Stop, Obama time.

[Alpha]

Taxes are necessary. What annoys me is when your country is running at a massive deficit, yet you have politicians taking private jets here and there, and expensing thousands of dollars.

****ing oath. I'm a big supporter of politicians being forced to exist on the median income. That way, they'd actually give a shit about what kind of existence people are forced to etch for themselves. My Prime Minister is a multi-millionaire, and once joked that he would rip up his tennis court and turn it into a vege patch. Not funny. People were talking about how it was becoming difficult to afford healthy food.

But the same applies to the wealthy capitalists. My boss has three cars. An Audi, some type of smart car, and a giant Ford Land Rover. And he presides over staff who, for the most part, are on minimum wage and if their car was to break down, probably couldn't afford a new one for several months. They're lucky we have quality public health and schools, otherwise their children's health and education would be in jeopardy. Seriously, three cars!? Plus his mansion. And yes, mansion. I'm not exaggerating. He's also a multi-millionaire. What's the difference between him and the 100 or so people he employs? Well, his father owned a supermarket, which he inherited. Everyone else was just less fortunate, and born working class. That's the ONLY difference.

A great society?? People are not chattel - to your dismay - to be slaughtered by those who demand it. They are humans and are to be treated as such - not tools to be used and their rights violated.

Humans deserve some guarantee that they will have food, shelter, clothes, health, and an education. If they can provide for themselves - great! If they can't, I do not find it acceptable for my fellow countrymen/women to go without a basic standard of living which we take for granted and require. I vote for my Government. I CHOOSE which policy it adopts, unless the majority (or largest minority) of people disagree with me. I WANT my Government to work for me, and for those less well-off than me. I BELIEVE that it has only the best interests of it's citizens at heart when it decides (on my mandate) to intervene.

A Government cannot do anything for which the majority of people disagree with. If we are all equal, then 1=1. By extension, 2=2. Furthermore, 2>1. So, if two people wish that the Government allows for redistribution of income, then so be it. Also, 1<2, so if two people say 'no' to redistribution or public options, then so be it. It's not slavery. Slavery would be 1>2, where the interests of one group are irrationally and inequitably given precedence over the other.

As Sasquatch said, Australia does not have a sexy history either, nor does: England, France, Spain, the Dutch, Africa tribes, Egypt, Italy, Germany, Japan, China, etc all dealing with slavery/oppression of native people. Of course that statement about America's history you made has nothing to do with the type of slavery I'm talking about nor is it relevant - good job staying on subject.

Clearly off-topic, but New Zealand is the best country evah. No slavery. No nothin', just a bunch of 19th Century land-grabbing which has been/is being put right with multi-million dollar settlements. We still treated our indigenous population as citizens from the get-go.

Here is an analogy to explain how governments are: I (the consumer) contract a company (the government) to provide a service for me (to protect the rights of all its citizens including me) and I pay for such service - as is the proper thing to do (pay for services rendered). Eventually the company decides it wants to do more than what was on the contract, though I don't want such extra services and plus the new services would be breaking the original contract. Yet the company cares not for breaking contract, performs the new services against my consent and forces me to pay for the new services. That is how governments are operating.

What if we want the Government to provide more services, because we consider the market to discriminate on the basis of income, which isn't desirable for services which are neccessary?

The concept of necessity is the main thing you guys aren't grasping, or at least, refusing to.

Nobody can stop a couple from having children, but if they decide to pursue having children it is their (the parents) responsibility to care for their child(ren). If they cannot afford to raise children then it would be wise to not have children instead of creating an expense that they know they can't afford - that is called stupidity. That behavior of living above "your" means was a part of the reason of the recent recession, people got into deals that they could not afford, and they should have checked themselves to make sure they could or could not afford it (a.k.a responsible behavior), and eventually it caught up on them and the rest is history. Though they may want children, the want does not create the funds to support child(ren). It is not the responsibility of others to take care of others' expenses and to cover for irresponsible choices.

Blame the parents and their irresponsibility. Fair enough. Just do it louder, those children cry pretty damn loud when they're hungry and you're telling their parents to work faster. As much as we claim that class boundaries don't exist, a child born to an upper class family will remain upper class. They can access a good education, and then a good, upper class job, to support the next round of upper class progeny. A lower class family, without adequate Government support, is incredibly likely to remain lower class. If this wasn't the case, then we wouldn't even have a lower class, right? I'm mean, if it's simply a matter of working hard, then the majority of the world wouldn't be lower class, right? Yeah... structuralism ftw.

It is not, "not acceptable". It is what it is. There is no guarrantee in life; in order to survive people must produce through using their mind - nobody can leech or mooch on another. Though a person may put effort into surviving that does not equate to a guarrantee of survival. Nor is it somebody's responsibility to help those who cannot survive; people may willingly choose to help but it is not morally necessary or their moral responsibility.

You call it leeching and mooching, I call it social responsibility, moral concern and selflessness.

The means never justify the ends.

So the end justifies the means? So if a minimum standard of living for all citizens is the end, then redistribution of income is justified. Thanks for accepting it.

Because every person has the right to the product of their work. Having people pay for an expense that they did not procure is the servitude of those who pay - people are not mere things to be disposed of in any way.

Are you aware of the economic concept of social benefits and social costs?

The market price for a given good or service is decided through the intersection of supply and demand. I accept that, and so do you. We're not communists, see.

However, what if there was a benefit that is not foreseen by this omnipotent market? It is not included in the quantity supplied and demanded (it would be better if these were higher), and nor is it included in the price (should be lower). An example is a timber plantation. A private company can develop a pine plantation. They can then charge people to use the timber it produced with it's capital. But while this plantation is growing, local kids have been getting fit and having fun, mountain biking among the trees. There is no way of preventing this social benefit from occurring. This behaviour can be seen to be desirable for society - happy and healthy children. As such, it can be reasoned to develop more pine plantations, to encourage this as much as possible. The market supply curve is too far to the left. It should come right, to lower price and increase quantity supplied/demanded - in other words, to further encourage this behaviour among consumers by providing more of it, at a lower price. I drew this situation in paint, using my mad computer/artistic skills.

This also works for un-market-recognised social benefit of demand.

And also un-market-recognised costs of production and consumption, such as pollution.

Actually, I'll just quote from the Wikipedia entry for market externalities. Don't worry, I'll read them first and ensure that it's just things I'd say, without actually having to type it.

In economics, an externality or spillover of an economic transaction is an impact on a party that is not directly involved in the transaction. In such a case, prices do not reflect the full costs or benefits in production or consumption of a product or service. An advantageous impact is called an external benefit or positive externality, while a detrimental impact is called an external cost or negative externality. Producers and consumers in a market may either not bear all of the costs or not reap all of the benefits of the economic activity. For example, manufacturing that causes air pollution imposes costs on the whole society, while fire-proofing a home improves the fire safety of neighbors.

A Pigovian tax [my preferred solution, but there are others, go and read 'em is you wish] is a tax imposed that is equal in value to the negative externality. The result is that the market outcome would be reduced to the efficient amount. A side effect is that revenue is raised for the government, reducing the amount of distortionary taxes that the government must impose elsewhere. Economists prefer Pigovian taxes and subsidies as being the least intrusive and most efficient method to resolve externalities.

I realise that I'm moving away from redistribution of income and discussing other types of (tax-relevant) scenarios. I just really want to dissuade the notion that it is slavery to place some measure of trust (and money) in Government. There are very sensible - even efficient - reasons why one would want to. Frankly, this level of opposition is so foreign to me that it's scary.

And you're completely missing the point that in a universalized program, people aren't given that choice. They can still choose to buy into a privatized system, but even if they do that, they still MUST pay into the public option, and from here you can follow my last post.

Well, in a market situation, I don't choose to be hit by negative externalities (but I am), and I would like to benefit from positive externalities (but I can't). Where's my freedom? Without the state, I am more of a slave.

[M16]

My bad. My iPhone's screen isn't big enough to display a couple posts at the one time, but my point was that you were suggesting socialised whatever doesn't work in practice. My point is that public healthcare IS working in developed countries.

And yet it's not. I've spoken to countless people from England and Canada, and have heard an overwhelming bias against universalized programs. They don't like having to wait a month just to get a doctor's appointment or the quality of the services they get. And most people I spoke to were young, healthy people.

Whether or not I get sick I rely on public healthcare to keep my town healthy and well. Like I said, there's a total double standard there.

This is the first thing you've said that's been a good point. I'll concede that much to you.

And those other systems aren't universalised? I mean really, everyone pays for them and yet a person can employ their own inhouse security/fire/medical personnel. It's just with a 'universalised program' everyone has access regardless of their place in society.

No, universalized means that everyone in the country/world pays for it. I don't pay for the police in New Mexico. I don't pay for the fire department in Utah. I pay for what I immediately use and depend on. That's the core difference.

Because you're also paying taxes?
People in the government here pay taxes just as they likely do there. People in the government are often better paid too so they likely pay more in tax than I do. I'm sure if the government here has more rights than I do here, the same applies to you and so whether or not you are ok with it, it'll happen either way.

That doesn't mean that I forgive or condone it. I fight with a lot of my energy to put people in office that would reduce the federal income tax. Also, government officials often do not pay high taxes at all. Finally, you keep saying "it'll happen anyway." This is the sort of mindset that makes things go from worse to worst. This is not OK. How can you live with that mentality? Nothing ever changes with that sort of mentality. The revolutionary North Americans didn't just figure "We'll get taxed by the British anyway so more representation really doesn't matter." Where would we be if they did?

It's getting to you, eh? roflmfao

Sure.



@Alpha: Yes, some people do in fact earn inheritances. It is a benefit they deserve for their ancestors working their asses off. While I would prefer someone to work for their own rewards, it was within every right of that boss's parents to leave him that inheritance. Furthermore, what gives him the right to own all of that property and earn more than the people working under him is that it's a heck of a lot harder to run a company than it is to ring up groceries. Most people tend to overlook this.

Humans deserve some guarantee that they will have food, shelter, clothes, health, and an education.

Nobody deserves that sort of guarantee. People need to earn those rights, whether you like it or not. Just because I was born, I did not deserve to have everything given to me without effort. Neither did you, your president, or the chimney sweeper.

Slavery would be...where the interests of one group are irrationally and inequitably given precedence over the other.

They are. If 51% of the country all at once decided that they wanted all black people to be forcibly removed from the country, it would have to happen. As hyperbolic as that is, I get what you're saying. But that is in fact what happens. While it's typically the much richer people (heads of corporations/companies/etc.) that run the core of the country, they rarely get any say of what goes on unless they bribe the hell out of a politician. Which I absolutely do not condone.

The concept of necessity is the main thing you guys aren't grasping, or at least, refusing to.

And the concept you aren't grasping is availability and personal property.

You call it leeching and mooching, I call it social responsibility, moral concern and selflessness.

I have seen this term "social responsibility" come up before. I'm not really sure how to take it or how to respond to it. Again, I get what you're saying, but I just don't agree with it. In a totally selfless society, nobody would have any property of their own. Nobody would care for themselves. And the first person to work for themselves would be deemed an outcast. That seems nonsensical to me.

As much as we claim that class boundaries don't exist, a child born to an upper class family will remain upper class. They can access a good education, and then a good, upper class job, to support the next round of upper class progeny. A lower class family, without adequate Government support, is incredibly likely to remain lower class. If this wasn't the case, then we wouldn't even have a lower class, right? I'm mean, if it's simply a matter of working hard, then the majority of the world wouldn't be lower class, right? Yeah... structuralism ftw.

As much as it might anger you, it is completely within the upper class's right to have a child. And I am not denying that lower class citizens have that right, too. I am just claiming how unfathomably irresponsible it is. When a sixteen-year-old living in the projects of Detroit has a child, why is it suddenly my concern to pay for that baby's hospital bills? Nobody has been able to give me an answer other than "social responsibility", which to me sounds like a cop out.

And finally, the part of the post actually directed towards me:

Well, in a market situation, I don't choose to be hit by negative externalities (but I am), and I would like to benefit from positive externalities (but I can't). Where's my freedom? Without the state, I am more of a slave.

But you're not more of a slave without the state. I've heard this argument countless times, as well. If a free-market capitalist existence was ever to come into fruition, every man has the ability to fight to his last breath to get a job and work his way up the ladder. Even McDonalds has stories posted all over their stores of people who started as cashiers and worked their way to being regional managers. While this doesn't have the same pizazz as "store owner", it's a hell of a lot better than cashier and makes a whole lot more money. Even the poorest person has the opportunity to walk into a store and apply for a position and work his way up. Life at that point is based on ability and qualifications, not need.

After reading through this previous paragraph again, I realize it, too, is rather hyperbolic. But I hope the point makes its way across. If not, I'll do my best to better explain why there is essentially no slavery without the state.

