Don't stop... believin'... Hold on to that feeling...
- Thread starter UncleBob
- Start date
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
[quote name='gareman']Is that not the basic concept of it? If not than could you sum it up? My assumption is that most anti-government spending/tax arguments those are the root premises. I am sorry if my assumption is wrong...I just can't seem to wrap my head around what makes state and local government spending and taxes different.[/QUOTE]
I would argue there is a size of scale and a measure of coercion.
My money via federal taxes can be exported to another state or another country.
My money via state taxes usually stays within the state.
If state A has been fiscally irresponsible, it isn't state B's responsibility to bail it out. With federal taxes, it is.
If state A gets hit with some sort of unforeseen disaster, state A can ask state B for help. With federal taxes, state A forces state B to help it.
I would argue there is a size of scale and a measure of coercion.
My money via federal taxes can be exported to another state or another country.
My money via state taxes usually stays within the state.
If state A has been fiscally irresponsible, it isn't state B's responsibility to bail it out. With federal taxes, it is.
If state A gets hit with some sort of unforeseen disaster, state A can ask state B for help. With federal taxes, state A forces state B to help it.
[quote name='UncleBob']What's the difference between spending $100 at Walmart or $100 at a small local business?
I mean, it's all business, right?[/QUOTE]
Exactly. Isn't that the majority of people's problem with pork? I pay my taxes so CA can get a bunch of money to research some dieing species in Death Valley?
When I pay my IL taxes, that money goes towards something that affects IL, or my town.
And depascal, there is no Constitutional precedent for government to be handling education. That is the job of individual states, not the federal government. You just don't hear people fussing about it because it's not the big issue being pushed right now.
I mean, it's all business, right?[/QUOTE]
Exactly. Isn't that the majority of people's problem with pork? I pay my taxes so CA can get a bunch of money to research some dieing species in Death Valley?
When I pay my IL taxes, that money goes towards something that affects IL, or my town.
And depascal, there is no Constitutional precedent for government to be handling education. That is the job of individual states, not the federal government. You just don't hear people fussing about it because it's not the big issue being pushed right now.
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
[quote name='UncleBob']What's the difference between spending $100 at Walmart or $100 at a small local business?
I mean, it's all business, right?[/QUOTE]
It is the difference between definitely supporting the environmental destruction and pseudo slavery in third world countries and probably supporting the environmental destruction and pseudo slavery in third world countries.
I mean, it's all business, right?[/QUOTE]
It is the difference between definitely supporting the environmental destruction and pseudo slavery in third world countries and probably supporting the environmental destruction and pseudo slavery in third world countries.
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']I would argue there is a size of scale and a measure of coercion.
My money via federal taxes can be exported to another state or another country.
My money via state taxes usually stays within the state.
If state A has been fiscally irresponsible, it isn't state B's responsibility to bail it out. With federal taxes, it is.
If state A gets hit with some sort of unforeseen disaster, state A can ask state B for help. With federal taxes, state A forces state B to help it.[/QUOTE]
Couldn't that argument be taken further? State taxes force us to help out other counties? County taxes force us to help out other cities city taxes force me to help out other people?
My money via federal taxes can be exported to another state or another country.
My money via state taxes usually stays within the state.
If state A has been fiscally irresponsible, it isn't state B's responsibility to bail it out. With federal taxes, it is.
If state A gets hit with some sort of unforeseen disaster, state A can ask state B for help. With federal taxes, state A forces state B to help it.[/QUOTE]
Couldn't that argument be taken further? State taxes force us to help out other counties? County taxes force us to help out other cities city taxes force me to help out other people?
[quote name='gareman']Couldn't that argument be taken further? State taxes force us to help out other counties? County taxes force us to help out other cities city taxes force me to help out other people?[/QUOTE]
but that is the purpose of local government. it is not the purpose of Federal government, and it is not a power given to the federal government by the Constitution, at least not to my knowledge
State taxes are MEANT to help out counties of that state. county taxes help out cities within that county, and city taxes go to programs that provide service to those in that city. I wouldn't want my city tax to be used to fund projects in a neighboring town.
but that is the purpose of local government. it is not the purpose of Federal government, and it is not a power given to the federal government by the Constitution, at least not to my knowledge
State taxes are MEANT to help out counties of that state. county taxes help out cities within that county, and city taxes go to programs that provide service to those in that city. I wouldn't want my city tax to be used to fund projects in a neighboring town.
perdition(troy
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (89%)
I wouldn't mind, its the fair thing to do. If they need my money why not just give it to them.
thrustbucket
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
Smaller and more powerful local governments are almost always a better idea than a gigantic centralized singular power. It's much easier for an individual to hold local representatives accountable and/or do something about a problem with them than some untouchable elitists 3,000 miles away behind several layers of red tape.
As far as state vs federal taxes go, there are many many reasons to keep taxes as local as possible. One of the best reasons I can think of is how often do most people leave their city? When they do, how often do they leave their state? Isn't it fair that most of the taxes they pay should go to support where they will spend the majority of their lives?
The majority of your Federal taxes are going to places and programs you will likely never see or use in your life.
To reverse the analogy - Why not just send all taxes to the U.N.?
As far as state vs federal taxes go, there are many many reasons to keep taxes as local as possible. One of the best reasons I can think of is how often do most people leave their city? When they do, how often do they leave their state? Isn't it fair that most of the taxes they pay should go to support where they will spend the majority of their lives?
The majority of your Federal taxes are going to places and programs you will likely never see or use in your life.
To reverse the analogy - Why not just send all taxes to the U.N.?
But aren't the concepts of boarders, states, counties, cities, etc all just arbitrary, as well as the concept of what is too big or too powerful?
We are all just people. If a neighbor city suffered a huge disaster, then I would not have problem with my city taxes being used to help said city. I try not to think in terms of us and them.
We are all just people. If a neighbor city suffered a huge disaster, then I would not have problem with my city taxes being used to help said city. I try not to think in terms of us and them.
[quote name='gareman']But aren't the concepts of boarders, states, counties, cities, etc all just arbitrary, as well as the concept of what is too big or too powerful?
We are all just people. If a neighbor city suffered a huge disaster, then I would not have problem with my city taxes being used to help said city. I try not to think in terms of us and them.[/QUOTE]
state/city/county/country lines are not arbitrary. they do not move or change, they are not static. they are definite.
I honestly do not think we have a RESPONSIBILITY to use, say, city taxes to help another city. I personally would not object to it, but if someone argued that it is not a cities responsibility to help another city, I would not freak out on them. If a person feels so moved to reach out to help another group of people, there is nothing that stops them from doing so on their own.
We are all just people. If a neighbor city suffered a huge disaster, then I would not have problem with my city taxes being used to help said city. I try not to think in terms of us and them.[/QUOTE]
state/city/county/country lines are not arbitrary. they do not move or change, they are not static. they are definite.
