I heard Alan Keyes the other day, he said Republicans were just liberals who didn't want to pay their taxes.
The AMA, among other interested parties has kept the number of doctors artifically low. This raises the cost of health care. Since everyone in this country lives paycheck to paycheck, we ask for $5 co-pay insurance where anyone with a lowgrade fever can go to the emrgency room. This radically stimulates demand for a fixed resource. Guess what? You just took "economies of scale" and used that power to fu<king pay off the medical industry!
Now you have a bunch of users looking for their next $5 trip to the pill fairy! I am REALLY generalizing here, across multiple user groups, but you have thrown gasoline on a fire.
Also, take an aging (read: dying) culture whose retirees HAVE to have their trips to the pill fairy because losing that extra 150 pounds wasn't as much fun as getting diabetes, and you have another stress on an aritifically small resource. Combine these three factors alone and you have trouble. Throw in nationalized healthcare and you have disaster.
For someone who claims to be neither a Republican nor a Democrat, NaplesX, it's really odd, I must say, how you've started two threads attacking Democrats and you defend George Bush at all costs, even when the facts are obviously against you. No?
For someone who claims to be neither a Republican nor a Democrat, NaplesX, it's really odd, I must say, how you've started two threads attacking Democrats and you defend George Bush at all costs, even when the facts are obviously against you. No?
Well, you can not be a republican or democrat and still have conservative, right-wing leanings.
with the money that both parties have thrown to poverty, shouldn't all the "poor" be millionairs by now? and poverty in america is equal to the upper crust in nations that actualy have povertv, we are the richest countryon earth, there is no REAL poverty here.
with the money that both parties have thrown to poverty, shouldn't all the "poor" be millionairs by now? and poverty in america is equal to the upper crust in nations that actualy have povertv, we are the richest countryon earth, there is no REAL poverty here.
He has a point about poverty. Federal money has not cured it. State money has not cured it. In PA, we have some of the most liberal welfare laws in the nation. You know what that causes? People come to PA to collect welfare. Gee...imagine.
As for the name calling...I think that's out of line. But that's not my job, so whatever.
He has a point about poverty. Federal money has not cured it. State money has not cured it. In PA, we have some of the most liberal welfare laws in the nation. You know what that causes? People come to PA to collect welfare. Gee...imagine.
As for the name calling...I think that's out of line. But that's not my job, so whatever.
There is no "real" poverty here? Other nations have "actual" poverty, but we don't? Those statements are hostile to the millions of Americans who really live in "actual" poverty, despite the wealth of our nation. It takes a true asshole to spit in their faces, telling them they enjoy more than an enviable standard of "living"- when the rest of our nation enjoys a standard that has to be thousands if not millions of times greater.
He has a point about poverty. Federal money has not cured it. State money has not cured it. In PA, we have some of the most liberal welfare laws in the nation. You know what that causes? People come to PA to collect welfare. Gee...imagine.
As for the name calling...I think that's out of line. But that's not my job, so whatever.
I lived in Pittsburgh for years, and I will tell you this, as a machinist and father struggling to survive in a "poor" area, the "poor" lived better than I did and drove new cars and had way nicer cloths than I did. We lived in an area right next to subsidised housing. I made a decent wage at that time.
Now I am not saying there were no actual poor there, but they were extremely difficult to ID visually. anyway.
I have a welfare story that would anger many of you.
There is no "real" poverty here? Other nations have "actual" poverty, but we don't? Those statements are hostile to the millions of Americans who really live in "actual" poverty, despite the wealth of our nation. It takes a true asshole to spit in their faces, telling them they enjoy more than an enviable standard of "living"- when the rest of our nation enjoys a standard that has to be thousands if not millions of times greater.
So you are on a Democratic guilt trip, thinking that throwing money at the poor in excessive ammounts will help to pull them up to a level playing field? In this country we have bootstraps to pull us up, not a giant government elevator that most of these people seem to be riding up and down at their leisure.
There is no "real" poverty here? Other nations have "actual" poverty, but we don't? Those statements are hostile to the millions of Americans who really live in "actual" poverty, despite the wealth of our nation. It takes a true asshole to spit in their faces, telling them they enjoy more than an enviable standard of "living"- when the rest of our nation enjoys a standard that has to be thousands if not millions of times greater.
