Do most people that oppose social programs and universal healthcare in the US have a racial agenda? (middle east, lawyer)

[Clarallel]

That's a really interesting question.

I think that it may likely have a racial element, but I suspect that the driving force is really greed/stinginess/heartlessness. I think that at the most basic level, Republicans are indifferent to those less fortunate, and their ultimate goal is to keep profiting and funneling money upward to the rich. They have this funny paranoia that someone is out to get them, to take a little bit of their money away from them. It's possible that the racism may be a by-product in this case.

[Three Wolves In Snow]

Originally Posted by River City Rocky

Is it just me or does it seem like most people that oppose more social programs and universal healthcare in the US use a lot of racial undertones to convey their points? Of course not all but it seems the average die hard "capitalist" that opposes social programs in the US does this or at the minimum seem to have a superiority complex.

What do you think?

Note: I'm only talking about the average amateur person that is vehemently "capitalist" (which are the vast majority of people that oppose more social programs etc.) not necessarily the intelligent ones that can actually defend their points of view with substance.

That's because you have a bias against those who you say have a bias.

My issue with it has nothing to do with race. It has everything to do with keeping your (general "your") filthy mitts out of my wallet. Earn your own damn way in life.

We are not a socialist country. The government's job is not to ensure that everyone is taken care of. Their job is to protect this country from invaders. That's it. They aren't supposed to be doing all of this other bs of taking money from one person to hand it to another - we are a Constitutional Republic. You are a free person, but with that freedom it means you have to do the work to reap the rewards, not expect everyone else to do it and hand the rewards to you.

[boneyard1962]

Originally Posted by greywar

Please quit using the internet, roads, etc. its hypocritical to do so while complaining about the theft.

I kind of agree, however I disagree that it's hypocritical to complain.
When we use roads its a pay to use scheme. I pay fuel tax, registration fees and am required to pay for an operator's license every 4 years. I pay for the use of the roads, I pay for the right to complain.

Social Security is no gift, no freebie. That is a benefit all working folks paid for.

The internet. I guess every government in the world is paying for that as well as I write this post from 9000 miles away.

Is taxation theft? No. We have the opportunity to vote for and elect our reps. What is hypocritical is to hold the opposition ng party to higher standard than you do your own.. If you don't like the way the FED is doing business, stop voting party line and start voting for change. I think it insane to vote for a candidate based upon party.

[No_Recess]

Originally Posted by Clarallel

That's a really interesting question.

I think that it may likely have a racial element, but I suspect that the driving force is really greed/stinginess/heartlessness. I think that at the most basic level, Republicans are indifferent to those less fortunate, and their ultimate goal is to keep profiting and funneling money upward to the rich. They have this funny paranoia that someone is out to get them, to take a little bit of their money away from them. It's possible that the racism may be a by-product in this case.

Republicans are State socialists...like you.

I'm a capitalist. There are no Republicans at the annual Christmas Party.

[whogo]

Originally Posted by greywar

Pretty much this. Everyones fine for things that benefit them, but not for others. congress folks have great medical care at almost no cost. They love it. Theyre not as fond about taxpayers paying for others to have that sort of care. Everyone wants a free ride.

We get people here using the internet, yelling taxation is theft, and then when you call them on wanting something for nothing they deny it....while using the internet which exists because of government funding. Its moronic.

Everyone wants nuclear waste disposed of, no one wants it in their state.

No, the fact you disagree with certain parts of the social contract does not mean you should not accept every benefit of that contract because you do have to accept the responsibilities assigned to you under that contract. Someone who believes taxation is theft is taxed anyways.

[greywar]

Originally Posted by whogo

No, the fact you disagree with certain parts of the social contract does not mean you should not accept every benefit of that contract because you do have to accept the responsibilities assigned to you under that contract. Someone who believes taxation is theft is taxed anyways.

They are taxed because they participate in the society, because of the benefits that society provides. If they stopped participating in that society, they wouldn't have taxes. And you dont get to pick and choose things your way at the expense of everyone else. This is a insanely unrealistic argument.



I think thats part of what annoys me the most about it, its completely unrealistic. Its a child whining about how unfair life is.

[Ferd]

Originally Posted by River City Rocky

Is it just me or does it seem like most people that oppose more social programs and universal healthcare in the US use a lot of racial undertones to convey their points? Of course not all but it seems the average die hard "capitalist" that opposes social programs in the US does this or at the minimum seem to have a superiority complex.

What do you think?

