Revamping the Republican Strategy

[PostmodernProphet]

.....When you use the c word, it's about every woman.......If you return the insult and call him a dick, that's about him..

you realize that's illogical, right?.....if there is an absolute parallel to calling a woman a cunt, it would be calling a guy a dick.......

 

[PostmodernProphet]

I have zero doubt you hate women.

I don't hate you because you're a woman.....I hate you because you're a brainless liberal.....

 

[Haiku]

except for the fact it isn't.....whan I call Bijou something, I call Bijou something.....if you want to imagine its somethings else it is simply that.....your imagination......

In which case you're making a personal attack. That's generally frowned upon but only your complaint seems to hold weight because it involves children. Well done.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

you realize that's illogical, right?.....if there is an absolute parallel to calling a woman a cunt, it would be calling a guy a dick.......

You're an uneducated, delusional piece of shit who hates women, so you would believe this nonsense.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

I don't hate you because you're a woman.....I hate you because you're a brainless liberal.....

I don't give a flying fuck about your "thoughts". Woman hater.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

In which case you're making a personal attack.

du'h.......it happens around here....

You're an uneducated, delusional piece of shit who hates women, so you would believe this nonsense.

 

[apple0154]

I have no desire to lose money, Apple. If my options are to make money or lose money, I will opt to make it. I'm not interested in paying excessive taxes or taking excessive risks so I can pay excessive taxes, even if it means making more money. I had rather make less money and have lower taxes and fewer risks. I see no contradiction in anything I have said.

But you do look to make money. Your quote, “I seek the best return with the lowest risk or penalty.” If you weren’t interested in making money you would simply seek the lowest risk and penalty and not seek a return.

Investment capital is almost non-existent these days. Investment is happening every day, Apple. Right now, the smart investor is investing in securities and bonds, things that are relatively secure and with low risk and tax liability. To remedy this condition, you don't increase tax burdens and regulations.

And we all thank everyone who buys government bonds and invests in social programs.

Oh, I am very familiar with the food pyramid, but it doesn't factor in your platitude of poverty being a "relationship between people." I am unable to conclude what a "good place to live" is when the parameters change with the changing relationship between people. Will a person in poverty EVER live in the same neighborhood as a wealthy person? If the parameters change based on our relationships, the people in poverty will never have enough. They may live in a $100k home in a gated community with a pool, if the wealthy person lives in a million-dollar mansion, they still have more and the poor still suffer accordingly. In other words, we can never fix the poverty problem, no matter how hard we try. Not only will we fail to fix the problem, we will never help the problem, as the parameter constantly changes.

Of course the parameter constantly changes. That’s progress. If someone is living in a tent and they get a mud hut they’ve moved up. If the guy sleeping in a cardboard box gets a room in a dilapidated building he has moved up. If a person didn’t have a phone in 1912 they weren’t considered impoverished. However, if one can not afford a phone today not only are they impoverished but it’s doubtful they’d ever get a job. Would you hire someone who didn’t have a phone?

Technology and innovation moves the entire human race along. If one can not afford medical care or medication and die prematurely then they are extremely impoverished.

Well first of all, a person who collects SS, is collecting a benefit from a plan they paid into. It's their money. And a 1.5% return is not even keeping up with the cost of living, so a millionaire is actually losing money at that rate. Not really sure what this has to do with our discussion, or why you're obsessing on it. But it's basically an irrelevant comparison, because the SS recipient isn't gaining interest or wealth.

My point is the person collecting SS can live as well as the millionaire who collects 1.5% interest assuming the millionaire has no other income. So, we have elevated the retiree without taking anyone’s million dollars. Get it? That shows we’re not dragging the wealthy down as you claim. We’re elevating the poor.

Obamacare will prove to be a bust. It will create a much worse system than we had. Instead of being able to see a doctor at any time, whenever you need a doctor, there will be waiting periods and lists. It's won't reduce poverty by your own defined parameters of 'relationship between people' unless you envision people in poverty getting boob-jobs, face lifts and liposuction at taxpayers expense. Again, we have adopted this "solution" to a problem you can't ever fix.

No one is talking about boob jobs just as no one is talking about everyone having a McMansion. Supply decent shelter for the poor and supply the necessary lifesaving medical necessities. As for ObamaCare it will be fine. Now that it’s established it can be fine-tuned like every other country has fine-tuned their plans.

Death panels are for real, and part of the Obamacare plan. As demands increase on the already over-burdened medical system, there will be no other option but to ration care. We'll have to accept the death panels, we won't have any other options at that point. Like in other countries with government medical.

Nonsense. I received medical treatment promptly. The superiority of government medical care is evidenced by longevity in the countries with government medical compared to the US.

But the "basic necessities" change in relation to our relationships, right? And again, poverty has not been reduced, according to all the studies and statistics on poverty. We've spent literally trillions and trillions of dollars, and yet we still have poverty rate just as bad as we had 40-60 years ago. Now you claim things are better, but it's just that poverty is relational, but if that is the case, we can never hope to end poverty, and we can't afford your plan to reduce it. Yeah, I know you won an election, but you still can't spend money that doesn't exist, so sooner or later reality has to be faced. Ask the Greeks.

