• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Thanks, Obama.

God can people please not quote JMHD either. Are you a real person? We're "content" to let her "settle for this existence"? Jesus Christ. Doesn't it actually solve your perceived problem that people are taking no steps towards fixing this issue to require that she purchase health care or be penalized for not doing so? I don't understand your position at all.
 
We should resist the temptation to oversimplify complex considerations.

Just thought I'd joint the fantasy fest.
 
Turd Ferguson said:
This is what you are focusing on? When the government collects taxes and then uses the money to run itself or to fund public works projects, it is not distributive. Taking money from one person and giving it to another is not the definition of a tax. That is the definition of a redistributive tax. There are plenty of tax programs that are not redistributive. It is interesting to note, however, that redistributing wealth is so closely linked to government in your eyes this is all you are seeing.
Click to expand...

Wrong again.

It is impossible to have a society with tens of millions of people or hundreds of millions of people and not have some that fall through the cracks. It's in the society's best economic interests not to have millions of people on the streets or without food.

It's one aspect of government, but to you it's all or nothing. You"ve stated it multiple times.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
I don't have a problem with individual states mandating health care, I do have a problem with the federal government doing so. I don't really view this aspect as anything beyond a federalist issue. I liked Romney's Massachusetts plan, but disagree with the health car decision that the insurance mandate was a tax over a penalty.
Click to expand...

There is a de facto mandate on those who have insurance to pay for those who don't have it.
 
I wonder if the 45% who don't pay federal income taxes paid 5% if we couldn't cover the uninsured. I have no idea but it's worth a thought.
 
It's always funny to me that conservatives who want to raise taxes on the poor don't realize they're taking money out of the private sector and giving it to the government.
 
I happen to think that if you pay a minimum of 5% and no more you have skin in the game and might actually give a shit about entitlement programs and how they are managed. But that's just me.
 
DirkTheDeac said:
I wonder if the 45% who don't pay federal income taxes paid 5% if we couldn't cover the uninsured. I have no idea but it's worth a thought.
Click to expand...

That cost us more than we'd get. Every penny of that 5% is spent in our economy. It would cost farm jobs, truckers' jobs and every stop along the supply chain of everything form food to oil to clothes and every other product they spend money on each month.

Additionally we'd have to more food stamps, housing vouchers and other benefits.

A much better idea would be to get rid of the 20-30% of healthcare dollars that are wasted paying the middlemen/insurance companies that don't do anything for our populace.

Have Medicare for all that everyone can buy.

This would also say the 85% that have insurance from having to pay for those who don't.
 
The skin in the game argument is ridiculous. The idea that people whose livelihood depends on the social safety net care less than the people who don't need it makes no sense.

The second counter is Wake athletics.
 
DirkTheDeac said:
I happen to think that if you pay a minimum of 5% and no more you have skin in the game and might actually give a shit about entitlement programs and how they are managed. But that's just me.
Click to expand...

Get some skin the game, olds.
 
Fine. I work for the federal, state and local government for six months out of every year. I guess I'm just lucky. It's not like that money is being taken out of the private sector or anything.

I'm retiring again.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
God can people please not quote JMHD either. Are you a real person? We're "content" to let her "settle for this existence"? Jesus Christ. Doesn't it actually solve your perceived problem that people are taking no steps towards fixing this issue to require that she purchase health care or be penalized for not doing so? I don't understand your position at all.
Click to expand...

Sure you're content. Sixty years of failed welfare state policies say hi. You're not changing the system, you're expanding it. Also, I find it hilarious that you think she'll actually pay a penalty on her income taxes for not getting health insurance. Good stuff right there.
 
Last edited:
P4nthers11 said:
I thought it was in jest because anyone with a minimum amount of exposure to social media or message boards that are a rung or two down in sophistication/education level frequently encounter spam like this. Can you do us all a favor and not copy paste the next email you receive about the time Einstein was a student and successfully proved to this atheist teacher the existence of God or some letter attributed to US servicemen angry at Obama for snatching their guns!

You continue to be a racist asshole by nonsense like this to push your mindset that poor people and minorities are not voting Republican because they are too stupid.
Click to expand...

Republicans haven't given up on her as wards of the welfare state. Dems are all too happy to have her in that role (If they're not, then surely you can prove it by showing me what policies Dems are advocating to reduce government dependency. I'll wait). Since we both know you can't show me those policies, who's the a-hole now?
 
PhDeac said:
It's always funny to me that conservatives who want to raise taxes on the poor don't realize they're taking money out of the private sector and giving it to the government.
Click to expand...

It's not wrong to hand the smallest share of the bill for big government to the people who keep voting for it.
 
jhmd2000 said:
United Way doesn't run trillion dollar annual deficits.
Click to expand...

They also don't wage war.

My point is that there is nothing intrinsic good or bad about the public, private, or nonprofit sectors. Money and power corrupt people in all three. The reality of charity is that it falls short of meeting needs. Most social services organizations in America are dependent on grant funding from tax payer dollars. The idea that with lower taxes, charity increases and meets those needs is not correct. When taxes are lowered, charitable giving decreases because of tax deductibility as a giving motivation. We are simply not as charitable as we think we are.
 
Deacfreak07 said:
They also don't wage war.

My point is that there is nothing intrinsic good or bad about the public, private, or nonprofit sectors. Money and power corrupt people in all three. The reality of charity is that it falls short of meeting needs. Most social services organizations in America are dependent on grant funding from tax payer dollars. The idea that with lower taxes, charity increases and meets those needs is not correct. When taxes are lowered, charitable giving decreases because of tax deductibility as a giving motivation. We are simply not as charitable as we think we are.
Click to expand...

I agree with that, but if I have a choice between giving to a soup kitchen and giving to the GSA's fifth annual Las Vegas gala, I'm giving to the soup kitchen. Every time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top