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.
Im not talking specifically about Ocare. Im talking about the concept of trying to help the poor and lower middle class get access to health care on more than just an emergency room basis. The concept that we should even be helping them at all is met with derision among many, if not most, conserves as bleeding heart liberalism wanting to take from hard working Americans to give it to lazy people. And Im not trying to debate the actual issue here, but show examples of how the right behaves exactly the same way you wish to call the left out for.
Do you know how the system works? I do. The governments system for "helping the poor" only keeps them in poverty and discourages anyone from getting off the system. Oh believe me, I know alot more about the system than some left wing talking points.
yea, just another thing I'm told what I think. LOL, and I could care less who marries who.
As for global warming, climate change or whatever you call it now a days, did you notice that alot of times they can't even predict the weather tomorrow.
Good if you dont, but you are in the minority among conserves, or at least were a few years ago. Many may have realized they have lost that battle, but I used to have long debates with them about how gays were destroying marriage and by extension the family and America by wanting to marry.
We are talking in generalities here across ideologies, and not any specific individuals.There would be any numbers of liberals who did not fit the description of your OP, but it doesnt mean it doesnt apply in general to the whole movement on the left.
Do you know how the system works? I do. The governments system for "helping the poor" only keeps them in poverty and discourages anyone from getting off the system. Oh believe me, I know alot more about the system than some left wing talking points.
This has nothing to do with the rights attitude towards liberal for wanting to provide help, and I hope we are not regressing to where I am a leftie giving leftie talking points after my post about where I stood, simply because I dont agree with you. Abuse and waste happens everywhere across every ideology. The healthcare system wanted by the right is rife with abuse and greed. Ask anyone who can buy meds for $5 cash that would cost more than that in a copay PLUS the much higher bill the pharmacy will send the ins co for the remainder. I have friends very high up in healthcare. You would be shocked at the legal abuse and greed that goes on, and went on before Ocare, not counting the illegal stuff they pull.
This has nothing to do with the rights attitude towards liberal for wanting to provide help, and I hope we are not regressing to where I am a leftie giving leftie talking points after my post about where I stood, simply because I dont agree with you.
It's easy to have compassion if someone else is paying for it. You don't drag down another group in your quest to help another group. The poor get alot of help, it's up to them to take it further but the way the system is set up I can see why they stay put.
Everyone wants to help but when you constantly dig into someone else's pocket, many who feel entitled and have no interest in helping themselves won't change anything and people who are forced to pay the bill feel abused (and they are abused). Why do liberals feel they can DICTATE how much money you or I need to take care of our families.
Lets think about the tax code for a min. It dictates how much is enough before the government feels they have a right to take money. As you climb the income ladder, the government feels it's excess money they think they have a right to take a higher percentage instead of allowing the people who earned it to keep and use for preparation for their own future when they can no longer work. When they get old they also end up struggling or in poverty. Worse, the qualifications for help are so low that these same people who paid the bill for years won't qualify for help.
What we have is politicians who think about re-election in the near future so they don't think long term. Our government is short sighted.
The Poor: Think about today and spend every penny they get. They see how the middle class live and don't understand that alot of it is paid for by debt. These people want the middle class lifestyle paid for by other people's money. These people could care less if you or I are taxed out of our money if they feel they would get a cut. How long have we been fighting the war on poverty? Did you notice that people in poverty perpetuate poverty. You are only as good as your role model. In most cases, look at your parents for there is your future unless you do something different.
The Middle Class: As they become more successful, they buy liabilities. They get caught in the rat trap. If their income increases, instead of saving and investing the extra money to pay for their future expenses, lifestyle creep or taxation eat away at their money. These people don't pay attention or care to understand taxation so they end up paying for their lack of knowledge.
The Rich: Buys assets to pay for their liabilities. They also understand how taxation can make them poor and hire professionals to advise them so they can keep more of their money.
True. And at the same time anyone who feels we should attempt to fix our healthcare system to do better for the poor is automatically a "bleeding heart liberal ' who simply wants to turn us into a socialist atheist country and rob money from hard working Americans to give it to lazy poor people. Anyone who wants to leave adults alone to decide who to love and marry, or even just have sex with, is a SJW who wants to destroy marriage, destroy America, and make us all godless leftie pinkos. Anyone who thinks the Earth is warming up is a leftie socialist trying to use GW to destroy America and redistribute our wealth to poorer commie leaning nations.
It works both ways, and applies equally to both. That is my point.
Not really...
What was fixed by Obamacare?
"Leave adults alone" and "marry" are two different and mutually exclusive things.
Marriage is a public act with a state issued license that makes it legally binding.
A couple wanting to be "left alone" will keep others out of their relationship by not marrying.
The subject wasnt specifically Ocare. Please read what was said. But in fact, quite a few people benefit from Ocare, while others had premiums go up. Some of the rising premiums came as a result of GOP governors refusing to participate in the federal program. You are willingly living in your own little bubble of ignorance if you dont know all of this.
Quote:
"Leave adults alone" and "marry" are two different and mutually exclusive things.
Marriage is a public act with a state issued license that makes it legally binding.
And someones elses marriage would involve you how?
Quote:
A couple wanting to be "left alone" will keep others out of their relationship by not marrying.
This remark simply makes no sense. What makes any difference in this between a gay couple and a hetero couple ? Should hetero couples wanting others to leave them alone to live their life as they see fit not marry? You make no sense.
But thanks for providing an example of what I was mentioning to Petch.
Capitalism is an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiGeekGuest
Capitalism is not a form of government, it's an economic system.
As Petch explains, capitalism is both an economic and a political system, and it is also a cultural system. It is a way of thinking. Which is a vast-departure from "human-nature"(IE collectivism/tribalism).
Capitalism requires a political system(of whatever sort) to exist at all. Economics shape politics, and politics shape economics. The two are inseparable.
The question then is, "Why does capitalism exist?", and "Why did capitalism take over the world?".
Capitalism exists as a political/social institution because it was, and is, beneficial to "the state". It was always about maximizing profits(IE economic-growth), because a portion of those profits/resources then go to the state. The more resources for the state, the bigger and stronger its military, and its ability to influence/dominate other governments/states(why do you think America is a superpower?).
Ironically, both the biggest supporters of capitalism and its biggest detractors, both complain about the same thing, corporatism, which can also be called state-capitalism/crony-capitalism/crapitalism/etc.
What both groups seem to be incapable of understanding, is that it is impossible to separate corporatism from capitalism, since the purpose of capitalism is power, and corporatism(especially the machinations of finance) is the primary tool of power.
Just think of the history of capitalism; Colonialism, imperialism, genocide, war, conquest, slavery. This notion that capitalism exists for the well-being of humanity is a complete delusion. It is nothing more than a happy-coincidence that capitalism, which depends on consumption, money, and debt, has improved anyone's quality-of-life.
And even that is questionable. Capitalism certainly has made life more-comfortable, but not without a cost.
As Petch explains, capitalism is both an economic and a political system, and it is also a cultural system. It is a way of thinking. Which is a vast-departure from "human-nature"(IE collectivism/tribalism).
Capitalism requires a political system(of whatever sort) to exist at all. Economics shape politics, and politics shape economics. The two are inseparable.
The question then is, "Why does capitalism exist?", and "Why did capitalism take over the world?".
Capitalism exists as a political/social institution because it was, and is, beneficial to "the state". It was always about maximizing profits(IE economic-growth), because a portion of those profits/resources then go to the state. The more resources for the state, the bigger and stronger its military, and its ability to influence/dominate other governments/states(why do you think America is a superpower?).
Ironically, both the biggest supporters of capitalism and its biggest detractors, both complain about the same thing, corporatism, which can also be called state-capitalism/crony-capitalism/crapitalism/etc.
What both groups seem to be incapable of understanding, is that it is impossible to separate corporatism from capitalism, since the purpose of capitalism is power, and corporatism(especially the machinations of finance) is the primary tool of power.
Just think of the history of capitalism; Colonialism, imperialism, genocide, war, conquest, slavery. This notion that capitalism exists for the well-being of humanity is a complete delusion. It is nothing more than a happy-coincidence that capitalism, which depends on consumption, money, and debt, has improved anyone's quality-of-life.
And even that is questionable. Capitalism certainly has made life more-comfortable, but not without a cost.
Re: bold: who? besides free market fundamentalists & libertarians are attempting to make this case?
As for the outdated definition of capitalism? Consider this: who 'won' the Cold War? I say China did.
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.
