Fox is doing is way better than CNN, MSNBC, CBS, etc. If Fox was reporting “shit” all the time, their numbers would reflect such manners, and people would go to other networks. But it is not Fox that is bad, but the other networks most noticeably NBC and MSNBC; CBS, ABC definitely are liberal while CNN is more left-of-center. MSNBC is there to defend Obama from any criticism, why? Because GE is their parent company and GE stands to make huge amounts of money from Obama’s policy. And Obama was supposed to bring ‘change’ to Washington; he is just the same as every other politician and brought only a democratic change.

[Q] Sean- It took over a year to get it settled with Medicaid and another year to get the negative hits off my credit report. My brother’s credit is total shit for going through cancer treatments… the bills he had to pay he couldn’t afford, and his credit now suffers as a result. [/Q]

It’s very simple why you had such a hard time with Medicaid; we call that red-tape, an inefficient, broken government program that is going bankrupt. Not that you would have problems with a private insurer, but the consumer has a lot of power that they have forgotten about and or too lazy to use it, so they opt for simple way, for government to step in causing more problems.

It is unfortunate that you brother got cancer, my friend is recovering from pelvic cancer (she’s 21), be that as it may, just because his bills have swamped him and his credit suffer does not mean that other people should help pay for your brother.

1) They did not get cancer, they did not receive treatment, they did not get those services, and do not need to pay for what they did not get.

2) They did not cause the cancer therefore have no responsibility towards the treatment and payment of his bills.

3) People are not slaves.

[Q] Alpha Weapon -This outcome is explained in part by the relatively high inequality in the US. Poverty and poor health are closely related, as low income leads to poor health and poor health leads to low income. Health care costs have been rising faster than the cost of living in general [/Q]

Poorness does not give people special privileges or rights. There is no law or right that all people must be equal, the only equality humans have is that they have the opportunity to succeed or fail as they desire. Sometimes it takes more work to succeed than others but that is not an injustice that should be equalized by hurting other people. Health care is a service that is heavily regulated by the government which is why prices are so high. We can’t get health insurance from a different state, limiting options (low supply + high demand = high costs). If all the regulations were abolished prices would come down, but some people don’t see that; blind to all the regulations that government has set in place skyrocketing prices, they demand more intervention that will eventually lead to the extinction of the private sector with the government and all of its red-tape to the health of its citizenry.

[Q] Govinda - I guess we just have to accept that Americans and Europeans are different. We think it is patriotic to take care of one another and better our society, because we like our countries… Americans think it is patriotic to try to improve the country by only taking care of themselves and theirs. [/Q]

A society is meaningless, it is not an entity, just a group of people sharing common traits. What someone does is their accomplishment not the race, sex, country; people place too much importance on nationalism or patriotism as it’s called in America. That is one of the reasons WW I started, leading to France and Britain appeasing Hitler, giving countries up for the ‘idea’ of peace that lead to WW II and more casualties than WW I and the end result is Europe is now more of an appeaser than before; they failed to learn their lesson. The American way took from Adam Smith, who said what is best for the individual would lead to the betterment of the country (something along those lines). America believed that people were free to pursue their own happiness but that is being forgotten because of jealousy and envy.

[Q] RagnaToad - Again, you are generalizing. If I were to criticize republicans remotely as arrogantly as you do, you would freak out. [/Q]

While it may be a generalization of what democrats see it as, but in truth taking someone else’s money for your own ends is more selfish than keeping what you earned. Taking someone else’s profit is the brutish image of selfish that you people see when people want to keep what they earned, the latter being rationally selfish. You want irrational selfishness, where anybody can use anyone for their own goals, they can take whatever they want because they need it and are entitled.

[Q] RagnaToad - And you’re not doing that right now? You’re saying all the people who have the same health insurance are taking care of themselves as well as you do? [/Q]

This is true, and a main reason why I don’t like the idea of health insurance; I don’t think there needs to be a middle-man in health care. You may say there needs to be, but that is because of regulations and health insurance. Health insurance increases costs because there is more money to be gained by the heath care provider. I say if everyone went off of health insurance, letting it die, prices would come down because no one could afford the prices by themselves, hospitals would get no money, they would be unable to stay open, keep staff, and pay for equipment. Now there are two ways it could go: 1) they increase prices so that when the rich want health care it really hurts their wallet, which I say the rich won’t be too keen on that and would want prices dropped and those not rich would not have health care or 2) Prices drop dramatically making it available to more people and now people don’t waste money on health insurance which they may never balance out. Of course, at first when prices are still where they are, people would be hurting but it would re-establish that consumers do have loads of power, lower health care costs, save people money, and not violate anyone’s rights all at the same time.

[Q] RagnaToad - But I must say that the ‘liberal’ media, biased or not, tend to reconsider their own ideas from time to time, more than most conservative media do. [/Q]

In America most major media companies are way liberal and don’t reconsider their ideas, they allow all the loons, radicals, and pinheads on the air and don’t challenge them at all. And as Sasquatch said the only time the reconsider is when they got caught putting their cookie in the cookie jar.

[Q] RagnaToad - If I were to use this argument against a president you had voted for, you wouldn’t agree. Be honest. The president is more than the guy who decides important things. [/Q]

Wrong, it is not the president’s job or the government’s job to be our parents; they are there to protect our rights from internal threats (police) and external threats (military). The president is supposed to carry out the law, veto, decide policy, but is not our baby-sitter or our ‘god’.

[Q] RagnaToad - I’m not talking about the content. I’m talking about how ridiculous his methods are to make his points. [/Q]

Beck does make it more ‘entertaining’ than just the usual way; of course he could be doing it because people understand better through visual mediums than auditory. *gasp* Or he could be doing it for the ‘slow’ people who have a hard time getting the picture. Either way he has found a niche, as his numbers are higher there than at CNN Headline News and they are growing.

[Q] Clint Eastwood - That’s why the world is in such an awry state. Everybody wants to be rich, and they don’t give a damn about anybody except for number one. [/Q]

Read up on Ayn Rand and rational selfishness and you can see that there is another way to do things, than the brutish image that is always conjured and that in order to succeed you don’t need to trample on other people.

[Q] Clint Eastwood - People thought Obama was going to be a different kind of politician, but everybody seemed to forget that he’s half white. [/Q]

First not all white politicians are bad, there are many that are. White politicians are evil is not an absolute or true. But I did like the other meaning by people forgetting that he’s half white, as they say he is the first ‘black president’, he’s the first half black- half white president.

What evidence do you have besides you arbitrarily saying that they have these cures? Sasquatch mocked you more than insult you, but how he did it shows the foolishness of your view making you look dumb. It gets the ‘victim’ angry that they just got shown and makes them more irrational unless by some miracle they see the light.

[Q] Clint Eastwood - I mean for Christ sake, inmates get free medical treatment. [/Q]

I’m ok with them not getting health care, but we do believe have that amendment saying no cruel or unusual punishment, we got to keep them alive. But if you want that repealed to exclude medical treatment I’m don’t have a problem.

[Q] Che - Also stop quoting shit from Fox “news”. The less we talk about them, the more we can forget about them [/Q]

The market suggests that Fox news is doing a way better job than CNN, NBC, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, etc as their numbers are way better and are increasing. So it seems they won’t be going away as long as the market finds the good, and remember they already got their core republican audience when the first aired so now they are getting new members (independents and liberals).

[Q] Sean - Did I mention we were sending money, and they were still calling demanding more? That throws your “five bucks a month” comment right out the window. I know, from multiple, personal experiences, you’re full of shit on this. [/Q]

Those who you own money to, want their money back, and if they are smart as some are they will negotiate a more manageable rate because they want their money back. Your experience does not make an absolute on the subject, it just puts your experience in the matter as negatives.

[Q] RagnaToad - Not entirely true. The money that would be have to be sacrificed would make a huge difference in the long run. [/Q]

Possibly, but it is only the earner’s decision to spend not someone else’s to steal. It is not up to a group or another person to sacrifice someone else, that is not respecting people or their rights. The ends never justify the means; if a goal can’t be done through volitional means from everyone that would be involved, the goal must be accomplished a different way. Inalienable rights can never be infringed or tossed to the side at any time.

[Q] Alpha Weapon - Do you seriously believe this? Do you really think that the reason people are poor is because they don’t try hard enough? [/Q]

In some cases this is the truth, for others no. But, you forget this, there is no guarantee to success only the opportunity to succeed and if you do, you keep your rewards/profits. There is no right to success, only the right to take action towards your goals. Some people have to work harder than others to get where the other person is. There is no right to bring down others for an equal footing or to prop up others through compulsory labor or means (i.e. slavery).

[Q] Alpha Weapon Say you have a pie for dinner, and your parent decides that because… [/Q]

There are a few things that you don’t understand about that premise.

1) You would keep the pie for another time to eat or save your money for a trip, health costs, etc.

2) A sibling and a stranger are two totally different things. People should have a hierarchy of values that places parts of your life in order of importance hopefully it would be done rationally as well. A sibling usually is higher up, by a lot, than a stranger is unless there was some falling out. So it would be rational to give your sibling some pie that you gave unless he was truly undeserving of it. A stranger should have very little value, for they can be seen as a potential trade partner and a good person until proven otherwise.

A stranger that requires your money for health care because they can’t afford it, that gets in the way of paying for your child’s braces is wrong. People have the right to keep the product of their effort and not have it taken it away by those who did not put the effort in.



As for taxes and the rich getting a bigger tax break – the rich are the ones who create the most jobs (except for the government which is on a huge hiring blaze). The more money they have the more they can create new jobs and keep their business afloat. I don’t like tax breaks as they don’t get rid of the problem. I’m in favor of getting rid of a lot of taxes for everyone, EVERYONE, I say. That would mean that government would have less revenue, meaning they could not afford to be as huge as it is, forcing it back to its proper size and function.

[Clint]

Because they pay more friggin' taxes! How difficult is that to understand? The people who PAY more GET more back.

Right. I'm saying that that system doesn't make sense. They can afford to pay higher taxes, so why are they getting such large cutbacks? When their cutbacks are as big as they are, who do you think picks up the tab? They split it up and raise taxes on the middle class.

Bullshit. Most people get rich off their own work. You can try to make "the rich" look evil all you want, but that doesn't mean that they don't deserve to be were they are.

I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with being rich. What I have a problem with are these politicians and big business associates who get rich by purging money from other people. Yes, they get rich off of their work, but their work includes purging money, which makes them a disgrace.

You don't get an EITC? You don't get any tax credits? If you don't, it would be because you make too much money already -- which means that you're one of the ones paying for the tax credits of others. Somehow, though, I doubt this.

The only thing in the mail I've gotten recently was an overly priced hospital bill that my health insurance only paid 80% on, leaving me with a pretty large debt to fill. Any money that I may be getting from the government is going to filling this ridiculous hole. Apparently I'm not getting enough.

Ah, good ol' wealth envy. You know why it makes sense that people who pay more taxes get more money back? BECAUSE THEY PAY MORE TAXES.

And they get cutbacks because since they pay more taxes because they have more money. This proves exactly what I was saying about widening the gap between rich and poor.

Of course, everybody who supports the bill is upper class ... except for, of course, the majority of people who support the bill, who are lower class.

You're saying the boys in the senate are lower class? I'm not talking about citizens, I'm talking about politicians.

There are three ways to make more money -- work harder, work longer, and work smarter.

My father and grandfather worked very hard, every single day, until they retired. My father had to be in at work at 1 in the morning. He got up at 11 at night and got there early, and then worked until four in the afternoon six days a week. He never called in sick once, and he was never late. My grandfather was the same way. I find it very disrespectful that just because my family is middle class, that that automatically gives you the right to assume that my family isn't hard working.

If you're middle-class, you only blame Bush for you not being rich if you think it's the government's responsibility, and not your own, to make sure you have money.

I don't give a shit if I'm rich or not. That's not what life is about. I do, however, get stressed out if I have literally a negative amount of money in the bank. All the problems that my family began having with finances began when Bush was in office, so of course I blame him. He was in charge. He was supposed to take care of us. Who the **** else am I supposed to blame? I didn't do anything wrong. I'm a victim of the economy.

I'm doing no such thing. Do you feel that your intelligence has been insulted because I mentioned a few other conspiracy theories, like the one you believe?

Again, you insist on insulting my intelligence. I'm not an idiot. I gave my own personal opinion, and you combated that with petty insults.

Population control too, now? Wow. What's next -- did the American government invent AIDS as a way of controlling the black and gay populations? Just like they did with crack, right?

It is population control. You're not thinking things through. It costs more to die than it does to live. By allowing sick people to die, the states make more money.

Except that your "corrections" are, well, incorrect. Apology accepted.

That's just your opinion. You may be an egomaniac and believe that you're always right, but that doesn't mean you are.