I honestly do not think we have a RESPONSIBILITY to use, say, city taxes to help another city. I personally would not object to it, but if someone argued that it is not a cities responsibility to help another city, I would not freak out on them. If a person feels so moved to reach out to help another group of people, there is nothing that stops them from doing so on their own.
IAmTheCheapestGamer
Banned
[quote name='thrustbucket']
The majority of your Federal taxes are going to places and programs you will likely never see or use in your life.[/QUOTE]
Although our local governments around here increased the 'privilege to work' tax about 2 or so years ago from $15 a year to $52 a year. It's only once a year, but that's still a big chunk of change that I'll never see again.
In gamers' terms, that's almost the full MSRP(pre any sales tax) of one new release game GONE without any real accountability as to what that money is being spent on.
If the government actually showed us in concrete numbers what projects are being funded with those dollars, I might not have such an anti-tax stance like I do. There's so many projects that go way over cost and over their timeframe for completion that it isn't even funny.
The way it is, if i could find a place to work under the table and never pay another dime in taxes for the rest of my life but still make a tolerable living, I would do it in a second.
The majority of your Federal taxes are going to places and programs you will likely never see or use in your life.[/QUOTE]
Although our local governments around here increased the 'privilege to work' tax about 2 or so years ago from $15 a year to $52 a year. It's only once a year, but that's still a big chunk of change that I'll never see again.
In gamers' terms, that's almost the full MSRP(pre any sales tax) of one new release game GONE without any real accountability as to what that money is being spent on.
If the government actually showed us in concrete numbers what projects are being funded with those dollars, I might not have such an anti-tax stance like I do. There's so many projects that go way over cost and over their timeframe for completion that it isn't even funny.
The way it is, if i could find a place to work under the table and never pay another dime in taxes for the rest of my life but still make a tolerable living, I would do it in a second.
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
[quote name='IAmTheCheapestGamer']
Although our local governments around here increased the 'privilege to work' tax about 2 or so years ago from $15 a year to $52 a year. It's only once a year, but that's still a big chunk of change that I'll never see again.
In gamers' terms, that's almost the full MSRP(pre any sales tax) of one new release game GONE without any real accountability as to what that money is being spent on.
If the government actually showed us in concrete numbers what projects are being funded with those dollars, I might not have such an anti-tax stance like I do. There's so many projects that go way over cost and over their timeframe for completion that it isn't even funny.
The way it is, if i could find a place to work under the table and never pay another dime in taxes for the rest of my life but still make a tolerable living, I would do it in a second.[/QUOTE]
Have you asked your local representative where the extra $37 is going to?
Although our local governments around here increased the 'privilege to work' tax about 2 or so years ago from $15 a year to $52 a year. It's only once a year, but that's still a big chunk of change that I'll never see again.
In gamers' terms, that's almost the full MSRP(pre any sales tax) of one new release game GONE without any real accountability as to what that money is being spent on.
If the government actually showed us in concrete numbers what projects are being funded with those dollars, I might not have such an anti-tax stance like I do. There's so many projects that go way over cost and over their timeframe for completion that it isn't even funny.
The way it is, if i could find a place to work under the table and never pay another dime in taxes for the rest of my life but still make a tolerable living, I would do it in a second.[/QUOTE]
Have you asked your local representative where the extra $37 is going to?
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Have you asked your local representative where the extra $37 is going to?[/QUOTE]
No need, that can be answered in three words: strippers and booze.
No need, that can be answered in three words: strippers and booze.
IAmTheCheapestGamer
Banned
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Have you asked your local representative where the extra $37 is going to?[/QUOTE]
Not really. Most of them are quite 'busy', too busy to bother to respond.
Back when it was still 'only $15', I always tried to find work in another local community, since their RTW(right to work) tax was only $5 or $10.
Not really. Most of them are quite 'busy', too busy to bother to respond.
Back when it was still 'only $15', I always tried to find work in another local community, since their RTW(right to work) tax was only $5 or $10.speedracer
Banned
[quote name='IAmTheCheapestGamer']If the government actually showed us in concrete numbers what projects are being funded with those dollars, I might not have such an anti-tax stance like I do. There's so many projects that go way over cost and over their timeframe for completion that it isn't even funny.[/QUOTE]
Last week myself and my team were paid overtime to clean up behind a contractor that skipped once they hit a milestone and were paid. Contractor #2 required #1's work completed by the 22nd. Now we're overrunning on costs because we either pay overtime or #2's contract calls for a gigantic financial payout if we aren't on time.
Often a company bids on a project knowing they can only do 2 phases of 10. They don't care. They get paid once the phase is complete and walk when they're done with what they can figure out on the fly. They just dissolve the shell company and walk away. We continue to use these types of operators because we are required to use the lowest bidder and the taxpayer would have a shit fit if they heard we weren't. And god forbid, if we used criteria other than cost, we'd get our asses sued off.
There's a local investigative reporter here in Houston that is famous for going after city workers. Good for him, keep us honest. But he'll literally climb over the contractor stealing from the city to get to the worker that does piddly shit. Why? He doesn't wanna get sued either and he knows the city wouldn't even consider the idea. A contractor would lawyer up the second he walked in their door.
I'm just sayin.
Last week myself and my team were paid overtime to clean up behind a contractor that skipped once they hit a milestone and were paid. Contractor #2 required #1's work completed by the 22nd. Now we're overrunning on costs because we either pay overtime or #2's contract calls for a gigantic financial payout if we aren't on time.
Often a company bids on a project knowing they can only do 2 phases of 10. They don't care. They get paid once the phase is complete and walk when they're done with what they can figure out on the fly. They just dissolve the shell company and walk away. We continue to use these types of operators because we are required to use the lowest bidder and the taxpayer would have a shit fit if they heard we weren't. And god forbid, if we used criteria other than cost, we'd get our asses sued off.
There's a local investigative reporter here in Houston that is famous for going after city workers. Good for him, keep us honest. But he'll literally climb over the contractor stealing from the city to get to the worker that does piddly shit. Why? He doesn't wanna get sued either and he knows the city wouldn't even consider the idea. A contractor would lawyer up the second he walked in their door.
I'm just sayin.
depascal22
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 92 (100%)
[quote name='myl0r']state/city/county/country lines are not arbitrary. they do not move or change, they are not static. they are definite.
[/QUOTE]
If state and county lines don't ever change, why was my county formed in 1823 while the state of Indiana became a state in 1816? Most of the counties in the southern part of the state were formed in the late 1780s? Why is there now a state of West Virginia?
As for federal taxes going to places you'll never use, isn't that point of the United States anyway? We tried the loosely tied articles of the confederation but the states that got tore up the most during the wars at the time went broke trying to rebuild. Everyone sat around and said they weren't responsible for the other states' welfare. Is that what you'd rather have? The financial burden to rebuild New Orleans sits squarely on the people of Louisiana. We'd have ghost towns every time there was a natural disaster because the rest of the country just buried their hand in the sand and prayed their state wasn't the next one hit.
