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.
Out of eleven people in my office there are only two who are not working because the job offers healthcare.
The other nine are scared to death of changing jobs because what they have is the only way they can afford to take care of their families.
I submit that they are slaves already because of the current healthcare system. I am also quite pissed at Obama for compromising on the public option. Maybe in his next term he will grow a pair and kick the republican roadblocks to progress out of the way.
OK, so the rest of us should pay for those nine peoples health care so they can feel free to quit their jobs.
I think they should all have to get second jobs so they can buy me a horse and support it. I'm entitled, ain't I?
Why did you change your standard midstream from "housing" to homeownership? You arent saying they are one of the same? But now that you say housing is a necessity, are you now saying we hare a right to housing?
Point taken, but home renters do not get to build equity on the backs of taxpayers, unlike the middle class.
What about flippers and investors who buy 2nd homes and rent them out? Is Fannie/Freddie available to them? What about USDA 100% financing loans? The poor can buy a farm too?
The founders were kinda into life though. Does life, liberty and pursuit happiness ring a bell?
I was speaking of the constitution, not Declaration of Independence. As for life, the government has been authorized to take over someone's life following a legal process it establishes, unlike a right like free speech. But then, it could kill a person to shut him/her up. So, that option was left open.
Good point, a car can be dangerous and kill me. I should have a right to the safest car. Someone please point me to a Volvo dealership. Will they give me one in red?
I think big SUV's are safer. I'd like a new one, please.
Last edited by Minethatbird; 05-13-2011 at 12:39 PM..
Reason: spelling
See this is where you go wrong again. It makes all the difference in the world because if I can now start to demand that you do something for me, its slavery regarless if I pay you for those services. I have now FORCED you to spend your time for MY needs.
The new healthcare law is ultimately about partially-subsidized insurance. All of the rhetoric of “rights” and “slavery” is overblown. It presupposes a context of extreme Stalinist coercion that doesn’t exist in the law and no one is contemplating. If I fall and break my arm I don’t have the right to go up to any random doctor on the street and “demand” to be treated. There are no demands on any individual doctor nor is anyone making the claim of the “right” to anyone’s labor.
To take another example: We have a public school system. Do I have the right to approach any math teacher and demand to be tutored in calculus? Of course not.
I can understand the libertarian argument that no one should be coerced to pay for someone else’s heath insurance. There are other mitigating issues, in my opinion, but it’s a reasonable argument.
What is unreasonable is the belief that doctors will suddenly become employees of the state and be exploited to the point of chattel slavery. This is simply untrue. It’s sensationalist rhetoric meant to inflame public opinion but has nothing to do with the law as it is enacted.
You don't have to live in NYC. The minimum amount is irrelevant because you are required to put 20% down in most cases and have superlative credit. The poor are eliminated from this government cheese. Fannie Mae needs to be eliminated yesterday, but keeping it around neutralizes arguments that the poor get the cheese. The rich do also (flippers, investors getting rental cash flow, etc). HUD offers grants to section 8 homeowners. The poor cannot access the down payment necessary to obtain this cheese but the upper middle and rich can.
Maybe in 2005.
You are NOT required to put 20% down.. In fact the Fanniemae website says they will go up to 97% Loan before they even begin to require insurance
And this is without doing anything creative which gives people 80/20 mortgages which the poor CAN do.. For heaven sakes, stop with the nonsense that the poor cant get mortgages because of down payments..
I think big SUV's are safer. I'd like a new one, please.
I demand nothing less than a similar vehicle granted to the President.. Hey, we should be passing them out to those living in crime ridden neighborhoods all across america..
And this is without doing anything creative which gives people 80/20 mortgages which the poor CAN do.. For heaven sakes, stop with the nonsense that the poor cant get mortgages because of down payments..
Please, 80/20 is not available to anyone with no assets and a low income, unless you just stepping into a time machine from the years 2004-2005. You need STELLAR credit and a solid income source. McDonald's doesn't cut it for any house. Also, the middle class get MORE government cheese in the form of a bigger government sponsored home loan than the poor.
Also, even 3% down is not available to the poor. That money magically appear to someone barely making by?
Finally, what about Fannie/Freddie for investors who are not poor? Aren't they unfairly favored in the chase for government cheese? If I'm a poor person, I want my 2nd home...now! What about USDA loans? Farm subsidies?
I'm not defending gov't cheese for the poor, quite the opposite. I'm just saying that the middle class get their fair share AND MORE.
The new healthcare law is ultimately about partially-subsidized insurance. All of the rhetoric of “rights” and “slavery” is overblown. It presupposes of context of extreme Stalinist coercion that doesn’t exist in the law and no one is contemplating. If I fall and break my arm I don’t have the right to go up to any random doctor on the street and “demand” to be treated. There are no demands on any individual doctor nor is anyone making the claim of the “right” to anyone’s labor.
To take another example: We have a public school system. Do I have the right to approach any math teacher and demand to be tutored in calculus? Of course not.
I can understand the libertarian argument that no one should be coerced to pay for someone else’s heath insurance. There are other mitigating issues, in my opinion, but it’s a reasonable argument.
What is unreasonable is the belief that doctors will suddenly become employees of the state and be exploited to the point of chattel slavery. This is simply untrue. It’s sensationalist rhetoric meant to inflame public opinion but has nothing to do with the law as it is enacted.
Actually thats not at all what the new healthcare law is about.. The new healthcare law is about TAXING those who go without. Even Obama made that argument to the courts while defending the bill.
Please, 80/20 is not available to anyone with no assets and a low income, unless you just stepping into a time machine from the years 2004-2005. You need STELLAR credit and a solid income source. McDonald's doesn't cut it for any house. Also, the middle class get MORE government cheese in the form of a bigger government sponsored home loan than the poor.
Also, even 3% down is not available to the poor.
Finally, what about Fannie/Freddie for investors who are not poor? Aren't they unfairly favored in the chase for government cheese? If I'm a poor person, I want my 2nd home...now! What about USDA loans? Farm subsidies?
You are just going off on a tangent that has nothing to do with the thread.
Are you now suggesting people are entitled to assets as well? And you dont need stellar credit, and the solid income source can consist of government handouts
As for 3% not available to the poor.. thats total bs.. Someone poor can buy a $50K home for $1,500 down, and the poor get that from their tax refund "credits", or from seller concessions. Considering a home similar size would cost $500 to rent a month, and with first month, last month, security deposit needed often times, it comes to the exact same amount if not cheaper to buy, then rent. In fact I've bought homes and received cash at the closing due to property tax credits which are granted from the seller to the buyer at closing, or buying homes lower than the appraised value..
Lets further continue onto your 2nd home argument, which isnt insurable by Fannie/Freddie What does any of this have to do with the thread?
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.
What about USDA loans? Farm subsidies?