First, I didn't say anything about your intelligence, the only comments I made were regarding the foolish belief that there's a giant conspiracy to control the population and make more money by not curing some diseases that we know how to cure. I would be insulted by the mere insinuation that I believe that bullshit.

You did insult my intelligence, because if you didn't, then I wouldn't feel like you were insulting my intelligence. Duh.

Ad hominem consists of insults instead of arguments, not insults along with arguments.

So you're a troll then. Hmm, good to know. I already didn't take you seriously.

So your brother just decided to stop showing up for work, and you're trying to bitch that he doesn't have healthcare, even though he does?

Like I said, he already knew he was getting laid off. He couldn't afford to waste the gas money going to work to get fired. He figured he'd just get fired at home.

Oh, and stay at a damn job.

It wasn't his decision to leave his job.

If they're lower-middle-class, they have.

We aren't lower middle class. However, we have very little money, considering that we own two houses. It wouldn't be a problem, but my grandparents live in the second house. We can't just kick them out on the street. We have moral values, after all, and one of those moral values is protecting the family.

Just don't bitch about not having enough money when it's your own damn fault.

It's not my fault. I'm not the one who ****ed up the economy. Why do you think I keep blaming Washington? It's their fault. Not mine. And for you to blame me for my financial failures is very arrogant. I've been applying for jobs every day for the past ten months. I've been doing what I have to do to get a job, and yet I haven't gotten a single call back. Not one phone call, not one interview. I'm not at fault for any of that.

[Sasquatch]

Right. I'm saying that that system doesn't make sense.

It doesn't make sense that the people who pay much, much more in proportion to everybody else receive slightly more back?

No, of course it doesn't. They should get much, much more back, because they're paying much, much more. Did you read the little story, or did you just skip over it because it didn't fit your argument and you couldn't come up with anything against it?

They can afford to pay higher taxes, so why are they getting such large cutbacks?

Honestly, is your argument, "they can afford it, so they should be forced to pay more, despite the fact that they earned their money"? Seriously?

It should be alright to rape a woman if she's been with more than fifteen sexual partners. Hey, it won't hurt her as much as it would a virgin -- she can afford it.

It should also be alright to key cars that already have bad paint jobs, or run into cars that already have dents. They're not pretty anyway, who'll notice? They can afford it.

And why not make it alright to kill people in overpopulated areas? I mean hey, it's for the "common good", and since they're overpopulated anyway, they can afford it, right?

When their cutbacks are as big as they are, who do you think picks up the tab? They split it up and raise taxes on the middle class.

There is no "tab". They're already paying proportionally more than everybody else. I'm really not sure why you don't understand this incredibly simple concept.

I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with being rich. What I have a problem with are these politicians and big business associates who get rich by purging money from other people. Yes, they get rich off of their work, but their work includes purging money, which makes them a disgrace.

And just who do you label as people that "get rich by purging money from other people"?

The only thing in the mail I've gotten recently was an overly priced hospital bill that my health insurance only paid 80% on, leaving me with a pretty large debt to fill. Any money that I may be getting from the government is going to filling this ridiculous hole. Apparently I'm not getting enough.

Then go get a job. It's not the government's (read: other taxpayers') responsibility to support you, it's your own.

And they get cutbacks because since they pay more taxes because they have more money. This proves exactly what I was saying about widening the gap between rich and poor.

Letting "the rich" keep some of their own money while still charging them an extremely disproportionate percentage doesn't widen any gaps.

Rich people get richer because they keep doing the things that made them rich. Poor people get poorer because they keep doing the things that made them poor. The so-called "gap" is widening because the poor (some) insist on relying on the government to steal from the successful to give to them, instead of doing it for themselves. But then, if they were the type to rely on themselves, they wouldn't be poor in the first place.

You're saying the boys in the senate are lower class? I'm not talking about citizens, I'm talking about politicians.

If you want to put it that way, then the people (politicians) who are for OR against it are all upper-class. The same with people (politicians) who are for or against ANY bill.

The fact remains that the majority of the populace is against Obama's healthcare plan.

I find it very disrespectful that just because my family is middle class, that that automatically gives you the right to assume that my family isn't hard working.

If they're middle class, you have nothing to bitch about. So stop bitching. If they wanted to be upper-class, they could work smarter, harder, or longer. If they were satisfied where they were, financially, good for them -- it's because of themselves that they have the money they have, whether it's a lot or a little.

I don't give a shit if I'm rich or not. That's not what life is about. I do, however, get stressed out if I have literally a negative amount of money in the bank.

So you blame that on Bush.

It can't be my fault that I have no money, it just can't! I mean, even though I choose to work when and where and how I work and choose to spend my money the way I spend it, being broke isn't my fault at all? I know, it must be Bush's fault!

All the problems that my family began having with finances began when Bush was in office, so of course I blame him. He was in charge.

George Walker Bush was in charge of your family's budget? Damn, he never stopped by to balance my checkbook ...

He was supposed to take care of us.

It's not the government's job to take care of your family.

Who the **** else am I supposed to blame? I didn't do anything wrong. I'm a victim of the economy.

You win the quote of the year, kid. Congratulations.

Again, you insist on insulting my intelligence. I'm not an idiot.

When did I insult you? When did I call you an idiot?

I gave my own personal opinion, and you combated that with petty insults.

What "petty insults"? You believe in a foolish conspiracy theory. I simply listed a few other foolish conspiracy theories. If you're insulted by the idea that you buy into some conspiracy theories but not others, that's on you, not me.

Tell you what -- I'll bite. You post some credible evidence that cures for AIDS and cancer do indeed exist, and that they're being kept secret for the purposes of population control and making more money, and I will concede.

It is population control. You're not thinking things through. It costs more to die than it does to live. By allowing sick people to die, the states make more money.

It costs who more to die than it does to live? Anybody with a chronic illness could tell you that living with it takes quite the financial toll.

You claim that the cures aren't released for purposes of population control, but fail to address the myriad treatments and medicines that actually do exist that prolong the lives of people with AIDS and cancer. Wouldn't it be easier and cheaper -- and control more of the population in a more efficient manner -- to produce medicines that don't prolong their lives, but simply make them more comfortable on their way to death? After all, they somehow make more money from dead people than they do from live people, right?

That's just your opinion. You may be an egomaniac and believe that you're always right, but that doesn't mean you are.

Then prove me wrong. I've been waiting.

You did insult my intelligence, because if you didn't, then I wouldn't feel like you were insulting my intelligence. Duh.

There's a difference in being insulted and feeling insulted, kid. You can whine that your feelings got hurt all you want, but that doesn't mean that you actually were insulted.

So you're a troll then. Hmm, good to know. I already didn't take you seriously.

Of course you didn't take me seriously -- I disagree with you, so naturally, that makes me wrong, doesn't it?

Like I said, he already knew he was getting laid off. He couldn't afford to waste the gas money going to work to get fired. He figured he'd just get fired at home.

He wasn't going to get fired, he was going to get laid off. There's a difference. When you get a job, you might learn this.

It wasn't his decision to leave his job.

He decided to stay home and get fired. Hate to break it to you kid, but that's a decision.

We aren't lower middle class. However, we have very little money, considering that we own two houses. It wouldn't be a problem, but my grandparents live in the second house. We can't just kick them out on the street. We have moral values, after all, and one of those moral values is protecting the family.

If you value the financial protection of your family that much, form a decent budget. Have your grandparents move in with you and sell the other house, or put them in a home, or have the rest of the family share the expenses. Paying for your grandparents' house is not a necessity -- and it certainly isn't a reason to suck money from other taxpayers.

It's not my fault. I'm not the one who ****ed up the economy.

And Bush did? I'd like to hear this. There was a recession before Bush even stepped into office, and eight months into his Presidency, he was hit with the worst terrorist attack in history in one of the prime financial centers of the world. But I suppose that's his fault too, isn't it? Or are you picky about the conspiracy theories you buy into?

Why do you think I keep blaming Washington? It's their fault. Not mine.

Of course it's not your fault. Damn ol' Washington wants to make sure you don't get an education so you'll get paid more, or get more hours, or get a more demanding job.

And for you to blame me for my financial failures is very arrogant. I've been applying for jobs every day for the past ten months. I've been doing what I have to do to get a job, and yet I haven't gotten a single call back. Not one phone call, not one interview.

Do you seriously mean to tell me that you've submitted over three hundred applications and never even received a phone call back?

I'm not at fault for any of that.

No, of course it's not your fault. I mean, you don't meet the qualifications of what employers are looking for, but that's not your fault, right? You've gotten all the education you can, you've gotten all the labor training you can, you know how to do every job in America (or at least more than three hundred of them), you've suggested working any and every shift you can doing the most demanding, demeaning, and disgusting jobs you can, and nobody wants you. It's all Bush's fault!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Who the **** else am I supposed to blame? I didn't do anything wrong. I'm a victim of the economy.

I just can't get enough of that. Wow.

[Jin]

But then, if they were the type to rely on themselves, they wouldn't be poor in the first place.

Damn right. You hear that, Tiny Tim? It's your fault you're poor! Stop pestering Ebeneser Scrooge for handouts and pull yourself up by your own bootstraps. Well, first find the money to buy yourself some bootstraps, then pull yourself up by them, you lazy sot.

[T.G. Oskar]

Damn right. You hear that, Tiny Tim? It's your fault you're poor! Stop pestering Ebeneser Scrooge for handouts and pull yourself up by your own bootstraps. Well, first find the money get two full-time jobs under minimum wage, pay half of that to the government, the other 49.99% to Scrooge's mega-corporation, then buy yourself some bootstraps (likely fron Scrooge's Ltd., then pull yourself up by them, you "lazy" sot.

Fixed for ya, Jim.

@Sass: just for curiosity, because I'm wondering a bit...

What would you say about passing a bill where only people under a certain amount of money, which would be the equivalent of everybody under the high-middle class standard and lower, would be the people that pay the taxes?

[Alpha]

Tell you what -- I'll bite. You post some credible evidence that cures for AIDS and cancer do indeed exist, and that they're being kept secret for the purposes of population control and making more money, and I will concede.

I don't buy in for conspiracy theories, don't get me wrong, but I think they're interesting. However, why don't you try prove that cures for AIDS and cancer don't exist? It's remarkably hard to do. Sense tells me (and you, I gather) that they don't exist, because I don't think anybody would be that evil (history has proved this principle wrong). But stop saying he's stupid when you couldn't ever prove him incorrect, at least on this one. Besides, get back to healthcare, both of you.

There is no law or right that all people must be equal...

Congratulations, you just failed on American History 101:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. To secure this rights governments are instituted among men, deriving their just power from the consent of the governed;

You should try harder, like Tiny Tim.

Poorness does not give people special privileges or rights

Of course not; it takes them away. Poverty is humiliating.

If all the regulations were abolished prices would come down, but some people don’t see that; blind to all the regulations that government has set in place skyrocketing prices, they demand more intervention that will eventually lead to the extinction of the private sector with the government and all of its red-tape to the health of its citizenry.

If all the regulations were abolished, prices may indeed come down. But I'd argue that because demand for healthcare is inelastic (because it's a necessity), the higher price means higher profits for a private firm. There would be no incentive to lower prices. Health care is not perfect competition, you don't find hospitals on every street corner; or do you? If I listen to you conservatives, American healthcare is the 'best'.

More intervention would not only reduce prices, it would remove them (for people, not the government), or don't you understand what socialised healthcare is? And yes, I'm sure all states seek the extinction of the private sector. That's a real good idea! I wonder why no one does it anymore?

A stranger that requires your money for health care because they can’t afford it ... is wrong.

Yes, because it is wrong to help someone who needs it. The government does not steal our money (bold, because this concept appears new to many), it takes it and puts it to use for the citizenry. If the government took our money solely to pay for itself, I'd be pissed. But no, it builds roads, train tracks, etc. So why should it not take care of our healthcare too?

[Jin]

Fixed for ya, Jim.

Did you just call me Jim? Haha, I like that. Call me Jim from now on.

Thank you for your contribution.

[Clint]

It doesn't make sense that the people who pay much, much more in proportion to everybody else receive slightly more back?

Yeah, that's what I'm saying. They have money, and yet, they get more back, whereas, the middle class is getting poorer and poorer. I swear, a retard would be able to understand what I'm arguing. If you make more money, you pay more in taxes. If you make less money, you get more back. That's how it should be, but it's not, because the rich want to get richer, as do the poor, but the rich won't let the poor get richer, because as I've been saying, they're money hungry.

Honestly, is your argument, "they can afford it, so they should be forced to pay more, despite the fact that they earned their money"? Seriously?

What, and just because I'm not rich means I didn't earn my money? In all reality, a lot of people who have money have it because a hundred years ago, their great grandfather struck oil, or gold. They didn't earn their money. In order to earn money, you have to work for it. They were born with a silver spoon in the mouth.

And just who do you label as people that "get rich by purging money from other people"?

Hmm, let's see. Insurance companies, for instance.