Shawn,
Please produce for me the actual or even estimated number of people that live in what all of us would consider to be true poverty and do so without it being related to lifestyle choices. In otherwords the true people life has shat upon.
Most people are in "poverty" because the government defines them as such due to income. However the "impoverished" still own homes, cars, have televisions, videogame systems, and have a growing obesity problem due to a complete lack of hunger.
Most don't consider that a "poverty" problem even though the government would define them as such. Being against towards income redistribution for folks such as this is not callous. Most of the children in my school receive free or reduced lunch. In fact pretty much 60-70 of all kids in all school do. It is because the guidelines are so broad that everyone is "poor" by their definition. I pointed you toward the Penn State qualification program to show you that even though you drive a fairly new car, own a computer (and likely a wealth of consumer electronics as well,) attend a private university, and live in a large, expensive home, you would qualify for food stamps based off your income.
You would get the services, but you are not truly impoverished, nor will you remain there for life. (at least I hope not)
You are passing through "poverty" as defined by your income for a short period while attending school. Most young people do this and when you are someday in the top 10% of incomes, it won't be because you oppressed someone. It will be because you gained a degree and earned with it.
"America will survive until politicians discover they can bribe people with their own money." -- de Tocqueville
Look at where Gore got his votes in 2000. Places with a LOT of government giveaway... people who need the tax advocates to keep redistributing wealth from American "fly-over country" to the never-solved problems of large cities.
People are self-interested beings... and once a program gets rolling, people will take and take until the whole thing collapses. It's the Tragedy of the Commons.
Unfortunately, for every dollar the government spends, someone has to be taxed for that dollar. It is not "free whatever" - someone (you and I) have to pay for it. Look at all the caterwauling over welfare reform under Clinton. Certain people are addicted to government giveaway... and we are all paying for their addiction. (An addiction that is destroying them AND us)
"There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him."
Comments
Originally posted by dmz
!!!
.....can you say that on the internet?
Now that is funny...
Ha
WHOOPS!
The AMA, among other interested parties has kept the number of doctors artifically low. This raises the cost of health care. Since everyone in this country lives paycheck to paycheck, we ask for $5 co-pay insurance where anyone with a lowgrade fever can go to the emrgency room. This radically stimulates demand for a fixed resource. Guess what? You just took "economies of scale" and used that power to fu<king pay off the medical industry!
Now you have a bunch of users looking for their next $5 trip to the pill fairy! I am REALLY generalizing here, across multiple user groups, but you have thrown gasoline on a fire.
Also, take an aging (read: dying) culture whose retirees HAVE to have their trips to the pill fairy because losing that extra 150 pounds wasn't as much fun as getting diabetes, and you have another stress on an aritifically small resource. Combine these three factors alone and you have trouble. Throw in nationalized healthcare and you have disaster.
Originally posted by dmz
.....can you say that on the internet?
Yea, much more benign than having a "premature specification"
BTW, I could go for one of those right now.
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
For someone who claims to be neither a Republican nor a Democrat, NaplesX, it's really odd, I must say, how you've started two threads attacking Democrats and you defend George Bush at all costs, even when the facts are obviously against you. No?
Well, you can not be a republican or democrat and still have conservative, right-wing leanings.
either that or naples just likes to argue
Originally posted by dmz
!!!
.....can you say that on the internet?
let us hope mike powell doesnt read these forums!!!!
Originally posted by Wrong Robot
Well, you can not be a republican or democrat and still have conservative, right-wing leanings.
either that or naples just likes to argue
Please expand on that whole line of reasoning, because I would love to hear it.
I am not affiliated with any political party, nor want to be. I am a mere observer.
Sometimes I like to argue, when I feel I am right I suppose, but the same can be said of most here, so what exactly is your point?
Originally posted by a_greer
with the money that both parties have thrown to poverty, shouldn't all the "poor" be millionairs by now? and poverty in america is equal to the upper crust in nations that actualy have povertv, we are the richest countryon earth, there is no REAL poverty here.
You asshole.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
You asshole.
He has a point about poverty. Federal money has not cured it. State money has not cured it. In PA, we have some of the most liberal welfare laws in the nation. You know what that causes? People come to PA to collect welfare. Gee...imagine.
As for the name calling...I think that's out of line. But that's not my job, so whatever.
Originally posted by SDW2001
He has a point about poverty. Federal money has not cured it. State money has not cured it. In PA, we have some of the most liberal welfare laws in the nation. You know what that causes? People come to PA to collect welfare. Gee...imagine.
As for the name calling...I think that's out of line. But that's not my job, so whatever.
There is no "real" poverty here? Other nations have "actual" poverty, but we don't? Those statements are hostile to the millions of Americans who really live in "actual" poverty, despite the wealth of our nation. It takes a true asshole to spit in their faces, telling them they enjoy more than an enviable standard of "living"- when the rest of our nation enjoys a standard that has to be thousands if not millions of times greater.
Originally posted by SDW2001
He has a point about poverty. Federal money has not cured it. State money has not cured it. In PA, we have some of the most liberal welfare laws in the nation. You know what that causes? People come to PA to collect welfare. Gee...imagine.
As for the name calling...I think that's out of line. But that's not my job, so whatever.
I lived in Pittsburgh for years, and I will tell you this, as a machinist and father struggling to survive in a "poor" area, the "poor" lived better than I did and drove new cars and had way nicer cloths than I did. We lived in an area right next to subsidised housing. I made a decent wage at that time.
Now I am not saying there were no actual poor there, but they were extremely difficult to ID visually. anyway.
I have a welfare story that would anger many of you.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
There is no "real" poverty here? Other nations have "actual" poverty, but we don't? Those statements are hostile to the millions of Americans who really live in "actual" poverty, despite the wealth of our nation. It takes a true asshole to spit in their faces, telling them they enjoy more than an enviable standard of "living"- when the rest of our nation enjoys a standard that has to be thousands if not millions of times greater.
So you are on a Democratic guilt trip, thinking that throwing money at the poor in excessive ammounts will help to pull them up to a level playing field? In this country we have bootstraps to pull us up, not a giant government elevator that most of these people seem to be riding up and down at their leisure.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
There is no "real" poverty here? Other nations have "actual" poverty, but we don't? Those statements are hostile to the millions of Americans who really live in "actual" poverty, despite the wealth of our nation. It takes a true asshole to spit in their faces, telling them they enjoy more than an enviable standard of "living"- when the rest of our nation enjoys a standard that has to be thousands if not millions of times greater.
Shawn,
Please produce for me the actual or even estimated number of people that live in what all of us would consider to be true poverty and do so without it being related to lifestyle choices. In otherwords the true people life has shat upon.
Most people are in "poverty" because the government defines them as such due to income. However the "impoverished" still own homes, cars, have televisions, videogame systems, and have a growing obesity problem due to a complete lack of hunger.
Most don't consider that a "poverty" problem even though the government would define them as such. Being against towards income redistribution for folks such as this is not callous. Most of the children in my school receive free or reduced lunch. In fact pretty much 60-70 of all kids in all school do. It is because the guidelines are so broad that everyone is "poor" by their definition. I pointed you toward the Penn State qualification program to show you that even though you drive a fairly new car, own a computer (and likely a wealth of consumer electronics as well,) attend a private university, and live in a large, expensive home, you would qualify for food stamps based off your income.
You would get the services, but you are not truly impoverished, nor will you remain there for life. (at least I hope not)
Walter Williams
Give this a read along with this....
Thomas Sowell
You are passing through "poverty" as defined by your income for a short period while attending school. Most young people do this and when you are someday in the top 10% of incomes, it won't be because you oppressed someone. It will be because you gained a degree and earned with it.
Nick
Look at where Gore got his votes in 2000. Places with a LOT of government giveaway... people who need the tax advocates to keep redistributing wealth from American "fly-over country" to the never-solved problems of large cities.
People are self-interested beings... and once a program gets rolling, people will take and take until the whole thing collapses. It's the Tragedy of the Commons.
Unfortunately, for every dollar the government spends, someone has to be taxed for that dollar. It is not "free whatever" - someone (you and I) have to pay for it. Look at all the caterwauling over welfare reform under Clinton. Certain people are addicted to government giveaway... and we are all paying for their addiction. (An addiction that is destroying them AND us)
"There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him."
-Robert Heinlein_
Why don't you all read the facts and then come back here: Welfare Databook
Originally posted by billybobsky
We have heard this yarn before...
Why don't you all read the facts and then come back here: Welfare Databook
hahahaha "Yarn" he calls it. So sad.
Originally posted by billybobsky
We have heard this yarn before...
How about you tell me what in my post is not correct, in your view? I mean, tossing a PDF at me does not really answer any of the points I made.