The definition of poverty today is not the same as it was in 1930 so while there may be as many people classified as living in poverty today the conditions are not the same as those who were living in poverty in 1930 and that’s the whole idea. As the living standards of the average person increases over the decades the definition of poverty changes. That does not mean beneficial changes haven’t taken place.

As for not being able to afford it that’s more nonsense. Isn’t there a specific government authorized account people can have for medical emergencies? Well, guess what. If true government medical was instituted such accounts wouldn’t be necessary. Imagine the millions and millions of dollars that would be freed up. Consider all the middle aged people putting a few dollars away every time they have an ache or pain, just in case. Imagine that money used for their children’s or grandchildren’s education or a down payment on a home for them. How many medical accounts are bequeathed as they were never used? How much tax is lost due to that money being inherited? How much money is not flowing through the system?

What do you mean the money doesn’t exist? The government doesn’t have it? Fine, raise taxes. Close loopholes. The people have the money. Look around you. Would you say the US is an impoverished nation and as for asking the Greeks they ran a corrupt society for too long. The average guy thought he was smart avoiding a tax here and tax there. He didn’t care if the politicians did the same thing. He didn’t care if his neighbor did the same thing. Now they realize everyone was doing that and there’s no money in the government coffers. Who’s laughing now?

Fine, crow some more! It still doesn't change reality. There is no money without wealthy people using their resources to create more wealth. They don't do this when you punish wealth creation. In order to pay for all your social Utopian dreams, you need money. Right now, the solution is being found by simply printing more money. For your next rude awakening, let's all see how THAT turns out?

The money is there. How can someone (a group of people) build 150,000 homes and let them all rot? One community in one State. What thinking goes along with letting them all rot? Society can’t afford to build inexpensive homes for the poor or even a rooming house for the homeless but can absorb the loss of 150,000 new, never lived in homes? That is the reality and it doesn’t take a lot of waking up to see how absurd and disgusting that reality really is.

It's the same bull crap told over and over. The government doesn't have the money. What, exactly, did the government do for the poor during the 90s when all that money was rolling in? Homes for the poor? A Christmas bonus on welfare checks? They didn't even send a coupon for a free Christmas turkey. So, when it comes to helping the poor the excuse the government doesn't have the money just doesn't cut it anymore and that's precisely why Obama went ahead with ObamaCare. It doesn't matter how much money the government has. Medical care for the poor was never going to be implemented. War? Hell, yes. There's lots of money. At least according to Rumsfeld. War is an affordable option but medical care for he poor, noooooo. Can't afford that.

Yes, Dix. There is a rude awakening coming. Good times, bad times. It doesn't matter. It's always to hell with the poor and the ill and the disadvantaged. Well, Obama made one major change and I have a feeling more is to come. Hang on for the ride.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

I don't give a flying fuck about your "thoughts". Woman hater.

Heaven and earth,
Must I remember? Why, she would hang on ignorance
As if increase of appetite had grown
By what it fed on, and yet, within a month—
Let me not think on't—Frailty, thy name is Liberal!.....

 

[Haiku]

Another excellent post for which you have my thanks.

The money is there. How can someone (a group of people) build 150,000 homes and let them all rot? One community in one State. What thinking goes along with letting them all rot? Society can’t afford to build inexpensive homes for the poor or even a rooming house for the homeless but can absorb the loss of 150,000 new, never lived in homes? That is the reality and it doesn’t take a lot of waking up to see how absurd and disgusting that reality really is.

It's the same bull crap told over and over. The government doesn't have the money. What, exactly, did the government do for the poor during the 90s when all that money was rolling in? Homes for the poor? A Christmas bonus on welfare checks? They didn't even send a coupon for a free Christmas turkey. So, when it comes to helping the poor the excuse the government doesn't have the money just doesn't cut it anymore and that's precisely why Obama went ahead with ObamaCare. It doesn't matter how much money the government has. Medical care for the poor was never going to be implemented. War? Hell, yes. There's lots of money. At least according to Rumsfeld. War is an affordable option but medical care for he poor, noooooo. Can't afford that.

Yes, Dix. There is a rude awakening coming. Good times, bad times. It doesn't matter. It's always to hell with the poor and the ill and the disadvantaged. Well, Obama made one major change and I have a feeling more is to come. Hang on for the ride.

Isn't this the gist of it! That and the over sold notion that our country is bankrupt. We are not bankrupt in any way other than what it says about us with our treatment of our poor, sick, gay, unemployed, homeless and uneducated people.

I'm ready for that ride!

 

[Damocles]

Agree 100% with the ban on depictions of sex with children, which sadly we have had here in the past.

I think that the zero tolerance policy has morphed into equating calling someone a pedophile with writing child pornography. It's two very different things. However, this always happens with zero tolerance policies and is why i am highly resistant to them in my office. They're for authoritarians, not thinkers.

However, I accept the policy here and I abide by it. In the end I think the policy does more good than harm.

As to misogyny on the internet, and here specifically, I would like to see that decoupled from this issue. There are books to be written on it. It's disgusting and all men, all men, who post on the internet should go somewhere like this, or reddit, or anywhere political (or for that matter, in the online gaming world) and post as a woman for a month.