Then go get a job. It's not the government's (read: other taxpayers') responsibility to support you, it's your own.

Yes, yes, getting a job. It's a lot easier to say than it is to do. There are people hiring. I've put in applications. I just haven't gotten any calls back. Maybe if I was black I would get a job. It seems that since all the focus has been on civil rights for black people for the last hundred and forty years, white people are the ones nowadays being discriminated against.

Letting "the rich" keep some of their own money while still charging them an extremely disproportionate percentage doesn't widen any gaps.

Yes it does, and as a matter of fact, it has. You said you were middle class a few posts back, and yet, you're so oblivious to things that are going on in society that you fail to realize this. Which proves one thing to me; you're completely full of shit.

Rich people get richer because they keep doing the things that made them rich.

Or because they inherited a large sum of money when their parents died.

Poor people get poorer because they keep doing the things that made them poor.

Or because the poor get proportionately smaller tax cuts than the rich, making the poor poorer and the rich richer.

If they wanted to be upper-class, they could work smarter, harder, or longer.

They worked very smart, very hard, and very long, and yet, we're not upper class. We were upper middle class for a while, until Bush destroyed Clinton's surplus and put the country into a debt so large it's practically impossible to dig ourselves out of.

So you blame that on Bush.

Considering that the economic recession began during his administration, of course I blame him. I didn't send the economy into a recession.

I mean, even though I choose to work when and where and how I work and choose to spend my money the way I spend it, being broke isn't my fault at all? I know, it must be Bush's fault!

Let me tell you a little about my life. I worked crap jobs, because that's all somebody with a high school diploma working to get a college education can get. I held those jobs in order to make just enough money to afford a semester of school. I didn't spend any of it. I didn't get a car, I kept living with my parents to stay off the grid as best as I could, and then I herniated a disk and got pneumonia in the same week. First I had to pay my hospital bill, which put me in a hole. Then I had to resort to borrowing money from people in order to pay for 20% of my health care in order to go to physical therapy to fix my back. Then I got laid off from my job because it demanded labor which with my back injury, I could no longer do. Like I said, it's no my fault that I don't have money.

George Walker Bush was in charge of your family's budget? Damn, he never stopped by to balance my checkbook ...

Nope. That's not what I said at all. His administration was in charge when the economy went down the tube. It's a simple concept to grasp. He was in charge of the country, the economy went into recession before his second term was up, so naturally, who's to blame? The president who didn't do anything to prevent a recession or the president who didn't do anything to prevent a recession?

It's not the government's job to take care of your family.

Yeah, they kind of are supposed to take care of my family, considering that my family are all American citizens, and considering that the government is supposed to take care of the citizens, hence the reason why we need a government in the first place.

When did I insult you? When did I call you an idiot?

You didn't call me an idiot... Obviously you don't know what it means to insult somebody's intelligence, or have your own "intelligence" insulted. To insult somebody's intelligence doesn't mean to call somebody an idiot. It's to communicate with them with the notion that they are an idiot who doesn't know what they're is talking about.

What "petty insults"? You believe in a foolish conspiracy theory.

No, I proposed a very intriguing idea. I didn't buy into a conspiracy theory, I'm just not brainwashed by the government like you military types are, and hence, I'm open minded about certain things, which include government corruption and greed.

You post some credible evidence that cures for AIDS and cancer do indeed exist, and that they're being kept secret for the purposes of population control and making more money, and I will concede.

I don't have the time. I got four classes to pass this semester, with three exams just around the corner. If you're so interested in the subject, then research it on your own time.

It costs who more to die than it does to live? Anybody with a chronic illness could tell you that living with it takes quite the financial toll.

And dying costs a pretty penny, too.

You claim that the cures aren't released for purposes of population control, but fail to address the myriad treatments and medicines that actually do exist that prolong the lives of people with AIDS and cancer.

I failed to address them because I wasn't taking about treatments that prolong life, I was talking about a proposed cure.

Wouldn't it be easier and cheaper -- and control more of the population in a more efficient manner -- to produce medicines that don't prolong their lives, but simply make them more comfortable on their way to death?

It might be cheaper, but it wouldn't be morally ethic. The government isn't killing people, they're just letting them die. If the person can be helped, they can't just leave him or her to die. As much as I dislike the government, they're not complete monsters. AIDS and cancer are ways for population control, but nobody is murdering anybody.

Then prove me wrong. I've been waiting.

I already did that. Prove me wrong.

There's a difference in being insulted and feeling insulted, kid. You can whine that your feelings got hurt all you want, but that doesn't mean that you actually were insulted.

If I felt insulted, then I was insulted, otherwise I wouldn't feel insulted in the first place. You didn't hurt my feelings, you just insulted my intelligence.

Of course you didn't take me seriously -- I disagree with you, so naturally, that makes me wrong, doesn't it?

No, it doesn't make you wrong at all. However, you disagree with me, and that makes me wrong, because you're a ****. There's nothing wrong with that. It's just the way you are.

He wasn't going to get fired, he was going to get laid off. There's a difference. When you get a job, you might learn this.

Fired, laid off. You're still out of a job, so who the hell cares?

If you value the financial protection of your family that much, form a decent budget. Have your grandparents move in with you and sell the other house, or put them in a home, or have the rest of the family share the expenses. Paying for your grandparents' house is not a necessity -- and it certainly isn't a reason to suck money from other taxpayers.

A few things morally wrong with what you're suggesting. First, to put them in a home is essentially abandoning them. I can't do that, my parents can't do that, and my aunts and uncles can't do that. Second, the house belongs to my father. He is not a selfish man. It's his house, and he will not, under any circumstance, ask any other relatives to help pay for it.

Selling the house and having them move in with us would be a good idea, however, my brother had to recently move back in, so if they moved in, I would have to give up my bedroom, and I would have to sleep in the living room on an air mattress. I wouldn't mind for a while, but there's just not enough room in the house for six adults and three dogs.

And Bush did? I'd like to hear this. There was a recession before Bush even stepped into office, and eight months into his Presidency, he was hit with the worst terrorist attack in history in one of the prime financial centers of the world.

What do I care what happened before Bush was in office? When he was elected, I was only twelve years old. I wasn't even old enough to work then. The country may have been in a recession, but that was all fine and dandy considering the surplus that Clinton built when he was in office. The country could afford to lose some money, which is the way it should be.

Do you seriously mean to tell me that you've submitted over three hundred applications and never even received a phone call back?

I don't know how many applications I've submitted. I do at least ten a day. And no, I haven't received one phone call back. My cousin is having the same problem. He got a few offers from places that he used to work at, but he needs a career, not another shit job. Me, I can't even find a shit job.

I mean, you don't meet the qualifications of what employers are looking for, but that's not your fault, right?

I do actually meet the qualifications, as long as I don't have to lift anything heavy. I don't really have the ability to do that again just yet.

You've gotten all the education you can,

Still working on it, which is why I need a job. I got to pay for school somehow.

you've gotten all the labor training you can,

No. I don't.

you know how to do every job in America (or at least more than three hundred of them),

No, but I know how to do a lot of jobs, and jobs I can't do, well, I'm a quick learner.

you've suggested working any and every shift you can doing the most demanding, demeaning, and disgusting jobs you can, and nobody wants you.

There's a problem with this statement. I can't work any and every shift I can. I got four classes in school, and a shitload of school work that has to be done outside of class. I need some time to myself in order to do these things. Another problem is the statement about demanding jobs. I recently herniated a disk in my back, therefore I don't have the ability to lift anything weighing over fifty pounds without the risk of redamaging my back. Because of those two things, which I have to put on my applications, nobody wants me.

[Sasquatch]

Damn right. You hear that, Tiny Tim?

Tiny Tim was 1840s England, not 2000s America. Try again.

What would you say about passing a bill where only people under a certain amount of money, which would be the equivalent of everybody under the high-middle class standard and lower, would be the people that pay the taxes?

If the people that were getting it were the ones that were paying for it, I'd still say no. For one thing, it wouldn't have the funding to run. Think about it -- let's have a program to help those who supposedly can't afford to help themselves, and let's make them pay for it. How would that help?

But more importantly, it's not the government's (taxpayers') obligation to provide healthcare. If it was VOLUNTARY, and only the people receiving the benefits would pay into it, I'd support it, but like I said, it wouldn't have enough funding.

However, why don't you try prove that cures for AIDS and cancer don't exist? It's remarkably hard to do.

Alright, deal. You prove that man actually did land on the moon, that Bush actually didn't mastermind the 9/11 attacks, that jets actually don't leave trails of biological mind-control agents or powdered aluminum, that Lee Harvey Oswald actually acted alone, that Cobain actually did commit suicide, and everything else -- you disprove all the other foolish conspiracy theories that are so obviously false, and I'll jump on the stupid idea that cures for AIDS and cancer do exist.

The claim was made that cures exist. It's the responsibility of the person who makes the claim to prove their claim -- especially when that claim goes against common knowledge and common sense.

Congratulations, you just failed on American History 101:

The Declaration of Independence is not a law, nor is it any sort of governing document. It also claims that we were all CREATED equal -- not that we succeed to an equal amount, but that we started off equal. (Also keep in mind that, at the time, rights only applied to white males.)

Of course not; it takes them away. Poverty is humiliating.

There is no Constitutional right to not be in poverty or to not be humiliated.

... But I'd argue that because demand for healthcare is inelastic (because it's a necessity), the higher price means higher profits for a private firm.

There are myriad factors that go into the price of healthcare, not just profit margin. Technology costs money.

There would be no incentive to lower prices.

Except for the fact that more than one healthcare provider exist, which means there's competition -- if one lowers prices, they get more business unless the others lower their prices as well.

Health care is not perfect competition, you don't find hospitals on every street corner; or do you?

Of course not -- but multiple hospitals in large cities, yes. I have at least half a dozen within a thirty-minute drive, and I'm nowhere near a big city.

More intervention would not only reduce prices, it would remove them (for people, not the government), or don't you understand what socialised healthcare is?

It would also reduce quality and quantity. This is why people leave Britain and Canada -- with lower out-of-pocket healthcare costs -- to come to America for their care. The quality and quantity are both better.

Yes, because it is wrong to help someone who needs it.

It's not wrong to help somebody who needs it -- it IS wrong to steal money from somebody else to redistribute as you see fit.

The government does not steal our money (bold, because this concept appears new to many), it takes it and puts it to use for the citizenry.

Steal Definition | Definition of Steal at Dictionary.com
steal
–verb (used with object)
1. to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, esp. secretly or by force

Taxes are taken out of every paycheck before you get it. If you make claims on your taxes to the extent that you owe the government more money come April 15, and you don't pay it, they come take it by force, or by threat of force. That is stealing.

If the government took our money solely to pay for itself, I'd be pissed. But no, it builds roads, train tracks, etc. So why should it not take care of our healthcare too?

Doing something you think is good with our money doesn't mean our money wasn't stolen. If I mug you, take your wallet, and buy food for some homeless people, did I steal from you or not?

EDIT: Now the rest.

Yeah, that's what I'm saying. They have money, and yet, they get more back, whereas, the middle class is getting poorer and poorer.

They get more money back because they pay much more money. Proportionally, they don't get nearly as much back.

I swear, a retard would be able to understand what I'm arguing.

And they'd still be smart enough to disagree. But please, keep bitching about how you think I'm "insulting your intelligence".

If you make more money, you pay more in taxes. If you make less money, you get more back.

That's not taxation, that's income redistribution. America is not a socialist state. We don't take from those who achieve and hand it out to those who don't. (Well, we do, but you don't understand that it happens anyway while you continue to whine and complain and about it not happening to an even greater extent.)

That's how it should be, but it's not, because the rich want to get richer, as do the poor, but the rich won't let the poor get richer, because as I've been saying, they're money hungry.

The rich won't let the poor get richer because you're advocating the poor getting richer FROM SOMEBODY ELSE'S MONEY. The eeeeevil rich don't want anybody else's money, they want to KEEP their own. You're advocating that they be forced to give up their own money and have it given to the poor as a hand-out.

What, and just because I'm not rich means I didn't earn my money?

Not once did I say that. Everybody earns their money, whether they're rich or poor. I'm just saying don't bitch about the rich having the money that they earned. If and when you ever earn a decent amount of money, I'm sure you'll want to keep it, too. That doesn't mean that you'd want to keep somebody else's money, just your own, the money you earned.

In all reality, a lot of people who have money have it because a hundred years ago, their great grandfather struck oil, or gold. They didn't earn their money. In order to earn money, you have to work for it. They were born with a silver spoon in the mouth.

Please explain your definition of "a lot". I'd love to see you argue the bullshit lie that the majority of people with a good amount of money received it in inheritance.

Actually, I'd love to see you post any sort of credible evidence for that, but somehow I know it won't happen.

Hmm, let's see. Insurance companies, for instance.