[/QUOTE]
If state and county lines don't ever change, why was my county formed in 1823 while the state of Indiana became a state in 1816? Most of the counties in the southern part of the state were formed in the late 1780s? Why is there now a state of West Virginia?
As for federal taxes going to places you'll never use, isn't that point of the United States anyway? We tried the loosely tied articles of the confederation but the states that got tore up the most during the wars at the time went broke trying to rebuild. Everyone sat around and said they weren't responsible for the other states' welfare. Is that what you'd rather have? The financial burden to rebuild New Orleans sits squarely on the people of Louisiana. We'd have ghost towns every time there was a natural disaster because the rest of the country just buried their hand in the sand and prayed their state wasn't the next one hit.
Yeah! Like when no one sent money or assistance to the good state of Haiti after that big ol' earthquake. The entire country is just a deserted wasteland now... or something...
The idea that people are too greedy to give when they can and the need is there is pretty darn narrow.
We don't mind giving to help in situations like NOLA. We do object to funding bridges to nowhere in Alaska, puppet theaters in Atlanta and the new intersection to direct traffic around the new Walmart in the city next door.
The idea that people are too greedy to give when they can and the need is there is pretty darn narrow.
We don't mind giving to help in situations like NOLA. We do object to funding bridges to nowhere in Alaska, puppet theaters in Atlanta and the new intersection to direct traffic around the new Walmart in the city next door.
elprincipe
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
[quote name='speedracer']Last week myself and my team were paid overtime to clean up behind a contractor that skipped once they hit a milestone and were paid. Contractor #2 required #1's work completed by the 22nd. Now we're overrunning on costs because we either pay overtime or #2's contract calls for a gigantic financial payout if we aren't on time.
Often a company bids on a project knowing they can only do 2 phases of 10. They don't care. They get paid once the phase is complete and walk when they're done with what they can figure out on the fly. They just dissolve the shell company and walk away. We continue to use these types of operators because we are required to use the lowest bidder and the taxpayer would have a shit fit if they heard we weren't. And god forbid, if we used criteria other than cost, we'd get our asses sued off.
There's a local investigative reporter here in Houston that is famous for going after city workers. Good for him, keep us honest. But he'll literally climb over the contractor stealing from the city to get to the worker that does piddly shit. Why? He doesn't wanna get sued either and he knows the city wouldn't even consider the idea. A contractor would lawyer up the second he walked in their door.
I'm just sayin.[/QUOTE]
I have some experience with government contracting, and this is absolutely true. They are very hesitant to use criteria other than cost. Sometimes bidders lowball it when they know they aren't up to the job, and it's hard for them to say no, which is ridiculous. It's a complete
ing joke when you're fully able to fulfill a contract and have a reputable background, submit a fair bid, only to be undercut by some fly-by-night operation with little or no experience, who inevitably screws up the job in the end. It's as if the government were forced to choose the Phantom over the PS2 or something.
Often a company bids on a project knowing they can only do 2 phases of 10. They don't care. They get paid once the phase is complete and walk when they're done with what they can figure out on the fly. They just dissolve the shell company and walk away. We continue to use these types of operators because we are required to use the lowest bidder and the taxpayer would have a shit fit if they heard we weren't. And god forbid, if we used criteria other than cost, we'd get our asses sued off.
There's a local investigative reporter here in Houston that is famous for going after city workers. Good for him, keep us honest. But he'll literally climb over the contractor stealing from the city to get to the worker that does piddly shit. Why? He doesn't wanna get sued either and he knows the city wouldn't even consider the idea. A contractor would lawyer up the second he walked in their door.
I'm just sayin.[/QUOTE]
I have some experience with government contracting, and this is absolutely true. They are very hesitant to use criteria other than cost. Sometimes bidders lowball it when they know they aren't up to the job, and it's hard for them to say no, which is ridiculous. It's a complete
ing joke when you're fully able to fulfill a contract and have a reputable background, submit a fair bid, only to be undercut by some fly-by-night operation with little or no experience, who inevitably screws up the job in the end. It's as if the government were forced to choose the Phantom over the PS2 or something.[quote name='depascal22']If state and county lines don't ever change, why was my county formed in 1823 while the state of Indiana became a state in 1816? Most of the counties in the southern part of the state were formed in the late 1780s? Why is there now a state of West Virginia?
As for federal taxes going to places you'll never use, isn't that point of the United States anyway? We tried the loosely tied articles of the confederation but the states that got tore up the most during the wars at the time went broke trying to rebuild. Everyone sat around and said they weren't responsible for the other states' welfare. Is that what you'd rather have? The financial burden to rebuild New Orleans sits squarely on the people of Louisiana. We'd have ghost towns every time there was a natural disaster because the rest of the country just buried their hand in the sand and prayed their state wasn't the next one hit.[/QUOTE]
I conceed that boundaries DO change, but it is a process, not up to interpretation. I was refuting the point that boundaries/lines are arbitrary and open for interpretation by gareman. You are right, county lines and districts can change. But the idea that they loosely exist is false. They are definite things.
And Bob pretty much echoed my thoughts on the whole NOLA/Haiti arguement that you posted afterwards. I wasn't saying our Federal taxes shouldn't be used to help out those in need such as NOLA, but my federal tax money doesn't need to help fix roads in CA or some project like that.
As for federal taxes going to places you'll never use, isn't that point of the United States anyway? We tried the loosely tied articles of the confederation but the states that got tore up the most during the wars at the time went broke trying to rebuild. Everyone sat around and said they weren't responsible for the other states' welfare. Is that what you'd rather have? The financial burden to rebuild New Orleans sits squarely on the people of Louisiana. We'd have ghost towns every time there was a natural disaster because the rest of the country just buried their hand in the sand and prayed their state wasn't the next one hit.[/QUOTE]
I conceed that boundaries DO change, but it is a process, not up to interpretation. I was refuting the point that boundaries/lines are arbitrary and open for interpretation by gareman. You are right, county lines and districts can change. But the idea that they loosely exist is false. They are definite things.
And Bob pretty much echoed my thoughts on the whole NOLA/Haiti arguement that you posted afterwards. I wasn't saying our Federal taxes shouldn't be used to help out those in need such as NOLA, but my federal tax money doesn't need to help fix roads in CA or some project like that.
[quote name='myl0r']I conceed that boundaries DO change, but it is a process, not up to interpretation. I was refuting the point that boundaries/lines are arbitrary and open for interpretation by gareman. You are right, county lines and districts can change. But the idea that they loosely exist is false. They are definite things.[/quote]
You know what gerrymandering is correct?
Agreeing with Bob is one way of telling you are wrong.
You know what gerrymandering is correct?