If you haven't done that, STFU about it. You don't get an opinion.

The reason for the "don't accuse users of it" is because it was used as an excuse... "I'm not saying that <insert user name here> did <insert gross stuff about kids> I'm just saying it is "possible"..."

Thus they created what they thought was a quandary, that I couldn't see that they were using it as an excuse to express what was quite literally illegal child porn here on this site. However I could see it, so it stopped. Now I stop it at the first step before it goes to the graphic depictions that always follow.

If there is a story about say a rapist priest doing kids, we can talk about it, but if you think describing the exact acts they did to be something we can allow here you are wrong (not saying you personally here, Darla, you've never stepped over this particular line nor do I suspect you would without the rule).

 

[Damocles]

I never have...you have me confused with someone else. I support free speech...moving that kind of back and forth to 'the war zone' would work in my view.

While I have your attention why the sock puppets? What possible purpose does allowing multiple accounts serve?

Sorry, I was just using your post to explain why to everybody at once including the ones talking about the pedo crap. Please don't take it personally.

As for "sock puppets", the vast majority of the time they are used for humor, obviously so. I like humor. A good secondary account based on funny stuff is an awesome thing. Especially if the user can keep the rest of the members guessing as to who they are...

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

But you do look to make money. Your quote, “I seek the best return with the lowest risk or penalty.” If you weren’t interested in making money you would simply seek the lowest risk and penalty and not seek a return.

Well if you're going to be stupid, we can't have an intelligent conversation. There is a difference in not wanting to lose money and not interested in making money. Just as there is a difference between making just enough money to live on versus making millions or billions you don't really need. Everyone wants to make money, that is your argument, but not everyone wants to take risks and pay penalties to make more money, that is where the problems arise.

And we all thank everyone who buys government bonds and invests in social programs.

Buying government bonds is not investing in social programs which are paid for out of tax revenues.

Of course the parameter constantly changes. That’s progress. If someone is living in a tent and they get a mud hut they’ve moved up. If the guy sleeping in a cardboard box gets a room in a dilapidated building he has moved up. If a person didn’t have a phone in 1912 they weren’t considered impoverished. However, if one can not afford a phone today not only are they impoverished but it’s doubtful they’d ever get a job. Would you hire someone who didn’t have a phone?

This is troubling because if you can continuously move the goal posts and change the definition of poverty, I can't see how we'll ever realize a society without poverty, or even a society with less poverty. What you are indicating here is, no matter how much we try, or how much money we throw at it, we'll never solve this problem.

Technology and innovation moves the entire human race along. If one can not afford medical care or medication and die prematurely then they are extremely impoverished.

It simply doesn't matter how free it is, if it's unavailable.

My point is the person collecting SS can live as well as the millionaire who collects 1.5% interest assuming the millionaire has no other income. So, we have elevated the retiree without taking anyone’s million dollars. Get it? That shows we’re not dragging the wealthy down as you claim. We’re elevating the poor.

Your point is stupid because SS is a benefit from years of payment into a system. You've not elevated anyone, people paid their own SS through payroll deduction, and then claim some of that back when they retire.

No one is talking about boob jobs just as no one is talking about everyone having a McMansion. Supply decent shelter for the poor and supply the necessary lifesaving medical necessities. As for ObamaCare it will be fine. Now that it’s established it can be fine-tuned like every other country has fine-tuned their plans.

But "decent shelter" means something else in 70 years, just like your telephone example above. "Necessary medical care" means something else in the future, these things do not remain static, as you've pointed out. Obamacare has already proven to be unworkable in many areas, and my guess is, we'll see liberals shitheads like you prop it up for years before we finally do like the Canadians and start implementing capitalism again, because the government system is inadequate. In the meantime, fewer and fewer sick people will be able to see a doctor who no longer exists, more and more people will die because they couldn't FIND a doctor. And American business will continue to bleed jobs at an alarming rate, due to the massive burden of Obamacare.

Nonsense. I received medical treatment promptly. The superiority of government medical care is evidenced by longevity in the countries with government medical compared to the US.

Canada doesn't have 350 million people.

What do you mean the money doesn’t exist? The government doesn’t have it? Fine, raise taxes. Close loopholes. The people have the money. Look around you. Would you say the US is an impoverished nation and as for asking the Greeks they ran a corrupt society for too long. The average guy thought he was smart avoiding a tax here and tax there. He didn’t care if the politicians did the same thing. He didn’t care if his neighbor did the same thing. Now they realize everyone was doing that and there’s no money in the government coffers. Who’s laughing now?

You can raise taxes all you like, if no one has a job, you're not going to collect much.

The money is there. How can someone (a group of people) build 150,000 homes and let them all rot? One community in one State. What thinking goes along with letting them all rot? Society can’t afford to build inexpensive homes for the poor or even a rooming house for the homeless but can absorb the loss of 150,000 new, never lived in homes? That is the reality and it doesn’t take a lot of waking up to see how absurd and disgusting that reality really is.