They provide a service for a fee. People have a choice to pay that fee or to go somewhere else. What about car insurance companies? Life insurance?

Yes, yes, getting a job. It's a lot easier to say than it is to do. There are people hiring. I've put in applications. I just haven't gotten any calls back.

Yes, you've applied to more than three hundred jobs, sure.

Yes it does, and as a matter of fact, it has.

It's THEIR money. I can understand that you have a serious case of wealth envy and you like to bitch that somebody out there has more money than you (even though they earn it, by doing things like, well, WORKING), but the gap between the rich and the poor isn't widened by letting people keep their own money, it's widened by people continuing to do what made them rich or poor.

You said you were middle class a few posts back, and yet, you're so oblivious to things that are going on in society that you fail to realize this.

No, I just like the idea of pulling my own weight and not relying on somebody who has achieved more in their life than I have to carry me. Maybe it's because I respect myself more than to suck off the tit of the American taxpayers -- but hey, to each his own.

Which proves one thing to me; you're completely full of shit.

What were you saying about having a poor argument because you resort to insults?

Or because they inherited a large sum of money when their parents died.

First, you have no credible evidence to suggest that most people with a lot of money got it from their parents. Second, it's my right to leave what I have to my child, whether it be a lot or a little.

Or because the poor get proportionately smaller tax cuts than the rich, making the poor poorer and the rich richer.

As I have explained many, many times already -- at this point, there's no excuse except a serious deficiency in mental capacity for not understanding it -- the poor do not get proportionally smaller tax cuts than the rich. They pay much less than the rich do -- not just in quantity, but in percentage.

You know what, when you grow up and get a job and start paying taxes -- forget that idea, just ask your parents for one -- take a look at the income tax rates in America.

Actually, you know what, HERE. Now you have no excuse for your ignorance.

You see how the tax percentages go up for people who make more money? That's called "the rich paying more than their fair share". If you make $20k/yr (you'll learn about deductions and what is taxable income -- making $20k/yr would put you in the 10% bracket), you will get $3598. You will receive nearly four thousand dollars from your fellow taxpayers. You won't just pay nothing, you will GET money. On the other hand, if you end up successful (well, at least just hear this out) and make, say, $75k/yr, you will pay $17,325.

Did you get that? You make $20,000/yr, and you'll get another $3600. You make $75,000/yr, and you will pay more than $17,000.

Now how in the fuck is that in any way unfair to the poor?

They worked very smart, very hard, and very long, and yet, we're not upper class.

If they worked smart and hard, they would have made more money. It's a pretty simple concept.

We were upper middle class for a while, until Bush destroyed Clinton's surplus and put the country into a debt so large it's practically impossible to dig ourselves out of.

Did Bush come ruin your family's finances? Was he personally responsible for your family not having money?

I mean, you can sling all the shit you want -- that "Bush destroyed Clinton's surplus" (even though Clinton had the country headed for a recession since the dot-com bust, and of course that recession was blamed on Bush by the most ignorant Americans, and that the reason Clinton had any surplus at all is because he cut funding for needed programs and military spending and taxed the shit out of large corporations, forcing them to relocate overseas), that he "put the country into a debt so large it's practically impossible to dig ourselves out of" (even though, while Bush did increase the debt, Bush's worst deficit was a fraction of the deficit we have now that Obama has had some time to work his magic -- "a fraction" referring to Bush's worst deficit of nearly $500 billion as opposed to Obama's deficit next year of nearly $2 TRILLION) ... But who's responsible for your finances? I'll give you a hint: IT'S YOU.

Considering that the economic recession began during his administration, of course I blame him.

Considering that it began during Clinton's reign and that Bush had things happen during his terms that he had nothing to do with, like 9/11, the mortgage "crisis", failing banks, etc., it's extremely ignorant to blame somebody just because they happened to be looking over the unstable house when it finally crumbled.

Let me tell you a little about my life.

No thanks, kid.

Nope. That's not what I said at all. His administration was in charge when the economy went down the tube. It's a simple concept to grasp. He was in charge of the country, the economy went into recession before his second term was up, so naturally, who's to blame? The president who didn't do anything to prevent a recession or the president who didn't do anything to prevent a recession?

And I suppose that when somebody in a hospital dies of a disease they've had for years, it's the hospital's fault, right?

Yeah, they kind of are supposed to take care of my family, considering that my family are all American citizens, and considering that the government is supposed to take care of the citizens, hence the reason why we need a government in the first place.

The government is supposed to protect the citizens. It's not the American government's job to babysit and hold hands of all 300-something-million citizens because some of them are too friggin' incompetent to take care of themselves.

To insult somebody's intelligence doesn't mean to call somebody an idiot. It's to communicate with them with the notion that they are an idiot who doesn't know what they're is talking about.

And when they actually don't know what the hell they're talking about -- like claiming that the poor pay proportionally more taxes than the rich or get proportionally smaller tax cuts -- is it still an insult? Let's call a spade a spade here, kid.

No, I proposed a very intriguing idea.

A very intriguing, and very bullshit, idea.

I didn't buy into a conspiracy theory, I'm just not brainwashed by the government like you military types are, and hence, I'm open minded about certain things, which include government corruption and greed.

You believe that the government is hiding the cures for AIDS and cancer because they somehow make more money, and you try to call me brainwashed and closed-minded? Wow.

I don't have the time.

Of course not. You don't have the time to prove your argument. Why would you? You're a busy man, what with living with your parents and not working and all.

If you're so interested in the subject, then research it on your own time.

I have. Which is why I know that any insinuation that the government is holding the cures for cancer and AIDS is not only ignorant, it's ridiculously stupid.

And dying costs a pretty penny, too.

Not as much as living, which was my point. Depending on the treatments, one week of living could cost more than the costs associated with dying. So it's extremely foolish to think that the government lets people die because they make money from it, when they would make more money by keeping them alive.

I failed to address them because I wasn't taking about treatments that prolong life, I was talking about a proposed cure.

You failed to address them because treatments that prolong life would make more money for the government, according to your wacky conspiracy theory, and thus would throw a wrench into your little hamster-wheel belief.

It might be cheaper, but it wouldn't be morally ethic.

You're trying to say that the government holds secret the cure to diseases which kill nearly 600,000 Americans every year -- and millions upon millions of people around the world -- but they wouldn't simply try to make people comfortable instead of prolonging their lives?

The government isn't killing people, they're just letting them die.

They're still prolonging their lives. If they make more money from people dying than they do from them living, this would be counterproductive.

I already did that. Prove me wrong.

I'm not going to go through this childish game with you, kid. Post some credible evidence for your claims -- any of your claims -- or admit your ignorance and crawl away with your tail between your legs.

If I felt insulted, then I was insulted, otherwise I wouldn't feel insulted in the first place. You didn't hurt my feelings, you just insulted my intelligence.

I don't care if you "felt insulted", that doesn't mean that I actually insulted you. You could feel insulted by somebody looking at you in what you think is a "wrong way", that wouldn't mean that they give a damn about your feelings one way or the other.

And you insulted your own intelligence -- or lack thereof -- by buying into conspiracy theories and failing to understand simple economics.

No, it doesn't make you wrong at all. However, you disagree with me, and that makes me wrong, because you're a ****. There's nothing wrong with that. It's just the way you are.

But only people with no argument resort to insults, right?

I never once have claimed that anybody has been wrong simply for disagreeing with me. Believe it or not, some people are right when they disagree with me. You're just not one of them.

Fired, laid off. You're still out of a job, so who the hell cares?

There's a difference between being fired and laid off. Damn, kid.

few things morally wrong with what you're suggesting.

According to whose morals?

First, to put them in a home is essentially abandoning them. I can't do that, my parents can't do that, and my aunts and uncles can't do that.

Not at all. If it's the best thing for them, then so be it.

Second, the house belongs to my father. He is not a selfish man. It's his house, and he will not, under any circumstance, ask any other relatives to help pay for it.

It he needs help paying for it, it's not his house, it's the bank's. And if he's not a selfish man, maybe he should have passed that value on to his child, who is bitching because other people have more money than he does.

Selling the house and having them move in with us would be a good idea, however, my brother had to recently move back in, so if they moved in, I would have to give up my bedroom, and I would have to sleep in the living room on an air mattress.

*GASP* OH NO! You might actually have to be uncomfortable! You might have to give up your bedroom at Mommy and Daddy's house and have somewhat cramped living quarters, like hundreds of millions of people before you have gone through! Oh, the humanity!

What do I care what happened before Bush was in office?

I don't know, why would somebody care about anything that happened in the past? Hmmmm ...

When he was elected, I was only twelve years old.

According to the birthday in your profile, you were eleven.

The country may have been in a recession, but that was all fine and dandy considering the surplus that Clinton built when he was in office. The country could afford to lose some money, which is the way it should be.

Take a listen, kid. "Surplus" does not mean "debt free". We still had a huge debt under Clinton. (Him not paying anything off on our national debt is one of the reasons he had a surplus in the first place.)

I don't know how many applications I've submitted. I do at least ten a day. And no, I haven't received one phone call back.

Really? Three thousand applications you've turned in?

My cousin is having the same problem. He got a few offers from places that he used to work at, but he needs a career, not another shit job.

If we need money, we take what we can get. Most people don't work their dream job. I'm still waiting for a job to open up where I can watch sports, fish, shoot, and receive oral sex all while getting paid, but right now, I have to resort to what I can get paid for.

I do actually meet the qualifications, as long as I don't have to lift anything heavy. ... Still working on it, which is why I need a job. I got to pay for school somehow. ... No. I don't. ... No, but I know how to do a lot of jobs, and jobs I can't do, well, I'm a quick learner.

So you don't meet all qualifications, you don't have an education, you don't have skilled labor training, and you don't know how to do every job. Sounds to me like it is your fault you can't find a job. Although with three thousand applications, I am just shocked that you can't find anything.

There's a problem with this statement. I can't work any and every shift I can. I got four classes in school, and a shitload of school work that has to be done outside of class.

You "can't" because you prioritize your school over your work. That's perfectly fine, except when you bitch and moan about how you don't have money.

I need some time to myself in order to do these things.

And to get online and make long posts on internet message boards, of course.

Another problem is the statement about demanding jobs. I recently herniated a disk in my back, therefore I don't have the ability to lift anything weighing over fifty pounds without the risk of redamaging my back.

Many "demanding" jobs don't require lifting that much. Hell, mow lawns on the weekends.

[T.G. Oskar]

If the people that were getting it were the ones that were paying for it, I'd still say no. For one thing, it wouldn't have the funding to run. Think about it -- let's have a program to help those who supposedly can't afford to help themselves, and let's make them pay for it. How would that help?

But more importantly, it's not the government's (taxpayers') obligation to provide healthcare. If it was VOLUNTARY, and only the people receiving the benefits would pay into it, I'd support it, but like I said, it wouldn't have enough funding.

Um, I wasn't speaking anything based on the healthcare program. It's odd you attempted to mix one thing or the other. All I asked was, if there was a bill where only the part of the population under a specific amount of income and that would be classified under, say, middle class or high middle class would be the people that pay taxes, would you support it or not? The bill wouldn't be tied to anything; no healthcare program tie-in, no federal economic aid program, no nothing. Just plain and simple; only the part of the population under a certain amount of income would pay the taxes, and those over such income wouldn't. Those taxes would be used for what they are used currently. No other change, except that I mentioned. Those who don't have to pay don't have to provide anything else to the government other than what they currently offer (sans taxes). That would be the only difference.

[Jin]

Tiny Tim was 1840s England, not 2000s America. Try again.

Change the name to Not-so-Tiny Jerome from Newark if you'd like, I don't really care. Either way, whether you're talking about 1840s England or 2000s America, it's quite silly to imply that all poor people are poor because "they [weren't] the type to rely on themselves."

[Sasquatch]

Um, I wasn't speaking anything based on the healthcare program. It's odd you attempted to mix one thing or the other.

Sorry, thought you were relating it to the topic. I got it now.

All I asked was, if there was a bill where only the part of the population under a specific amount of income and that would be classified under, say, middle class or high middle class would be the people that pay taxes, would you support it or not? The bill wouldn't be tied to anything; no healthcare program tie-in, no federal economic aid program, no nothing. Just plain and simple; only the part of the population under a certain amount of income would pay the taxes, and those over such income wouldn't. Those taxes would be used for what they are used currently. No other change, except that I mentioned. Those who don't have to pay don't have to provide anything else to the government other than what they currently offer (sans taxes). That would be the only difference.

To put it simply ... hell no. Of course not. Why the hell would I support that? I want everybody to pay their fair shares -- no more, no less. That means nobody gets out of it, be they rich or poor.

Change the name to Not-so-Tiny Jerome from Newark if you'd like, I don't really care. Either way, whether you're talking about 1840s England or 2000s America, it's quite silly to imply that all poor people are poor because "they [weren't] the type to rely on themselves."