Agreeing with Bob is one way of telling you are wrong.
[quote name='depascal22']Exactly. What's the difference between $100 that comes out of your check to fund a state program compared to $100 that funds a federal program? It's all taxes right?
I haven't seen one conservative start a thread that everyone should be responsible for funding their own child's primary education because they're tired of paying for everyone else but there are five bazillion threads railing against taking money to pay for someone's visit to their doctor.
What's the difference? You'll pay to put out a fire in their house but they're on their own if they get cancer? You'll pay for police officers to keep us safe but you won't pay for medical care that keeps us healthy. You guys are humongous hyprocrites that live in a fantasy world that will never come back[/QUOTE]
You illustrate a fundamental misunderstanding of collective risk and personal responsibility.
Yes, I will willingly pay to have my neighbor's housefire put out by the local fire department. His house may be adjacent to mine, putting mine at risk of catching on fire. My child might be visiting his house during a fire, or maybe some other property or interest may be at stake if his house should go up in flames.
What I REFUSE to do is pay for his house to be rebuilt. Let's say Johhny Housefire decides to run a business out of his house and stores expensive antiques there. Am I responsible for his risky investment warehouse? Of course not. Should I have to pay to replace his 55" screen TV, Italian leather furniture, and his over-indulgent wine cellar stock? Of course not. That's why we have insurance. Johnny has to pay higher premiums to an arbiter of risk because he chooses to live a particular lifestyle.
It is not hypocritical to demand Johhny be held accountable for his own life choices such as $5000 suits, living next to a fireworks factory, deciding to have 12 children instead of 2, or smoking in bed and not having his gas furnace inspected every 3 years. What IS hypocritical is ganging up on Johnny and telling him he has to pay for his own house to be rebuilt and the houses of everyone else in his neighborhood when theirs burn shortly after.
I haven't seen one conservative start a thread that everyone should be responsible for funding their own child's primary education because they're tired of paying for everyone else but there are five bazillion threads railing against taking money to pay for someone's visit to their doctor.
What's the difference? You'll pay to put out a fire in their house but they're on their own if they get cancer? You'll pay for police officers to keep us safe but you won't pay for medical care that keeps us healthy. You guys are humongous hyprocrites that live in a fantasy world that will never come back[/QUOTE]
You illustrate a fundamental misunderstanding of collective risk and personal responsibility.
Yes, I will willingly pay to have my neighbor's housefire put out by the local fire department. His house may be adjacent to mine, putting mine at risk of catching on fire. My child might be visiting his house during a fire, or maybe some other property or interest may be at stake if his house should go up in flames.
What I REFUSE to do is pay for his house to be rebuilt. Let's say Johhny Housefire decides to run a business out of his house and stores expensive antiques there. Am I responsible for his risky investment warehouse? Of course not. Should I have to pay to replace his 55" screen TV, Italian leather furniture, and his over-indulgent wine cellar stock? Of course not. That's why we have insurance. Johnny has to pay higher premiums to an arbiter of risk because he chooses to live a particular lifestyle.
It is not hypocritical to demand Johhny be held accountable for his own life choices such as $5000 suits, living next to a fireworks factory, deciding to have 12 children instead of 2, or smoking in bed and not having his gas furnace inspected every 3 years. What IS hypocritical is ganging up on Johnny and telling him he has to pay for his own house to be rebuilt and the houses of everyone else in his neighborhood when theirs burn shortly after.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
wat
Never let it be said we have not stood for something to believe in! Stand firm - stand steadfast in your beliefs and don't let them steal your joy.
Never to give in to hearsay - but instead to hold onto the truth - inherent- we can all feel it - we all know where it lies - that peace inherent -
Find it - keep it - never let it go!
Hold on fast - this too shall pass!
Never to give in to hearsay - but instead to hold onto the truth - inherent- we can all feel it - we all know where it lies - that peace inherent -
Find it - keep it - never let it go!
Hold on fast - this too shall pass!
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
you write terrible lyrics.
speedracer
Banned
[quote name='bmulligan']You illustrate a fundamental misunderstanding of collective risk and personal responsibility.
Yes, I will willingly pay to have my neighbor's housefire put out by the local fire department. His house may be adjacent to mine, putting mine at risk of catching on fire. My child might be visiting his house during a fire, or maybe some other property or interest may be at stake if his house should go up in flames.
What I REFUSE to do is pay for his house to be rebuilt. Let's say Johhny Housefire decides to run a business out of his house and stores expensive antiques there. Am I responsible for his risky investment warehouse? Of course not. Should I have to pay to replace his 55" screen TV, Italian leather furniture, and his over-indulgent wine cellar stock? Of course not. That's why we have insurance. Johnny has to pay higher premiums to an arbiter of risk because he chooses to live a particular lifestyle.
It is not hypocritical to demand Johhny be held accountable for his own life choices such as $5000 suits, living next to a fireworks factory, deciding to have 12 children instead of 2, or smoking in bed and not having his gas furnace inspected every 3 years. What IS hypocritical is ganging up on Johnny and telling him he has to pay for his own house to be rebuilt and the houses of everyone else in his neighborhood when theirs burn shortly after.[/QUOTE]
You illustrate a fundamental misunderstanding of American values. Property takes a distant second to life. Fireman protect life first and property a distant second. Police protect life first and property a distant second.
We're not talking about Johnny's seersucker suit. We're talking about Johnny's life.
Equating life to the trash in your house is borderline psychotic.
Yes, I will willingly pay to have my neighbor's housefire put out by the local fire department. His house may be adjacent to mine, putting mine at risk of catching on fire. My child might be visiting his house during a fire, or maybe some other property or interest may be at stake if his house should go up in flames.
What I REFUSE to do is pay for his house to be rebuilt. Let's say Johhny Housefire decides to run a business out of his house and stores expensive antiques there. Am I responsible for his risky investment warehouse? Of course not. Should I have to pay to replace his 55" screen TV, Italian leather furniture, and his over-indulgent wine cellar stock? Of course not. That's why we have insurance. Johnny has to pay higher premiums to an arbiter of risk because he chooses to live a particular lifestyle.
It is not hypocritical to demand Johhny be held accountable for his own life choices such as $5000 suits, living next to a fireworks factory, deciding to have 12 children instead of 2, or smoking in bed and not having his gas furnace inspected every 3 years. What IS hypocritical is ganging up on Johnny and telling him he has to pay for his own house to be rebuilt and the houses of everyone else in his neighborhood when theirs burn shortly after.[/QUOTE]
You illustrate a fundamental misunderstanding of American values. Property takes a distant second to life. Fireman protect life first and property a distant second. Police protect life first and property a distant second.
We're not talking about Johnny's seersucker suit. We're talking about Johnny's life.
Equating life to the trash in your house is borderline psychotic.