I don't know how people build 150k homes and let them rot. Maybe it has something to do with government paying them to build the houses so poor people who couldn't afford them, could be given loans to default on? The reality is, our country is $16 trillion in debt... that means, we have no money!

It's the same bull crap told over and over. The government doesn't have the money. What, exactly, did the government do for the poor during the 90s when all that money was rolling in? Homes for the poor? A Christmas bonus on welfare checks? They didn't even send a coupon for a free Christmas turkey. So, when it comes to helping the poor the excuse the government doesn't have the money just doesn't cut it anymore and that's precisely why Obama went ahead with ObamaCare. It doesn't matter how much money the government has. Medical care for the poor was never going to be implemented. War? Hell, yes. There's lots of money. At least according to Rumsfeld. War is an affordable option but medical care for he poor, noooooo. Can't afford that.

Yes, Dix. There is a rude awakening coming. Good times, bad times. It doesn't matter. It's always to hell with the poor and the ill and the disadvantaged. Well, Obama made one major change and I have a feeling more is to come. Hang on for the ride.

Again, you can hoop and holler and proclaim victory over and over again, it isn't going to magically make money appear. No jobs -- no incomes -- no tax revenues, it's as simple as that. Close the loopholes, sock it to the rich some more, you're still going to have a problem finding money to pay for all the crap. That's exactly what happened to Greece.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

The reason for the "don't accuse users of it" is because it was used as an excuse... "I'm not saying that <insert user name here> did <insert gross stuff about kids> I'm just saying it is "possible"..."

Thus they created what they thought was a quandary, that I couldn't see that they were using it as an excuse to express what was quite literally illegal child porn here on this site. However I could see it, so it stopped. Now I stop it at the first step before it goes to the graphic depictions that always follow.

If there is a story about say a rapist priest doing kids, we can talk about it, but if you think describing the exact acts they did to be something we can allow here you are wrong (not saying you personally here, Darla, you've never stepped over this particular line nor do I suspect you would without the rule).

Uh no. I don't even think in those terms, it's sickening to any normal person. I put Mainman and who was it, Dixie? (if i'm wrong about that I apologize) on IA back when they were doing that. I remember poor Beefy getting sick at having to go through it all to delete it. And I nearly threw up when I had to read ID's shit. No normal person writes that shit, regardless of the excuse used, ever. It's just sick.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

you realize that's illogical, right?.....if there is an absolute parallel to calling a woman a cunt, it would be calling a guy a dick.......

No it isn't. Dick is a pejorative used to describe some guy who's a complete jerk. The term "CUNT" on the other hand is an acronym for a women who "Can't Understand Neanderthal Thinking".

 

[PostmodernProphet]

No it isn't. Dick is a pejorative used to describe some guy who's a complete jerk. The term "CUNT" on the other hand is an acronym for a women who "Can't Understand Neanderthal Thinking".

I thought it stood for Didn't Impact Cunt's Knowledge.......

 

[Robo]

It's always interesting after an election, especially when your side loses. Suddenly, all of the "experts" come out of the woodwork to give you their rather simple notions of how things may have turned out differently, what went wrong, who was to blame, and what needs to be done in the future. Where was all this brilliance and foresight before the elections? It's no surprise that most of these experts espouse ideas they held before the election, and their ideas were simply rejected by the others. We get a really good dose of "if you had listened to me..." and the same old idea is trotted out once again. Ron Paul supporters are literally gloating at the re-election of Barack Obama. A man who is so far removed from anything uttered by Dr. Paul, their respective ideologies exist in completely different universes, but the Paul supporters beam with pride over what they think they accomplished. Nearly 3 million registered republicans sat this election out, and are now expressing pride in what they did. That will teach the GOP to act like they did! But let's really examine some things here, shall we?

First of all, the "GOP" didn't pick Mitt Romney as the candidate to run against Barack Obama, the voters did. This was largely due to the fact that they had 9 candidates to pick from, and while most conservatives split their votes between 8 of them, the establishment republicans stuck by Romney, and he won by default. He was arguably the least conservative of all the candidates, but he wasn't so non-conservative as to upset the apple cart, and he did make an attempt to pretend to be conservative. Over and over, the "experts" told us, Romney is the only candidate who can defeat Obama. Perhaps this was true, but he didn't defeat Obama, an he leaves conservatives scratching their heads trying to figure out what to do now. The very same people who claimed Romney was the only candidate who could defeat Obama, are now telling us we need to abandon God and get away from the social issues. We need to "reach out" to women and minorities more. I personally think they are getting it wrong again, and such a direction would kill any hope of future victory. That doesn't mean we should "double down" on what failed to work, or that we need to stubbornly and defiantly stick with a message that is failing. Clearly, we need to revamp the republican strategy, but we don't do that by abandoning principles.

On abandoning God, we need to understand, Religion and Politics don't mix well. Taking religion out of republican politics doesn't have to mean, completely abandoning God. It is primarily anti-religious seculars who fuel the liberal ideology. Liberalism in general, is rooted in the belief that Government has to be our Savior, that we can't depend on faith in a God that doesn't exist. Liberals believe our rights come from man, ordained through the Constitution, and defined by the courts, they aren't endowed or inalienable. It is the foundation of conservatism to believe our rights come from our Creator and are inalienable and endowed, and not subject to determination by men. Abandoning God means we sacrifice this basic principle and concept before we begin the argument against Liberalism. It's like a NASCAR driver switching to an electric motor because he thinks the traditional motors contribute to global warming. It's a losing proposition.

