Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And I certainly hope you have the education and political awareness to know that these terms ARE VERY interchangeable. They only vary by degrees of who owns what but the concept of a centralized pool that everyone contributes to is the same.
If you think they are interchangeable, then you have no business talking about politics and must have failed every poli-sci test you've ever taken.
What is fair? Is it fair for you to demand a portion of my earnings? Wouldn't that be theft if you tried to do it without government force? Wouldn't it be more fair if, supposing I couldn't find work, that I demanded to live in your house because you have more than you need and I don't have my fair share? Aren't you selfish if you say, "No!" After all, society would be better for it. I could lay around your house all day, playing video games, eating your community food... while you went to work because you are able.
No one is demanding a portion of your earnings, genius! Where do you get this ridiculous notion? Straw man much?
Obamacare makes everyone pay their fair share. If you smoke, you pay more. It's called personal responsibility. Period.
If you think they are interchangeable, then you have no business talking about politics and must have failed every poli-sci test you've ever taken.
Name the one... liberal, progressive, socialist, marxist or communist, that does not operate in a large degree on redistribution of wealth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by logline
No one is demanding a portion of your earnings, genius! Where do you get this ridiculous notion? Straw man much?
Obamacare makes everyone pay their fair share. If you smoke, you pay more. It's called personal responsibility. Period.
BTW... isn't Obamacare just redistribution of wealth because it supposedly aims to make an equal amount healthcare available to all, regardless of ability to pay? Is the FAIR SHARE of a person who will not work zero? How is that a FAIR SHARE? Why can't I demand to live in your larger than necessary house? After all, wouldn't that be a FAIR SHARE because you certainly don't need that much.
"...from each according to their ability to each according to their need..." Again... where is this motto NOT associated with liberal, progressive, socialist, marxist, communist or even Obamacare?
BTW, I noticed your continued attempt to ridicule me based on my supposed lack of education rather than arguing your point on its merits. Could it be that your Saul Alinsky styled attacks are based on not having merit to your argument? So instead of debating, you feel compelled to attack because that is what you were taught?
I eagerly await enlightenment from your superior intellect... or more attacks due to your inability to debate your positions. Which ever you prefer.
Last edited by KS_Referee; 02-01-2013 at 10:36 PM..
Name the one... liberal, progressive, socialist, marxist or communist, that does not operate in a large degree on redistribution of wealth.
BTW... isn't Obamacare just redistribution of wealth because it supposedly aims to make an equal amount healthcare available to all, regardless of ability to pay? Is the FAIR SHARE of a person who will not work zero? How is that a FAIR SHARE? Why can't I demand to live in your larger than necessary house? After all, wouldn't that be a FAIR SHARE because you certainly don't need that much.
"...from each according to their ability to each according to their need..." Again... where is this motto NOT associated with liberal, progressive, socialist, marxist, communist or even Obamacare?
BTW, I noticed your continued attempt to ridicule me based on my supposed lack of education rather than arguing your point on its merits. Could it be that your Saul Alinsky styled attacks are based on not having merit to your argument? So instead of debating, you feel compelled to attack because that is what you were taught?
I eagerly await enlightenment from your superior intellect... or more attacks due to your inability to debate your positions. Which ever you prefer.
Whoever taught you that liberal means "redistribution of wealth" and "communism" has taken you for a ride. Liberal refers to the latin "liber" which means freedom. It's tenets were formulated by John Locke and are based on equality and fairness and surprise-surprise: it actually opposes communism. You have made your own false definition to fit your own distorted view of liberals who you think are out to take your money, live in your house, or take your healthcare... puh-lease! Stop watching Fox News, it's rotting your brain. The telltale sign was your Saul Alinsky reference... that proves where you get your "facts". A Glenn Beck fan, huh? And yes, I do question your education level since it's so obvious that you don't have the slightest clue about the differences between liberal, progressive, marxist, socialist, communist... heck, you might as well have thrown in "satanist" and "baby-killer" while your at it to make yourself feel justified.
Your entire argument has been a long string of straw men. I could go on and on, but maybe you should hear what another self-described liberal has to say about Saul Alinksy:
Let me see... Democrats called themselves liberals... social liberals, but liberals for short. (they stole the label from classical liberals, ie Mises, hoping it would change the perception of who they are) They called themselves progressives. (again, hoping it would change the perception of who they are). What will they call their political positions next?
They... be they (social) liberals, progressives, socialists, marxists OR communists, they ALL favor redistribution of wealth.
"...from each according to their ability to each according to their need..." (<<< That is redistribution of wealth is it not?) was a phrase coined by Karl Marx. Hmmm... Where have I heard the name Karl Marx? Could it be that MARXISM thing?
Wow... I could post link after link of reinforcing data but the point is again you are attacking me. This time for watching FoxNews and or Glenn Beck? Is that all you have, attacks? I noticed you are also using ANOTHER Saul Alinsky tactic by attempting to change the subject because you are WRONG.
You said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by logline
No one is demanding a portion of your earnings, genius! Where do you get this ridiculous notion? Straw man much?
Obamacare makes everyone pay their fair share. If you smoke, you pay more. It's called personal responsibility. Period.
Those are your words. Who pays the fair share of one who will not work? It won't be them, so how is it a FAIR SHARE if I have to pay for them? Again, how is this NOT redistribution of wealth? Which political structure, be it (social) liberal, progressive, socialist, marxist OR communist does NOT utilize redistribution of wealth?
I said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by KS_Referee
Name the one... liberal, progressive, socialist, marxist or communist, that does not operate in a large degree on redistribution of wealth.
BTW... isn't Obamacare just redistribution of wealth because it supposedly aims to make an equal amount healthcare available to all, regardless of ability to pay? Is the FAIR SHARE of a person who will not work zero? How is that a FAIR SHARE? Why can't I demand to live in your larger than necessary house? After all, wouldn't that be a FAIR SHARE because you certainly don't need that much.
"...from each according to their ability to each according to their need..." Again... where is this motto NOT associated with liberal, progressive, socialist, marxist, communist or even Obamacare?
PROVE ME WRONG.
You just want feel better about yourself, thinking you've somehow helped mankind by stealing from those who earn and REDISTRIBUTING it to those who do not earn.
Anyone with any intellectual or moral honesty would say that Obamacare, and any other kind of socialized healthcare is redistribution of wealth. A perfect example (and 100% on topic) is:
Redistribution of wealth means I have to pay, from MY earnings, for my healthcare and a portion of the healthcare of someone else who does not have to pay for their own.
Um, no. You are 100% wrong. We are NOT looking for free handouts, but I'm sure you feel better about yourself believing in such a ridiculous lie. It's the Tea party hypocrites who scream "Keep your goverment hands off my medicare!"
Liberals are looking for FAIRNESS. That's all.
Back on topic, why would a conservative ever criticize this part of Obamacare when it specifically mandates that smokers (who have higher healthcare costs) must pay higher premiums? What happened to Republicans being the party of personal responsibility? Did that suddenly disappear because Obama says it? Hmmmm?
As a registered Independant, I would like to remind ou that the whole idea behind Obamacare was to make sure ALL Americans would have healthcare. This was SUPPOSED to end people being denied insurance because they were high risk or had pre-existing conditions, not? It was also supposed to lower the cost of healthcare for everyone.
Let's see....premiums have gone up every year since the law was enacted even though the provisions had not even gone into effect, smokers (usually lower or middle class) can now be charged as much as $5000 more per year than even the obese, which have higher medical costs than smokers, and those with pre-existing conditions will have to be allowed policies but no caps on the cost.
Who did this fiasco help? Insurance companies. Open your mind.
You seem to assume that smokers and the obese are Republicans yet statistics show that they fall more in line with lower income people, more likely to be Democrat. And if you would do some research, you would find that the obese have higher healthcare costs than smokers so how long will it be before they are singled out and can no longer afford insurance either.
If you think going single payer would prevent this, with the IRS collecting the penalties and having access to our medical records they are directly in line to see what TAX you will be forced to pay in the future. This will impact the working poor and middle class the most.
All the good liberal intentions will go out the window again because they never have any forethought. The unintended consequences always rear their ugly head when it's too late. That's what happens when politicians ram crap through without even reading it. But I guess that's what we pay them for. They work for the insurance companies and big pharma, that's who is benefitting from this, surely not the low or middle class.
Yes as I thought. You are just a liberal taker, going to get whatever they can, without contributing or contributing as little as possible. As long as you get yours, you don't care about anyone else and the effects on them.
As I said, I don't want ANYTHING from you. You want EVERYTHING from me and everyone else. Have some morals and ethics. Have some personal responsibility for yourself and your life. Its not societies fault you aren't a millionaire.
Yay for deflection! You have no idea who I am or how I conduct my life. I can guarantee you that I could school you on "personal responsibility" so much it would make your head spin. Get over yourself.
Free market capitalism is no where near reality anymore in this country. If it were, and if the government would stay out if it, not interfering, (which is EXACTLY what people like you do when you demand FREE healthcare, universal healthcare, healthcare for all) society as a whole would benefit in ways that no other system can match. But that isn't what you want to hear because you appear to hate capitalism, leaving one to assume you are a socialist or some other offshoot of the same illness.
You want to regulate profits of certain industries because you see them as excessive. Let's take the insurance industry as a whole. They rake in big bucks... but every now and again a Katrina comes along and they get hurt in ways you cannot imagine. But you don't consider the risk because you assume it is all profit, therefore unfair so your only regulation is on their profits not their losses... but regulating either interferes with the free market.
Housing... My guess is you would be in favor of preventing people from building shanties. You would demand that for their own sake and safety, they should be regulated in what they build, allowing only approved materials, specific building codes, meeting standards approved by knowledgeable people in the industry. Funny thing is, those people are usually the ones who have special interests represented when they come up with the code recommendations. Not only that, but by denying shanties from being built, you've made cheap housing, which may be all one can afford, completely unavailable. In essence you created victims. People who cannot afford living in houses built according to your standards. So now we'll need a new program, one to house those who cannot afford housing.
These government intervention cycles are circular and endless. There are so many examples I could list. As a matter of fact only a miniscule fraction of industries aren't affected negatively by government intervention and regulations.
So let me guess. Your suggestion on healthcare regarding smokers and fat people would be... MORE intervention of the free market by government regulation. Right?
Please don't slam free market capitalism if you won't allow it to work. Far too many economists know that if and when it is allowed, free market capitalism works like no other system can at increasing the lot of ordinary lives. No government intervention can do what free market capitalism can because it must first take from one person in order to give to another. When government does this... production, creativity, effort and motivation are reduced in one form or another and victims are created.
Free market capitalism causes many societal ills. Even someone with a basic working knowledge of world history knows this.
And I certainly hope you have the education and political awareness to know that these terms ARE VERY interchangeable. They only vary by degrees of who owns what but the concept of a centralized pool that everyone contributes to is the same.
Interesting. So, fascism and conservatism are interchangeable too, right?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
They only vary by degrees of who owns what but the concept of a centralized pool that everyone contributes to is the same.
Straw man much?