[quote name='depascal22']
I haven't seen one conservative start a thread that everyone should be responsible for funding their own child's primary education because they're tired of paying for everyone else but there are five bazillion threads railing against taking money to pay for someone's visit to their doctor.
[/QUOTE]
wait, you mean like school vouchers. the movement has tied down tremendously, but youll still find plenty of conservative advocates for it.
shit a voucher system might be just what health care needs.
I haven't seen one conservative start a thread that everyone should be responsible for funding their own child's primary education because they're tired of paying for everyone else but there are five bazillion threads railing against taking money to pay for someone's visit to their doctor.
[/QUOTE]
wait, you mean like school vouchers. the movement has tied down tremendously, but youll still find plenty of conservative advocates for it.
shit a voucher system might be just what health care needs.
[quote name='Msut77']You know what gerrymandering is correct?
Agreeing with Bob is one way of telling you are wrong.[/QUOTE]
Yes, I'm familiar with gerrymandering. Like I said, I conceed that boundaries change, but they exist is my point. What brought along that entire conversation was gareman saying this
[quote name='gareman']But aren't the concepts of boarders, states, counties, cities, etc all just arbitrary, as well as the concept of what is too big or too powerful?[/quote]
While they change from time to time, I can go to the city limits of my town right now, stand on one side and be in city limits, step to the side and be out.
As for agreeing with Bob being an indication that I'm wrong....if you disagree with me, that's fine. I'm laid out my stance on tax use. You can just tell me I'm wrong, or you can point out specifically why you feel that I am wrong. I'm open for a discussion, I'm sure I can learn quite a bit.
Agreeing with Bob is one way of telling you are wrong.[/QUOTE]
Yes, I'm familiar with gerrymandering. Like I said, I conceed that boundaries change, but they exist is my point. What brought along that entire conversation was gareman saying this
[quote name='gareman']But aren't the concepts of boarders, states, counties, cities, etc all just arbitrary, as well as the concept of what is too big or too powerful?[/quote]
While they change from time to time, I can go to the city limits of my town right now, stand on one side and be in city limits, step to the side and be out.
As for agreeing with Bob being an indication that I'm wrong....if you disagree with me, that's fine. I'm laid out my stance on tax use. You can just tell me I'm wrong, or you can point out specifically why you feel that I am wrong. I'm open for a discussion, I'm sure I can learn quite a bit.
depascal22
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 92 (100%)
[quote name='myl0r'] but my federal tax money doesn't need to help fix roads in CA or some project like that.[/QUOTE]
You mean the same roads that truckers use to bring you goods? You ever eat blueberries, oranges, or strawberries? Wonder where those fruits come from?
What about the huge amount of Chinese goods that come through the ports of Oakland and Long Beach. You think those goods are somehow teleported to the Arizona and Nevada state lines?
How about when Grandma drives to visit your kids? She gets a flat tire a state away. bmull would probably lecture her about having a mechanic check her car out before she left on a road trip and the rest of you would tell her that you'll see her when she hits the state line.
Like it or not, this entire country is interconnected. You might not have much in common philosophically with people from the other side of the nation but we all have the same hopes, fears, and dreams. You guys act like they're all dirty immigrants.
You mean the same roads that truckers use to bring you goods? You ever eat blueberries, oranges, or strawberries? Wonder where those fruits come from?
What about the huge amount of Chinese goods that come through the ports of Oakland and Long Beach. You think those goods are somehow teleported to the Arizona and Nevada state lines?
How about when Grandma drives to visit your kids? She gets a flat tire a state away. bmull would probably lecture her about having a mechanic check her car out before she left on a road trip and the rest of you would tell her that you'll see her when she hits the state line.
Like it or not, this entire country is interconnected. You might not have much in common philosophically with people from the other side of the nation but we all have the same hopes, fears, and dreams. You guys act like they're all dirty immigrants.
[quote name='depascal22']You mean the same roads that truckers use to bring you goods? You ever eat blueberries, oranges, or strawberries? Wonder where those fruits come from?
What about the huge amount of Chinese goods that come through the ports of Oakland and Long Beach. You think those goods are somehow teleported to the Arizona and Nevada state lines?
How about when Grandma drives to visit your kids? She gets a flat tire a state away. bmull would probably lecture her about having a mechanic check her car out before she left on a road trip and the rest of you would tell her that you'll see her when she hits the state line.
Like it or not, this entire country is interconnected. You might not have much in common philosophically with people from the other side of the nation but we all have the same hopes, fears, and dreams. You guys act like they're all dirty immigrants.[/QUOTE]
I'm not trying to be cold. I just always assumed that's what each state had state taxes for? I know IL roads suck much worse than MO roads. Is that because MO gets more federal money to fix their roads up, or because the state uses its taxes to provide quality roads?
What about the huge amount of Chinese goods that come through the ports of Oakland and Long Beach. You think those goods are somehow teleported to the Arizona and Nevada state lines?
How about when Grandma drives to visit your kids? She gets a flat tire a state away. bmull would probably lecture her about having a mechanic check her car out before she left on a road trip and the rest of you would tell her that you'll see her when she hits the state line.
Like it or not, this entire country is interconnected. You might not have much in common philosophically with people from the other side of the nation but we all have the same hopes, fears, and dreams. You guys act like they're all dirty immigrants.[/QUOTE]
I'm not trying to be cold. I just always assumed that's what each state had state taxes for? I know IL roads suck much worse than MO roads. Is that because MO gets more federal money to fix their roads up, or because the state uses its taxes to provide quality roads?
depascal22
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 92 (100%)
It's because Illinois has more miles of roads and a huge tax drains in Chicago and East St. Louis.
Interstates and US highways are fixed with federal dollars. States are only responsible for state roads. Actually, counties are responsible for most of the roads within their county. How do those dollars get split up? Politics.
EDIT -- This is even better. Every step of the way is dependent on federal tax dollars. Counties go to the state for money to fix county roads and the states go to the fed for money to fix state roads. The fed even pays the states to fix the interstates.
The three beast argument doesn't look so stout anymore when you realize everyone gets money from the fed. Hell, my old hometown used federal stimulus money to hire more cops. That $100 you spent on federal taxes doesn't look so much different from the $100 you paid to the state does it?
Interstates and US highways are fixed with federal dollars. States are only responsible for state roads. Actually, counties are responsible for most of the roads within their county. How do those dollars get split up? Politics.
EDIT -- This is even better. Every step of the way is dependent on federal tax dollars. Counties go to the state for money to fix county roads and the states go to the fed for money to fix state roads. The fed even pays the states to fix the interstates.
The three beast argument doesn't look so stout anymore when you realize everyone gets money from the fed. Hell, my old hometown used federal stimulus money to hire more cops. That $100 you spent on federal taxes doesn't look so much different from the $100 you paid to the state does it?
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
That isn't the direction I want my country going in.