Conservatism can't be successfully argued without the presence of a God, it's impossible to make a valid argument for conservative principles without the foundation conservatism is established on. That doesn't mean "religion" has to be a part of this, just the generic belief in our Creator, and endowed, inalienable rights. Many conservatives point to Ronald Reagan as a model for where we need to go, and they will point out that Reagan didn't preach social conservatism, but one of the most profound speeches the man ever made, was about a "shining city on a hill" and that is a direct Biblical reference. Reagan found the secret formula for bringing the foundation of God to the table, without introducing religion. In that respect, what republicans need to do, is find a way to articulate their message including God, but not including the religiously-based interpretations of God. That's where their problems have been. God doesn't say gay marriage or abortion is wrong, that is a religious determination based on a religious understanding of God. It's a judgement. Conservatives can stand up for the right to life without relying on religious judgement, because the Constitution explicitly states we have a right to life. The whole entire "marriage" issue can be settled easily, conservatives shouldn't support ANY governmental favoritism toward ANY social domestic arrangement. It's an issue that shouldn't even be on the table.

The main thing republicans have failed at, is not taking control of the dialogue, and allowing liberals to define the conversation and parameters. We start off in a debate about abortion and morality, when they shouldn't even matter in the debate. We try and defend an argument over "rights" of gays to marry, when we should reject any notion of special rights, we are all equally endowed with the same rights. We're hopelessly trying to argue the "how often do you beat your wife" argument, and failing. All of these issues can be rejected on the basis they shouldn't be a part of what federal government does. Smaller limited federal government should not be dictating morality of social issues, that should be left for the people and states to determine, and the federal government should return to it's rightful role in our lives.

Then there is the whole "reach out" thing. What does that really mean? Well, it means we should cater to special interest groups, like the democrats. Does anyone see a problem with our ideology if it is to pattern our opposition? Conservatives should make it clear that we "reach out" to EVERY American. Ronald Reagan brilliantly did this by introducing us to individuals, sharing their individual story with us, to illustrate his points. The democrats have had a field day with this strategy, and taken it to a whole new level, but they use it to promote special interests. We can't out-liberal the liberals, we have to return to a message rooted in equality for all, and not cater to various groups of people. We have to make the argument that, if you are Hispanic, a woman, black, or whatever, you are better off with principled conservatism which enables ALL Americans and floats ALL boats.

Finally, we need a strong conservative voice. Mitt Romney is a great guy, he has done many admirable things, he is a good man and has enormous character, but he was not a conservative who was passionately convicted to conservative principles, and that is what we needed. Who will that voice be? Many are saying, Marco Rubio. I don't know, is it because he is a minority? Or does the man have core conservative convictions, which he is able to deliver in a cohesive conservative message? Because the later is far more important than the former, I promise.

No need to revamp the Republicans, just wait till the idiot masses get sick of the Democrats AGAIN!

 

[apple0154]

Well if you're going to be stupid, we can't have an intelligent conversation. There is a difference in not wanting to lose money and not interested in making money. Just as there is a difference between making just enough money to live on versus making millions or billions you don't really need. Everyone wants to make money, that is your argument, but not everyone wants to take risks and pay penalties to make more money, that is where the problems arise.

Don’t worry. Dix. People are going to invest. They invested under Clinton and the tax rates were higher so, please, when it comes to having an intelligent conversation do try to put in a little effort.

This is troubling because if you can continuously move the goal posts and change the definition of poverty, I can't see how we'll ever realize a society without poverty, or even a society with less poverty. What you are indicating here is, no matter how much we try, or how much money we throw at it, we'll never solve this problem.

That’s right. We’ll never solve the problem but we will improve people’s living conditions. It took a lot more effort to build a house 100 years ago than it does today. As things become easier to accomplish we have more ways to help. We can grow more food so we can offer more food. Surely you can understand that.

Your point is stupid because SS is a benefit from years of payment into a system. You've not elevated anyone, people paid their own SS through payroll deduction, and then claim some of that back when they retire.

Some claim some of it back. Some people live longer and claim more than they paid in. In other words they are elevated financially. They are living the same as the person who would be collecting interest if they had money in the bank. The monthly payout may be based on what one put in but the duration of payouts is not based on that. They may only be entitled to $1,000/mth but they are entitled to that amount for as long as they live which, in some cases, well surpasses the amount they paid in.

The same idea with government medical care. Some people will contract a debilitating disease and use more services than they actually paid for through taxes. On the other hand some people will remain relatively healthy and not use the services. Just like one has to live in order to collect back the SS money those who complain about paying into the “medical pot” and wanting a return on their money maybe the government can arrange a broken leg or two.

But "decent shelter" means something else in 70 years, just like your telephone example above. "Necessary medical care" means something else in the future, these things do not remain static, as you've pointed out.

