Political Shitshooting "previously: YEAH! WOOHOO! Liberals got the same healthcare pla"
#31 Posted 01 July 2012 - 07:48 AM
e·gal·i·tar·i·an, adj. - Those who have more pay less, those who have less pay more.
This post has been edited by Captain Awesome: 01 July 2012 - 07:50 AM
#32 Posted 01 July 2012 - 07:59 AM
Captain Awesome, on 01 July 2012 - 07:48 AM, said:
e·gal·i·tar·i·an, adj. - Those who have more pay less, those who have less pay more.
Thats a great idea. Too bad the rich rule the world.
#33 Posted 01 July 2012 - 08:04 AM
ReaperMan, on 01 July 2012 - 07:59 AM, said:
THINK ABOUT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, MAN. MIKKO WILL BE BACK HERE ANY SECOND.
*edit* Oh shit, too late now.
This post has been edited by EmericaSkater: 01 July 2012 - 08:27 AM
#35 Posted 01 July 2012 - 08:16 AM
Mad Max RW, on 30 June 2012 - 08:51 PM, said:
Exactly. There's absolutely nothing "pragmatic" about expanding Medicaid or Medicare. It is precisely the opposite: wrecking the future well-being of the economy for the sake of idealism. Entitlement spending is the single biggest threat to America. You can always pull out of Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam or whatever, but any attempt to reform entitlement programs hits a huge brick wall. Once spending on these programs is on the way, it becomes uncontrollable. Such shortsightedness is the antithesis of pragmatism. It's the equivalent of "shoot first and ask questions later".
#36 Posted 01 July 2012 - 08:22 AM
Descent, on 30 June 2012 - 06:53 PM, said:
That's my goal, to get back on a plan with a much larger income cap, or better yet, buy a plan with no income cap and expansive name brand drug coverage.
My goal is to stay off the government dole. I saw the numbers in the paper today showing I would qualify for a handout to pay for the costlier plan I am forced to buy. Depending on how much the new plan will cost, I will entertain the thought of denying the handout if possible. IIRC singles could make up to 44K/year to qualify. Overkill if you ask me.
#37 Posted 01 July 2012 - 08:24 AM
EmericaSkater, on 01 July 2012 - 08:04 AM, said:
Oh god.(hides under covers)
This post has been edited by ReaperMan: 01 July 2012 - 08:25 AM
#38 Posted 01 July 2012 - 08:25 AM
This post has been edited by Captain Awesome: 01 July 2012 - 08:27 AM
#39 Posted 01 July 2012 - 08:37 AM
Captain Awesome, on 01 July 2012 - 08:25 AM, said:
The evil little fascist in you has, it seems, surfaced again as your idea of "asking" someone to contribute is to loot with the state's exclusive right to initiate non-defensive violence. (Tax evaders are literally dragged into prison at gunpoint.) Such logic fills the pages of 1984.
Howabout you tell me what exactly it is that the poor contribute? The rich earn money through the satisfaction of the wants of the consumer: they contribute and in exchange they're rewarded.
#41 Posted 01 July 2012 - 08:40 AM
Captain Awesome, on 01 July 2012 - 08:25 AM, said:
There we run into the ideological root of the problem - you have already taken up the position that running a business, selling goods and services, and turning in a profit is not in and of itself participating in society. Your idea of participation seems to be a mandated contribution to the government where they hopefully (given our federal government's confounding method of money management) will give aid to the less fortunate. I'm sorry, but I just cannot identify with that.
Quote
Oh, grow up. You're better than that.
This post has been edited by Achenar: 01 July 2012 - 08:41 AM
#42 Posted 01 July 2012 - 08:43 AM
This post has been edited by Captain Awesome: 01 July 2012 - 08:44 AM
#43 Posted 01 July 2012 - 08:44 AM
Captain Awesome, on 01 July 2012 - 08:43 AM, said:
I don't disagree with the idea of a flat tax. Your previous post implied that you advocated increased taxation for the sake of expanding Medicare and Medicaid. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Quote
No argument there. Just goes to show we need to consolidate our tax system more so that people cannot dodge the system, putting the burden on those who actually do pay tax.
This post has been edited by Achenar: 01 July 2012 - 08:46 AM
#44 Posted 01 July 2012 - 08:53 AM
#45 Posted 01 July 2012 - 09:09 AM
Marked, on 01 July 2012 - 08:22 AM, said:
Hey man, I hear ya. 140 I.Q., about to have three different certifications, able to work full time, but I gotta limit my income and receive massive handouts because of how patched together our healthcare system is.
Mikko_Sandt, on 01 July 2012 - 08:37 AM, said:
Poor people pump my septic tank, clean my slaughtered meat, cook my cheeseburgers, pump my gas, relocate my shit when I move, pick up my trash, and when I'm lonely some of them have Pay Per View vaginas.
