Want Ron Paul to run in 2012?

[Bryan]

I have a problem with trillions...that will be spent to provide for OTHER people's health care over and above that which I pay for my OWN health care. And, big Healthcare is just as greedy on K Street as any of the other lobbying interests are.

But, hey, I guess we can just keep on raising taxes... and see more and more industry continue to flee the United States like it has been over the past decades.

Damn straight!! If we do that, industry may well move to England....no wait, I forgot: England already has a National Health Service, too. Bad example. I should have said France. No, wait! France has national healthcare, too! Another bad example. I should have said Spain or Italy. Oops! Sorry, more bad examples!! :dunno: I should have said Somalia. I don't think they have national healthcare.

 

[cyberprimate]

I'm glad i live in Paris. There's so much less stress about healthcare here.

 

[Bryan]

I'm glad i live in Paris. There's so much less stress about healthcare here.

What's the general French attitude toward America, with our lack of a national healthcare system?

 

[cyberprimate]

People always refer to the US system as "what would happen if we fucked with our national healthcare". Even the most right winged politicians like Sarkozy agree that the situation is bad in the US, it's a simple objective observation. Until I would say 3 or 4 years ago there was the temptation to move towards a more anglo-saxon model for ideological and budgetary reasons but it's lost its popularity.

Just like Scandinavians, French people are anthropologically different. We're fundamentally less individualistic, which is a good and a bad thing.

 

[Bryan]

Do French people generally not complain all the time about the excessive levels of taxation that it must surely take to pay for all their healthcare and other services? Americans constantly b**ch and complain about taxes, and we don't even (currently) HAVE national healthcare!

 

[cyberprimate]

Of course many people do. But that never reaches even 5% of the level of hysteria you can have in the US, especially these days.

Things haven't been always been this way. America was financially the most egalitarian of all democracies during the 50's, with a high taxation level. Even more than Sweden or France.

 

[Jacob]

LOL!!! Then I guess liberals have no conscience...using your logic.

Go back and re-read what I said. Liberals have no guilty conscience.

Oh, I did read it. You have no conscience if you cannot give to those most in need like us Conservatives do.

Everybody does his best to avoid paying taxes if at all possible (and legal), liberals and conservatives alike.

But why? You want to raise taxes. The Libs vote for raising taxes. Yet they do all they can to avoid paying them. So not only do they not give as much as conservatives to charity...they aren't making up for it(gov't can't do a better job of it anyway though) by paying more in taxes. Pathetic.

 

[Anarch]

Read his book. Shook his hand. Voted for him. I still don't trust him, but I'll vote for him again. :dunno:

 

[somone uk]

what makes me laugh about the american anti-healthcare people is they seem to carry this idea that they would rather pay $6000 a year for heath insurance instead of a $500 a year tax rise (if that)

 

[Bryan]

Of course many people do. But that never reaches even 5% of the level of hysteria you can have in the US, especially these days.

Things haven't been always been this way. America was financially the most egalitarian of all democracies during the 50's, with a high taxation level. Even more than Sweden or France.

Personally, I believe it's mostly because of the nefarious influence of right-wing blowhards on all the talk-radio programs in this country. They've been pounding this reactionary propaganda over and over and over and over for DECADES in this country. It finally took its toll.

 

[cyberprimate]

They've been pounding this reactionary propaganda over and over and over and over for DECADES in this country. It finally took its toll.

But Jon Stewart or Bill Maher's shows wouldn't be as funny without Fox, Limbaugh…

http://fliiby.com/file/340955/kbeoyaki0z.html

 

[Bryan]

But Jon Stewart or Bill Maher's shows wouldn't be as funny without Fox, Limbaugh…

That's probably true, since Rush Limbaugh is practically a caricature of a right-wing reactionary.

 

[HughJass]

Why should I have to pay for someone else's housing? Or someone else's kids' living expenses? Or someone else's health care?

I work hard and have made good decisions in my life so that I can afford my own. Why should I, in addition to having to be responsible for my own existence, ALSO have to be responsible for someone else's?

In the context of welfare, the question of 'what do I get out of it?' misses the point considering that the provision of welfare requires a certain degree of selflessness- you forgo your own suffering to help alleviate somebody else's suffering which is usually far greater than yours.

But if there is something you do 'get out of it' then I would suggest 3 things:

-The satisfaction of helping somebody in need

-You get to live in a society which has less social ills as a result of the safety nets in place

-You invest in a system which could help you if you were ever unlucky enough to find yourself unable to work or unable to find work.