Exactly!! Now you’re getting it! While poverty will remain the conditions associated with poverty will improve and continue to improve as we progress. For example, robots may become so inexpensive that every family will own one and, at the very least, there will be one working robot per family bringing home the bacon. Just think about that. At least one “family member” with a job.

If a family of four in the US is living in a motel room they are considered living in poverty. If a family in Somalia is living is a tent they are considered living in poverty but the US citizen’s poverty offers a much better standard of living. Again, poverty is the relationship between people in the same community/country. A tent verses a mud hit. A motel room verses a house. Do you follow?

Obamacare has already proven to be unworkable in many areas, and my guess is, we'll see liberals shitheads like you prop it up for years before we finally do like the Canadians and start implementing capitalism again, because the government system is inadequate. In the meantime, fewer and fewer sick people will be able to see a doctor who no longer exists, more and more people will die because they couldn't FIND a doctor. And American business will continue to bleed jobs at an alarming rate, due to the massive burden of Obamacare.

Here we go with the nonsense, again. Creeping capitalism in Canadian medical is not due to the system. It is due to investors and some greedy doctors wanting the right to make money off the ill. They are the people who took the government to court to exercise their “rights”, if one can call preying on the ill a “right”. The government had to limit private vultures in order for the system to work properly. It is the doctors/investors pushing for private clinics, not the majority of people.

We’ve been over this before. The vultures want to open a private clinic and suck the last of the savings from the ill before they die. Then, when the availability of “customers” diminishes, business is slow, they want to jump on the government system, work for the government plan. (Following so far?)

Good. So, when Mr. Smith goes for a hip replacement through the government plan and he is told he will have to wait 6 months as it’s not an emergency the doctor tells him if he goes through his private clinic he can have it done next week. It’s the same doctor who will do the job! (Do you understand what I’m saying?)

The doctor who is working under the government plan will refuse to do the operation for the amount the government is willing to pay IF he can convince the patient to pay more. If he can’t then he’ll do it under the government plan. Can you think of a more devious way to do business? Of course, there are vultures in government who agree with the doctors and they are fighting against those in government who think such a practice is vile. That is the problem in a nut shell.

So, you see, there is no shortage of doctors. All the government has to do is prohibit the doctors from working both sides of the street, so to say, which is what’s transpiring. A choice is being worked out which will ultimately mean the doctors will have to decide if they are going private or willing to work with government. If they go private they will have to commit to a certain amount of government patients or they will get none. If their private business takes a dive they better not come crawling back. If they want to play hard ball that’s their gamble.

Canada doesn't have 350 million people.

More nonsense. There are dozens of countries with government health care. They are all different. Large populations. Small populations. Large land areas like Canada and sparsely populated. Small land areas and densely populated. Rich countries and poor countries. They all manage to run a government health care system. To imply the US can not figure out how to run a health care system is laughable.

I don't know how people build 150k homes and let them rot. Maybe it has something to do with government paying them to build the houses so poor people who couldn't afford them, could be given loans to default on? The reality is, our country is $16 trillion in debt... that means, we have no money!

Here’s the point, Dixie. First, the money was there to build those homes. Rather than sell the homes at rock bottom prices which would have lowered the value of all homes in the immediate vicinity it was decided to let them rot. A few years pass, the housing market improves and more new homes are being built as no one wants the other homes that have deteriorated due to neglect and rodent infestation. So, there was money to build the original homes. Now there’s money to build more new homes even though the first investment was completely lost.

Now, let’s talk about the government having no money. The wealth of a country is determined by the wealth of its citizens except, perhaps, those countries run by Arabian Kings having oil fields. If the citizens have sufficient money to build hundreds of thousands of homes and condominiums and either sell them for next to nothing (like in Florida) or let them rot (like in Nevada) it stretches credulity when someone says the government is broke.

The government is broke because it wants to be broke. (Maybe you can add that to your signature line and give me the credit.) If it didn’t want to be broke it would raise taxes. Obviously, there is money somewhere and while government housing may not offer as good a return as private homes it just makes sense the government have welfare and other people receiving assistance with their rent to be living in a government owned building. Why should the government give money to people and have those people give it to private interests who raise rent indiscriminately?

Furthermore, considering many of the homeless congregate around the downtown area and inner cores of cities are deteriorating surely there are structurally sound buildings that could be redesigned into a sort of large rooming house. Kind of a YMCA idea. The cost per room to maintain would be minimal. The homeless would have a place and there would be a free room or two if a family was displaced by fire, etc. There are inexpensive ways to help people if we really want to help.

Again, you can hoop and holler and proclaim victory over and over again, it isn't going to magically make money appear. No jobs -- no incomes -- no tax revenues, it's as simple as that. Close the loopholes, sock it to the rich some more, you're still going to have a problem finding money to pay for all the crap. That's exactly what happened to Greece.

The Greeks were corrupt to the core. I’ve explained this before. It’s fine to barter and not exchange any money and save on taxes so now they can barter some more if they like it so much. The culture was its noble to try and find ways to avoid paying taxes. Great. They were successful. This is exactly what they wanted. A government with no money.