They make civilized life possible for the rest of us.
This post has been edited by Descent: 01 July 2012 - 09:18 AM
#46 Posted 01 July 2012 - 09:11 AM
This post has been edited by Mad Max RW: 01 July 2012 - 09:12 AM
#47 Posted 01 July 2012 - 09:23 AM
This post has been edited by Descent: 01 July 2012 - 09:24 AM
#48 Posted 01 July 2012 - 10:57 AM
Captain Awesome, on 01 July 2012 - 08:43 AM, said:
Descent, on 01 July 2012 - 09:09 AM, said:
Poverty among those who're employed is extremely low. You make it sound as if the poor are, in general, hard working. Many of the workers you listed have comfortable incomes.
Captain Awesome said that the rich should be "asked" to "contribute", apparently beyond the production and jobs they already supply to the economy. Do you believe that the poor who're serving you cheeseburgers owe you something beyond the cheeseburger you just paid for? If the rich - who pay tons of taxes but hardly ever use public services they have paid for - should contribute more than the vast amounts they already contribute shouldn't the poor contribute even more, seeing how they have hardly contributed anything in the first place (even a monkey can take your order for a cheeseburger)?
#49 Posted 01 July 2012 - 10:59 AM
Even if its not a lot of money I feel everyone should have some "skin in the game" as far as paying taxes. It might lead to them switching away from blindly voting for the "handout giving" politicians.
This post has been edited by Marked: 01 July 2012 - 11:04 AM
#50 Posted 01 July 2012 - 11:08 AM
And these are the same assholes shipping our jobs to Mexico and buying our elections. You're full of shit, Mikko.
This post has been edited by Captain Awesome: 01 July 2012 - 11:16 AM
#51 Posted 01 July 2012 - 11:47 AM
Captain Awesome, on 01 July 2012 - 11:08 AM, said:
This is a strawman argument as I have never argued against government provision of security. In fact, proponents of laissez-faire economics generally consider public provision of security against both foreign and domestic threats the sole responsibilty of the state.
Of course, the dollar amounts the state allocates to, say, the police and the courts are of the Mickey Mouse variety compared to the costs of public health care and social security. On top of that the rich usually rely on private security services rather than having public-sector cops patrolling their gated communities.
Quote
Those jobs are obviously not in any sense yours.
#52 Posted 01 July 2012 - 03:14 PM
#53 Posted 01 July 2012 - 03:44 PM
#54 Posted 01 July 2012 - 04:55 PM
Mikko_Sandt, on 01 July 2012 - 10:57 AM, said:
How is $7.25/hr comfortable? That's poverty level. You can't live on that in any part of New York State, nor can you live on minimum wage almost anywhere now. Rent is too high, car insurance, gas prices, etc.
Do you research anything before you write or do you just let stuff come out of your mouth?
Mikko_Sandt, on 01 July 2012 - 03:44 PM, said:
What is it with you and extremes? Holy shit bro.
You're argument is idealistic, not pragmatic. Upper class people must pay more to keep services running, and poor people must pay less because, naturally, they make less. Demand generates jobs. How can you create demand if you expand taxes on the poor and middle class?
Quote
Yes, they are. It's globalization run rampant.
P.S. My brother's friend is center right and goes Villanova University, which is a damn fine college. He is an economics major, and he'll be graduating in half a year.
He thinks your posts are hilarious. He also said, quote on quote, "This guy is so full of shit."
P.P.S. The fact that you called CA a "fascist" and resorted to unsubstantiated reactionary talking points is proof of your ignorance.
No one ever has rational discussions with you because you can't even hold a conversation on The Internet. You swing to extremes, debate in circles, talk down to everyone, and never admit you are wrong despite whatever evidence is presented.
This post has been edited by Descent: 01 July 2012 - 05:01 PM
#55 Posted 01 July 2012 - 05:06 PM
Mikko_Sandt, on 01 July 2012 - 03:44 PM, said:
On the contrary, my argument was simply that they should pay the same amount as everyone else. Or that everyone else pays the same amount they do. Either one.
#56 Posted 01 July 2012 - 05:21 PM
Descent, on 01 July 2012 - 04:55 PM, said:
I wasn't aware that there were that many rational conversation on the internet to begin with.
#57 Posted 01 July 2012 - 05:24 PM
ReaperMan, on 01 July 2012 - 05:21 PM, said:
There isn't. Everyone in this thread is full of shit, really, even me, because we're all arguing without knowing all the facts.
#58 Posted 01 July 2012 - 05:26 PM
This post has been edited by ReaperMan: 01 July 2012 - 05:27 PM
#60 Posted 01 July 2012 - 06:12 PM
Descent, on 01 July 2012 - 04:55 PM, said:
I'd be interested in what he says after ten years in the real world.