The third point is usually impossible for critics of welfare to accept. They don't ever think they are going to be in that kind of vulnerable situation due to the ingrained belief (delusion) that situation that life is what you make, you pull myself up by your bootstraps etc

This all depends of course on what we are defining as welfare. There is welfare and then there are handouts to people who don't need them in order for politicians to buy votes or due to entitlement mentality.

in this country there's an entire underclass of people who make their entire living by living off subsidies.

I don't know whether or not there is an entire underclass living for free in your country or not, and unless we're going to start going over data then its then it's pointless for anybody to make claims about the extent of welfare fraud in any country.

I know from my experience with the welfare system I found it to be completely different to the 'sign on and sit pretty' type setup that reactionary politicians and tabloid media like us to believe with their hysterical ravings. If you were looking for work you had to jump through hoops constantly and if you didn't then you got kicked off. If you wanted a disability payment you got grilled endlessly by a bureaucrat who had the power to dismiss doctors advice on a whim. Not saying your bullshitting, just that most people's views are informed by sensational media stories and not stats.

I pay about one third of my entire income to Federal and State taxes and witholdings. Additionally, AFTER I get my "post tax" paycheck, I pay additional taxes when I pay my rent, which goes to cover property tax. I walk out the door, and start my car... and pay more taxes in license and registration fees. I fill up the car with gas, and pay more tax. I get a cup of coffee, and in Los Angeles I pay almost freaking 10% as a sales tax on everything I buy, excluding groceries. I pick up my phone, and get taxed. Turn on the television, there's another tax. Park my car downtown at the lot... and get taxed. And, let's not forget the inflation tax. When I was a kid you could get a candy bar for 5c. Now it costs 50c. What causes that? The Feds inflating the money supply by borrowing more money into existence so they can spend it on stuff... resulting in the devaluation of my savings and income in order to accomplish this. It's become almost impossible for normal people to save money and build up some personal capital, and they're now getting completely out of control with it

!

We westerners live in total luxury compared to a large percentage of the rest of the world's population, and usually at their expense. Where is the line between reasonable gripe with the tax office and losing sight of the bigger picture?

 

[HughJass]

BTW..time and time again it's shown that those with "conservative values" give way more to charity than the so caring libs. THAT "really speaks to the myopia of many people on the" left.

I don't know if that is true or not, unless your going to show some evidence.

And if it was the case it would just be because the conservatives have hoarded the most wealth- you don't get rich without being stingy to a certain degree which would challenge the idea they are more generous

And no doubt they are helped along with a favorable tax rate. Your average incomer earner on the left can't compete with a 1 million dollar donation to a children's hospital from some wealthy conservative industrialist, but they are advocating for policies which see them end up with less money at the end of every paycheck in order for the more vulnerable to be helped out so which is more generous? giving away a hundred grand a year when you are a multi, multi millionaire? or advocating for higher taxes and welfare spending for the needy when you only clear 40k a year.

Also, who are the conservatives donating to? Welfare groups and charities that benefit as much of society as possible? Or only groups who share their beliefs and ideologies (like church groups) and whose assistance comes with strings attached.

 

[HughJass]

Cutting social spending is also a great way to empower groups who should be neutered for the sake of social progress.

I'm reminded of the recent floods in Pakistan- when the government and taxpayers couldn't provide for the people in a time of need then guess who moved in to pick up the slack and curried favor with the populace?

 

[Jacob]

BTW..time and time again it's shown that those with "conservative values" give way more to charity than the so caring libs. THAT "really speaks to the myopia of many people on the" left.

I don't know if that is true or not, unless your going to show some evidence.

And if it was the case it would just be because the conservatives have hoarded the most wealth- you don't get rich without being stingy to a certain degree which would challenge the idea they are more generous

And no doubt they are helped along with a favorable tax rate. Your average incomer earner on the left can't compete with a 1 million dollar donation to a children's hospital from some wealthy conservative industrialist, but they are advocating for policies which see them end up with less money at the end of every paycheck in order for the more vulnerable to be helped out so which is more generous? giving away a hundred grand a year when you are a multi, multi millionaire? or advocating for higher taxes and welfare spending for the needy when you only clear 40k a year.

Also, who are the conservatives donating to? Welfare groups and charities that benefit as much of society as possible? Or only groups who share their beliefs and ideologies (like church groups) and whose assistance comes with strings attached.