[Alpha]

I'll keep this brief. We've all repeated our arguments enough for three months.

@Alpha: Yes, some people do in fact earn inheritances. It is a benefit they deserve for their ancestors working their asses off. While I would prefer someone to work for their own rewards, it was within every right of that boss's parents to leave him that inheritance. Furthermore, what gives him the right to own all of that property and earn more than the people working under him is that it's a heck of a lot harder to run a company than it is to ring up groceries. Most people tend to overlook this.

It isn't harder at all, when that is the way one has been raised. It's harder for a person to succeed at university when they went to a low-decile school. NB, I didn't say public. Some of the best secondary schools in my country are public. The rest are part-public. For one who has gone to a high decile school, it is easier, as they have been taught better. They sit the same exams, and attend the same classes, but it isn't a level playing field. The kids of my boss, who attend the wealthiest and most well-resourced school i my region, are incredibly likely to go further than the children of the staff on minimum wage.

Also, it isn't harder at all. I work in a supermarket, but in the office. Part-clerical and part accounts, I work with wages, takings, banking, merchandisers, irate customers. I'm not on minimum wage. I got lucky though; I'm friends with one of the managers, who recommended me for the job. My job probably requires a bit more skill than working on checkout (which I do, for extra hours in the holidays), and I am paid more as a result. But the jobs of senior management? LOL. My (shared) office is next to the owner. He works 4-5 hour days, if that, and has the TV switched onto the cricket all day. He gets a nice chair, and, for all I know, could be spending all day downloading porn. His job isn't actually harder, it just includes personal risk. Decisions will directly impact his profits, not someone else's. I hope he considers the impact his decisions will have on real people and real families, but they are the most vulnerable. If profit begins to slip, those on minimum wage will be the first to go. In my mind, I can't see how this man (the owner) is anymore deserving than the Indian lady downstairs, whose labour is the reason this man gets to enjoy such a fanciful lifestyle.

Nobody deserves that sort of guarantee. People need to earn those rights, whether you like it or not. Just because I was born, I did not deserve to have everything given to me without effort. Neither did you, your president, or the chimney sweeper.

I'm not talking about free PS3s FFS! I'm saying that people deserve some sort of guarantee that they won't starve, because the capitalist system is completely capable of producing that outcome. People are not toys.

They are. If 51% of the country all at once decided that they wanted all black people to be forcibly removed from the country, it would have to happen. As hyperbolic as that is, I get what you're saying. But that is in fact what happens. While it's typically the much richer people (heads of corporations/companies/etc.) that run the core of the country, they rarely get any say of what goes on unless they bribe the hell out of a politician. Which I absolutely do not condone.

No. I support majoritarianism, but only to an extent. People still have inalienable rights, even if a majority disagrees. I'm sure we agree thus far. It's just that I have a further notion of what should be within our rights. I'd say that I support greater freedom, but I'm sure you wouldn't ever listen.

I have seen this term "social responsibility" come up before. I'm not really sure how to take it or how to respond to it.

Everyone has a responsibility for everyone. Like a team. You scratch my back, I scratch yours.

Again, I get what you're saying, but I just don't agree with it. In a totally selfless society, nobody would have any property of their own. Nobody would care for themselves. And the first person to work for themselves would be deemed an outcast. That seems nonsensical to me.

You scratch my back, while doing something else with your other hand, I scratch your back, while doing something else with my other hand. Pretty easy.

As much as it might anger you, it is completely within the upper class's right to have a child. And I am not denying that lower class citizens have that right, too. I am just claiming how unfathomably irresponsible it is. When a sixteen-year-old living in the projects of Detroit has a child, why is it suddenly my concern to pay for that baby's hospital bills? Nobody has been able to give me an answer other than "social responsibility", which to me sounds like a cop out.

Because that child did not choose to be born. It did not choose to starve. It did not choose to be unhealthy because it's parents are poor. It deserves a fair shot at life. Everyone does. That's fair.

But you're not more of a slave without the state. I've heard this argument countless times, as well. If a free-market capitalist existence was ever to come into fruition, every man has the ability to fight to his last breath to get a job and work his way up the ladder. Even McDonalds has stories posted all over their stores of people who started as cashiers and worked their way to being regional managers. While this doesn't have the same pizazz as "store owner", it's a hell of a lot better than cashier and makes a whole lot more money. Even the poorest person has the opportunity to walk into a store and apply for a position and work his way up. Life at that point is based on ability and qualifications, not need.

After reading through this previous paragraph again, I realize it, too, is rather hyperbolic. But I hope the point makes its way across. If not, I'll do my best to better explain why there is essentially no slavery without the state.

I understand your argument. I just don't agree with it, and derive some sense of pleasure from trying to convince you otherwise. I'm sure you're the same.

[Furore]

And yet it's not. I've spoken to countless people from England and Canada, and have heard an overwhelming bias against universalized programs. They don't like having to wait a month just to get a doctor's appointment or the quality of the services they get. And most people I spoke to were young, healthy people.

Ok, how about you get some of them to post here or something along with some sort of evidence they are a healthy, young Englishman/Canadian. I mean I have seen some US news sites biased towards a certain political view that bring up horror stories from public healthcare, but that in itself isn't too accurate as even with the best doctors/conditions there are chances for error and such incidents are a minority.

Perhaps you missed it as not being one of the things I've said that's a good point (), but I did mention that people can use private health cover if they choose and they also get incentives for doing so.

This is the first thing you've said that's been a good point. I'll concede that much to you.

I'm still waiting for one from you.

No, universalized means that everyone in the country/world pays for it. I don't pay for the police in New Mexico. I don't pay for the fire department in Utah. I pay for what I immediately use and depend on. That's the core difference.

It would totally suck if I were interstate and the fire brigade didn't help me when trapped in a flaming building because my taxes didn't go to them. I don't get the big difference though really. I mean if I understand you correctly, you pay taxes to the state who pays for your state's services. All ours is, is everyone countrywide pays tax and everyone countrywide can reap the benefits. It's really just a larger grouping.

That doesn't mean that I forgive or condone it. I fight with a lot of my energy to put people in office that would reduce the federal income tax. Also, government officials often do not pay high taxes at all. Finally, you keep saying "it'll happen anyway." This is the sort of mindset that makes things go from worse to worst. This is not OK. How can you live with that mentality? Nothing ever changes with that sort of mentality. The revolutionary North Americans didn't just figure "We'll get taxed by the British anyway so more representation really doesn't matter." Where would we be if they did?

The revolutionary North Americans would have given their lives up for freedom, when I mentioned that was always a choice it was mentioned that it wasn't a choice because you were facing the consequences or some crap. Make up your minds, seriously. If you're gonna be taxed either way, you might as well get something from it. Government officials not paying much tax? Why not use our system where if they fit the larger income bracket they pay the larger tax?

Sure.

YES!

[M16]

I'll keep this brief. We've all repeated our arguments enough for three months.



It isn't harder at all, when that is the way one has been raised. It's harder for a person to succeed at university when they went to a low-decile school. NB, I didn't say public. Some of the best secondary schools in my country are public. The rest are part-public. For one who has gone to a high decile school, it is easier, as they have been taught better. They sit the same exams, and attend the same classes, but it isn't a level playing field. The kids of my boss, who attend the wealthiest and most well-resourced school i my region, are incredibly likely to go further than the children of the staff on minimum wage.

Also, it isn't harder at all. I work in a supermarket, but in the office. Part-clerical and part accounts, I work with wages, takings, banking, merchandisers, irate customers. I'm not on minimum wage. I got lucky though; I'm friends with one of the managers, who recommended me for the job. My job probably requires a bit more skill than working on checkout (which I do, for extra hours in the holidays), and I am paid more as a result. But the jobs of senior management? LOL. My (shared) office is next to the owner. He works 4-5 hour days, if that, and has the TV switched onto the cricket all day. He gets a nice chair, and, for all I know, could be spending all day downloading porn. His job isn't actually harder, it just includes personal risk. Decisions will directly impact his profits, not someone else's. I hope he considers the impact his decisions will have on real people and real families, but they are the most vulnerable. If profit begins to slip, those on minimum wage will be the first to go. In my mind, I can't see how this man (the owner) is anymore deserving than the Indian lady downstairs, whose labour is the reason this man gets to enjoy such a fanciful lifestyle.



I'm not talking about free PS3s FFS! I'm saying that people deserve some sort of guarantee that they won't starve, because the capitalist system is completely capable of producing that outcome. People are not toys.



No. I support majoritarianism, but only to an extent. People still have inalienable rights, even if a majority disagrees. I'm sure we agree thus far. It's just that I have a further notion of what should be within our rights. I'd say that I support greater freedom, but I'm sure you wouldn't ever listen.



Everyone has a responsibility for everyone. Like a team. You scratch my back, I scratch yours.



You scratch my back, while doing something else with your other hand, I scratch your back, while doing something else with my other hand. Pretty easy.



Because that child did not choose to be born. It did not choose to starve. It did not choose to be unhealthy because it's parents are poor. It deserves a fair shot at life. Everyone does. That's fair.



I understand your argument. I just don't agree with it, and derive some sense of pleasure from trying to convince you otherwise. I'm sure you're the same.

Alpha, at this point, there's nothing to do but agree to disagree. I'm glad at least you could give me a good argument.

[Tiffany]

I am from Canada. While I like that I don't have to pay for my hospital expenses, I can't stand that guaranteed it is at least a 3 week wait to get into my doctor's office. I don't have much faith in my doctor anyways, but that's personal opinion. I have friends who love their GP's.

The hospital system is a joke at the moment. At least it is here. Going to the ER means that you have (again, guaranteed) a 9 hour wait. If not more. I was in full bi-lateral kidney failure at the triage nurse didn't believe that I was in rough shape. She actually got snarky with me and told me that I'd best plan to be there for awhile, because I wasn't considered urgent.

Not urgent? I was ****ing DYING. Bitch.

Anyways, her tune changed when my bloodwork came back with crazy high creatinine levels. I was hospitalized for 4 days and was told time and time again how lucky I was to still be alive.

So yeah, I'm of the healthcare system sucks opinion. But I can't say that it would be like that everywhere else in Canada too. I think area plays a big part. Our hospital is stressed to the max due to my city growing so rapidly. Even in my hometown which is a fraction of the size of my current city, has 2 hospitals whereas here only has one.

[Furore]

Good point. I've always been lucky but even here you occasionally hear of bed shortages. Here though the media gos on about it, people take notice, more funding gets allocated or the current coalition loses some popularity. I assume though that the increase in funding might mean a tax increase, but I haven't noticed anything too unusual (though I've only had a taxable income for the past few years so I wouldn't have the best idea).

One thing I did find interesting was an article on how Australians on average go to a hospital several more times a year than their American counterparts.

[Alpha]

If I couldn't afford hospital care, I'd take a nine hour wait.

When I tore the bone in my foot, and was in a bit of pain, I was in triage for maybe five hours.. It was boring, but I can accept that.

When my brother had a meningitis scare, he went straight through. If it's urgent, then you won't be waiting. If it's not, and you don't want to pay, you wait in triage. There are still private clinics if you have non-urgent injuries and are capable of paying/completely unwilling to wait.

The wait times are variable anyway. The weekends are full, other times they are nearly empty.

With a brother who has had medical complications nearly his whole life, I know that if it wasn't for public health, I probably wouldn't be in this house, wouldn't have gone to my particular school, etc etc. We simply could not have afforded it. That doesn't make my parent's irresponsible - they're both English teachers. My dad even has his Master's degree. Which he got for free, when the Government paid for those. He couldn't have got it any other way, growing up on a farm.

[Megatron0000]

OK I really don't like this Presidency on 3 major reasons.
1. We are still in Iraq: He stated several times in his campaign that we would be out of Iraq in his first year in office. As a soldier in the Army I understand that this was unlikely but he shouldn't make promises about this he can't keep and instead, treat this war like it's a non-issue.
2. The health-care bill: I don't agree with my taxes paying for some tw*t-waffle to sit on his *ss and collect welfare, unemployment, and free health care on my dime. You want free health-care....join the military. And obviously public opinion doesn't matter in this. I have yet to speak to someone who supported this garbage.
3. The military pay raise change: Bush raised the military's annual pay raise in 2001 so that as an E-2(private for those who don't know) would get a 100 dollar annual salary raise every year. Awesome he's/she's fighting for those who aren't/can't/won't so give them some extra dough. They deserve it. So Obama drops that pay raise from 8% to 1.4%. I bet if he was asked to go fight for his country for what we make he'd laugh at you until he couldn't move.

All I can say is that i didn't vote for him and if I could do it all over I still wouldn't. He symbolizes the stereotypical politician to me. Lying sack of sh** who can't see beyond his own wants.

[Furore]

2. The health-care bill: I don't agree with my taxes paying for some tw*t-waffle to sit on his *ss and collect welfare, unemployment, and free health care on my dime. You want free health-care....join the military. And obviously public opinion doesn't matter in this. I have yet to speak to someone who supported this garbage.

Survival of the fittest is just peachy when you're fit.
Yeah, I'd be lying if I said a system like this doesn't provide for the leeches of society, but most importantly it also helps provide for those who couldn't otherwise get health cover. Some people aren't even fit enough to join the military, some most importantly were born that way or had no say in the matter. Creatures of the Earth who aren't human tend to leave their weaker members to die and I like to think our willingness to help those poorer off is what seperates us from your typical animal.

Of course I mean that of humanity as a whole as I do know there are many individuals who couldn't give a toss.

[Sasquatch]

If I couldn't afford hospital care, I'd take a nine hour wait.

Why should you have to?

When I tore the bone in my foot and was in a bit of pain, I was in triage for maybe five hours... It was boring, but I can accept that.

When my brother had a meningitis scare, he went straight through. If it's urgent, then you won't be waiting. If it's not, and you don't want to pay, you wait in triage. There are still private clinics if you have non-urgent injuries and are capable of paying or completely unwilling to wait.

So you're telling me that hospitals where you are actually decide what patients to see when based (at least in part) on their financial status and ability to pay? That's very different from the United States, where doctors are legally prohibited from doing exactly that.

The wait times are variable, anyway. The weekends are full. Other times, they are nearly empty.

With a brother who has had medical complications nearly his whole life, I know that, if it wasn't for public health, I probably wouldn't be in this house; wouldn't have gone to my particular school; etc., etc. We simply could not have afforded it.

So you would have had to go through *gasp* a more publicly-funded school? But wait, how would that be bad?

That doesn't make my parents irresponsible--they're both English teachers. My dad even has his Master's degree. He got it for free, when the government paid for those. He couldn't have got it any other way, growing up on a farm.

By the way, since your "parent's" [sic] are English teachers, I felt obliged to correct your English mistakes. They're in bold. You're welcome.

1. We are still in Iraq: He stated several times in his campaign that we would be out of Iraq in his first year in office. As a soldier in the Army I understand that this was unlikely but he shouldn't make promises about this he can't keep and instead, treat this war like it's a non-issue.

He stated a lot of things in his campaign -- like that he would reduce the deficit, stop borrowing money from other countries, and more. Did you believe any of it? Of course he has treated this war like a non-issue, because to him, it is. Anything bad that happens in Iraq can be blamed on Bush. Anything good that happens, Obama will take credit for. It would be like watering somebody's plants while they're on vacation and discovering that they left their stove on. You can play with fire in there all you want, but if their place burns down, it can always be blamed on the stove.

2. The health-care bill: I don't agree with my taxes paying for some tw*t-waffle to sit on his *ss and collect welfare, unemployment, and free health care on my dime. You want free health-care....join the military.

I'm not sure of the extent of your service, but if you're under the impression that military healthcare is any benefit, you obviously haven't worked through many injuries. Don't even get me started on the VA.

3. The military pay raise change: Bush raised the military's annual pay raise in 2001 so that as an E-2(private for those who don't know) would get a 100 dollar annual salary raise every year. Awesome he's/she's fighting for those who aren't/can't/won't so give them some extra dough. They deserve it. So Obama drops that pay raise from 8% to 1.4%. I bet if he was asked to go fight for his country for what we make he'd laugh at you until he couldn't move.

I, for one, didn't join for the money. Besides, anything you make while deployed is non-taxable, and you get three pay raises every two years, anyway: one on each two-year anniversary of your Pay Entry Base Date; and the other on 01 Jan.

Yeah, I'd be lying if I said a system like this doesn't provide for the leeches of society, but most importantly it also helps provide for those who couldn't otherwise get health cover. Some people aren't even fit enough to join the military, some most importantly were born that way or had no say in the matter.

There are myriad private charities to assist people with those types of conditions. And there are plenty of people -- such as myself -- that gladly give to such charities, willingly. There's a difference in willingly donating and having your money forcibly taken.

Creatures of the Earth who aren't human tend to leave their weaker members to die and I like to think our willingness to help those poorer off is what seperates us from your typical animal.

That doesn't mean we should sink to the level of the lowest human. We tried that in our educational systems with No Child Left Behind, and that worked splendidly, didn't it?

[RagnaToad]

This is what will change with the healthcare reform (in short):

95% of all American citizens will have health insurance, instead of the 83% today. About 32 million Americans who don't have it now will have insurance in the future.

Most Americans will be obligated to have health insurance. Those who are able to afford it, but don't, can be fined (starting 2014).

No 'state healthcare system', like many left democrats wanted. From 2014, every state will have to have a sort of 'health insurance market' where people can compare and buy health insurance. People who don't make a lot of money will receive 'discounts'. Illegal immigrants however will not be able to buy health insurance through these 'markets'.

It should be less difficult for poorer people to get Medicaid. About 16 million more people should have Medicaid.

This seems like a very important change to me:
Insurance companies cannot refuse to help people anymore. They can't demand more money based on sex or physical condition. It will also be harder for insurance companies to end contracts when people become ill or handicapped.

Abortion will not be paid for by the state, unless the mother's life is in danger or the pregnancy is the result of incest or rape. (Although states can individually decide to pay for abortions through an additional insurance.)

That's about it.

[Andromeda]

You forgot to mention that government take over of the Student Loan business. From henceforth the government will be handling all Student Loans and so there will no longer be Private Student Loans available. On top of which the interest rates on Federal Student Loans will be increasing in order to pay into the Health Care bill.

I could get almost nothing for Federal Student Loan because the government deemed my parents to have made too much money, thus should be able to pay for it themselves, even though they would not have been able to pay for my college. Let alone for two children to go to college. I wouldn't have been able to go to college if I didn't have the Private Student Loans that paid for most of it.

What's going to happen to all of the businesses that no longer are able to give out Student Loans? I thought we were trying to get out of the recession and create jobs, not put more business out and cause employees to be fired.

Student Loans should not be included into a bill about Health Care. The two are unrelated subjects and only ended up being related because they need to find places to fund the trillion dollars for Health Care.

[Megatron0000]

I'm not sure of the extent of your service, but if you're under the impression that military healthcare is any benefit, you obviously haven't worked through many injuries. Don't even get me started on the VA.

Granted Tri-Care and the VA aren't the best in the world but it is something. And although taxpayers front the bill you are contractually obligated to protect them and the United States against anything that would harm them. So rather than sitting around and (in some peoples' case) refusing to get a job because its just easier to milk the system than work for your money, you have a responsibility to adhere to and a steady job/career.

I, for one, didn't join for the money. Besides, anything you make while deployed is non-taxable, and you get three pay raises every two years, anyway: one on each two-year anniversary of your Pay Entry Base Date; and the other on 01 Jan.

No one joins the military for the money. I joined to support my country and learn some responsibility (I got into a lot of trouble in highschool and if i hadnt joined it would only have gotten worse). The college money and pay check were nice though. Seeing that pay raise every year can give some motivation to stay enlisted and a sence of accomplishment.

[RagnaToad]

Student Loans should not be included into a bill about Health Care.

I agree and frankly, I didn't know about this.

That little detail sucks for a lot of people (like yourself?), but maybe it was a necessity in order to achieve other things.

Don't know really. Every positive change has its flaws.

[Andromeda]

As far as I know so far I'm safe from the change because it is only for people trying to get new loans. So whenever I have children and they are ready for college I'll have to deal with this problem as will they. I'm really worried that if my parents who was single parent working and not making a lot of money (50k a year) had problems getting even a little support from the government. How much trouble will mine and other future children have to go because we only have one source?

Considering there are apparent a lot of mistakes that they suddenly realized about the bill. Like saying children are immediately covered, but finding out it is not until 2014 in reality. They are going around looking to actually amend the bill. So here's hoping they remove that part about the Student Loans, because that's going to be so unfair to children if the government is controlling the entire market.

[Unknown Entity]

And yet it's not. I've spoken to countless people from England and Canada, and have heard an overwhelming bias against universalized programs. They don't like having to wait a month just to get a doctor's appointment or the quality of the services they get. And most people I spoke to were young, healthy people.

Actually, that's incorrect unless the people you've spoken to live in the middle of nowhere. I live in England, and I wouldn't have to wait longer than a week to see my GP. In fact, if I'd fallen very sick today, I could arrange an appointment for OR arrange have my GP come to me this afternoon/evening.

Of course, it would matter on how serious my illness/injuries/queries were.

If it got to a point when you needed to go to a hospital, all it takes is you getting to one. Be that by car, bus, ambulance or helicopter, they'll take you in, give you a clean bed, do what they need to do to get you better, and you're out of there. My mother was sick, had to have an operation, and was out of there in seven hours to recover at home.


Now. As for the healthcare bill... what the ****? I'm hearing so many mixed views on the topic, and I don't know if it's be something I would be for or against if I lived over there. It sounds like something that could improve the life of many people who can't afford healthcare, yet it seems to bring about a lot of flaws for other people.

I think the healthcare side is a good idea, but that the bill needs a lot of work and rethinking. I can see it being highly unfair in regards to the student loans, and businesses that will most likely fail because of it.

I have mixed opinions, but then to some people my opinions wouldn't really count. ._.

[Trodorne]

Actually, that's incorrect unless the people you've spoken to live in the middle of nowhere. I live in England, and I wouldn't have to wait longer than a week to see my GP. In fact, if I'd fallen very sick today, I could arrange an appointment for OR arrange have my GP come to me this afternoon/evening.

Of course, it would matter on how serious my illness/injuries/queries were.

If it got to a point when you needed to go to a hospital, all it takes is you getting to one. Be that by car, bus, ambulance or helicopter, they'll take you in, give you a clean bed, do what they need to do to get you better, and you're out of there. My mother was sick, had to have an operation, and was out of there in seven hours to recover at home.


Now. As for the healthcare bill... what the ****? I'm hearing so many mixed views on the topic, and I don't know if it's be something I would be for or against if I lived over there. It sounds like something that could improve the life of many people who can't afford healthcare, yet it seems to bring about a lot of flaws for other people.

I think the healthcare side is a good idea, but that the bill needs a lot of work and rethinking. I can see it being highly unfair in regards to the student loans, and businesses that will most likely fail because of it.

I have mixed opinions, but then to some people my opinions wouldn't really count. ._.

i agree same here, living in canada probably the worst place you could go for health care in canada would be middle of nowhere walkin clinic. i had my hand sliced open and i had to sit and wait i think 10 mins at the most in the emerg just cause there were 10 other people before me. and they stitched me up and i was good as gold.
as for the american health care bill. three words on that. : "Ha Ha Ha" all that whining and effort for a time amount of change, and americans think its the end of the known universe. heaven forbid that money should be taken away from R&D for military weapons and vehicles. other countries in the world have made more strides in health care than the united states when it comes to universal health of its people.
yeah sure congrats united states on getting a health care bill which i slightly better than what you had before. but you only get the health care into what you put in. Universal health care is not a liberal or conservative move its a move that puts people first. and if someone would rather put personal gain over the health and well being of their family, then there is something wrong. obama is not doing this for the liberals or the conservatives its for you americans, though this is a small step in the right direction, i hope that some how you all will put effort into making it work. you guys built yourself up as a super power from the great depression by working together and making few small sacrafices here and there, what is the difference in giving up a couple of luxaries and maybe taking some of that extra money from those billionaires who have a few thousand to spend. after all its for the better of america.

[RagnaToad]

i agree same here, living in canada probably the worst place you could go for health care in canada would be middle of nowhere walkin clinic. i had my hand sliced open and i had to sit and wait i think 10 mins at the most in the emerg just cause there were 10 other people before me. and they stitched me up and i was good as gold.
as for the american health care bill. three words on that. : "Ha Ha Ha" all that whining and effort for a time amount of change, and americans think its the end of the known universe. heaven forbid that money should be taken away from R&D for military weapons and vehicles. other countries in the world have made more strides in health care than the united states when it comes to universal health of its people.
yeah sure congrats united states on getting a health care bill which i slightly better than what you had before. but you only get the health care into what you put in. Universal health care is not a liberal or conservative move its a move that puts people first. and if someone would rather put personal gain over the health and well being of their family, then there is something wrong. obama is not doing this for the liberals or the conservatives its for you americans, though this is a small step in the right direction, i hope that some how you all will put effort into making it work. you guys built yourself up as a super power from the great depression by working together and making few small sacrafices here and there, what is the difference in giving up a couple of luxaries and maybe taking some of that extra money from those billionaires who have a few thousand to spend. after all its for the better of america.

Quoted for being the best post I've seen in a while. And I really mean that.

Also, the healthcare bill will have to be revoted in the House of Representatives, it seems. The Republicans found two small procedure errors. I believe it has something to do with the student loans Andromeda mentioned earlier.

[Zargabaath]

heaven forbid that money should be taken away from R&D for military weapons and vehicles. other countries in the world have made more strides in health care than the united states when it comes to universal health of its people.

More like taxing certain people to cover the cost of this supposed "free" health care. Though if it costs something then it is not free and who pays the bill? The person who needed the service of the doctor? No! It is paid by those who did not receive any service for what they are paying. So the question is: how is it right for someone to be forced (and it is forced) into paying for something they did not procure or want?

Universal health care is not a liberal or conservative move its a move that puts people first. and if someone would rather put personal gain over the health and well being of their family, then there is something wrong.

Yeah, great job at really knowing the issue over the U.S's health care debate. People aren't complaining about putting the health and well being of their family before personal gain; it is about putting the health and well being of complete strangers, people who may not be deserving of such "charity" because of the choices they've made in life, before their family. It is taking money away that could be used to help the family; with the loss of the money it could eventually lead to them needing assistance from the government to help cover their health care costs because they didn't have the money to pay for it due to the government forcing them to pay for somebody's elses health care.

you guys built yourself up as a super power from the great depression by working together and making few small sacrafices here and there, what is the difference in giving up a couple of luxaries and maybe taking some of that extra money from those billionaires who have a few thousand to spend. after all its for the better of america.

We were an economic superpower before the Great Depression/World War II because of the individualist/capitalist views our country had. Where each person could do what they wished as long as it did not violate the rights of another and each person still had the right to the product of their work before the progressives started coming into power (Teddy Roosevelt & Woodrow Wilson).

Also, it is not the government's job to take (i.e., steal) money from a person, no matter how much they have, for any unintended purpose of the government - which is to protect the rights of its citizens, not to nanny them. There is no rationale as to why when a person makes "x" amount of money they are suddenly "evil", "greedy", and that, their money can be taken from them. Guess what, the whole point of business is to make a profit - even small companies aim to make a profit but somehow once they cross the imaginary line they become giant "evil" corporations. But if those small companies stay small they are the greatest thing in the world - all it boils down to is hypocrisy by those who hate big business.

[Alpha]

Oh hai Sasquatch. I see you comment there, when I'm not here.

Why should you have to?

Why should people not be able to access the necessities of life?

So you're telling me that hospitals where you are actually decide what patients to see when based (at least in part) on their financial status and ability to pay? That's very different from the United States, where doctors are legally prohibited from doing exactly that.

No, that's not what I meant and/or said. Big time misinterpretation. Public hospitals and clinics will treat anybody who comes in off the street, in accordance with the severity of their injury. More severe ailments go before less severe ailments. However, here, there are also private hospitals. My local one is next door to the public hospital. It's probably about 2% of the size of the public one (which probably reflects the success of public healthcare, as there is only a very small market for private care). If one wished, they could go to the private hospital. They would pay some money up-front, and receive a 'superior' level of care. Consisting of, probably (as I have never known anyone, ever, to use a private hospital), better food, a private room, thicker blankets, etc. Basically, it's a rich person's hospital. But even then, it doesn't really need to be there. The standard of healthcare wouldn't be any different, as it's the same set of doctors with the same medical degrees. Effectively, it's like an express lane at a supermarket, but with a surcharge.

No one with an urgent injury would go to a private hospital under normal circumstances. I couldn't tell you if they would be denied treatment at the private hospital due to income status. I doubt it, but again, one would just got to the public hospital, and, according to urgency, be treated just as adequately there.

So you would have had to go through *gasp* a more publicly-funded school? But wait, how would that be bad?

Public schools in themselves are NOT bad. However, they are usually expressions of socio-economic status, and this has a very clearly established link with academic performance. Note also, that private schools can choose who they admit to their schools. In my area, they 'zone' themselves in rich areas. So much so, that one school zones itself in its immediate area, and has a second zone that is about a 40 minute drive away. Both zones are wealthy. Everything in between? Lower to lower-middle class.

Now, had my parents had to directly pay for every procedure my brother has had in his 15 years, we would be significantly worse off. We may have lived in an area that was not in my private school's zone, and have attended a public school. Now, if public schools received more government funding, the education disparity would probably be diminished to some extent. But of course, every country has it's right-wing crazies who don't believe in a level playing field. At least they permit public amenities.

All this is not to detract from the fact that some of the best schools in my country are public. They rest are part-public ("public integrated"). So, say what about public service provision?

By the way, since your "parent's" [sic] are English teachers, I felt obliged to correct your English mistakes. They're in bold. You're welcome.

You know, you don't always have to be a jerk.

[Heartless Angel]

But the same applies to the wealthy capitalists. My boss has three cars. An Audi, some type of smart car, and a giant Ford Land Rover. And he presides over staff who, for the most part, are on minimum wage and if their car was to break down, probably couldn't afford a new one for several months. They're lucky we have quality public health and schools, otherwise their children's health and education would be in jeopardy. Seriously, three cars!? Plus his mansion. And yes, mansion. I'm not exaggerating. He's also a multi-millionaire. What's the difference between him and the 100 or so people he employs? Well, his father owned a supermarket, which he inherited. Everyone else was just less fortunate, and born working class. That's the ONLY difference.

Yeah, in this particular case, the employer got lucky. Sucks for the rest of the world. But let's totally ignore the fact that his father, or granfather, great grandfather, whatever, was not born with a supermarket. At some point in time, somebody worked to create it. If somebody handed you $1,000,000, to give away, would you be more inclined to give it to your family, and children, you know, people that you care about? Or complete strangers who have done nothing to earn it?

How about another case. My neighbor and I are the same age. We went to the same elmentary and middle school. Our fathers work at the same company, and make about the same wage. We also went to the same high school until 10th grade when he dropped out. Now, he's leeching off his parents who are getting ready to kick him out of the house. Meanwhile, I'm going to college on a scholarship. The difference here wasn't random chance. The difference here is hard work. The idea of Socialism doesn't give two shits who did more work, it'll take half of everything I make and give it to that lazy **** to 'level the playing field'. Fair right?

Humans deserve some guarantee that they will have food, shelter, clothes, health, and an education. If they can provide for themselves - great! If they can't, I do not find it acceptable for my fellow countrymen/women to go without a basic standard of living which we take for granted and require.

Hate to break it to you, but being born entitles you to absolutely nothing material. Not for humans, not for any other living thing. If any wild animal decides it's not going to go kill its food, or go find a plant to eat, no magical force is going to bring it to them. No other animal is going to go get it for them. They will sit there and starve to death. If you choose to live on the streets with no job, I'm not going to go work two jobs so we can both live on the same income. You're going to sit there and starve. Tough shit. Welcome to reality.

What if we want the Government to provide more services, because we consider the market to discriminate on the basis of income, which isn't desirable for services which are neccessary?

And what if I decide, it's not my problem that some people fail to thrive? If YOU want to help the needy, YOU can go give to charity. Charity is something a person gives by choice. Socialism is justified theft.

Blame the parents and their irresponsibility. Fair enough. Just do it louder, those children cry pretty damn loud when they're hungry and you're telling their parents to work faster. As much as we claim that class boundaries don't exist, a child born to an upper class family will remain upper class. They can access a good education, and then a good, upper class job, to support the next round of upper class progeny. A lower class family, without adequate Government support, is incredibly likely to remain lower class. If this wasn't the case, then we wouldn't even have a lower class, right? I'm mean, if it's simply a matter of working hard, then the majority of the world wouldn't be lower class, right? Yeah... structuralism ftw.

You seem to be missing the point... if those parents couldn't afford to feed that child, they shouldn't have had it. It all sounds great when we say it's a fellow human being. Fact of the matter is, you can't afford something, you don't get it. A child is no different. If anything, a child is worse. Because by having that child you couldn't afford, you condem it to living a sub-standard life and probably remaining in the lower class all its llife.

You call it leeching and mooching, I call it social responsibility, moral concern and selflessness.

I don't have any responsibility at all to pay for someone else. You won't find my name on any contract that says I agreed to pay the expenses of those who have not worked for I have. Selflessness is a CHOICE. Socialism is theft.

So the end justifies the means? So if a minimum standard of living for all citizens is the end, then redistribution of income is justified. Thanks for accepting it

The ends do not justify the means. The means may involve rasing some to a higher level. Wonderful. It also involves theft from those who did something with their lives to avoid being in the situation that needs charity.

The market price for a given good or service is decided through the intersection of supply and demand. I accept that, and so do you. We're not communists, see.

And the accepted price for money, is work. You work, you get money. You don't work, you don't get money. Thanks for accpeting it.

Why should people not be able to access the necessities of life?

Becuase the nescessities of life cost money. If i decided to drop out of school and never do anything with my life but sit back and leech, clearly it should now become YOUR responsibility to buy me a house and food because I chose to sit around and consume resources. Look to any other animal species on the planet. The strong, intelligent, or extremely lucky survive. The weak, stupid, or extremely unlucky die. Humans being more intelligent than other animals doesn't change the fact that there are a finite number of resources in the world. Anything that has a limited quantity has value. Nobody gets something for nothing.

Public schools in themselves are NOT bad. However, they are usually expressions of socio-economic status, and this has a very clearly established link with academic performance. Note also, that private schools can choose who they admit to their schools. In my area, they 'zone' themselves in rich areas. So much so, that one school zones itself in its immediate area, and has a second zone that is about a 40 minute drive away. Both zones are wealthy. Everything in between? Lower to lower-middle class.

Yeah, private schools are an advantage. Private schools also cost money. Why the **** would you go get a high income job if you had no intention of using that money to gain advantages in life? Damn those evil rich people, giving money to their own children rather than complete strangers they've never heard of. Whatever could they be thinking?

But of course, every country has it's right-wing crazies who don't believe in a level playing field.

I know, any sane person would reason that every person who gets ahead in life, whether by good luck, intelligence, hard work, whatever should be dragged down to the level of the unfortunate. How dare those crazies try to LIVE rather than settling for SURVIVING. You know, there was never a lottery at birth that handed out million dollar bills to families at random. Those people who were born into rich families have an advantage for a reason. SOMEBODY, whether it was their parents, grandparents, great grandparents, etc... worked their ass off to get ahead. God forbid they'd do something selfish like working to ensure that their descendants could live an easier life. Any sane person would just go work their ass off their entire life so complete strangers can get by on a McDonald's paycheck.

[Omni]

Yeah, in this particular case, the employer got lucky. Sucks for the rest of the world. But let's totally ignore the fact that his father, or granfather, great grandfather, whatever, was not born with a supermarket. At some point in time, somebody worked to create it. If somebody handed you $1,000,000, to give away, would you be more inclined to give it to your family, and children, you know, people that you care about? Or complete strangers who have done nothing to earn it?

So the people who happened to be born into enough privilege to start a company hundreds of years ago should be given priority and more privilege now that they managed to reproduce effectively as well as not ruin their business or be subject to a hostile takeover?

You use business as if it's some sort of hereditary entity, which is not true at all when it comes to large corporate conglomerates. These things have swapped hands, been bought out, bankrupted, absorbed by the Federal Reserve, loaned out to other countries, etc. etc. etc. The "business" world is no longer mom and pop shops passed down through families, bud. That's "small business" and good for them for keeping it in the family, but when people attack business and corporate mentality, they're attacking the large corporate entities who own most of the products on the shelves and, in turn, have a large stake in terms of people's employment options.

How about another case. My neighbor and I are the same age. We went to the same elmentary and middle school. Our fathers work at the same company, and make about the same wage. We also went to the same high school until 10th grade when he dropped out. Now, he's leeching off his parents who are getting ready to kick him out of the house. Meanwhile, I'm going to college on a scholarship. The difference here wasn't random chance. The difference here is hard work. The idea of Socialism doesn't give two shits who did more work, it'll take half of everything I make and give it to that lazy **** to 'level the playing field'. Fair right?

School (academia in particular) isn't for everyone. Most other developed countries have a plethora of vocational schools that teach technical skills to students who haven't done well in or don't want to pursue academia. Meanwhile, America is giving away college degrees ONLINE because they'll do anything to force-feed you the idea that you HAVE to go to college, and if you don't you'll be WORTHLESS. If you want to go to college, awesome. Go for it. Got a scholarship? Grats. But what about the people who don't want to go to college? Is their existence less worthy because they don't have a piece of paper from an institution?

There's an old saying that goes: "What does it mean to have a piece of paper? In the city, a million dollars. In the country, a clean backside."

There is a stigma in America against doing anything other than college when you graduate their state and law-mandated high school system. They have to keep you in fluorescent-lit classrooms for 22 years of your life, so you can spend the next 40 in a fluorescent-lit office.

Hate to break it to you, but being born entitles you to absolutely nothing material. Not for humans, not for any other living thing. If any wild animal decides it's not going to go kill its food, or go find a plant to eat, no magical force is going to bring it to them. No other animal is going to go get it for them. They will sit there and starve to death. If you choose to live on the streets with no job, I'm not going to go work two jobs so we can both live on the same income. You're going to sit there and starve. Tough shit. Welcome to reality.

Why do you hate America?

"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."

Your idea of reality is pretty ****ed up if you think that a society doesn't bear any responsibility for its own citizens. This, I think, is the biggest problem with American culture today: "Because I deserve it." Screw anyone who doesn't have it as well as I have it, they obviously deserve it, and I definitely deserve all of my stuff. A society is not simply a juxtaposition of persons; the status of another inevitably has consequences for the people around him. To quote another guy you might know about: "Inasmuch as you have done it for the least of My brothers, you have also done unto me."

Do you know about the parable of the broken window?

TL; DR version:
1. Shopkeep's son accidentally breaks window in shop
2. Shopkeep is mad, witnesses say "Don't be mad, it's bound to happen. Besides, glaziers would starve if windows weren't broken."
???
3. It's good to have these accidents because they circulate money!
(4.)Wait, that money would have probably been circulated anyway, but now it can't be because it has to pay for a window, lol wat?

This interpretation leads to the possibility of a benefactor, or one who could stand to profit from "breaking windows". See below:

"Suppose it was discovered that the little boy was actually hired by the glazier, and paid a franc for every window he broke. Suddenly the same act would be regarded as theft: the glazier was breaking windows in order to force people to hire his services."

Many things in American culture could be seen as benefactors. War, for one. Cars, for another: in a suburban environment with no public transit, one cannot make it to work without a car unless he wishes to walk on the highway in ridicule. BUT ACCORDING TO YOU, nobody should help him carpool to work because it's his fault he can't just have a car to drive to work, or it's his fault he can't move and live next to his office, he should work harder or get another job to pay for the car that he has to have to drive to his two jobs that pay for his car.

Ad infinitum.

So you see, people are "trapped" in this sense, but, hey, if they have to not feed themselves for a week to make a car payment, that's their own fault and we, as a society who inherently BUILT this suburban system he is trapped in, bear no responsibility to his basic health needs. He should go out and hunt food during the six hours he gets to sleep between his two jobs.

And what if I decide, it's not my problem that some people fail to thrive? If YOU want to help the needy, YOU can go give to charity. Charity is something a person gives by choice. Socialism is justified theft.

SOCIALISM PAYS FOR THINGS I WOULDN'T NORMALLY CONSIDER BUYING IPSO FACTO IT'S JUSTIFIED THEFT YOU GUYS.

Then what the hell are taxes? What are street lights, road signs, paved highways, the postal service, running water, electric lines if not money that was taken from us and used to buy things we wouldn't normally consider buying or making (because we don't have time with our two jobs)? If I told you you could no longer get water from a faucet, you had to go to a reservoir and collect it and transport it to your home by yourself, what would you say? I hope you would say, "Thank God, now nobody has to pay for me to get water! I can do it myself, also I don't have to pay for anyone else's water now, whoopee!"

You seem to be missing the point... if those parents couldn't afford to feed that child, they shouldn't have had it. It all sounds great when we say it's a fellow human being. Fact of the matter is, you can't afford something, you don't get it. A child is no different. If anything, a child is worse. Because by having that child you couldn't afford, you condem it to living a sub-standard life and probably remaining in the lower class all its llife.

BABIES R SO SIMPLE U GUYS: IF U DONT WANT 1 DONT HAVE 1 LOL

It makes perfect sense on paper, but the pattern of childbirth between classes is drastically different. Intelligent people have fewer children than people of lesser intelligence, at least in recent years, that we know. Intelligence has little to do with affluence though, as you've said, because all that matters is if you were born rich, tough shit to anyone else.

If you can barely afford food, how will you afford condoms, doctors appointments, health care with prescription coverage, birth control, morning after pills, pap smears, prenatal care, abortions, etc.? So it's no wonder lower income families have more unplanned pregnancies: they can't afford the things that stop them from getting pregnant. Sure you can say, "Well, they just shouldn't be having sex, then!" but then you sound like a pious tard because you cannot deny people their natural sexual drives. It's what we're designed to do, reproduce. But it's "justified theft" to publicly subsidize birth control.

I don't have any responsibility at all to pay for someone else. You won't find my name on any contract that says I agreed to pay the expenses of those who have not worked for I have. Selflessness is a CHOICE. Socialism is theft.

Really driving that "theft" point home, huh?

The ends do not justify the means. The means may involve rasing some to a higher level. Wonderful. It also involves theft from those who did something with their lives to avoid being in the situation that needs charity.

You have your means and your ends mixed up there, guy.

And the accepted price for money, is work. You work, you get money. You don't work, you don't get money. Thanks for accpeting it.

Right, because money is always the same value and isn't based on market conditions or the actions of the Federal Reserve Bank, and there's no such thing as assets or investments or benefits, everyone gets paid in cold hard gold coins.


Just a reminder:

You won't find my name on any contract that says I agreed to pay the expenses of those who have not worked for I have.

You won't find my name on any contract saying I have to work for someone else to get my monies to pay for my stuffs to put in my cars and houses. I never accepted this system of currency, it was imposed on me from birth, I had no choice. inb4 "well u shoud just move than" because it takes lots of MONEY to get away from MONEY, in case you didn't notice.

Not all "work" is created equal, either. Does the guy shuffling papers on Wall St. do more work than the guy laying railroad ties in Colorado? Physics would say no, their paychecks would say yes. Does that mean it's "right"?

Becuase the nescessities of life cost money. If i decided to drop out of school and never do anything with my life but sit back and leech, clearly it should now become YOUR responsibility to buy me a house and food because I chose to sit around and consume resources. Look to any other animal species on the planet. The strong, intelligent, or extremely lucky survive. The weak, stupid, or extremely unlucky die. Humans being more intelligent than other animals doesn't change the fact that there are a finite number of resources in the world. Anything that has a limited quantity has value. Nobody gets something for nothing.

"The necessities of life cost money, but humans are really like animals who don't use systems of currency, but things still all cost money, really you guys they do, and it's obvious that the best human beings are the ones with all the money."

This should be on your headstone.

Yeah, private schools are an advantage. Private schools also cost money. Why the **** would you go get a high income job if you had no intention of using that money to gain advantages in life? Damn those evil rich people, giving money to their own children rather than complete strangers they've never heard of. Whatever could they be thinking?

Idk, maybe because you decided to do that work for more than the numbers on your paycheck? Because maybe you legitimately enjoyed your work? (That never happens, though, does it?)

Bill Gates is a sucker, just throwing his money away to all these people he'll never meet instead of making life better for himself and his children. What an asshat.

I know, any sane person would reason that every person who gets ahead in life, whether by good luck, intelligence, hard work, whatever should be dragged down to the level of the unfortunate. How dare those crazies try to LIVE rather than settling for SURVIVING. You know, there was never a lottery at birth that handed out million dollar bills to families at random. Those people who were born into rich families have an advantage for a reason. SOMEBODY, whether it was their parents, grandparents, great grandparents, etc... worked their ass off to get ahead. God forbid they'd do something selfish like working to ensure that their descendants could live an easier life. Any sane person would just go work their ass off their entire life so complete strangers can get by on a McDonald's paycheck.

SOMEBODY, whether it was their parents, grandparents, great grandparents, etc. probably screwed somebody over and annexed all of their resources, assets, and customers. Business is not hereditary, as much as your arguments wish it was. Business is business, and you bet your ass somebody thought "Gee, a $1000 to let them dig oil wells in my back yard? Sure, I'll sign over my property rights!" and then, 50 years later, the oil well has accrued millions in profits. Hindsight is 20/20, but that doesn't mean it was "right" at the time. Get over this "Because I deserve it." mentality and see how utterly wrecked our society is from the ground up. It's a fundamental problem, not just some "they want to take my moneys!" argument.

[Selcopa]

Oh fun , i'm kind of jumping in the middle, but thats okay.

So the people who happened to be born into enough privilege to start a company hundreds of years ago should be given priority and more privilege now that they managed to reproduce effectively as well as not ruin their business or be subject to a hostile takeover?

Yep, some people are born with a financial headstart compared to others, deal with it, and who they chose to pass this benefit on to is of no concern of any of us.

School (academia in particular) isn't for everyone. Most other developed countries have a plethora of vocational schools that teach technical skills to students who haven't done well in or don't want to pursue academia. Meanwhile, America is giving away college degrees ONLINE because they'll do anything to force-feed you the idea that you HAVE to go to college, and if you don't you'll be WORTHLESS. If you want to go to college, awesome. Go for it. Got a scholarship? Grats. But what about the people who don't want to go to college? Is their existence less worthy because they don't have a piece of paper from an institution?

There's an old saying that goes: "What does it mean to have a piece of paper? In the city, a million dollars. In the country, a clean backside."

There is a stigma in America against doing anything other than college when you graduate their state and law-mandated high school system. They have to keep you in fluorescent-lit classrooms for 22 years of your life, so you can spend the next 40 in a fluorescent-lit office.

America is not force feeding it, people are driven to get a degree and the market has responded to this demand. But already we have many areas of skilled labor that doesnt involve intense schooling. Although there are alot of online schools now.

"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."

Life, the right to live and not have that right be infringed on by any person domestic or overseas. Liberty, the freedom from oppression from ones own government or another countries government. Pursuit of Happiness, the right to pursue whatever avenue of happiness that person chooses. Notice it doesn't say the Right to happiness, rather to pursue it. Big difference.

Your idea of reality is pretty ****ed up if you think that a society doesn't bear any responsibility for its own citizens. This, I think, is the biggest problem with American culture today: "Because I deserve it." Screw anyone who doesn't have it as well as I have it, they obviously deserve it, and I definitely deserve all of my stuff. A society is not simply a juxtaposition of persons; the status of another inevitably has consequences for the people around him. To quote another guy you might know about: "Inasmuch as you have done it for the least of My brothers, you have also done unto me."

GOVERNMENT bears only the responsibility to protect its citizens(army, police) and to ensure fair play. There is no responsibility to feed or clothe its citizens, SOCIETY will take of its self provided government stays out of the way and lets society take care of itself.

Many things in American culture could be seen as benefactors. War, for one. Cars, for another: in a suburban environment with no public transit, one cannot make it to work without a car unless he wishes to walk on the highway in ridicule. BUT ACCORDING TO YOU, The Government should not help him carpool to work because it's his fault he can't just have a car to drive to work, or it's his fault he can't move and live next to his office, he should work harder or get another job to pay for the car that he has to have to drive to his two jobs that pay for his car.

FYP in order to clarify, as well as agree with the statement. There are many ways to obtain favors or make deals. And there are many charitable organizations to help somebody with an aspect of their life, people can seek out these organizations and help themselves succeed.

So you see, people are "trapped" in this sense, but, hey, if they have to not feed themselves for a week to make a car payment, that's their own fault and we, as a society who inherently BUILT this suburban system he is trapped in, bear no responsibility to his basic health needs. He should go out and hunt food during the six hours he gets to sleep between his two jobs.

False, I did not make the mistakes that put this person in the situation they are in. Nor should I be punished for it, by taxing me in order for the government to give this person a 'break'. A driven person can make it work if they have to. Sometimes people make mistakes to put themselves in positions where they are unable to get out of it themselves, as tragic as this is, it i not the government's job to help this person out.

SOCIALISM PAYS FOR THINGS I WOULDN'T NORMALLY CONSIDER BUYING IPSO FACTO IT'S JUSTIFIED THEFT YOU GUYS.

Then what the hell are taxes? What are street lights, road signs, paved highways, the postal service, running water, electric lines if not money that was taken from us and used to buy things we wouldn't normally consider buying or making (because we don't have time with our two jobs)? If I told you you could no longer get water from a faucet, you had to go to a reservoir and collect it and transport it to your home by yourself, what would you say? I hope you would say, "Thank God, now nobody has to pay for me to get water! I can do it myself, also I don't have to pay for anyone else's water now, whoopee!"

No, socialism forces me to buy things that I do not believe are beneficial to my personal pursuit of happiness. Socialism is the idea that the government knows how to spend your money better than you do, and needs to take as much money away from you in order to make as many decisions as it can for you.
What are taxes? Please, taxes are a form of collecting revenue for shared goods. One person buying a streetlight to light an area cannot stop other people from benefitting from this streetlight, in cases of streetlights, highways, road signs, ect. I actually believe that the private sector could still handle this better than the government. I don't hate that the government controls it(as it also regulates the flow of traffic besides the roads/lights) but it is not an essential tax. The postal service is a joke, that should be privatised as well. And electric/water are already privatised so ?????
And in your odd situation, I would devise a system with my neighbors to benefit all of us maximally with the least amount of effort, I might even provide it as a service and make a profit off of this faucet malfunction.

BABIES R SO SIMPLE U GUYS: IF U DONT WANT 1 DONT HAVE 1 LOL

It makes perfect sense on paper, but the pattern of childbirth between classes is drastically different. Intelligent people have fewer children than people of lesser intelligence, at least in recent years, that we know. Intelligence has little to do with affluence though, as you've said, because all that matters is if you were born rich, tough shit to anyone else.

If you can barely afford food, how will you afford condoms, doctors appointments, health care with prescription coverage, birth control, morning after pills, pap smears, prenatal care, abortions, etc.? So it's no wonder lower income families have more unplanned pregnancies: they can't afford the things that stop them from getting pregnant. Sure you can say, "Well, they just shouldn't be having sex, then!" but then you sound like a pious tard because you cannot deny people their natural sexual drives. It's what we're designed to do, reproduce. But it's "justified theft" to publicly subsidize birth control.

The absence of producing so many babies probably contributes as factor of determining intelligence. And no I should not be required to pay for people's birth control because they are not in a position to pay for it themselves and have been unable to find(wait for it) a charitable organization to help them to a better position. The government should not be forcing me to pay for that. I'll take my Pious tard t-shirt now thank you. If you fail at life so much that you cant afford a 16 pack of condoms for $5, Then yes, I have no problem saying you probably shouldnt be having sex and risking reproducing, with or without a condom.

Right, because money is always the same value and isn't based on market conditions or the actions of the Federal Reserve Bank, and there's no such thing as assets or investments or benefits, everyone gets paid in cold hard gold coins.

Is it my fault that I pay attention to these things, instead of focusing on where and why lebron james is going, or who the next lady on The View is going to be, I chose to pay attention to something else, and is it my fault that I properly anticipate a change in the value of currency, and you didn't? I have no problem with people getting 'screwed' in this type of situation, they had the opportunity.

inb4 "well u shoud just move than" because it takes lots of MONEY to get away from MONEY, in case you didn't notice.

No, it doesn't. I thought about going into more detail on this, but I found it unneccesary, it's just wrong, and anyone who thinks critically about it, will come to the same conclusion.

Not all "work" is created equal, either. Does the guy shuffling papers on Wall St. do more work than the guy laying railroad ties in Colorado? Physics would say no, their paychecks would say yes. Does that mean it's "right"?

Is it right? Yes it is, there's a demand for different skills, and unfortately for railroad layers, alot of people have those skills, where as 'paper shufflers' as you call it, there aren't as many people with the skill set to pull this off, and because of that, that person can gain more than the railroader, it's called using your brain to work, not your brawn.
Is it fair the lebron james makes millions because he can throw a ball into a hoop? Yes it is, he deserves every dollar he makes, because he has a skill set that he worked on and developed, and now it reaping the benefits. Oh and also, I bet if lebron wanted to, he could go lay railroad in colorado pretty damn near as well as the colorado man, but could the colorado man do the same as lebron? Thats why lebron gets paid more.

Bill Gates is a sucker, just throwing his money away to all these people he'll never meet instead of making life better for himself and his children. What an asshat.

AND THERE IT IS. Look at that, Bill Gates, successful capitalist, giving away money out of the goodness of his heart(even if for PR it wouldnt matter) or Taylor Swift paying for a park for her hometown, successful people helping other people, without the governmnt forcing them to. Kind of makes that benevolence of society start to makes sense doesn't it?

SOMEBODY, whether it was their parents, grandparents, great grandparents, etc. probably screwed somebody over and annexed all of their resources, assets, and customers. Business is not hereditary, as much as your arguments wish it was. Business is business, and you bet your ass somebody thought "Gee, a $1000 to let them dig oil wells in my back yard? Sure, I'll sign over my property rights!" and then, 50 years later, the oil well has accrued millions in profits. Hindsight is 20/20, but that doesn't mean it was "right" at the time. Get over this "Because I deserve it." mentality and see how utterly wrecked our society is from the ground up. It's a fundamental problem, not just some "they want to take my moneys!" argument.

This is a VERY liberal idea here, if somebody is successful for a longer period of time, clearly they must have done it by screwing somebody over, rich on the backs of the poor as they say. And i'm going to say this as nicely as I can, and I mean no disrespect to the one who posted this, but.
This has to be the dumbest thing posted in this thread, perhaps the entire forum, and possibly the whole internet.
Amway comes to mind as far as debunking that idea. This liberal concept irks me more then anything. Let us assume for a minute, I will concede for the sake of the arguement, that somebody owned some land and someone came along and offered the man $1000 to drill for oil on that land. I will gve you that.

You don't know how valuable that $1,000 was to the man that recieved it at the time. $1,000 then might have been more important than a % of millions over a longer period of time. The land owner has to make a decision based on how much he wants for the rights. Maybe he knew that there was no oil, so he asked for $1,000 instead of 0.02% of the revenue, because 0.02% of 0 is $0, so $1,000 was better.

Maybe he needed immediate money, maybe if he didn't have $1,000 by the days end he was going to lose something more valuable than the money he would get from oil revenues, Wayne Gretzky being traded from Edmonton to LA comes to mind, look it up.

If he had gotten 0.02% of the revenues, liberals would take this same story as say he got screwed because he should have gotten 1% of the revenue. Bottom line is you don't know why he took the money over a %, it is not the buyer's responsibility if the seller offer's something at a below market value price. They made an agreement that both sides thought was fair, hindsight is 20/20 might say that the Land owner should have asked for more. But that was the land owners responsibilty in the first place.

Lets see I also picked up a few other fun ones

I'm mean, if it's simply a matter of working hard, then the majority of the world wouldn't be lower class, right? Yeah... structuralism ftw.

I have accepted the fact that some people are better at life as a whole than others, so they are incapable of moving up the class ladder. As well as the fact that different people have different goals in life, and therefore sometimes moving from lower class to a higher class is not one of the goals or weighted highly enough for that person to make the real steps to impove on ones own class.

Clearly off-topic, but New Zealand is the best country evah. No slavery. No nothin', just a bunch of 19th Century land-grabbing which has been/is being put right with multi-million dollar settlements. We still treated our indigenous population as citizens from the get-go.

It's funny how people never mention who we bought the slaves from? Actually I don't have all that much of a problem with slavery. Any country is free to attempt to invade and enslave america, or any other country that they want to, in some parts of the world this still happens too. We have decided for peace's sake on a mutual aggreement not to do this. But I don't fault the people who did this back in the day.

[Heartless Angel]

So the people who happened to be born into enough privilege to start a company hundreds of years ago should be given priority and more privilege now that they managed to reproduce effectively as well as not ruin their business or be subject to a hostile takeover?

Not at all. It's an advantage. Being born into a wealthy family is your starting point, not your set in stone position in life. Those who are born poor can make money and join the rich. Those who are born rich can be ****ing morons and go bankrupt. Being born poor doesn't doom you to remaining poor unless you're not intelligent enough to change your situation.

You use business as if it's some sort of hereditary entity, which is not true at all when it comes to large corporate conglomerates. These things have swapped hands, been bought out, bankrupted, absorbed by the Federal Reserve, loaned out to other countries, etc. etc. etc. The "business" world is no longer mom and pop shops passed down through families, bud. That's "small business" and good for them for keeping it in the family, but when people attack business and corporate mentality, they're attacking the large corporate entities who own most of the products on the shelves and, in turn, have a large stake in terms of people's employment options.

Yes, bought out by the poor I'm sure because they're ric- oh wait...You just quoted a part of a post used in response to an example about a business being inherited. I at no point in time mentioned a business that had been bought, bankrupted, or absorbed. Try responding to what I'm actually saying next time.

School (academia in particular) isn't for everyone. Most other developed countries have a plethora of vocational schools that teach technical skills to students who haven't done well in or don't want to pursue academia. Meanwhile, America is giving away college degrees ONLINE because they'll do anything to force-feed you the idea that you HAVE to go to college, and if you don't you'll be WORTHLESS. If you want to go to college, awesome. Go for it. Got a scholarship? Grats. But what about the people who don't want to go to college? Is their existence less worthy because they don't have a piece of paper from an institution?

In the eyes of the employer handing out the paychecks who says you must have said piece of paper, yes. If you don't want to meet the employer's condition, you don't get hired. This is relatively simple. If good paying jobs are needed to be succesful, and college is needed to get these good paying jobs; college is therefore needed to be successful. A college doesn't MAKE you worthy, it proves your worth. If college and thinking isn't for you, great, go be the best garbage collector or construction worker you can be. Don't expect the same wage as a brain surgeon.

Why do you hate America?

I love what America was. I hate what it is becoming.

"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."

Yes. Socialism robs a man of that last one. Dropping out of school and not going to college isn't pursuing hapiness. It's sitting and waiting for someone to bring it to you. Unless of course bad pay and physical labor makes you happy, in which case you wouldn't be bitching about the rich to begin with, so I'm guessing this isn't the case for most poor people.

Your idea of reality is pretty ****ed up if you think that a society doesn't bear any responsibility for its own citizens. This, I think, is the biggest problem with American culture today: "Because I deserve it." Screw anyone who doesn't have it as well as I have it, they obviously deserve it, and I definitely deserve all of my stuff. A society is not simply a juxtaposition of persons; the status of another inevitably has consequences for the people around him. To quote another guy you might know about: "Inasmuch as you have done it for the least of My brothers, you have also done unto me."

The government is responsible for it's people on some levels of course. We pay the government taxes inr eturn for certain servivces and guarentees. This does not mean it's the government's job to make sure we all play nice and share our toys. There is a limit to what is the responsiblity of the society, the rest is the responsibility of the individual. Yes, I do deserve what I work for. You go to work in exchange for a paycheck, you have earned it; you don't you have not earned it. You reap what you sow. And no, I actually had to look that quote up, I'm athiest.

Do you know about the parable of the broken window?

TL; DR version:
1. Shopkeep's son accidentally breaks window in shop
2. Shopkeep is mad, witnesses say "Don't be mad, it's bound to happen. Besides, glaziers would starve if windows weren't broken."
???
3. It's good to have these accidents because they circulate money!
(4.)Wait, that money would have probably been circulated anyway, but now it can't be because it has to pay for a window, lol wat?

This interpretation leads to the possibility of a benefactor, or one who could stand to profit from "breaking windows". See below:

"Suppose it was discovered that the little boy was actually hired by the glazier, and paid a franc for every window he broke. Suddenly the same act would be regarded as theft: the glazier was breaking windows in order to force people to hire his services."

Yes, I've heard it before.

Many things in American culture could be seen as benefactors. War, for one. Cars, for another: in a suburban environment with no public transit, one cannot make it to work without a car unless he wishes to walk on the highway in ridicule. BUT ACCORDING TO YOU, nobody should help him carpool to work because it's his fault he can't just have a car to drive to work, or it's his fault he can't move and live next to his office, he should work harder or get another job to pay for the car that he has to have to drive to his two jobs that pay for his car.

Once again you misinterpret me. Telling the government to gets it's ****ing hand out of my pocket, does not mean I don't care about anyone other than myself. This is again where we make the distinction between Socialism, and charity; selflessness and theft. If I choose to drive someone to work because I'm nice, great. If the government comes and tells me I have to drive this guy I don't know to work because he doesn't have a car, I'll tell the government to go **** itself with a cactus. There's a difference between the two.

So you see, people are "trapped" in this sense, but, hey, if they have to not feed themselves for a week to make a car payment, that's their own fault and we, as a society who inherently BUILT this suburban system he is trapped in, bear no responsibility to his basic health needs. He should go out and hunt food during the six hours he gets to sleep between his two jobs.

Yes, it is his fault. If he got a decent education, or was reasonably skilled in anything, he'd have a job that can afford car payments in addition to meals. Inb4 jobs are limitted; yes, they are. The best are chosen for them, or those who get there first. Survival of the fittest. Again, welcome to reality.

SOCIALISM PAYS FOR THINGS I WOULDN'T NORMALLY CONSIDER BUYING IPSO FACTO IT'S JUSTIFIED THEFT YOU GUYS.

Healthcare for perfect strangers, houses for lazy dropouts, these aren't things my money wouldn't NORMALLY buy. These are things my money would NEVER buy, unless someone took it out of my pocket first. So if it is being used to buy these things, I was at some point in time robbed.

Next time you're hungry and don't have money on you, reach into a strangers pocket and use theirs. When you get arrested, tell the cops you didn't rob him, he just bought your lunch, something he wouldn't normally consider buying. Tell me how that works out for you. (I'll give you a hint: Not very well, because they usually call that theft.)

Then what the hell are taxes? What are street lights, road signs, paved highways, the postal service, running water, electric lines if not money that was taken from us and used to buy things we wouldn't normally consider buying or making (because we don't have time with our two jobs)? If I told you you could no longer get water from a faucet, you had to go to a reservoir and collect it and transport it to your home by yourself, what would you say? I hope you would say, "Thank God, now nobody has to pay for me to get water! I can do it myself, also I don't have to pay for anyone else's water now, whoopee!"

I use the streets. I like seeing road signs when I drive. I use the psotal service. I like drinking water now and then, doctors say it's good for my health to do that once in a while. Because I use these things which cost money, it's natural I pay for them. I use my healthc are, so I don't mind paying for it. I don't use my neighbors healthcare. Incidentally, I don't PAY for my neighbors healthcare either. I wonder why that is. I sure as hell don't want to pay MORE for my healthcare, when it gets downgraded to upgrade someone else's. If I could no longer get water out of the faucet and collected it myself, I would expect not to be charged for it by a government who isn't giving me anything. Similarly, when I buy my own healthcare, I don't expect to be charged for someone else's which I'm recieving no benefit from.

BABIES R SO SIMPLE U GUYS: IF U DONT WANT 1 DONT HAVE 1 LOL

Assuming you can excerscise some form of self control and keep your legs closed and your pants on, yes. It really is just that simple.

It makes perfect sense on paper, but the pattern of childbirth between classes is drastically different. Intelligent people have fewer children than people of lesser intelligence, at least in recent years, that we know. Intelligence has little to do with affluence though, as you've said, because all that matters is if you were born rich, tough shit to anyone else.

It makes perfect sense in reality too, you don't have sex, you don't have kids. Try it, it really works that way! And no, apparently you missed the bit about hard work and college, but I guess I can't expect a liberal to consider all details, because not all detials support them. This argument is a great example of that so far.

If you can barely afford food, how will you afford condoms, doctors appointments, health care with prescription coverage, birth control, morning after pills, pap smears, prenatal care, abortions, etc.? So it's no wonder lower income families have more unplanned pregnancies: they can't afford the things that stop them from getting pregnant. Sure you can say, "Well, they just shouldn't be having sex, then!" but then you sound like a pious tard because you cannot deny people their natural sexual drives. It's what we're designed to do, reproduce. But it's "justified theft" to publicly subsidize birth control.

You won't be able to afford them, this is obvious. This leaves with two options, abstinence, or pregnancy. I can't tell them not to have sex, nor am I trying to. Suggesting this makes you sound like a pious tard. I will however tell them that I don't plan to feed their baby because they made a stupid descision. All actions have consequeces. You can try to justify stupid actions to me until you're blue in the face, at the end of the day, you still made a dumb decision, and it's your responsibility to deal with it. You don't like dealing with the consequences of irresponsibility and exercising no self control over natural instincts, I recommend being responsible and excercising self control over your natural instincts.

Really driving that "theft" point home, huh?

Really trying to brush of the fact that you're trying to justify robbing me, huh?

Right, because money is always the same value and isn't based on market conditions or the actions of the Federal Reserve Bank, and there's no such thing as assets or investments or benefits, everyone gets paid in cold hard gold coins.

I also set no exact exchange rate between the two, because there isn't one. I'm glad the rest of the human race isn't as literal (and/or idiotic) as you are, or we'd be in deep shit.

Just a reminder:

You won't find my name on any contract saying I have to work for someone else to get my monies to pay for my stuffs to put in my cars and houses. I never accepted this system of currency, it was imposed on me from birth, I had no choice. inb4 "well u shoud just move than" because it takes lots of MONEY to get away from MONEY, in case you didn't notice.

You also aren't bound to do any of those things. Providing of course you don't mind the consequences of simple cause and effect. In this case not being able to exchange goods with anyone who has accepted the system to acquire things to put in your car and house. Same goes for my situation I suppose, if I decide not to accept socialism, I'll just have to bear the consequences of not giving my hard earned money away. It'll be hard, but I'll try to manage.

Not all "work" is created equal, either. Does the guy shuffling papers on Wall St. do more work than the guy laying railroad ties in Colorado? Physics would say no, their paychecks would say yes. Does that mean it's "right"?

It's a simple matter of supply and demand. I know I'm asking alot by expecting a supporter of socialism to understand basic economics, but I'll put my faith in you. Any idiot can lay railroad ties in Colorado, so supply is high, and demand is lower than potential supply, so the overall value of a guy laying railroad ties in Colrado is realtively low. They want someone moderately intelligent or skilled in most high paying jobs. There are fewer of these. Supply is low. Demand is relatively high, therefore they have higher value.

"The necessities of life cost money, but humans are really like animals who don't use systems of currency, but things still all cost money, really you guys they do, and it's obvious that the best human beings are the ones with all the money."

Interesting, I don't recall saying or implying most of this. Are you illiterate too then? Or just an imbecile? First of all, humans aren't LIKE animals. Humans ARE animals. Lern2biology. Okay Mr. Literal, let's change that to, "The nescessities of life have value." Now it fits for other animals too. Humans simply transfer value through pieces of paper, or pieces of metal we call money. And once again, you misunderstand cause and effect. People aren't better because they make money, people make more money because they are better. Note I said make, not have. Lucky birth doesn't make you better, it makes you luckier. I suppose luckier could be considered better.

Idk, maybe because you decided to do that work for more than the numbers on your paycheck? Because maybe you legitimately enjoyed your work? (That never happens, though, does it?)

If that was all that really mattered, we wouldn't have poor people bitching about being poor, or liberals trying to cram socialism down our throats, because those numbers wouldn't matter as long you were happy with your job. Apparetly this is not the case.

Bill Gates is a sucker, just throwing his money away to all these people he'll never meet instead of making life better for himself and his children. What an asshat.

Again, you confuse selflessness with theft. Bill gates GIVES to charity. GIVE, meaning of his own free will. This is charity. Socialism DEMANDS that I give large sums of money against my will. This is theft. Grab a dictionary, look the two up, I'm getting tired of explaining it.

SOMEBODY, whether it was their parents, grandparents, great grandparents, etc. probably screwed somebody over and annexed all of their resources, assets, and customers. Business is not hereditary, as much as your arguments wish it was. Business is business, and you bet your ass somebody thought "Gee, a $1000 to let them dig oil wells in my back yard? Sure, I'll sign over my property rights!" and then, 50 years later, the oil well has accrued millions in profits. Hindsight is 20/20, but that doesn't mean it was "right" at the time. Get over this "Because I deserve it." mentality and see how utterly wrecked our society is from the ground up. It's a fundamental problem, not just some "they want to take my moneys!" argument.

Yes, obviously ALL rich people are just liars cheaters and thieves. No one EVER benefitted from hard work. And you call me a pious tard? Wasn't it you that was bitching (without cause I might add) that I wasn't taking hard work or intelligence into account, just birth (which again, was incorrect, but it seems you can't read or choose not to acknowledge half of my post)? Ah yes, oil. I agree, you definitely shouldn't be held accountable for making a bad descisioon because you didn't think ahead like someone else who profitted for doing so. Also, the guy who paid you that thousand dollars got rich because he was born lucky, not because he had a good idea. Totally (this is sarcasm, before you decide to take it literally and argue with it). Get over the failed utopia that exists only in your mind. Look at how wrecked the entire world is. There isn't enough wealth in existance to keep everyone living happliy. For someone to get ahead, someone else has to fall behind, it's a fact of life.

[Alpha]

First, this discussion has nothing to do with Obama.

Second, stop throwing the word 'socialist' around if you don't know what it means. Obama is NOT, I repeat NOT, a socialist. In an international context, he would be considered slightly right-of-centre. If he campaigned against my preferred candidates in my country, I would not vote for him, despite my being an obvious lefty.

Third, Omni is my new hero.

Fourth, to summarise the fundamental argument I regularly make:

Equality of opportunity is an ideal that nobody disputes.

Opportunity is severely and fundamental compounded by the relative presence/absence of money.

Therefore, opportunity = money.

Money = opportunity.

Money (presence) = opportunity.

Money (absence) ≠ opportunity.

And the clincher is this:

Money + opportunity = opportunity, ad infinitum.
And remember, opportunity = money.

Let's put some numbers in there.

1 + 1 = 2
2 + 2 = 4 (as opportunity = 2, and money = opportunity)
4 + 4 = 8
8 + 8 = 16
16 + 16 = 32
...

That is, inequality creates more inequality.

Of course, that's a very simple way to phrase my argument. So simple that there are obvious flaws, but it's the principle that matters.

Furthermore, let's look at some of the benefits of 'socialist' (ZOMG) policy, such as redistribution of income and progressive taxation.

A stable economy is a safe economy. For everyone: rich and poor. But what creates a safe economy? Answer: factors built into the system to fill the gaps of economic busts, and reduce the peaks of economic booms. What does this most efficiently? Answer: redistribution of wealth and progressive taxation. These are known in economics as 'automatic stabilisers'.

Quoting from Wiki because it's easier to copy-paste than to type out the words of a textbook:

In macroeconomics automatic stabilizers work as a tool to dampen fluctuations in real GDP without any explicit policy action by the government. It is a government program that changes automatically depending on GDP and a person’s income...

Government tax revenue tends to fall as a proportion of national income during recessions.

This occurs because of the way tax systems are generally constructed.

Income tax is generally at least somewhat progressive. If an individual's income rises, then their average tax rate increases. This means that as incomes fall, households pay less as a proportion of their income in direct taxation.

If national income rises, by contrast, then both households and corporations end up paying higher proportions of their income in tax.

This means that in an economic boom tax revenue is higher and in a recession tax revenue lower; not only in absolute terms but as a proportion of national income.
Other forms of tax do not exhibit these effects, because they are roughly proportionate to income (e.g. taxes on consumption like sales tax or value added tax, or they bear no relation to income...

Most governments also pay unemployment and welfare benefits. Generally speaking, the number of unemployed people and those on low incomes who are entitled to other benefits increases in a recession and decreases in a boom.

This means that government expenditure increases automatically in recessions and decreases automatically in a boom in absolute terms. Since the trend of output is to increase in booms and decrease in recessions, expenditure is expected to increase as a share of income in recessions and decrease as a share of income in booms.

Simply, when an economy is booming, taxation increases, to prevent it from booming too much, and causing inflation due to over-full employment.

Further, when an economy is in bust, taxation decreases, but expenditure (particularly unemployment benefits) rises. This ensures that consumption expenditure does not decrease by as much as otherwise would. This means output (=employment) does not decline as much. It operates automatically, to sustain GDP.

So there are legitimate, economically-rational reasons to be a 'socialist' (which is the wrong word: I'm just not going to give you the actual word, to see if you even know what you should be referring to such perspectives as).

---------------

Also, without quoting you, HA, because there is too much text, you broadly defined the phenomenon of 'crowding out'.

This refers to the alleged impact of government expenditure -- particularly government ownership of capital (e.g. the postal service) -- on the private sector. Neo-liberals would have us believe that the government should not perform any of these tasks, as it compromises the workings of the private sector, which is apparently more efficient. Crowding out: 'the contraction of the private sector following an increase in government expenditure'.

Firstly, the phenomenon of crowding out has been disproved. Thatcher was wrong. When she came to power, the private sector was in contraction. So she cut government expenditure left right and centre. Causing a myriad of social ills that operated to the detriment of the poor before the rich. But... after these cuts, the private sector contracted even faster. Also, unemployment rose even faster.

Why? Because the promotion of the phenomenon of crowding out ignores two things:

--The government is a customer of the private sector. Thatcher cut funding for hospitals, but the hospitals still needed to provide an essential service. So the service provision did not decline. Instead, hospitals deferred non-essential expenditure. Such things included cleaners, painters, and the like. These tasks are important, but there was room to cut down on them in the context of low funding. But what did this mean for cleaners, and painters? They lost employment. 1979 was a year in which, and as silly as this sounds, it is the truth, paint companies went into major decline. And then you must consider the multiplied effect of such an action. Painters had no jobs so they defferred spending. In the context of low unemployment benefits associated with neo-liberalism, they reduced spending even further than if they had lost their job in a context of high government expenditure. So they didn't demand goods and services. Output in other sectors of the economy declined, unemployment, as I stated, rose even faster. The private sector, as I stated, declined even faster and further.

--The second thing that such an allegation neglects to incorporate is the effect of confidence. With low government expenditure, which always, and this is not disputed by economists, decreases employment, came low business confidence. The overall model of the economy was of apprehension. Firms demanded fewer workers. Workers demanded fewer products. Firms demanded fewer workers. Workers demanded fewer products. and so on.

If you don't believe me, what solved the Great Depression? Answer: war. And what did war entail? A government deficit, as expenditure rose to pay for war, and it was considered inappropriate to have high taxes when preparing for and fighting a war.

In New Zealand, we didn't have that much preparation to do for war. Rather, in the 1930s, we elected a keen Keynesian. Michael Joseph Savage. He increased government expenditure. He even employed unemployed people in planting forests. Way ahead of his time. The effect of his actions were to ensure that people still had money to spend, and keep output stable.

This was how New Zealand recovered from the Depression. But not only that, our GDP per capita was among the highest in the world for many decades following. It has declined as of late, due to our own investigation into neo-liberalism from 1984.

So you see, these 'hopeless', 'lazy' poor people -- while their situation may or may not be of their own making (and it largely is not their fault) -- provide not only a moral and ethical problem, but they actually represent harm to the economy.

So don't ever insult a person on the left as 'not understanding economics'. Go pray to papa Milton, and make love to Pinochet.

[Heartless Angel]

First of all, money isn't really equal to opportnity. Money makes MORE opportunities, yes. It's not absolutely required. Yes, people with money have advantages in life, and more opportunities. That's kind of the point of wanting money.

Not quoting me because there's too much tex eh? Funny, looks more to me like you're not quoting me because I never actually said anything you're arguing with. Actually, I didn't really mention government spending at all, but that's okay. Actually as far as that goes, I'm a bit more liberal myself. Spending is good providing a government isn't stupid about what it spends on. This is where Obama ****s up so royally. In some cases, saving money and cutting spending is also a good thing, again providing that the government is smart about where and how large it makes the cuts.

[Joe]

Ok Heartless Angel, so from what I'm seeing in your posts, you seem to have a lot of disdain for poor people. After all, almost all poor people must be poor because they are either too lazy or too stupid to fix their situation, right?

What about those of us who are poor, despite intelligence and busting our asses to make things better? What about those of us who genuinely Need some form of healthcare assistance, or living assistance, despite hauling ass at our jobs? People get sick, people lose jobs when they get sick, is that because they were too stupid or lazy to plan ahead and figure something out?

Take my situation for instance, I'm hauling ass at my job, making Under minimum wage, since i'm part time, and until last week, my schedule would not allow a second job unless I was willing to sleep approximately 4 to 5 hours a night, and work a 16+ hour day including commutes. I can't afford health care, nor does my employer provide it, I have multiple wisdom teeth coming in, and need to get them pulled before they mess up my bite any more than it is. However, purchasing food, gas for my car, making my loan payments for technical school, and covering my insurance as well as assisting my mother with her bills leaves me approximately 10 dollars a month for anything extra.

You say that people who don't go to school are lazy and/or stupid? Again, from personal experience, without money, or a stellar credit history, it's damn near impossible to get the aid necessary to attend a Four year college. I have a two year degree and more IT certifications than you can shake a stick at, but because I'm unable to afford to attend school and earn a 4-year degree, my employment options are Severely limited. Is that my fault? yes, I could've done things differently, however then I wouldn't have had certifications, which are also desired for my field, and required for many positions. I could make more working minimum wage in town, yes. However in the long run, I need every ounce of experience in a professional environment I can get, and this is the only way to get it.

It just so happens that when you're born into a poor family, and no one in your family has a good enough credit history to cosign on a student loan (Mine is actually good, because I've always paid every bill on time, and made sure everything was kept current), it's suddenly awfully goddamn hard to get an education.

I'm not saying socialism is the answer, though I think it's odd that our economy was in excellent shape under clinton when taxes were higher, since, you know, government services, employees, and other related things all cost money. What I'm saying is, I agree with Omni and Alpha, our system, and our society is broken, and just letting those who already have money run everything, obviously isn't going to help others find opportunities.

Also, if I recall a lot of businesses who have recovered from the recession are STILL not hiring people, because it just so happens that they can make more money by overworking the hell out of their employees. And the employees have no choice but to submit, because it's damn near impossible to find a job in some areas.

I want to hear some actual solutions from you, rather than just saying a bunch of stuff that you DON'T want to happen.

One last side note, the price of an education has not jumped because of demand, but rather because there is no risk to any loan for the school, as all federal loans are backed by the US gov't, meaning that the school can charge whatever they want, people who qualify can get the loans that they want, and the government has to pay it if people fall on hard times and can't make the payments any more, resulting in pure profit for both schools and loan companies.

[Selcopa]

First, this discussion has nothing to do with Obama.

Second, stop throwing the word 'socialist' around if you don't know what it means. Obama is NOT, I repeat NOT, a socialist. In an international context, he would be considered slightly right-of-centre. If he campaigned against my preferred candidates in my country, I would not vote for him, despite my being an obvious lefty.

I don't care what the rest of the world thinks is socialism and what isn't. The reality of it is Obama is a president that has an agenda which the primary goal is to redistribute the wealth(his words) and wants to use government as the mechanism to accomplish this, as well as make decisions for people because they are not smart enough to make the right decision on there own. That is a socialist, I don't care if the world says "Well its not like he's doing things over here" doesn't matter, he's a socialist here.

Equality of opportunity is an ideal that nobody disputes.

Opportunity is severely and fundamental compounded by the relative presence/absence of money.

Therefore, opportunity = money.

Money = opportunity.

Money (presence) = opportunity.

Money (absence) ≠ opportunity.

First, I agree, Money does = opportunity, so when I make money, don't tax it away from me and take away my opportunity.

It's very popular for liberals to say the only way to make money is to have money first, which justifies them to take money from people and give it to others 'so they can be successful too' but in reality its just not the case. Amway comes to mind, you might of heard of the company its pretty big, Richard Devos is from my hometown so i've met him a few times. But he started out making and selling soap out of his garage, and worked his way up to building one of the largest companies in america.

Sure there are many more opportunities that come with having money, it gives you the option to buy something that looks promising and to be able to reap the benefits of success at a later time. But to say that the ONLY way to make money is to have it beforehand, is just being intentionally ignorant.

A fun way to practice this with play money would be to try playing EVE Online and working your way up.

Furthermore, let's look at some of the benefits of 'socialist' (ZOMG) policy, such as redistribution of income and progressive taxation.

You can spin socialism any way you want. The fact of the matter is it is the belief that the government can spend your money better than you can. It also assumes the fact that government in NOT inefficient, which there is no one that can say government is more efficient than the private sector. Especially in the health care system, for every sob story about how somebody couldnt afford a surgery in america, there are 5 stories in britain about how patients that are in the hospital don't even get checked by a nurse for over 5 days, that includes changing there bed pan, or moving them because you know, bed sores.

Socialism is an expensive system, as such, there are limitations on some of the things that it can and cannot afford to, R&D would be one of the most primary examples of these. Although medicines, procedures, as well as medical equipment are the main things socialism can afford when the 'generic' version comes out. The easiest example people can relate to is Digital Camera's.

Back in the day when digital camera's first came out, they were terrible quality, 800x600 resolution, 0.5 megapixels, could store maybe 100 pictures at most, and they costed about $1,200. Nowadays, they're lightweight, 2400x1200 resolution, 8 megapixels, and cost about $75. BUT the reason camera's were able to get this cheap, was because of weathly people that bought the cameras at $1,200. This gave the developers capital to improve the technology and make it more affordable.

The same thing applies to countries, capitalist countries develop medicines/tools, as well as pay high prices to have immediate access to these revolutionary technologies. socialist countries are then able to afford them 10-15 years later, when the market becomes more saturated with the product, and the price goes down. When you turn USA into a socialist country, nobody else will be able to develop these products, or be able to afford them in their infancy. Destroying innovation.

But the most important factor as to why socialism is even bearable in europe is quite simply, the umbrella of USA's protection, USA spends alot of money on the military, not only do we protect ourselves, we protect our allies, and our allies know this. And if any enemy were to attack them, they know the USA would come to the rescue, as such, they really don't need to spend an adequate amount of money on the military. If the USA moves towards socialism, eventually they would have to cut back on their oversea's military presence, and force countries to spend more protecting themselves, which they obviously cannot afford due to the plethora of government programs and spending.

Simply, when an economy is booming, taxation increases, to prevent it from booming too much, and causing inflation due to over-full employment.

Opposing market forces, hedging your bets, when things are good, slow them down, when they are bad, try to boost them up. iirc it was tried and failed in the USA to the superior letting the economy flourish and during times of recession to start retracting government spending programs. That was high school economics a long time ago for me so i'd have to look up details

Also, without quoting you, HA, because there is too much text, you broadly defined the phenomenon of 'crowding out'.

This refers to the alleged impact of government expenditure -- particularly government ownership of capital (e.g. the postal service) -- on the private sector. Neo-liberals would have us believe that the government should not perform any of these tasks, as it compromises the workings of the private sector, which is apparently more efficient. Crowding out: 'the contraction of the private sector following an increase in government expenditure'.

Firstly, the phenomenon of crowding out has been disproved. Thatcher was wrong. When she came to power, the private sector was in contraction. So she cut government expenditure left right and centre. Causing a myriad of social ills that operated to the detriment of the poor before the rich. But... after these cuts, the private sector contracted even faster. Also, unemployment rose even faster.

Crowding out is the idea that when the government asks for loans, nobody else can get loans because the banks/people have already given out their money, crowding out has not been disproved, and if anything, the post office simply proves it. The post office is used because it doesn't make any money, it actually loses alot of money, as such, other delivery companies are in fact crowded out of delivering letters.

The same idea goes behind health care, If the government health insurance/health care is cheaper than the private sector(due to the fact that it can survive and lose money all the time) then the private sector insurance will die out. However, if the private sector insurance is superior to the government insurance, nobody will use government insurance, and the government will change the rules to make their product the most desired choice. This is crowding out

If you don't believe me, what solved the Great Depression? Answer: war. And what did war entail? A government deficit, as expenditure rose to pay for war, and it was considered inappropriate to have high taxes when preparing for and fighting a war.

When alot of people see “I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. … And an enormous debt to boot!” they probably associate it with somebody critisizing George W Bush and his later economic policies, and they usually aren't too surprised to hear that "We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work." was from the same person, however they weren't talking about Bush, this was actually Henry Morgenthau Jr, secretary of treasury for FDR, and wait for it, architect for The New Deal.

Government buying weapons and such for war will boost an economy, everybody knows War is good for the economy, however, government trying to give people entitlements does NOT boost the economy, yes I understand that government is spending money in both scenarios, but really it isnt that complicated.

So you see, these 'hopeless', 'lazy' poor people -- while their situation may or may not be of their own making (and it largely is not their fault) -- provide not only a moral and ethical problem, but they actually represent harm to the economy.

Largely not their fault? Define this please, it's not their fault that they had a kid? It's not their fault that they prioritised a $20,000 car before a good house. It's not their fault that the average person saves -2% of their money, yes, negative, it's not their fault that they use credit cards and amass a huge amount of debt, because it doesnt hurt as much as paying with cash. And harm to the economy is mostly based on the fact that we bail these people out for much longer than they actually need.

So don't ever insult a person on the left as 'not understanding economics'. Go pray to papa Milton, and make love to Pinochet.

There can be disagreements between which ecnomic theory is better, but the only insult to liberals on economics I have is that they live in this utopian world where government is free from corruption and efficiency, when in reality these are the very two things government specialises in, government is horribly inefficient(hint, stimulus bill gave Colorado's 00th district $10,000,000. I'm sure you will be shocked to find out that there is no Colorado 00th district, or North Dakota's 99th congressional district getting 2 million, also a fake district. overall 440 fake districts).

Government is also much more corrupt than liberals would like to believe, but the simple fact of the matter is, ask congressmen, who ACTUALLY writes the bills, the elected official, or the "expert"? in almost all cases, experts write them. But who are these experts? Lobbyists, and no surprise that 42% of retiring congressmen go work for companies as lobbyists, and write the bills in favor of their company. Which of course they are going to do. You give a company a pen to write the bill, they are going to tailor it to their advantage over their competition.

Liberals would like to make some fancy law(that lobbyists would probably write) about how that has to be stopped and set rules and ethics and such. But all in all, wouldn't it just be easier to limit the power congress weilds? Companies won't hire lobbyists and make laws to their advantage if congress doesn't even make these laws that gives out these advantages.

[Meier Link]

Ok, I am stepping in here. I have noticed the trend for a while but have yet to step in and say something about it because of the personal issues I have been going through.

If you want to actually discuss socialism, make a thread about it. This is not the place to discuss the mater of socialism. Now if you are wanting to make the comparison to socialism in comparison to Obama, then this is the thread to do it. Some of you have done this some have not.

Off topic posting is still a no no in the ID forum. Keep it on track people.

Profanity in the ID forum, even though it is allowed, is still not recommended if you are trying to make an intellectual post.

There is a lot more I could say but I am going to say, check out the rules of this forum, to all, before continuing posting. To those that have upheld the rules, I applaud you. To those that haven't; I recommend that you read them and reread them again.

I am back and rule violators will be disciplined appropriately.