[quote name='myl0r']I'm not trying to be cold. I just always assumed that's what each state had state taxes for? I know IL roads suck much worse than MO roads. Is that because MO gets more federal money to fix their roads up, or because the state uses its taxes to provide quality roads?[/QUOTE]
Many states don't have the tax base to maintain the road system. So if federal funds weren't used for highways, you'd just see big increases in your state taxes to compensate. And roads would deteriorate in poor states with low tax bases as they couldn't raise enough to do all the needed maintenance. Imagine how abd those IL roads would be if they didn't have federal funding to help pay for maintenance.
And the interstate system, which is the core of transportation of goods etc. was federally funded, so the feds have long been involved in the highway system.
Many states don't have the tax base to maintain the road system. So if federal funds weren't used for highways, you'd just see big increases in your state taxes to compensate. And roads would deteriorate in poor states with low tax bases as they couldn't raise enough to do all the needed maintenance. Imagine how abd those IL roads would be if they didn't have federal funding to help pay for maintenance.
And the interstate system, which is the core of transportation of goods etc. was federally funded, so the feds have long been involved in the highway system.
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']wait, you mean like school vouchers. the movement has tied down tremendously, but youll still find plenty of conservative advocates for it.
shit a voucher system might be just what health care needs.[/QUOTE]
I have said this before but a medical catastrophe can easily cost a 100k+.
They got a voucher for that?
If not it is just more noise.
shit a voucher system might be just what health care needs.[/QUOTE]
I have said this before but a medical catastrophe can easily cost a 100k+.
They got a voucher for that?
If not it is just more noise.
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='SpazX']I don't get the last part there bmugs, he's not responsible for other people's houses burning down because he caught his house on fire, which caught other houses on fire?[/QUOTE]
No, I buy insurance so that if some asshole burns my house down, I get compensated to build a new one. What I don't do is lobby my congressman, hold my hand out, and demand that everyone on my block build me a new freaking house because they owe me some shit.
I buy car insurance to protect my vehicle from assholes who don't give a rats ass if they damage someone else's car. Should I expect YOU to pay for my car insurance because it's the humanistic thing to do? After all, without a working car I can't get to work, can't pay my bills to heat the house or eat, and the kids go hungry and die along with my wife and pet. The health of my car is directly related to, not only MY well being and health, but that of my entire family. According to a pre-stated rationale for being non-psychotic, I should therefore be able to demand that you all - And I mean YOU ALL- should pay for my car insurance that's due next month. If you don't, you will put 4 people's lives in jeopardy. I'll wait for you REAL humanitarians who are self-described as being "in touch" to send me a check.
It's the same with one's own life. You are responsible for it, not me. You have a genetic disorder that requires your child to have round the clock medical care from the day he's born until the day he dies? Not my problem. Certainly not my responsibility to pay for it. You get cancer at 70 and need a lung transplant, quadruple bypass, and hip replacement? You are not my responsibility to take care of. You certainly should not have the right to take what belongs to me and give it to someone else that you decide needs it more than I do. What happens when I need that hip replacement? Where's the money going to come from? You? Depscall? Speedracer? Will it come from the Leftists that think money, doctors, medical advancement, and technology appear from ether and good intentions?
None of you have provided any reasonable arguments as to why I should pay to keep any of you beggars and the people you feel guilty about healthy. You think it's right because it's the "human" thing to do. It's the same emotional response as saving an animal from the humane society because he has puppy eyes. You have not thought out the consequences of your policy because you can't get past the emotional component.
It makes you feel good. That'sing dandy. It doesn't mean it should be the basis for policy.
No, I buy insurance so that if some asshole burns my house down, I get compensated to build a new one. What I don't do is lobby my congressman, hold my hand out, and demand that everyone on my block build me a new freaking house because they owe me some shit.
I buy car insurance to protect my vehicle from assholes who don't give a rats ass if they damage someone else's car. Should I expect YOU to pay for my car insurance because it's the humanistic thing to do? After all, without a working car I can't get to work, can't pay my bills to heat the house or eat, and the kids go hungry and die along with my wife and pet. The health of my car is directly related to, not only MY well being and health, but that of my entire family. According to a pre-stated rationale for being non-psychotic, I should therefore be able to demand that you all - And I mean YOU ALL- should pay for my car insurance that's due next month. If you don't, you will put 4 people's lives in jeopardy. I'll wait for you REAL humanitarians who are self-described as being "in touch" to send me a check.
It's the same with one's own life. You are responsible for it, not me. You have a genetic disorder that requires your child to have round the clock medical care from the day he's born until the day he dies? Not my problem. Certainly not my responsibility to pay for it. You get cancer at 70 and need a lung transplant, quadruple bypass, and hip replacement? You are not my responsibility to take care of. You certainly should not have the right to take what belongs to me and give it to someone else that you decide needs it more than I do. What happens when I need that hip replacement? Where's the money going to come from? You? Depscall? Speedracer? Will it come from the Leftists that think money, doctors, medical advancement, and technology appear from ether and good intentions?
None of you have provided any reasonable arguments as to why I should pay to keep any of you beggars and the people you feel guilty about healthy. You think it's right because it's the "human" thing to do. It's the same emotional response as saving an animal from the humane society because he has puppy eyes. You have not thought out the consequences of your policy because you can't get past the emotional component.
It makes you feel good. That's
ing dandy. It doesn't mean it should be the basis for policy.
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
[quote name='bmulligan']None of you have provided any reasonable arguments as to why I should pay to keep any of you beggars and the people you feel guilty about healthy. You think it's right because it's the "human" thing to do. It's the same emotional response as saving an animal from the humane society because he has puppy eyes. You have not thought out the consequences of your policy because you can't get past the emotional component.
It makes you feel good. That'sing dandy. It doesn't mean it should be the basis for policy.[/QUOTE]
What about force?
It makes you feel good. That's
ing dandy. It doesn't mean it should be the basis for policy.[/QUOTE]What about force?
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
I like how bmulligan gets into another overly wordy argument that's just another paint-by-numbers Randian objectivist theoretical circle jerk, and then accuses everyone else's arguments of being emotional. As if the trite insistence that the consequences of market capitalism are fair by virtue of the fact that they come *from* market capitalism is a purely objective, empirical, dispassionate stance.
I mean, it's tautological, but we knew that already. But the idea that you're making the argument from a rational perspective is laughably silly. In terms of efficiency and productivity, some economists argue that our economy is artificially hindered by market capitalism because the need for "Guard Labor," by creating the need for workers to be spied on, monitored on, observed, and controlled, has inherently pulled people into the market who don't offer anything of value but that control - and that is inherently restrictive marketwise (as persons driven to observe rather than innovate).
But eh. Why am I getting to a theoretical tete-a-tete with someone who (1) has never been able to do anything but argue in broad, abstract theoretical brushes (cite a real case study regarding insurance, let Jesus be the one who speaks in parables) and (2) is so hooked onto the tautology of objectivist thinking that they'll spin your in circular arguments until you're dizzy, and still come out thinking they were right.