An eight percent unemployment rate is not going to doom the country. Nor is a 10% rate. The problem is not so much a lack of money as it is how the money is allocated. And nobody is trying to sock it to the rich. Just have them pay tax on money they receive. What is not fair about that? Why are hourly wages and lottery winnings taxed but not capital gains at the same rate? Who is more likely to declare capital gains, the poor or the wealthy?

If a good idea/invention comes along and the wealthy don’t want to invest in it, which is highly doubtful, then the government can play a roll.

The solution is relatively simple. Medical care, looking after the less fortunate, is part of the social fabric of the western world. Or, at least, it should be. Just as we don’t buy products made from child labor we can institute the same policy regarding products made in countries that don’t have social justice.

You’ll notice businesses may move to foreign countries but the CEOs and other top management don’t move with them. Why not? If rampant capitalism is the wet dream of entrepreneurs then Somalia is the place to be.

That’s what is at the root of the problem. The wealthy can live here and enjoy this lifestyle while doing business elsewhere thereby avoiding contributing to this lifestyle. Business has no allegiance to any people, business or country. They are the “takers”. They are the “victims” who claim they need government protection by way of tax loopholes and exemptions. Romney knew all about takers and victims. Unfortunately, he just twisted things around.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

They have got to heave these nutters and then stand tall and proud and say they will never again be bullied by nutters driven into a frenzy by an industry bent on saying anything to collect viewers so some fact fucks can do viagra and oxycoten and fly to little islands to fuck children

You mean like taxpayer funded Elmo?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Don’t worry. Dix. People are going to invest. They invested under Clinton and the tax rates were higher so, please, when it comes to having an intelligent conversation do try to put in a little effort.

Apparently, you are too retarded to understand the difference in "investing" and "venture capital investment." Yes, people with money will almost always invest, but that doesn't mean they will make risky venture capital investments, which is where the bulk of money comes from to start new business. There is a lot of risk involved in these investments, but when you factor in the burden of over-taxation, it's simply not worth any risk, and wealthy people (who are smart) avoid these investment options.

What if we put up a wall around Las Vegas, and you had to enter through the gate, where someone was there to collect $500 from you, just to enter the city and gamble? Hey, we have all these people traveling to Vegas to spend money gambling, why not just take a cut up front? $500 for the privilege to go into the city and gamble, that's not too unreasonable, is it? We can multiply $500 by the number of people who go to Vegas each year, and that's a helluva lot of money, so this idea should work like a charm, right? WRONG! Gamblers are already going to take a risk with their money gambling, they would be stupid to pay you $500 for the opportunity to risk their money. So what happens is, virtually ALL gambling in Vegas stops, and gamblers find other places to gamble for free. Same principles apply to what we are discussing, venture capitalists, and your excessive taxation. Your tax is a surcharge on their gamble, and they simply won't pay it.

That’s right. We’ll never solve the problem but we will improve people’s living conditions. It took a lot more effort to build a house 100 years ago than it does today. As things become easier to accomplish we have more ways to help. We can grow more food so we can offer more food. Surely you can understand that.

No, I don't understand. It's 100 times more expensive to build a house today than 100 years ago. Perhaps we can grow more food, but what gives you the right to lay claim to it? You didn't grow more food, someone else did. It should be up to them if they want to offer it, but I would guess most people who worked to grow more food, would like to sell it instead.

For example, robots may become so inexpensive that every family will own one and, at the very least, there will be one working robot per family bringing home the bacon. Just think about that. At least one “family member” with a job.

And we can trust that you will be whining that poor people don't have robots and the government needs to furnish them one, and I need to pay for it!

Here we go with the nonsense, again. Creeping capitalism in Canadian medical is not due to the system.

No, it's due to lawsuits filed by people who couldn't tolerate the deplorable conditions any longer.

They all manage to run a government health care system. To imply the US can not figure out how to run a health care system is laughable.

You're right, it is laughable, I laugh at you every time you bring it up, because the US has had government medical for nearly 50 years, it's called MEDICAID!

Here’s the point, Dixie. First, the money was there to build those homes. Rather than sell the homes at rock bottom prices which would have lowered the value of all homes in the immediate vicinity it was decided to let them rot. A few years pass, the housing market improves and more new homes are being built as no one wants the other homes that have deteriorated due to neglect and rodent infestation. So, there was money to build the original homes. Now there’s money to build more new homes even though the first investment was completely lost.

First of all, I have no idea what you are talking about here. I don't know where the money came from to build the homes, or why they weren't sold. But I do have a question for you, did they build these homes out of lettuce or something? I mean, they rotted in a few short years, they were obviously not very well built homes.

Now, let’s talk about the government having no money. The wealth of a country is determined by the wealth of its citizens except, perhaps, those countries run by Arabian Kings having oil fields. If the citizens have sufficient money to build hundreds of thousands of homes and condominiums and either sell them for next to nothing (like in Florida) or let them rot (like in Nevada) it stretches credulity when someone says the government is broke.

How much money the government has, doesn't have one thing to do with how much wealth the people have. Government's only means of generating money is through taxation or by printing more currency. Now, it could be a country that confiscates everyone's wealth, like Mao did in China, but we're talking about free capitalist countries. They generate money through taxation, which is enabled by economic growth and prosperity. Without economic prosperity and growth, there is no money to generate in tax revenues, and the government has to borrow money from other countries to pay the bills. This has been happening for years, and we are currently $16 trillion in debt and growing.