Oh..I'll give you plenty of evidence. Happy reading:
http://www.google.com/search?hair l...3DVFA_enUS360US318&ie=UTF-8&aq=0&oq=conservat


I love the one from ABC news..not exactly conservative friendly: "It turns out that this idea that liberals give more…is a myth."

You should have learned your lesson with my response to Bryan. To follow up with "and if it was the case"...blah blah blah..with no evidence of your own..is silly. You guys keep acting like there are no rich liberals. I've already given the examples of the Hollywood elites...Congressmen...I could add those in the media...and there are pleeeeeeeeenty of rich greedy corporate liberals out there. Wait..then there are lawyers....and......

So everything else you said there is nonsense..as well. And liberals can give to their own ideological causes too..if that's gonna be the excuse.

 

[HughJass]

Oh..I'll give you plenty of evidence. Happy reading:
http://www.google.com/search?hair l...3DVFA_enUS360US318&ie=UTF-8&aq=0&oq=conservat


I love the one from ABC news..not exactly conservative friendly: "It turns out that this idea that liberals give more…is a myth."

You should have learned your lesson with my response to Bryan. To follow up with "and if it was the case"...blah blah blah..with no evidence of your own..is silly. You guys keep acting like there are no rich liberals. I've already given the examples of the Hollywood elites...Congressmen...I could add those in the media...and there are pleeeeeeeeenty of rich greedy corporate liberals out there. Wait..then there are lawyers....and......

So everything else you said there is nonsense..as well. And liberals can give to their own ideological causes too..if that's gonna be the excuse.

For starters, I never made the claim that liberals are more generous than conservatives. That's just a strawman. If I had claimed that then I wouldn't have said 'I don't know if that is true or not'

What I said was that many conservatives are myopic for not seeing that welfare is of great benefit to many people, whether they see it or not. I haven't changed my mind on that, especially after you've asked for evidence (if you need evidence then you must be convinced that every welfare recipient must be a cheat)

Whether there are rich liberals or rich conservatives is really of no interest to me. I was just talking about the values of a welfare system.

And as for the conservative donors you posted, it's not clear to me from the few articles I read where exactly there donations are going. Maybe there is some info i missed. From one article I skimmed I noticed it said religion was the greatest determining factor in how charitable a person would be. That says to me they might be donating a lot to religious organizations which is really of no benefit to a society. The problem with personal philanthropy is that the funds are given away to the cause that the philanthropist deems most appropriate, and that doesn't mean it's necessarily beneficial to society as a whole. Only people who are look things in the context of a whole society, regardless of socioeconomic status, ethnic or religious background or political persuasion are really in a position to determine where welfare is most fairly distributed and there is no guarantee that happens with personal philanthropy.

Also, aren't various political initiatives now setting up themselves up as charities in America after the Citizens United decision? One could easily channel heaps of cash into that and say they were giving to charity.

 

[Jacob]

aussieavodart..keep reading.

It matters not if they're religious organizations. These "religious organizations" help ppl in so many ways. It is not for the religious only. But I noticed in some of the articles they are not just giving to such organizations. Again...the left has their own religious interest groups/charities as well.

I also stated I know of someone who does receive assistance. I never said everyone is a cheat- there are plenty that are though. I'm just saying that I am providing proof to back up my claims...you are not. You start out with asking for such evidence..and then continue with- if that is true, then blah blah blah.

You are the one that brought up "wealthy conservative industrialists", so it was of interest to you until it's pointed out that there are plenty of rich libs.

Again..keep reading. Many of those links(and it surprised me even) are from sources that are not conservative friendly.

 

[Anarch]

government = compulsion = violence

the free market works on a voluntary, peaceful basis

what we have now is not a free market

 

[HughJass]

And that is the rub......you have no faith in the organizations to which we give.....the same organizations that deal with the poor and needy on a daily basis....what you are supporting is that the government knows best where the money (or hair in my analogy) is to be sent....not the church next to my house that feeds....and clothes....and seeks employment for those in need in my community. If I give the dollar to the man standing next to me....I know....this will do more good than giving that same dollar to the government that will make that same man wait in line to get .50 cents....Please and Thank you!

Of course I don't have any faith in them. Why would I have faith in ANY organization that is undemocratic, authoritarian, encourages ethnocentrism, doesn't take kindly to criticism and who's charity isn't motivated ONLY on the basis of altruisim but is more often than not used as a vehicle to propagate it's belief system and consolidate it's power within a society.