Timmy, you do know what a tautology is, don't you?
I mean, it's tautological, but we knew that already. But the idea that you're making the argument from a rational perspective is laughably silly. In terms of efficiency and productivity, some economists argue that our economy is artificially hindered by market capitalism because the need for "Guard Labor," by creating the need for workers to be spied on, monitored on, observed, and controlled, has inherently pulled people into the market who don't offer anything of value but that control - and that is inherently restrictive marketwise (as persons driven to observe rather than innovate).
But eh. Why am I getting to a theoretical tete-a-tete with someone who (1) has never been able to do anything but argue in broad, abstract theoretical brushes (cite a real case study regarding insurance, let Jesus be the one who speaks in parables) and (2) is so hooked onto the tautology of objectivist thinking that they'll spin your in circular arguments until you're dizzy, and still come out thinking they were right.
Timmy, you do know what a tautology is, don't you?
[quote name='mykevermin']I like how bmulligan gets into another overly wordy argument that's just another paint-by-numbers Randian objectivist theoretical circle jerk, and then accuses everyone else's arguments of being emotional. As if the trite insistence that the consequences of market capitalism are fair by virtue of the fact that they come *from* market capitalism is a purely objective, empirical, dispassionate stance.
I mean, it's tautological, but we knew that already. But the idea that you're making the argument from a rational perspective is laughably silly. In terms of efficiency and productivity, some economists argue that our economy is artificially hindered by market capitalism because the need for "Guard Labor," by creating the need for workers to be spied on, monitored on, observed, and controlled, has inherently pulled people into the market who don't offer anything of value but that control - and that is inherently restrictive marketwise (as persons driven to observe rather than innovate).
But eh. Why am I getting to a theoretical tete-a-tete with someone who (1) has never been able to do anything but argue in broad, abstract theoretical brushes (cite a real case study regarding insurance, let Jesus be the one who speaks in parables) and (2) is so hooked onto the tautology of objectivist thinking that they'll spin your in circular arguments until you're dizzy, and still come out thinking they were right.
Timmy, you do know what a tautology is, don't you?[/QUOTE]
I hear they have a club.
I mean, it's tautological, but we knew that already. But the idea that you're making the argument from a rational perspective is laughably silly. In terms of efficiency and productivity, some economists argue that our economy is artificially hindered by market capitalism because the need for "Guard Labor," by creating the need for workers to be spied on, monitored on, observed, and controlled, has inherently pulled people into the market who don't offer anything of value but that control - and that is inherently restrictive marketwise (as persons driven to observe rather than innovate).
But eh. Why am I getting to a theoretical tete-a-tete with someone who (1) has never been able to do anything but argue in broad, abstract theoretical brushes (cite a real case study regarding insurance, let Jesus be the one who speaks in parables) and (2) is so hooked onto the tautology of objectivist thinking that they'll spin your in circular arguments until you're dizzy, and still come out thinking they were right.
Timmy, you do know what a tautology is, don't you?[/QUOTE]
I hear they have a club.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
depascal22
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 92 (100%)
The consequences of having healthy Americans should be obvious but you'd rather have a fascist state that has a Master Race while the rest languish in the equivalent of concentration camps because they didn't have enough money to pay off a medical bill.
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
[quote name='depascal22']The consequences of having healthy Americans should be obvious but you'd rather have a fascist state that has a Master Race while the rest languish in the equivalent of concentration camps because they didn't have enough money to pay off a medical bill.[/QUOTE]
I prefer the world of Ubik.
You can't leave your home, you don't have a dime for your front door!
I prefer the world of Ubik.
You can't leave your home, you don't have a dime for your front door!
[quote name='depascal22']It's because Illinois has more miles of roads and a huge tax drains in Chicago and East St. Louis.
Interstates and US highways are fixed with federal dollars. States are only responsible for state roads. Actually, counties are responsible for most of the roads within their county. How do those dollars get split up? Politics.
EDIT -- This is even better. Every step of the way is dependent on federal tax dollars. Counties go to the state for money to fix county roads and the states go to the fed for money to fix state roads. The fed even pays the states to fix the interstates.
The three beast argument doesn't look so stout anymore when you realize everyone gets money from the fed. Hell, my old hometown used federal stimulus money to hire more cops. That $100 you spent on federal taxes doesn't look so much different from the $100 you paid to the state does it?[/QUOTE]
Yup - you're so right!
Because this particular method of government spending has been so helpful over the past 20 years or so. What could possibly go wrong?
Interstates and US highways are fixed with federal dollars. States are only responsible for state roads. Actually, counties are responsible for most of the roads within their county. How do those dollars get split up? Politics.
EDIT -- This is even better. Every step of the way is dependent on federal tax dollars. Counties go to the state for money to fix county roads and the states go to the fed for money to fix state roads. The fed even pays the states to fix the interstates.
The three beast argument doesn't look so stout anymore when you realize everyone gets money from the fed. Hell, my old hometown used federal stimulus money to hire more cops. That $100 you spent on federal taxes doesn't look so much different from the $100 you paid to the state does it?[/QUOTE]
Yup - you're so right!
Because this particular method of government spending has been so helpful over the past 20 years or so. What could possibly go wrong?
[quote name='bmulligan']No, I buy insurance so that if some asshole burns my house down, I get compensated to build a new one. What I don't do is lobby my congressman, hold my hand out, and demand that everyone on my block build me a new freaking house because they owe me some shit.
I buy car insurance to protect my vehicle from assholes who don't give a rats ass if they damage someone else's car. Should I expect YOU to pay for my car insurance because it's the humanistic thing to do? After all, without a working car I can't get to work, can't pay my bills to heat the house or eat, and the kids go hungry and die along with my wife and pet. The health of my car is directly related to, not only MY well being and health, but that of my entire family. According to a pre-stated rationale for being non-psychotic, I should therefore be able to demand that you all - And I mean YOU ALL- should pay for my car insurance that's due next month. If you don't, you will put 4 people's lives in jeopardy. I'll wait for you REAL humanitarians who are self-described as being "in touch" to send me a check.
It's the same with one's own life. You are responsible for it, not me. You have a genetic disorder that requires your child to have round the clock medical care from the day he's born until the day he dies? Not my problem. Certainly not my responsibility to pay for it. You get cancer at 70 and need a lung transplant, quadruple bypass, and hip replacement? You are not my responsibility to take care of. You certainly should not have the right to take what belongs to me and give it to someone else that you decide needs it more than I do. What happens when I need that hip replacement? Where's the money going to come from? You? Depscall? Speedracer? Will it come from the Leftists that think money, doctors, medical advancement, and technology appear from ether and good intentions?
None of you have provided any reasonable arguments as to why I should pay to keep any of you beggars and the people you feel guilty about healthy. You think it's right because it's the "human" thing to do. It's the same emotional response as saving an animal from the humane society because he has puppy eyes. You have not thought out the consequences of your policy because you can't get past the emotional component.
It makes you feel good. That'sing dandy. It doesn't mean it should be the basis for policy.[/QUOTE]
Dude, I was seriously just asking. It seemed like you were saying it was wrong to claim that a person is responsible for rebuilding houses they set on fire because of a fire spreading from their house. So you were saying that the other burnings were unrelated?
I think one of the points some have been making in here is that you do pay for other people's medical treatment - when they go to the emergency room and get care whether or not they can afford it. Now you might say that they can't afford it so they shouldn't get care, that the market should decide who lives and dies, but socially Americans haven't gone quite that way. So since they can't afford insurance, it actually ends up being more expensive in the long run to help them, in many cases, and also takes up time in emergency rooms for things that wouldn't have been emergencies if that person had (much cheaper) routine exams and received earlier (much cheaper) treatments.
I buy car insurance to protect my vehicle from assholes who don't give a rats ass if they damage someone else's car. Should I expect YOU to pay for my car insurance because it's the humanistic thing to do? After all, without a working car I can't get to work, can't pay my bills to heat the house or eat, and the kids go hungry and die along with my wife and pet. The health of my car is directly related to, not only MY well being and health, but that of my entire family. According to a pre-stated rationale for being non-psychotic, I should therefore be able to demand that you all - And I mean YOU ALL- should pay for my car insurance that's due next month. If you don't, you will put 4 people's lives in jeopardy. I'll wait for you REAL humanitarians who are self-described as being "in touch" to send me a check.
It's the same with one's own life. You are responsible for it, not me. You have a genetic disorder that requires your child to have round the clock medical care from the day he's born until the day he dies? Not my problem. Certainly not my responsibility to pay for it. You get cancer at 70 and need a lung transplant, quadruple bypass, and hip replacement? You are not my responsibility to take care of. You certainly should not have the right to take what belongs to me and give it to someone else that you decide needs it more than I do. What happens when I need that hip replacement? Where's the money going to come from? You? Depscall? Speedracer? Will it come from the Leftists that think money, doctors, medical advancement, and technology appear from ether and good intentions?
None of you have provided any reasonable arguments as to why I should pay to keep any of you beggars and the people you feel guilty about healthy. You think it's right because it's the "human" thing to do. It's the same emotional response as saving an animal from the humane society because he has puppy eyes. You have not thought out the consequences of your policy because you can't get past the emotional component.
It makes you feel good. That's
ing dandy. It doesn't mean it should be the basis for policy.[/QUOTE]Dude, I was seriously just asking. It seemed like you were saying it was wrong to claim that a person is responsible for rebuilding houses they set on fire because of a fire spreading from their house. So you were saying that the other burnings were unrelated?
I think one of the points some have been making in here is that you do pay for other people's medical treatment - when they go to the emergency room and get care whether or not they can afford it. Now you might say that they can't afford it so they shouldn't get care, that the market should decide who lives and dies, but socially Americans haven't gone quite that way. So since they can't afford insurance, it actually ends up being more expensive in the long run to help them, in many cases, and also takes up time in emergency rooms for things that wouldn't have been emergencies if that person had (much cheaper) routine exams and received earlier (much cheaper) treatments.
[quote name='UncleBob']I love the idea that, because those who can afford it are funding health care for those who can't, we need to reform the health care system to provide coverage for everyone paid for by those who can afford it.[/QUOTE]
Except that right now we pay for it in the most inefficient way possible and just lie to ourselves.
Except that right now we pay for it in the most inefficient way possible and just lie to ourselves.
speedracer
Banned
[quote name='bmulligan']No, I buy insurance so that if some asshole burns my house down, I get compensated to build a new one. What I don't do is lobby my congressman, hold my hand out, and demand that everyone on my block build me a new freaking house because they owe me some shit.[/quote]
Your homeowners covers your house, not your life. A house is optional when you are alive. That's the part you aren't getting.
Good luck with that.
That's the difference between health insurance vs. car and homeowners. Car and homeowners insurance may never be used and are therefore optional. You, me, and everyone else *WILL* consume health services at some point. Period.
Life is not the same as that thing in your driveway, or your driveway itself for that matter. Drawing analogies between the two is not reasonable.
We get what you're saying dude. It's rawr libertarianism. Nobody here doesn't get your point. What you aren't getting is that you don't live in vacuum despite your delusion that every man is an island.
I just finished that and the realized that it's bmull. I might as well speak to the wall.
Your homeowners covers your house, not your life. A house is optional when you are alive. That's the part you aren't getting.
Your car insurance covers a car, not your life. A car is optional when you are alive. That's the part you aren't getting.
The point. You aren't getting it. Car insurance will not increase the health of your car, but let's not let reality stand in the way of a good rant.
You need to look at the country you live in. Look at the values of the society. We value life extremely highly and are willing to step in to continue the life of another. Those are our values. If that bothers you to such a high extent, you should move somewhere where people feel the same way you do.
Good luck with that.
That's what insurance is for, right? So why then would mandatory insurance be a bad thing? Since we all will consume health services at some point, does it not make sense to require people to pay for it via mandatory insurance coverage?
That's the difference between health insurance vs. car and homeowners. Car and homeowners insurance may never be used and are therefore optional. You, me, and everyone else *WILL* consume health services at some point. Period.
Life is not the same as that thing in your driveway, or your driveway itself for that matter. Drawing analogies between the two is not reasonable.
The point. You don't get it.
We get what you're saying dude. It's rawr libertarianism. Nobody here doesn't get your point. What you aren't getting is that you don't live in vacuum despite your delusion that every man is an island.
American values. You should try them sometime.You think it's right because it's the "human" thing to do. It's the same emotional response as saving an animal from the humane society because he has puppy eyes. You have not thought out the consequences of your policy because you can't get past the emotional component.
It makes you feel good. That's
I just finished that and the realized that it's bmull. I might as well speak to the wall.
[quote name='UncleBob']I love the idea that, because those who can afford it are funding health care for those who can't, we need to reform the health care system to provide coverage for everyone paid for by those who can afford it.[/QUOTE]
Couldn't agree more. In Oregon, they just had a general election to see if the top earners in the state should have their taxes raised. So 95% of the population that wouldn't see taxes increase, got to vote on what to do with 5% of the people's money. Surprisingly it only passed by about 8%.
Up next, I think voters should require that homeowners are forced to provide one room in their house for free to renters.
Couldn't agree more. In Oregon, they just had a general election to see if the top earners in the state should have their taxes raised. So 95% of the population that wouldn't see taxes increase, got to vote on what to do with 5% of the people's money. Surprisingly it only passed by about 8%.
Up next, I think voters should require that homeowners are forced to provide one room in their house for free to renters.
bread's done