The government is broke because it wants to be broke. (Maybe you can add that to your signature line and give me the credit.) If it didn’t want to be broke it would raise taxes.

The more you raise the taxes, the more you stifle economic growth and prosperity and the less revenue realized. You can set the tax rate at 100%, if no one is working or paying taxes, what difference does it make?

The Greeks were corrupt to the core. I’ve explained this before.

So are Democrats and Republicans, and virtually any politician! Powerful governments are almost ALWAYS corrupt to the core. That's why our founding fathers had such great disdain for powerful central government.

The culture was its noble to try and find ways to avoid paying taxes. Great. They were successful. This is exactly what they wanted. A government with no money.

Take note here, go-along-to-get-along moderates.... THIS is what they will say when our civilization collapses under the burdens of their plan! It's all OUR fault, we didn't want to pay more in taxes! If investors had only trusted and believed in liberalism more... If we had just gone along with their idiocy and willingly turned over our wealth to the government, it would have worked, but we didn't... so thanks for fucking it all up!

 

[apple0154]

Apparently, you are too retarded to understand the difference in "investing" and "venture capital investment." Yes, people with money will almost always invest, but that doesn't mean they will make risky venture capital investments, which is where the bulk of money comes from to start new business. There is a lot of risk involved in these investments, but when you factor in the burden of over-taxation, it's simply not worth any risk, and wealthy people (who are smart) avoid these investment options.

What if we put up a wall around Las Vegas, and you had to enter through the gate, where someone was there to collect $500 from you, just to enter the city and gamble? Hey, we have all these people traveling to Vegas to spend money gambling, why not just take a cut up front? $500 for the privilege to go into the city and gamble, that's not too unreasonable, is it? We can multiply $500 by the number of people who go to Vegas each year, and that's a helluva lot of money, so this idea should work like a charm, right? WRONG! Gamblers are already going to take a risk with their money gambling, they would be stupid to pay you $500 for the opportunity to risk their money. So what happens is, virtually ALL gambling in Vegas stops, and gamblers find other places to gamble for free. Same principles apply to what we are discussing, venture capitalists, and your excessive taxation. Your tax is a surcharge on their gamble, and they simply won't pay it.

Sorry, but this blows your analogy out of the water. (Excerpt) The local street bookie — whose illegal business for decades relied on little more than phones, pencils, notebooks and a burly goon to break the occasional leg — has finally been seduced by the modern conveniences of the Internet…….…“There is always going to be a huge market for local bookmakers because they are the ones who let players bet with credit, with money they don’t have to produce,”…….. It is organized. It is civilized. It is user-friendly, for both the bookie and the bettor, even though it remains illegal. (End) http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/30/s...for-old-fashioned-betting.html?pagewanted=all

People are even willing to break the law in order to bet and always have been. People with money will continue to seek ways to make more money regardless of what restrictions or penalties are put in place. You have this bizarre idea we have to coddle and coax and humor and entertain and entice wealthy people to invest. They are not Gods. They either invest or lose money as the basic bank interest rate is below the cost of living. They can watch as their money slowly evaporates or they can invest it and you can be sure the vast majority of wealthy people won’t watch their money evaporate. I don’t know where you got your image of wealthy people but it seems like a mixture of worship and fear.

No, I don't understand. It's 100 times more expensive to build a house today than 100 years ago. Perhaps we can grow more food, but what gives you the right to lay claim to it? You didn't grow more food, someone else did. It should be up to them if they want to offer it, but I would guess most people who worked to grow more food, would like to sell it instead.

More convoluted reasoning, I see. Compare a shovel to a tractor and plow. While the tractor and plow may cost more to begin with it quickly pays for itself and then continues to make a profit, year after year.

As to houses costing more let’s rephrase that to show the true meaning. Less work is involved in building a home today. The “cost” reflects the charge for labor, not the amount of labor. Less labor is involved today due to technology (machines).

And we can trust that you will be whining that poor people don't have robots and the government needs to furnish them one, and I need to pay for it!

Now you’re getting it! Every once in a while it seems like you’re finally on track and then……Oh, well. You’re doing fine now so why mention the negative. Yes, as the old saying goes, “Give a man a fish and you feed for one day. Teach him how to fish and you feed him for life.”

It’s similar to governments that offer subsidized day care for pre-schoolers. The little contribution the government pays, or the taxpayer pays via taxes, is countered by the mother being able to work full time and pay taxes. It is cheaper to have one person looking after 5 or 6 kids than have a man or woman staying home to look after one or two. Everyone benefits.

No, it's due to lawsuits filed by people who couldn't tolerate the deplorable conditions any longer.

No, it’s due to people who feel they are more important than others. They want to use their money to jump the cue. Or take advantage of the system like one guy (Quebec) who required cancer treatments and had to drive ½ an hour to the city because his small town didn’t have the radiation machine. He wanted the government to pay for his gas saying the government promised free medical and if it was a capitalist system the small town would have had a machine. