Well, he'd better be careful. Changing your mind about something is a cardinal sin to some.lowing wrote:
Looks like Obama can no longer defend his bullshit socialist agenda any longer, why? Because he has proven to himself it does not work.
Wonder if our nobel prize winner for "hope" is lying this time as well. We will see.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 … on_LEADTop
I understand your point, but I disagree with the premise. It all depends on what advantages you think the rich should have over the poor.JohnG@lt wrote:
How is a house, a car or eating food luxury items? They fall into shelter, transportation and sustenance respectively. All of which are necessary for human success. His point is valid and he found the primary flaw in any socialist system.Jaekus wrote:
The world doesn't work this way.lowing wrote:
Ahhh so you would be fine if you charged MORE for a new car, simply because you can afford to pay more, while someone who cant afford it should be charged less for the same car.
Maybe, you would be fine if paid more for your meal at your favorite restaurant, because you can afford to pay more.
Ahhhh I bet when you buy a plane ticket, you would be fine if the first thing the ticket agent asks you is, "and how much do you make so I can adjust the sale price"?
Maybe the price of your house should be determined, not by the fair market value of the property, but by how much you can afford to pay.
You really think that logic is fair huh?
Like presidentsheep said, we're talking about basic human needs, not luxury items.
I don't believe that being rich should give you access to better and quicker medical facilities. I don't believe that being rich should give you access to a better education, either. I believe that everyone within a state deserves the same opportunities in terms of medical treatment and education, and that the bill should be split between the population depending on ability. Simple as that. There is something morally wrong, in my opinion, about depriving the less wealthy of the best medical treatment and education.
However, it is fine by me that rich people can eat at better restaurants, live in nicer houses or drive better cars. If we are to use lowing's analogy about restaurants, we'd have a government gathering extra taxes and sending the same food out to everyone. Sure, everyone would have access to the same food, the poor would get better food than they would, but it's a pointless exercise because the right to having perfectly cooked steaks every Saturday isn't even remotely close to the importance of the right to a good education.
Oh I agree whole-heartly it is those individuals that do not produce that you insist should be carried on the backs of the producers as a life style, and a govt. that forces that upon you that I object to. In short, reward achievement and not failure is the best incentive to achieve.Dilbert_X wrote:
This is one of your bizarre linkages which make no sense.lowing wrote:
I don't care how much YOU pay in taxes, we are not a socialist country, ( or aren't supposed to be). You are obviously comfortable under the thumb of your govt.
In social democracies people aren't 'under the thumb' of anyone, they're free to elect the KKK if they want to, they just choose to vote for someone else.
Generally speaking groups of people working together can achieve more than groups of squabbling individuals and journeymen can.
Dilbert, under your elections, does your socialist philosophy change drastically from leadership to leadership or do they just change the name on the door? I mean do you stand a chance of electing any govt. that will do away with your freeloading socialist values?
I can: carry a gun concealed for self defense, I understand you must give good reason to own a gun and your big brother says self defense is not a good reason.DrunkFace wrote:
Yep, what can you do [Lowing], as an American which I can't as a "socialist" Australian?Dilbert_X wrote:
This is one of your bizarre linkages which make no sense.lowing wrote:
I don't care how much YOU pay in taxes, we are not a socialist country, ( or aren't supposed to be). You are obviously comfortable under the thumb of your govt.
What is this big thumb really restricting me from doing?
I do NOT pay for someone else's healthcare
I do NOT pay for someone else's education
I can keep more of my money for MY benefit, instead of sharing it with those that have nothing to offer in return because big brother says so
So far at least, don't know if Obama is done trying to turn us into you.
yeah and? it is a cycle, I understand that. So tell me, where do the "cogs" that are not turning any gears fit into our little machine? What function do those cogs have? and does our machine cost more, weigh more and become less efficient by the addition of a ton of cogs that turn through our machine but are not driving any components yet still require lubricant?Jaekus wrote:
In this then they are wrong. Every job is a cog in the wheel of society, it's how it is. Remove a couple cogs around your cog and all of a sudden you're without a job.lowing wrote:
I don't care how much YOU pay in taxes, we are not a socialist country, ( or aren't supposed to be). You are obviously comfortable under the thumb of your govt. Most self reliant Americans have the mind set that they go to work for themselves and not for the "hive"Jaekus wrote:
It depends on the size of the hive to begin with, the conditions of the new hive (not just taxes lol) and a whole lot of other motivations. If taxes are your primary motivation for where you live, move to Korea, their taxes are low.
Also, to put this discussion in perspective as we're talking about the US primarly here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Incom … ountry.svg
Not sure what the size of the hive,or the condition of the new hive has to do with anything in context of my analogy.( actually your analogy).
People will move for all sorts of reasons, but inevitably it boils down to THIER over all quality of life, better schools, keeping more of their money, working for themselves instead of working to support someone else, etc...
Providing people with education and healthcare hardly amounts to carrying underachievers on our backs. We over here simply consider those basic human rights.lowing wrote:
Oh I agree whole-heartly it is those individuals that do not produce that you insist should be carried on the backs of the producers as a life style, and a govt. that forces that upon you that I object to. In short, reward achievement and not failure is the best incentive to achieve.
Dilbert, under your elections, does your socialist philosophy change drastically from leadership to leadership or do they just change the name on the door? I mean do you stand a chance of electing any govt. that will do away with your freeloading socialist values?
inane little opines
What are you on? The poor have as much access to any education or medical facility they want as the rich. Don't get me started with the fact that their kids get a free ride at most top Universities, while I actually have to work to send my kids to those same top universities.Jenspm wrote:
I understand your point, but I disagree with the premise. It all depends on what advantages you think the rich should have over the poor.JohnG@lt wrote:
How is a house, a car or eating food luxury items? They fall into shelter, transportation and sustenance respectively. All of which are necessary for human success. His point is valid and he found the primary flaw in any socialist system.Jaekus wrote:
The world doesn't work this way.
Like presidentsheep said, we're talking about basic human needs, not luxury items.
I don't believe that being rich should give you access to better and quicker medical facilities. I don't believe that being rich should give you access to a better education, either. I believe that everyone within a state deserves the same opportunities in terms of medical treatment and education, and that the bill should be split between the population depending on ability. Simple as that. There is something morally wrong, in my opinion, about depriving the less wealthy of the best medical treatment and education.
However, it is fine by me that rich people can eat at better restaurants, live in nicer houses or drive better cars. If we are to use lowing's analogy about restaurants, we'd have a government gathering extra taxes and sending the same food out to everyone. Sure, everyone would have access to the same food, the poor would get better food than they would, but it's a pointless exercise because the right to having perfectly cooked steaks every Saturday isn't even remotely close to the importance of the right to a good education.
Yeah, while I shell out over $600 a month for medical coverage and still have to pay $25 deductible for every visit, the other patient next to me pays $0 deductible and medical is covered by SSI. How is that fair?dayarath wrote:
Providing people with education and healthcare hardly amounts to carrying underachievers on our backs. We over here simply consider those basic human rights.lowing wrote:
Oh I agree whole-heartly it is those individuals that do not produce that you insist should be carried on the backs of the producers as a life style, and a govt. that forces that upon you that I object to. In short, reward achievement and not failure is the best incentive to achieve.
Dilbert, under your elections, does your socialist philosophy change drastically from leadership to leadership or do they just change the name on the door? I mean do you stand a chance of electing any govt. that will do away with your freeloading socialist values?
lol and why would you think YOU need your money more than your govt. does?Ilocano wrote:
Yeah, while I shell out over $600 a month for medical coverage and still have to pay $25 deductible for every visit, the other patient next to me pays $0 deductible and medical is covered by SSI. How is that fair?dayarath wrote:
Providing people with education and healthcare hardly amounts to carrying underachievers on our backs. We over here simply consider those basic human rights.lowing wrote:
Oh I agree whole-heartly it is those individuals that do not produce that you insist should be carried on the backs of the producers as a life style, and a govt. that forces that upon you that I object to. In short, reward achievement and not failure is the best incentive to achieve.
Dilbert, under your elections, does your socialist philosophy change drastically from leadership to leadership or do they just change the name on the door? I mean do you stand a chance of electing any govt. that will do away with your freeloading socialist values?
There are thousands of cases in the US where hospitals are doing 'charity' work because of people who get involved in some sort of freak accident and can't afford the medical bills / contract some nearly un-treatable disease or tumor, or even drug abusers or homeless people who end up near dead in front of a hospital - costing millions of dollars per hospital annually.Ilocano wrote:
Yeah, while I shell out over $600 a month for medical coverage and still have to pay $25 deductible for every visit, the other patient next to me pays $0 deductible and medical is covered by SSI. How is that fair?
You can't blame the medical staff for wanting to treat these people, there's nothing worse than watching someone die while you know you can do something about it. Over here the state simply reimburses the hospital for these cases. Additionally every citizen receives the same quality of healthcare regardless of their social status. It's a human right. When someone is set to die or needs immediate surgery, it's disgusting, imo to tell them "well that's what you get for not doing your best in school" and leave them there. First treat them and THEN talk about what went wrong and how you're going to solve it in the future.
Beyond that there's simply the 'unlucky' factor of people who get disabled without even having started working in society. There's where the government steps in and helps them through treatment, which in many cases of disability is extremely expensive.
inane little opines
I don't think anyone REALLY thinks he's changing his mind. He is down quite a few pieces and just Castled his King, That's all. He is the same man with an empty gun and everyone knows it. All the threats and insults are now vapor. Only the real dolts can't remember how he talked and acted just a few short months ago. He is probably under allot of pressure from democrats not to push them into making moves and votes they will be held accountable for. The democrats realize they only need a few months and some juicy celebrity gossip headlines to make their voter base forget the whole thing.Turquoise wrote:
Well, he'd better be careful. Changing your mind about something is a cardinal sin to some.lowing wrote:
Looks like Obama can no longer defend his bullshit socialist agenda any longer, why? Because he has proven to himself it does not work.
Wonder if our nobel prize winner for "hope" is lying this time as well. We will see.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 … on_LEADTop
And I get to go to buy alcohol before I'm 21 and visit a brothel, none of which has anything to do with socialism or social programs.lowing wrote:
I can: carry a gun concealed for self defense, I understand you must give good reason to own a gun and your big brother says self defense is not a good reason.DrunkFace wrote:
Yep, what can you do [Lowing], as an American which I can't as a "socialist" Australian?Dilbert_X wrote:
This is one of your bizarre linkages which make no sense.
What is this big thumb really restricting me from doing?
And? How does that make any choices I make concerning my education or health be in any way controlled by the government?I do NOT pay for someone else's healthcare
I do NOT pay for someone else's education
Well, sadly for you, if this is actually correct. No, no you don't.I can keep more of my money for MY benefit, instead of sharing it with those that have nothing to offer in return because big brother says so
So far at least, don't know if Obama is done trying to turn us into you.
Umm the argument was govt. having their thumb on you remember? So yes, when your govt. tells you you are not responsible enough to own a gun for self defense, that is having their thumb on you.DrunkFace wrote:
And I get to go to buy alcohol before I'm 21 and visit a brothel, none of which has anything to do with socialism or social programs.lowing wrote:
I can: carry a gun concealed for self defense, I understand you must give good reason to own a gun and your big brother says self defense is not a good reason.DrunkFace wrote:
Yep, what can you do [Lowing], as an American which I can't as a "socialist" Australian?
What is this big thumb really restricting me from doing?And? How does that make any choices I make concerning my education or health be in any way controlled by the government?I do NOT pay for someone else's healthcare
I do NOT pay for someone else's educationWell, sadly for you, if this is actually correct. No, no you don't.I can keep more of my money for MY benefit, instead of sharing it with those that have nothing to offer in return because big brother says so
So far at least, don't know if Obama is done trying to turn us into you.
because your govt. IS FORCING someone else to pay for your personal choices. Again it goes toward big brother tell you how your money is best spent. this goes toward having their thumb on you.
If you are a leech well hell yeah socialism is great. If you are the one producing for someone else.probably not so much
Last edited by lowing (2011-01-24 17:39:59)
99% of the population over here supports gun control, socialized healthcare & education. It isn't really about "leechers and moochers" anymore with that being the case.lowing wrote:
because your govt. IS FORCING someone else to pay for your personal choices. Again it goes toward big brother tell you how your money is best spent. this goes toward having their thumb on you.
If you are a leech well hell yeah socialism is great. If you are the one producing for someone else.probably not so much
inane little opines
Because that's your status quo Anyone who wanted to change those positions would... be a liberaldayarath wrote:
99% of the population over here supports gun control, socialized healthcare & education. It isn't really about "leechers and moochers" anymore with that being the case.lowing wrote:
because your govt. IS FORCING someone else to pay for your personal choices. Again it goes toward big brother tell you how your money is best spent. this goes toward having their thumb on you.
If you are a leech well hell yeah socialism is great. If you are the one producing for someone else.probably not so much
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
pretty muchJohnG@lt wrote:
Because that's your status quo Anyone who wanted to change those positions would... be a liberal
inane little opines
Philosophy doesn't change a lot, it varies from centre-right to centre-left, plus we have a good number of independents and fringe parties.lowing wrote:
Oh I agree whole-heartly it is those individuals that do not produce that you insist should be carried on the backs of the producers as a life style, and a govt. that forces that upon you that I object to. In short, reward achievement and not failure is the best incentive to achieve.
Dilbert, under your elections, does your socialist philosophy change drastically from leadership to leadership or do they just change the name on the door? I mean do you stand a chance of electing any govt. that will do away with your freeloading socialist values?
Plus with our 5% unemployment we're carrying half as many failures on our backs in our socialist paradise as you are with 10% unemployment in your capitalist utopia
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2011-01-24 17:47:44)
Fuck Israel
It'll drop closer to 4% later this year with the reconstruction
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
If practically 100% of you don't want guns to protect yourselves, why would their be a need to out law them from you. You just wouldn't buy them right?dayarath wrote:
99% of the population over here supports gun control, socialized healthcare & education. It isn't really about "leechers and moochers" anymore with that being the case.lowing wrote:
because your govt. IS FORCING someone else to pay for your personal choices. Again it goes toward big brother tell you how your money is best spent. this goes toward having their thumb on you.
If you are a leech well hell yeah socialism is great. If you are the one producing for someone else.probably not so much
Wonder how many of you would vote, if given a chance, to save 8,000 dollars a year on your tax bill, but will have to spend 300 dollars a month for health insurance. Nehhhh, I bet you wouldn't take it.
and how is France and Greece doing?Dilbert_X wrote:
Philosophy doesn't change a lot, it varies from centre-right to centre-left, plus we have a good number of independents and fringe parties.lowing wrote:
Oh I agree whole-heartly it is those individuals that do not produce that you insist should be carried on the backs of the producers as a life style, and a govt. that forces that upon you that I object to. In short, reward achievement and not failure is the best incentive to achieve.
Dilbert, under your elections, does your socialist philosophy change drastically from leadership to leadership or do they just change the name on the door? I mean do you stand a chance of electing any govt. that will do away with your freeloading socialist values?
Plus with our 5% unemployment we're carrying half as many failures on our backs in our socialist paradise as you are with 10% unemployment in your capitalist utopia
Goddam that socialist tax and spend.Spark wrote:
It'll drop closer to 4% later this year with the reconstruction
Fuck Israel
lolling at Greece being an example of any sort of reasonable economic philosophy
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
socialist right? big brother catering to their every need, until it broke them? rightSpark wrote:
lolling at Greece being an example of any sort of reasonable economic philosophy
more like borrow borrow borrow borrow borrow borrow borrow
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Somewhat better than the ultimate in free markets - Somalia.lowing wrote:
and how is France and Greece doing?
No taxes, no healthcare, no gun control, total freedom - they don't even have Police so you're not paying for that!
Maybe you should move there.
Fuck Israel