Note: I'm only talking about the average amateur person that is vehemently "capitalist" (which are the vast majority of people that oppose more social programs etc.) not necessarily the intelligent ones that can actually defend their points of view with substance.

It isn't just you... .its all the left.


I mean if someone doesn't agree with yall they are purely racists.


at lest that's your most ardent argument.


so there is that.

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by River City Rocky

Is it just me or does it seem like most people that oppose more social programs and universal healthcare in the US use a lot of racial undertones to convey their points?

There's nothing racist about it.

Social welfare programs are best administered by the States, if for no other reason than the Cost-of-Living varies so incredibly across the US, that the only thing federal programs do is unjustly reward others while doing nothing to help others.

Your Cost-of-Living varies so greatly across the US that a single retiree receiving $1,201/month in Social Security benefits earns too much money to qualify for HUD Section 8 housing in many areas of the US.

Meanwhile, another single retiree receiving the maximum Social Security benefit of $2,788/month, plus a pension of $1,878/month, for a total of $4,666/month qualifies for HUD Section 8 housing in some areas of the US.

We can use the actual data:

$56,000 - $14,400 = $41,600

or express it as an hourly wage rate:

$26.92/hour - $6.92/hour = $20/hour


That's how tremendous the difference really is, and in reality, the difference is even greater than that.

The person making $6.92/hour is not in poverty. Maybe you can't live on $6.92/hour, but Millions of others can and do.

And, the person earning $6.92/hour has the exact same identical Life-Style as the person making $26.92/hour.

Who makes more money, the person in Cincinnati earning $35,000 or the person in White Plains (New Jersey) making $70,000?

The person in Cincinnati earns $10,000 more per year.

You could live in each one's home for a month and it would be totally impossible for you to tell the difference, because they have identical homes, identical cars, identical clothing, apparel, accessories and shoes, identical TVs and furniture and everything else.

The only difference is the person in Cincinnati only needs $25,000 to have all the same things the person in White Plains earning $70,000 has and the person in Cincinnati has an extra $10,000 a year to play with.

Does it make sense for the federal government to give everyone $520/month in SNAP benefits?

No.

That $520/month will buy $1,200 worth of food in some places, but only $350 worth of food in other places.

How fair is that?

How could you possibly justify that?

I've asked that question of numerous Liberals on the forum and not one has ever had the guts to answer, because they know they're wrong.

As far as healthcare, your federal and State governments, and the American Hospital Association are totally responsible for the mess you have.

All States have to do is repeal one or two laws, and there's no such thing as "Out-of-Network." All insurance is "In-Network" after that.

The federal government needs only to repeal one law, and the States need to repeal all of their insurance laws, and you can go back to tying life insurance with catastrophic health insurance.

You pay premiums for 10 years, then you never pay another dime, but you and your spouse (and minor children) are covered for the rest of your lives, and when you die, you leave that money to your named beneficiaries, like your children or grandchildren (or charities if you have no children or don't want them to have money).

Why don't you want Lower Middle Class and Lower Class families to generate wealth and pass it on?

Why are you opposed to that?

In addition to catastrophic insurance, everyone should be able to buy $25,000 to $5 Million worth of emergency room coverage as they see fit.

Where's the sense in making seniors and the elderly buy pregnancy/maternity coverage, plus buy birth control coverage?

People should only buy what they need, instead of having it crammed down their throats.

You rail about oil monopolies, and yet you don't even blink when hospital monopolies and cartels illegally collude to illegally charge prices far above market rates.

What are you doing about that?

Before you start screwing everyone with universal healthcare, you need to do everything possible to reduce prices, and to do that, you need only break up the monopolies and cartels, and repeal a few thousand federal and State laws.

[augiedogie]

No, the people, like me, who oppose all the give away project know the country cant afford them, know they create a disincentive to work, and know that welfare programs help destroy families.

[YourWakeUpCall]

Originally Posted by River City Rocky

Is it just me or does it seem like most people that oppose more social programs and universal healthcare in the US use a lot of racial undertones to convey their points? Of course not all but it seems the average die hard "capitalist" that opposes social programs in the US does this or at the minimum seem to have a superiority complex.

What do you think?

Note: I'm only talking about the average amateur person that is vehemently "capitalist" (which are the vast majority of people that oppose more social programs etc.) not necessarily the intelligent ones that can actually defend their points of view with substance.

Ironically, you've just outed yourself as a racist by implying that people of color use social programs more than other groups.