When did I say that all poor people are poor because they don't do it for themselves? Many? Of course. The majority? Almost definitely. All? No way. There are some people with disabilities and such who couldn't make it. Americans are some of the most generous people on earth, there are plenty of programs to help people who honestly can't help themselves. I mean c'mon, if you can't make it in America, you're prettymuch screwed in life.

[Sarin]

I dont really like obama... people told me i dont like him cause hes black but thats not the reason i dont like him cause he lied to the country and couldnt do half of what he said he could in the first place.. but you im not going to try and push you into not liking him thats just my reason. so i probably would have something to say about his health care program but im not surprised may as well move to canada and marry a canadian and get there awesome health care. just my opinion

[Clint]

They get more money back because they pay much more money. Proportionally, they don't get nearly as much back.

Their tax cuts are still larger. I don't care if it's proportionate or not, them getting larger tax cuts is making them richer, and us getting proportionately less tax cuts is making us poorer. Hence widening the gap, as I've been saying. You apparently just don't get it, though.

That's not taxation, that's income redistribution. America is not a socialist state. We don't take from those who achieve and hand it out to those who don't.

You mean achieving more financially, I'm assuming. Otherwise you kind of sound like a jackass. America may not be a socialist state, but it sure as hell does have some pretty damn socialist qualities. I don't see how a few more would hurt.

You're advocating that they be forced to give up their own money and have it given to the poor as a hand-out.

No, I'm really not. What I've been saying has nothing to do with a hand-out to the poor. It has to do with the amount of taxes that the rich and the poor both have to pay. The rich should get increases on taxes merely for the simple fact that they can afford to pay those increases, but I never suggested that they be taxed until they're broke, and I never suggested that their money be distributed to the poor. I merely suggested larger tax breaks for families that can't afford to pay the middle to lower class taxes.

Not once did I say that. Everybody earns their money, whether they're rich or poor. I'm just saying don't bitch about the rich having the money that they earned. If and when you ever earn a decent amount of money, I'm sure you'll want to keep it, too. That doesn't mean that you'd want to keep somebody else's money, just your own, the money you earned.

Yeah, you kind of did say that. And just for the record, I'm not greedy. If I somehow made over a million dollars, I would only keep about twenty five percent. I wouldn't want to become like those money-hungry bloodsucking bastards on Wall Street.

Please explain your definition of "a lot". I'd love to see you argue the bullshit lie that the majority of people with a good amount of money received it in inheritance.

I said a lot, not majority. A lot could be a hundred. A lot could be a thousand, or ten thousand, or a million, or two million, or so on. You can't deny that there's a good number of rich folk who have money simply through inheritance. Like most of my Sicilian family in California. Many of them alive today are simply rich because their grandfathers were leaders of a branch of the Mafia in the 1950s. A lot of them are probably still in the Mafia, though. Doesn't change the fact that they inherited their money.

They provide a service for a fee. People have a choice to pay that fee or to go somewhere else. What about car insurance companies? Life insurance?

What about all the stuff that they charge extra for, or don't cover at all due to some bullshit loophole in the contract? Like life insurance, for instance. If it's a suicide, most companies won't cover it. It's a loophole.

Yes, you've applied to more than three hundred jobs, sure.

Yes, three hundred applications. I live in a decently large city. There's well over three hundred places that are looking to hire... All of them are just not looking to hire me, unfortunately.

even though they earn it, by doing things like, well, WORKING

I don't know how to tell you this, Sassy, but working doesn't always work.

No, I just like the idea of pulling my own weight and not relying on somebody who has achieved more in their life than I have to carry me.

I never said anything about relying on the wealth of another. Once again, you fail to understand my point. My point is taxes. That has been my point this entire argument. It's not about the poor getting the tax money of the wealthy, having it redistributed, it's about what's fair. It's about these multi-billionaires, who pay very, very little taxes in proportion with their own income, due to the fact that the wealthy get significant tax breaks from the federal and state governments, whereas, the middle class always seems to be getting tax increases. That doesn't sound fair to me.

What were you saying about having a poor argument because you resort to insults?

That wasn't an insult. You are completely full of shit.

First, you have no credible evidence to suggest that most people with a lot of money got it from their parents.

Considering how many people are wealthy, and how many of those wealthy have children, and how many of those children have wealthy parents, I just figured it was safe to assume.

the poor do not get proportionally smaller tax cuts than the rich. They pay much less than the rich do -- not just in quantity, but in percentage.

And yet many still can't afford to pay taxes. Weird, huh?

Did you get that? You make $20,000/yr, and you'll get another $3600. You make $75,000/yr, and you will pay more than $17,000.

I wasn't talking about lower-upper-class being taxed higher amounts. I was talking more along the lines of people who make around $50,000,000 a year. I'm pretty sure if you make that much, increased taxes isn't really going to effect you much.

If they worked smart and hard, they would have made more money. It's a pretty simple concept.

Uh, no. Neither money nor labor works like that. Sure, working hard and smart can get you rich, but it doesn't always.

But who's responsible for your finances? I'll give you a hint: IT'S YOU.

Oh no I'm not. I didn't throw the country into recession, causing the business I worked at to lose money, therefore them not being able to afford to keep me around after I got hurt. I didn't take fifteen percent away from my father's hard-earned pension. And guess what, I didn't raise the unemployment rate. In times of recession, if somebody can't find work, and can't find money, it's not the fault of the individual. Do you see old pictures of the Great Depression, of all the homeless people lining the streets just to get a bole of soup thinking, "Those assholes should have worked harder and smarter. They shouldn't have trusted their money in banks. They wouldn't be homeless losers if they had done that. What a bunch of ****ing idiots." I don't know if you realize this, but something very similar to the Great Depression is occurring literally right now.

No thanks, kid.

That was actually a really good example. You should have read it. You're a ****ing idiot for not reading it, but I kind of already knew that about you.

And I suppose that when somebody in a hospital dies of a disease they've had for years, it's the hospital's fault, right?

No. It's all your fault, of course. Duh.

The government is supposed to protect the citizens. It's not the American government's job to babysit and hold hands of all 300-something-million citizens because some of them are too friggin' incompetent to take care of themselves.

It's kind of hard for people to take care of themselves when they're running low on money. I'm just saying.

And when they actually don't know what the hell they're talking about -- like claiming that the poor pay proportionally more taxes than the rich or get proportionally smaller tax cuts -- is it still an insult? Let's call a spade a spade here, kid.

No, I'd rather call a Spade a David. I never said that the middle-class doesn't get tax cuts. All I said was that the tax cuts given to the rich are much, much too large, and the tax cuts given to the middle-class are much, much too small. The point being, the rich can afford to pay more, whereas, the poor have trouble coming up with the money.

A very intriguing, and very bullshit, idea.

Yes, a very bullshit idea. I concur. I also slept with your wife, but that's a story for another time.

You believe that the government is hiding the cures for AIDS and cancer because they somehow make more money, and you try to call me brainwashed and closed-minded? Wow.

You were in the military, if I remember correctly. What do you think they do to military personnel during training? They break you down and reprogram you with all their government patriotic propaganda. So yes, you are brainwashed. I'm not. I never said that my opinion was fact. I was proposing an idea which I heard from a reliable source. That source being a very reliable reporter for the New York Times, whom I interviewed personally for a report in one of my classes. I'm not saying it's true, but it is an actual idea which is circulating through various other reliable sources, including the scientific and medical communities.

Of course not. You don't have the time to prove your argument. Why would you? You're a busy man, what with living with your parents and not working and all.

I never said I don't have any jobs to do. I just said I was unemployed. I'm actually painting the garage right now. I'm pretty sure that's considered work, considering that my grandfather made his living through painting. That, included with work I have to do for school, included with my routine exercises pretty much fills up a lot of my supposed "free time."

I have. Which is why I know that any insinuation that the government is holding the cures for cancer and AIDS is not only ignorant, it's ridiculously stupid.

You researched it? What did you use, Wikipedia again? Of course it won't be there. And if you try to Google it, conspiracy theory websites will pop up. You'll need a face to face interview with somebody reliable. That's how I got my information. You can't always find everything online or in a library.

You failed to address them because treatments that prolong life would make more money for the government, according to your wacky conspiracy theory, and thus would throw a wrench into your little hamster-wheel belief.

Nope. I didn't mention it because I wasn't talking about it. I am now, but that's only because you, for some strange reason which only Ron Killings, former two time NWA World Heavyweight Champion would be able to understand, brought it up.

They're still prolonging their lives. If they make more money from people dying than they do from them living, this would be counterproductive.

They actually make more money from treatment. Dying just adds to the money made, however, the longer the sick person stays alive, the more money they'll make. They must love Magic Johnson.

I'm not going to go through this childish game with you, kid. Post some credible evidence for your claims -- any of your claims -- or admit your ignorance and crawl away with your tail between your legs.

Oh, are those my only two options? Well, I'll tell you what, I'm not playing the argumentative side of arguing. I much rather prefer the persuasion side of arguing, and therefore, I don't need evidence, which is the exact reason why in all of our arguments, I have never posted evidence. Plus, there's also the simple fact that you're not a strong critical thinker. Even when presented with disproving evidence, you'll ignore it. And you can't be persuaded to think any differently, because you've already made up your mind about the topic at hand. The only way to beat you in an argument is to outlast you. I've done it many times before, and I'll sure as hell do it again with this one.

I don't care if you "felt insulted", that doesn't mean that I actually insulted you.

Actually, that does mean that you did indeed insult me. I don't know what your definition of "insulted" is, but it's not the right definition.

And you insulted your own intelligence -- or lack thereof -- by buying into conspiracy theories and failing to understand simple economics.

How about "no."

But only people with no argument resort to insults, right?

Sometimes, yeah. It's different here. I usually end up insulting you at some point because it's really hard to take you seriously, and therefore, it's pretty hard to take the argument seriously. It's nothing to do with you personally.

Believe it or not, some people are right when they disagree with me. You're just not one of them.

What a coincidence. You're not right when you disagree with me. That doesn't mean the universe is going to collapse in on itself, does it?

There's a difference between being fired and laid off. Damn, kid.

I don't care. If I'm laid off or if I'm fired, it still leads to the same result; unemployment.

According to whose morals?

Just some family morals. The way I was raised. You know, that old chestnut.

Not at all. If it's the best thing for them, then so be it.

In this case, it isn't the best thing for them. They've been living in that house for nearly twenty-five years, and they both still get around pretty good, too, for a 75 year old and an 81 year old. It would be wrong to sell their home.

It he needs help paying for it, it's not his house, it's the bank's. And if he's not a selfish man, maybe he should have passed that value on to his child, who is bitching because other people have more money than he does.

He doesn't need help paying for it. It's his house. And I'm not "bitching" because people have more money than I do. I'm merely arguing a simple debate of economics.

*GASP* OH NO! You might actually have to be uncomfortable! You might have to give up your bedroom at Mommy and Daddy's house and have somewhat cramped living quarters, like hundreds of millions of people before you have gone through! Oh, the humanity!

I'm disappointed in you. The house I live in is two bedroom. My parents have one, and I have the other. My brother took the finished half of the basement. There is no point in living in a cramped uncomfortable house when it would just be easier to wait out the storm. It's not selfishness. It's just the mere fact that living in a cramped house would significantly lower the living conditions of my parents, of my brother, of myself, but most importantly, of my elderly grandparents.

According to the birthday in your profile, you were eleven.

So I was... I guess I said I was twelve because I turned twelve that year. That was a mistake on my part. Thanks for the correction.

Really? Three thousand applications you've turned in?

Really? You actually did the math? Your original estimate of three hundred was way off then.

If we need money, we take what we can get. Most people don't work their dream job. I'm still waiting for a job to open up where I can watch sports, fish, shoot, and receive oral sex all while getting paid, but right now, I have to resort to what I can get paid for.

On my cousin's behalf, he recently got laid off from a career that he was only a year and a half into, which really screwed him, because a year and a half isn't much experience in his field. So he kind of desperately needs to get back into that field.

So you don't meet all qualifications, you don't have an education, you don't have skilled labor training, and you don't know how to do every job. Sounds to me like it is your fault you can't find a job. Although with three thousand applications, I am just shocked that you can't find anything.

I don't meet all the qualifications because it's virtually impossible to meet all the qualifications, I don't have an education because I'm working on getting a degree, I don't have skilled labor training because I have a bad back, and I don't know how to do every job because there are far too many jobs on earth to know how to do literally all of them. It sounds to me like it isn't my fault.

You "can't" because you prioritize your school over your work. That's perfectly fine, except when you bitch and moan about how you don't have money.

The only reason I complaining about not having money is because I pay out of my own pocket for my education. I do believe that that's a noble cause to work towards. Don't you?

And to get online and make long posts on internet message boards, of course.

It doesn't take nearly as long as you think to respond to you.

Many "demanding" jobs don't require lifting that much. Hell, mow lawns on the weekends.

I do mow lawns. I can only do so much though, before I pass out and die of heat exhaustion. And it only pays so much.

[T.G. Oskar]

To put it simply ... hell no. Of course not. Why the hell would I support that? I want everybody to pay their fair shares -- no more, no less. That means nobody gets out of it, be they rich or poor.

Good to know that. Depending on how you see it, giving tax cuts to that population may seem counter-intuitive, since if you look at it closely, it almost means they pay less in taxes than the common man.

Of course, if you look at it on the amount they have to pay, it's a pretty hefty amount (compare 7% of someone whose income is, say, $12,000 to someone who must spend 10% of $300,000 yearly income on taxes), but it looks very differently when you take it on percentage.

I presume you're familiar with how things work in the IRS, so I'll save the description; I might be a bit off considering how things work there and how they work here (residents of PR don't file an IRS tax return unless they have assets in the mainland; the tax return is self-managed). As usual, every single individual has to pay a specific amount of their annual income in contributions based on tables and guidelines. As usual, there are credits and exemptions that are applied to that contribution as adjustments (this includes both tax cuts for the rich, and credits and exemptions for poor people; in effect, both sides have some sort of tax cut through credits and exemptions). And as usual, these lead into a bit of a headache and either a tax refund or a tax payment.

However, the extent and weight of those credits are what make things different. Some credits are general (such as the credits for dependants, or however it is called by the IRS), and some are specific (exemptions for the possession of land, for example). Very few exemptions often apply to the people within the low-middle class, usually the dependant or single person credits, as well as any relatively minor or one-time credit present. The wealthier people, capable of doing some investment, receive a larger scale credit for that, and usually are capable of claiming other credits and exemptions that people of a lower income cannot.

So far, I've just laid down the rules of how it works, right? Perhaps yes, perhaps not.

Problem lies when the meaning over that credit gets lost, and effectively you're reducing their tax contribution for virtually nothing. This applies mostly to corporations, but the wealthy individual may find a technicism in the letter of the credit that allows them to exploit it with minimal effort. Say, as an example, that you as an individual are given a credit for a large-scale donation. It would be fair if the donation would strain your full income to the point where you simply wouldn't be capable of living (not withholding your lifestyle), or at a bare minimum if your income would take a dire hit. Now, let's say that donation is more of an investment, since by making that donation, you perhaps gain access to the Board of Directors of that company. For legal purposes, it's a "donation" but it would really become an investment, or a bought share. If the results of that investment, placed as a donation, were to generate more money than what you originally invested. The purpose of such credit would be lost in the meaning. Furthermore, the method used would not constitute fraud, although, IRL, it might probably be fraud; were it to be fraud, there's a chance that the general income of the individual may not take a serious or even considerable hit depending on the case.

Now lets say that, by consecutively applying such credits lost in meaning, the percentage of the contribution by the wealthier individual becomes lower than that of the average income individual. They contribute as usual, but the contribution of the wealthier individual is lower in percentage; the hit to their income is lesser than to the average individual. That is mostly unfair, and leading to the next point.

What would happen if, instead of giving a conditional tax cut, the tax cut was merely devoid of any meaning? No "get me more jobs and I give you a cut" or the like. That's what most of these people would be arguing; while most of the credits so far usually have a specific condition, those tax cuts weren't mentioned to have any other circumstance other than the apparent "they're rich, hence we cut their taxes". Which, I fear, is what you're mostly supporting; they make more money, so why bother asking them to pay for more? Eventually, without monitoring those tax cuts, the 5% of the population with nearly 80% of the country's income will pay 1% less than the 95% of the population with the 20% remaining income, just because they are successful and they deserve it.

How would that tie in? Well, considering that the idea of the credits and exemptions are to determine your exact contribution, I fail to see how they are giving me money from fellow taxpayers instead of returning the excess income they took with a flat percentage tax. Unless you think of it as a bank, where you pretty much get the paper notes from other people.

Reason I mention this is the inherent arrogance in the concept of "because I earn more, I should not contribute more" coupled with the concept of tax cuts without a specific meaning, existing only to "level" the contribution of the wealthier individuals without comparing the effect of existing credits that may end up setting the contribution lower than the average individual's income.

In either case, I do want to elaborate on something, which I'd expect the President to consider given circumstances (if he stays true to the word that he'll listen to any good idea). Mostly, on the concept of "gatekeeping", which is a practice I find a bit archaic and rather dangerous, since unless you can get the choice with a very good doctor you can earn your trust (such as your choice internist, family doctor or general practitioner), the concept fails horribly. This method of health care is one I don't agree much with, given that it's mostly a leap of faith, and given the usual results.

Though...that's a good question. If not Obamacare, then what? It can't be what's already in here, since getting healthcare insurance will be increasingly more difficult to reach, and medical costs will keep rising. Getting one more job and potentially placing a risk on your health for physical overexertion (or driving a wedge on a relationship) to get a decent healthcare insurance plan while paying the bills isn't my idea of "effective" healthcare. But if what's already offered sucks badly, and what's currently sucks badly, then what? I've seen a lot of criticism, yet no options (or at least not a discussion where the options would be visible enough not to be driven by the conversation), and that's mostly like doing nothing.

[Alpha]

Steal Definition | Definition of Steal at Dictionary.com
steal
–verb (used with object)
1. to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, esp. secretly or by force

Taxes are taken out of every paycheck before you get it. If you make claims on your taxes to the extent that you owe the government more money come April 15, and you don't pay it, they come take it by force, or by threat of force. That is stealing.

It's very easy to argue the exact opposite using the same definition. The government has a right to 'take' our money because it alone provides us with necessary services. Do you use the footpath outside your house? The road? The streetlights? I don't know about you, but that seems to me a good deal; and not something a mugger would be nice enough to do.

And it has permission insofar as you can vote for someone who states a level of taxation you could be happy with. If you don't want it taxed that bad, then go live in Somalia, or put your money in a Swiss bank account.

They must use force on occasion because taxes are necessary. A robber doesn't use force because the loot is neccessary. Plus, states have a legal monopoly on power, and for good reason, otherwise you'd have the mafia knocking for protection.

Yeah, you kind of did say that. And just for the record, I'm not greedy. If I somehow made over a million dollars, I would only keep about twenty five percent. I wouldn't want to become like those money-hungry bloodsucking bastards on Wall Street.

I feel the exact same way. I do think there is something terribly greedy (or even evil) about squandering one's money away when there are hundreds of millions of starving people, or even 47 million uninsured Americans calling out for a basic right. One can argue all one likes about how they 'deserve' to have that money 'because they worked for it' (it's more a matter of circumstance, anyway), but no one deserves to live in poverty, no matter how much they did or didn't 'try'.

[RagnaToad]

I dont really like obama... people told me i dont like him cause hes black but thats not the reason i dont like him cause he lied to the country and couldnt do half of what he said he could in the first place.. but you im not going to try and push you into not liking him thats just my reason. so i probably would have something to say about his health care program but im not surprised may as well move to canada and marry a canadian and get there awesome health care. just my opinion

Hm. You managed to post something that doesn't say anything about the Obama healthcare program.

What do you mean with 'he lied'?

What do you mean with 'couldnt do half of what he said'? He's not even been in office for one year and you're talking about it as if it's all in the past.

And what the hell do you expect from him, if almost all republicans are against any change he wants to bring, together with some democrats?

And about moving to Canada. Sure. Might as well move to Belgium. Or the Netherlands. Or Denmark.

[Sasquatch]

Their tax cuts are still larger. I don't care if it's proportionate or not, them getting larger tax cuts is making them richer, and us getting proportionately less tax cuts is making us poorer.

First, you're not getting proportionately less tax cuts. You're getting proportionately MORE. Tell you what, go up to your mommy and ask her to describe to you what "proportionate" means. After she explains it to you a dozen times or so, you might understand it enough to come back to this conversation.

And it's not a situation of "making them richer" and "making them poorer", it's a situation of NOT forcing them to be poorer while redistributing their money to make you richer.

You mean achieving more financially, I'm assuming.

No shit, really? Damn kid, you're good.

America may not be a socialist state, but it sure as hell does have some pretty damn socialist qualities. I don't see how a few more would hurt.

That's because you're not very smart. (See, now I'm insulting your intelligence. Don't feel bad, though -- I'm insulting my own intelligence just by carrying on this argument with you.) If you were, you'd realize that government control/intervention causes many more problems than it creates. Mortgage downturn? Inflation? Forest fires? All problems that affect America today, all caused by federal regulations.

No, I'm really not. What I've been saying has nothing to do with a hand-out to the poor.

You're advocating that the rich be taxed proportionately more and that the poor be taxed proportionately less. Even to a higher extreme than we have now, where a large group of "the poor" actually MAKE money from their fellow taxpayers. That's a handout, kid. That's income redistribution.

The rich should get increases on taxes merely for the simple fact that they can afford to pay those increases ...

And people that have more muscle should be required to do more physical work for the same pay, shouldn't they? I mean hell, if we're hauling buckets of rocks, it shouldn't matter if me and the six-foot-five, two-hundred-fifty-pound guy next to me do the same amount of work ... no no, we shouldn't be paid the same. He CAN do more work, so let's suck all the work we can out of him while I sit back with a cold beer after a few hours.

Yeah, you kind of did say that.

Again, not once did I say that those who aren't rich didn't earn their money. Is there anything else you'd like to pull out of your ass while you're at it, or are you secure enough to argue against what I actually said yet?

What I did say was that rich people earned their money and there's no right to steal it from them on the premise that they didn't. Poor people earn their money, too, as long as they don't get it illegally. They just earn a lesser amount. Are you getting this yet kid, or do I need to draw it in crayon?

And just for the record, I'm not greedy.

You want the people who have been more successful in life to pay your taxes, but no, not greedy at all.

If I somehow made over a million dollars, I would only keep about twenty five percent.

I hope you wouldn't want to keep much, because you might end up with half of it after taxes anyway.

I wouldn't want to become like those money-hungry bloodsucking bastards on Wall Street.

Because everybody that wants to keep the money they earn is a "money-hungry bloodsucking bastard"? No, no wealth envy there at all ...

I said a lot, not majority. A lot could be a hundred. A lot could be a thousand, or ten thousand, or a million, or two million, or so on. You can't deny that there's a good number of rich folk who have money simply through inheritance.

What's your point, kid? People that earn a lot of money have the right to leave that money to their children. This doesn't mean at all that any substantial number of people who you deem as "rich" have been given their money instead of worked for it.

What about all the stuff that they charge extra for, or don't cover at all due to some bullshit loophole in the contract?

Like what?

Like life insurance, for instance. If it's a suicide, most companies won't cover it. It's a loophole.

Because people try committing suicide to get their life insurance money for their family. This is clearly stated in the paperwork to GET life insurance, so it's not like nobody knows about it. They provide a service to their customer -- if the customer doesn't like the service, they don't have to pay for it.

Yes, three hundred applications. I live in a decently large city. There's well over three hundred places that are looking to hire... All of them are just not looking to hire me, unfortunately.

Maybe you didn't notice that I was calling you out on the bullshit claim that you applied to at least three hundred jobs and have not gotten one response.

I don't know how to tell you this, Sassy, but working doesn't always work.

Working makes you money, kid. And if you can go a year without finding a job -- any job, anything you can do that will pay you money -- in America, you might as well just off yourself, because you are fucked at life.

I never said anything about relying on the wealth of another. Once again, you fail to understand my point. My point is taxes. That has been my point this entire argument.

Of course, your point is about taxes -- that the rich should pay much more than their fair share and that the poor should pay much less than their fair share. I know your wealth envy gets in the way of any rational argument you may attempt to make, but even I can understand the bullshit you spout.

It's not about the poor getting the tax money of the wealthy, having it redistributed, it's about what's fair.

Please tell me how one person paying half of their salary in taxes and another getting money from taxes illustrate "fairness".

It's about income redistribution, kid. You know it, and I know it -- or at least you should know it, but then again, you're not very bright. You are advocating one financial class of people being taxed out their ass while another isn't taxed at all, or is barely taxed.

It's about these multi-billionaires, who pay very, very little taxes in proportion with their own income, due to the fact that the wealthy get significant tax breaks from the federal and state governments ...

Hahahahahahah. Please tell me kid, what sort of "tax breaks" do they get?

I'd like to see this. Somehow I know that you'll dodge this part of my post because you have absolutely nothing to respond to it with (except for some immature remark or insult), but I want to toss this out there anyway.

What sort of "tax breaks" do "the rich" get just for being rich?

... whereas, the middle class always seems to be getting tax increases. That doesn't sound fair to me.

It wouldn't be, if it actually happened. Unfortunately for your pathetic little argument, it doesn't.

That wasn't an insult. You are completely full of shit.

Except that you haven't proven it -- you haven't proven anything, as a matter of fact. So keep saying I'm full of shit, while I'm the only one using facts (or logic).

See kid, this is an internet argument. And while most internet arguments are petty and stupid and filled with trolls -- this one falling into that category as well, but of course you will ignorantly accuse me of being a troll -- some actually help people decide on things. Now, when I'm involved in one of these little debates -- whether it's online or in real life -- I know that, chances are, I'm not going to change the mind of the person I'm talking to. They're stuck in their ways enough that no matter how many times I show them how friggin' ignorant they are, they won't change their mind. Other people, however, may do just that -- others involved, others looking in on it, may be sitting on the fence, may be wavering in their ideas, or may admit that they don't know enough about a topic to form an opinion (that last one is what you should be doing, but instead you don't know enough about it but keep spouting bullshit to support one side anyway). So while I won't change the mind of the person I'm talking to, there are people looking in on the conversation that will, if nothing else, learn. And what's the best way to support my argument as opposed to yours? To show how damn stupid your argument is. When your argument doesn't hold up to facts or logic, people looking in might think, "well this guy's a little rude, but the other guy's just full of shit, claiming that the government holds the cure to AIDS and cancer and that the rich should be taxed a shitload more just because 'they can afford it'. What a dumbass! I'm gonna side with the first guy." It's happened quite a few times, including here on TFF.

Now, I could just flat-out attack your petty little argument, but I think you're doing a good enough job of discrediting yourself.

Considering how many people are wealthy, and how many of those wealthy have children, and how many of those children have wealthy parents, I just figured it was safe to assume.

So rich people have kids. And? Are you admitting yet that you're trying to pull the "rich people got it from their parents" argument out of your ass, or are you still clinging to it like a hobo to a ham sandwich?

And yet many still can't afford to pay taxes. Weird, huh?

Ain't my problem. You take a family that can't afford to pay its taxes, and I'll trim some fat from their budget so they can. I've lived off of frozen pizza and ramen noodles and spaghetti and beans for months at a time, with no cable TV or internet or video games, I know it can be done.

I wasn't talking about lower-upper-class being taxed higher amounts. I was talking more along the lines of people who make around $50,000,000 a year.

Fifty million dollars a year ... what is that, maybe half a dozen people in America?

I'm pretty sure if you make that much, increased taxes isn't really going to effect you much.

And if a girl is a slut or a prostitute, she wouldn't be hurt by being raped as much as a virgin would. Does that mean it's alright to rape whores, because it really wouldn't affect them as much?

Uh, no. Neither money nor labor works like that. Sure, working hard and smart can get you rich, but it doesn't always.

It does if they work hard and smart enough. Either way, it still makes them more money.

Oh no I'm not.

Alright kid, keep claiming that you're not responsible for your own money problems. I already have enough money sucked out of my paycheck for lazy bastards who can't take responsibility for themselves, might as well add you to the list of bums who prefer to suck off the successful instead of doing things for themselves.

I don't know if you realize this, but something very similar to the Great Depression is occurring literally right now.

Sure, very similar -- if you mean not at all as extreme. This is a recession, not a depression. How long do you have to wait in line to get a "bole of soup"?

That was actually a really good example. You should have read it.

Because I care so much about your petty little life, right?

You're a ****ing idiot for not reading it, but I kind of already knew that about you.

But resorting to insults means you don't have an argument, right kid? So wait, sorry, that's only when somebody other than you does it.

It's kind of hard for people to take care of themselves when they're running low on money. I'm just saying.

They they should do what they need to to have enough money to take care of themselves. It is not, and has never been, the United States federal government's job to finacially support every one of its citizens.

I never said that the middle-class doesn't get tax cuts. All I said was that the tax cuts given to the rich are much, much too large, and the tax cuts given to the middle-class are much, much too small.

And you are pathetically wrong in that statement -- as I have told you, shown you, and proven to you with numbers from the IRS. Why you still believe that bullshit, there's only one reason -- stupidity.

The point being, the rich can afford to pay more, whereas, the poor have trouble coming up with the money.

Yes, they can afford it -- because they worked for their money. If we start saying, "well, if you can afford to pay more, you will, so that everybody's equal," who will ever want to work to become rich? Why put in the extra work or school when you'll just have your extra money sucked away from you anyway?

I also slept with your wife, but that's a story for another time.

I don't have a wife. I have a dog. I don't know how you got to him, but hey, as long as he's found something to hump that won't have puppies, I'm alright with it.

What do you think they do to military personnel during training? They break you down and reprogram you with all their government patriotic propaganda. So yes, you are brainwashed.

Do you have any clue what military training entails? No, of course you don't. Because you would never have the courage or the strength to go through it.

I never said that my opinion was fact.

Neither did I. My support for something does not alone make it fact -- on the contrary, I research things to ensure that they are facts before I support them.

I was proposing an idea which I heard from a reliable source. That source being a very reliable reporter for the New York Times, whom I interviewed personally for a report in one of my classes.

You claim that you personally interviewed a New York Times reporter, and that this reporter for the New York Times was somehow "reliable", and that this New York Times reporter told you that the government is hiding the cures for AIDS and cancer?

I never said I don't have any jobs to do.

If you don't get paid, they're not jobs.

That, included with work I have to do for school, included with my routine exercises pretty much fills up a lot of my supposed "free time."

Gee, I wonder how people work themselves through college, taking eighteen credits and working forty hours a week while still maintaining a high GPA and working out ... Well, for one, they probably didn't get online and prove their stupidity for voicing support for conspiracy theories and disproportionate taxation.

You researched it? What did you use, Wikipedia again?

When did I use Wikipedia before? I like it because it's an easy source, but one must go through the sources at the bottom for any aspect of reliability.

Of course it won't be there. And if you try to Google it, conspiracy theory websites will pop up.

You mean that if I researched a conspiracy theory, conspiracy theory websites will pop up? No way!

You'll need a face to face interview with somebody reliable. That's how I got my information.

Don't research it and look for facts, find some other dumbass who believes in the same bullshit that you do, THAT's where you'll get the REAL scoop!

Nope. I didn't mention it because I wasn't talking about it.

And you weren't talking about it because, after saying the exact opposite, you knew that your arguments didn't stand up to logic, so you dropped them.

They actually make more money from treatment. Dying just adds to the money made ...

Odd how you claimed earlier that, "the government loves when people are sick, and the most certainly love when people die, because as everybody who's lost somebody knows, it costs more to die than it does to live [sic]." Of course, it's not unexpected at all that you change your argument when you realize how shitty it is.

Oh, are those my only two options?

Prettymuch. Back up your arguments, or don't, and prove that they're only opinions from some little child who has no facts to back him up.

Well, I'll tell you what, I'm not playing the argumentative side of arguing. I much rather prefer the persuasion side of arguing, and therefore, I don't need evidence, which is the exact reason why in all of our arguments, I have never posted evidence.

Really? I just thought it was because all of your arguments are complete bullshit and it's impossible to find credible evidence to support ideas that are so pathetically stupid, such as "the government is keeping the cures for cancer and AIDS a secret". Of course, if it's your goal to argue without the obligation of backing up your arguments with factual information, I suppose it becomes much easier to make your bullshit claims.

Even when presented with disproving evidence, you'll ignore it.

Can't tell until you try it, kid.

The only way to beat you in an argument is to outlast you. I've done it many times before, and I'll sure as hell do it again with this one.

So you continue spouting your bullshit -- the bullshit that has absolutely no factual backing, no logical or rational support, no way to stand up to any sensible debate -- until I get tired of it enough to say, "this kid isn't smart enough to learn," and drop it, and you consider that a victory?

I've met plenty of people that are that petty and childish before ... just none that are arrogant enough to admit it.

Actually, that does mean that you did indeed insult me.

If I didn't insult you, I didn't insult you, no matter what you "feel". I don't know how many times I have to explain this to you. Just because your little feelings got hurt doesn't mean I insulted you -- if I hurt your little feelings intentionally, then yes, that would be me insulting you.

Of course, now that you have proven to have absolutely nothing (including maturity or common sense) holding you back from insulting me, I have no problem telling you how incredibly stupid you are. There, now I insulted your intelligence.

I don't know what your definition of "insulted" is, but it's not the right definition.

It's not the same way of thinking that you use, so it's not the right one ... but no, you don't claim that you opinion is fact or anything, right kid?

What a coincidence. You're not right when you disagree with me.

Actually, from what I've seen of your pathetic arguments and foolish ideas, anybody who disagrees with you is right.

I was simply saying that I have never believed that disagreeing with me makes a person wrong. There have been many occasions -- including here on TFF, including in this thread -- where I have been wrong, and it has been pointed out and proven to me, and I have changed my opinion to fit the facts.

You would have to have some facts behind you before that could ever happen.

I don't care. If I'm laid off or if I'm fired, it still leads to the same result; unemployment.

There's a difference between being laid off and getting fired, kid. Once you get out of mommy and daddy's house and get a job, you might understand this.

In this case, it isn't the best thing for them. They've been living in that house for nearly twenty-five years, and they both still get around pretty good, too, for a 75 year old and an 81 year old. It would be wrong to sell their home.

And if your father prioritizes his parents' own home above his other financial necessities, that's up to him -- he has no right to complain that he doesn't have enough money when he's paying for things that aren't necessities.

I'm not "bitching" because people have more money than I do. I'm merely arguing a simple debate of economics.

Your stand in the "debate" is that people with more money should pay more so you get to pay less, even though the people with more money are already paying much more than their fair share.

I'm disappointed in you.

Awwww, shucks. Some child on the internet is disappointed in me? How will I sleep tonight?

The house I live in is two bedroom. My parents have one, and I have the other. My brother took the finished half of the basement. There is no point in living in a cramped uncomfortable house when it would just be easier to wait out the storm.

Of course, there's also that idea that with the money from your grandparents' house, your father would be able to afford a larger house with more bedrooms, or a bigger basement to convert. Or they could convert more of their basement to livable space and move you down there. Hell, that'd give you something to do, too. My father is now in the house he plans to stay in until he retires, and he's already walled in part of the garage/carport to make a utility/laundry room, they're redoing the entire house from floor to ceiling, then furnishing the basement to make it into a little efficiency apartment. They are by no means rich, but there have been times when nine people have been in that small house -- we weren't comfortable, no, but it worked.

So I was... I guess I said I was twelve because I turned twelve that year. That was a mistake on my part. Thanks for the correction.

You're welcome. And you're welcome for this next correction, too -- your profile says you were born in July of '89, correct? That means that you would have turned 12 in 2001. Bush was elected in November of 2000. So you were 11 when he was elected, and didn't turn 12 until after the change in year, eight months after Bush was elected. Your mistake here would have only been slightly amusing if your first sentence to me in this thread had not included, "you need to learn a little bit about politics."

Really? You actually did the math? Your original estimate of three hundred was way off then.

Your original claim was that you have filled out at least one a day for the past ten months -- ten months, times thirty-or-so days in each, times one application per day, that would be around three hundred, plus a couple more. Your next claim was that you have filled out and submitted at least ten applications per day. Ten months, times thirty-or-so days in each, times ten applications per day, that makes three thousand. So you are claiming that you have filled out at least three thousand applications in the last ten months and have never even gotten a phone call back. Your first claim was bullshit enough, now you're just adding to it. Or, more accurately, multiplying it by ten.

On my cousin's behalf, he recently got laid off from a career that he was only a year and a half into, which really screwed him, because a year and a half isn't much experience in his field. So he kind of desperately needs to get back into that field.

It'd be nice for him to get back into his field, but he can make money doing a lot more than only jobs related to his career field. If somebody needs money, they take what they can get, it's not a situation of "oh, I won't like doing that" or "well that won't advance my career", it's a situation of "I can make money? I'm in."

I don't meet all the qualifications because it's virtually impossible to meet all the qualifications, I don't have an education because I'm working on getting a degree, I don't have skilled labor training because I have a bad back, and I don't know how to do every job because there are far too many jobs on earth to know how to do literally all of them. It sounds to me like it isn't my fault.

Of course it sounds to you like it isn't your fault. You don't meet the qualifications, you have no education, you have no training, and you have no experience -- but you're just a victim of circumstance, right? I mean, nobody with only a high-school education ever gets hired to do anything for money.

The only reason I complaining about not having money is because I pay out of my own pocket for my education. I do believe that that's a noble cause to work towards. Don't you?

A lot of people do, and a lot of people are broke while they do it. It's an investment.

It doesn't take nearly as long as you think to respond to you.

Well, at least you don't have to spend any time thinking up a logical or factual post.

I do mow lawns. I can only do so much though, before I pass out and die of heat exhaustion.

Drink water.

And it only pays so much.

Do more of it.

It's very easy to argue the exact opposite using the same definition. The government has a right to 'take' our money because it alone provides us with necessary services.

It alone provides us with them because it restricts the right of private businesses to provide them.

Do you use the footpath outside your house? The road? The streetlights? I don't know about you, but that seems to me a good deal; and not something a mugger would be nice enough to do.

Just because it seems implausible doesn't mean it's not an applicable comparison. I mean really, I'd like an answer -- if somebody forces you to give them money, then does good things with it -- things you may actually want them to do -- did they steal your money, or did they not?

And it has permission insofar as you can vote for someone who states a level of taxation you could be happy with.

Since when does mob rule apply? When does the will of the majority get to trample individual rights?

They must use force on occasion because taxes are necessary. A robber doesn't use force because the loot is neccessary.

How do you know? Maybe he's completely broke and he's using the money to buy food for his family. Maybe he's a drug addict, and without a score, he'll go into shock from withdrawals and die.

Plus, states have a legal monopoly on power, and for good reason, otherwise you'd have the mafia knocking for protection.

States have a legal monopoly on power -- and we know that nothing bad has ever happened as a result of the government having unrestricted power, right?

I feel the exact same way. I do think there is something terribly greedy (or even evil) about squandering one's money away when there are hundreds of millions of starving people ...

It's evil to NOT give your money away? I can see selfish, maybe, but evil? It's evil for somebody to spend their own money as they see fit?

... or even 47 million uninsured Americans calling out for a basic right.

Health insurance is not a right. It's certainly not a Constitutional right. Even if you consider healthcare to be a right, this "right" is not restricted by not having health insurance.

One can argue all one likes about how they 'deserve' to have that money 'because they worked for it' (it's more a matter of circumstance, anyway), but no one deserves to live in poverty, no matter how much they did or didn't 'try'.

Most people deserve to live exactly how they live, be they rich or poor. I don't deserve to live in a mansion because I didn't earn it, and I don't expect to. On the other hand, I don't deserve to live in a box, because I earned much more than that. If I made bad decisions, squandered my money, screwed myself over to get fired from my job, etc., etc., then I would deserve a much lower quality of life than I enjoy now.

T.G. Oskar, you have an interesting post, but I've got to go watch football. I'll get to it.

[Clint]

Tell you what, go up to your mommy and ask her to describe to you what "proportionate" means. After she explains it to you a dozen times or so, you might understand it enough to come back to this conversation.

I wouldn't go and ask my mom, because I'm actually at your house, banging your wife. How about I just ask her, eh?

And it's not a situation of "making them richer" and "making them poorer", it's a situation of NOT forcing them to be poorer while redistributing their money to make you richer.

What's forcing them to be poorer? Bringing their total net worth from one hundred million dollars to ninety-eight million dollars? Yeah, that's a huge difference, especially for somebody with that ridiculously large amount of money.

No shit, really? Damn kid, you're good.

I know.

That's because you're not very smart. (See, now I'm insulting your intelligence....

No you're not. If you were insulting my intelligence, then I would feel that my intelligence was being insulted. Since I don't, then you didn't.

Even to a higher extreme than we have now, where a large group of "the poor" actually MAKE money from their fellow taxpayers. That's a handout, kid. That's income redistribution.

Income should be redistributed. It's not fair that so many people have morbidly obese amounts of income whereas so many more people live in poverty, lower, or middle-class.

And people that have more muscle should be required to do more physical work for the same pay, shouldn't they?

No. Did I ever tell you your examples completely suck?

Again, not once did I say that those who aren't rich didn't earn their money.

Yes, you kind of did. You said that the wealthy earned their money, while simultaneously making no mention of anybody besides the wealthy.

What I did say was that rich people earned their money and there's no right to steal it from them on the premise that they didn't.

Not all rich people earned their money, just like how not all poor people earned their money.

You want the people who have been more successful in life to pay your taxes, but no, not greedy at all.

Who says they're more successful? They should be forced to pay a higher percentage of taxes proportionately to that of lower and middle-class, merely for the fact that they have more money and will be able to pay those taxes easier (while at the same time bitching because they're loosing one million dollars net worth out of a total two hundred million.)

I hope you wouldn't want to keep much, because you might end up with half of it after taxes anyway.

That actually depends on how I get the money.

Because everybody that wants to keep the money they earn is a "money-hungry bloodsucking bastard"? No, no wealth envy there at all ...

Think about Wall Street, the banks, the automobile industry. The boys on top got us into this mess because they're all bloodsucking money hungry bastards. That's not wealth envy, that's politics.

People that earn a lot of money have the right to leave that money to their children. This doesn't mean at all that any substantial number of people who you deem as "rich" have been given their money instead of worked for it.

So what you're saying is that those kids that the parents leave money to earned that money? How, by being born and outliving their parents? You said that the wealthy "earned their money," and now you're suddenly denying that rich people have children? Where do you get the nerve?

Like what?

Like things that cost extra, or things that aren't covered at all, that shouldn't cost extra or should be covered. Things like that. If you need a specific example, just look at your own health insurance.

Because people try committing suicide to get their life insurance money for their family.

Now you're trying to say that everybody who commits suicide does it for the insurance benefits. Where do you get the nerve?

Maybe you didn't notice that I was calling you out on the bullshit claim that you applied to at least three hundred jobs and have not gotten one response.

Fine, call it a "bullshit claim." I really don't have to explain my life to you. Everybody's got an opinion, and yours just so happen to always be wrong.

Working makes you money, kid. And if you can go a year without finding a job -- any job, anything you can do that will pay you money -- in America, you might as well just off yourself, because you are fucked at life.

I never said I wasn't making money. I merely said I've been unemployed. You assume too much.

Please tell me how one person paying half of their salary in taxes and another getting money from taxes illustrate "fairness".

I thought for sure that I was talking about the wealthy and the lower and middle-classes, not the wealthy and the state. I never said the commonwealth should receive the money that the wealthy pays in taxes.

you're not very bright.

Well I slept with your wife.

I'd like to see this. Somehow I know that you'll dodge this part of my post because you have absolutely nothing to respond to it with (except for some immature remark or insult), but I want to toss this out there anyway.

What sort of "tax breaks" do "the rich" get just for being rich?

They don't get tax breaks "just for being rich." They merely get incredibly larger tax breaks then everybody else.

So keep saying I'm full of shit, while I'm the only one using facts (or logic).

Facts and logic, huh? So that's what "running your mouth" is termed now is it?

Now, I could just flat-out attack your petty little argument, but I think you're doing a good enough job of discrediting yourself.

I still slept with your wife.

So rich people have kids. And?

So, you don't think that rich people have children?

Ain't my problem. You take a family that can't afford to pay its taxes, and I'll trim some fat from their budget so they can.

I didn't say it was your problem. Nothing is your problem, because you don't give a damn about anything. You don't understand, some people can't trim their budget. For example, people with multiple young children.

Fifty million dollars a year ... what is that, maybe half a dozen people in America?

Way more than half a dozen. There's about two dozen people in little old Delaware who make way over fifty million dollars. The DuPont family. Now I wonder how many people on that level of wealth reside in New York, or Los Angeles, or Chicago, or Las Vegas. I'm pretty sure it's way over half a dozen people.

And if a girl is a slut or a prostitute, she wouldn't be hurt by being raped as much as a virgin would. Does that mean it's alright to rape whores, because it really wouldn't affect them as much?

You calling all prostitutes whores now? You should respect prostitutes. They're carrying on the second oldest profession known to man.

It does if they work hard and smart enough. Either way, it still makes them more money.

No, it can go either way, but working harder and smarter doesn't always make you money. Nobody could possibly work harder and smarter than my dad and his dad. I could describe to you their work habits, how good they were at their jobs, and so on, but like I said before, I don't have to explain my life to you.

might as well add you to the list of bums who prefer to suck off the successful instead of doing things for themselves.

Your wife's sucking something out of me.

Sure, very similar -- if you mean not at all as extreme. This is a recession, not a depression. How long do you have to wait in line to get a "bole of soup"?

What part of "something very similar is happening literally right now," didn't you understand? I didn't say, "literally the exact same thing is happening."

Because I care so much about your petty little life, right?

You should, since I'm banging your wife.

But resorting to insults means you don't have an argument, right kid? So wait, sorry, that's only when somebody other than you does it.

If you noticed, in my first few posts, I didn't insult you at all, but after a while, it's just wrong not to insult you. I'm doing you a favor by insulting you, because you need to learn the truth, and the truth is that you're a ****ing idiot.

It is not, and has never been, the United States federal government's job to finacially support every one of its citizens.

It's their job to regulate the economy, though. They've been doing a bang up job, huh?

I don't have a wife. I have a dog.

Did I ask to know about your sad pathetic life? I missed the part where you, being a loser with now wife, only a dog, is my problem. And to say that by me saying that I slept with your wife, that I slept with your dog, what do you think that says about you? I'm pretty sure that's animal abuse.

Do you have any clue what military training entails? No, of course you don't. Because you would never have the courage or the strength to go through it.

Really? I don't have the courage? Well, I'll tell you what, if World War III breaks out, not another proxy war where nobody has any idea whatsoever what they're fighting for except for what the government implants in their heads, then I'll see you out there. Until then, you keep on being a brainwashed military puppet.

You claim that you personally interviewed a New York Times reporter, and that this reporter for the New York Times was somehow "reliable", and that this New York Times reporter told you that the government is hiding the cures for AIDS and cancer?

What did I say, smart guy? It's an actual theory going around, not a face value fact.

If you don't get paid, they're not jobs.

Actually, yes they are. I can give you plenty of examples of jobs where nobody gets paid. One is called volunteering.

Gee, I wonder how people work themselves through college, taking eighteen credits and working forty hours a week while still maintaining a high GPA and working out ...

I never said I work out. I said I exercise. Working out implies weight training. I hate weight training. And I'm not taking eighteen credits, I'm taking thirteen. And at the moment, I'm not working. Stop assuming that you know me.

Don't research it and look for facts, find some other dumbass who believes in the same bullshit that you do, THAT's where you'll get the REAL scoop!

I never said I believed it. It's merely a possibility.

And you weren't talking about it because, after saying the exact opposite, you knew that your arguments didn't stand up to logic, so you dropped them.

No, I wasn't talking about it because it never came to mind, until you kind of threw it down my throat.

Of course, it's not unexpected at all that you change your argument when you realize how shitty it is.

I didn't change my argument. I mentioned that cancer and AIDS treatments are a business, which should have implied that the government got money from them. And since those people are going to most likely die anyway, dying adds to the amount of income received. Kind of a final bonus to the government.

Can't tell until you try it, kid.

I've given you credible research in a previous argument. You, however, either couldn't find it, because you're lame, or you didn't except it, because you're a bum.

So you continue spouting your bullshit -- the bullshit that has absolutely no factual backing, no logical or rational support, no way to stand up to any sensible debate -- until I get tired of it enough to say, "this kid isn't smart enough to learn," and drop it, and you consider that a victory?

It's not my fault you give up so easily.

I've met plenty of people that are that petty and childish before ... just none that are arrogant enough to admit it.

You're just pissed off because I don't play your little games. Go boo-hoo to your mommy, kid.

If I didn't insult you, I didn't insult you, no matter what you "feel". I don't know how many times I have to explain this to you. Just because your little feelings got hurt doesn't mean I insulted you -- if I hurt your little feelings intentionally, then yes, that would be me insulting you.

Have you ever heard of unintentionally insulted? That's when somebody doesn't mean to insult you, but you're insulted anyway. Doesn't that sound familiar, eh?

I have no problem telling you how incredibly stupid you are. There, now I insulted your intelligence.

I'm not insulted, so no you didn't.

Actually, from what I've seen of your pathetic arguments and foolish ideas, anybody who disagrees with you is right.

And would that be because you're always right? Don't answer that, because you are always right. In fact, you told yourself that when you woke up this morning.

There's a difference between being laid off and getting fired, kid. Once you get out of mommy and daddy's house and get a job, you might understand this.

Like I said, I don't care. No idea why you keep bringing that up.

he has no right to complain that he doesn't have enough money when he's paying for things that aren't necessities.

Things that aren't necessities? My grandparents having a roof over their heads isn't necessary?

Awwww, shucks. Some child on the internet is disappointed in me? How will I sleep tonight?

Well after you **** your dog, you should be very tired.

You're welcome. And you're welcome for this next correction, too -- your profile says you were born in July of '89, correct? That means that you would have turned 12 in 2001. Bush was elected in November of 2000. So you were 11 when he was elected, and didn't turn 12 until after the change in year, eight months after Bush was elected.

I'm pretty sure I was 11 in 2001, too. I don't get where any of this matters, anyway.

you have no education,

So now you're discriminating against people who only have a high school diploma or a GED, huh?

A lot of people do, and a lot of people are broke while they do it. It's an investment.

It's not an investment if you're going to community college. It's cheaper, and I still can't afford it yet.

Drink water.

I would, but if I drank as much as I need, my cells would drown, and I would die.

Do more of it.

I'd have to do it constantly, all day, every day, for about thirty years.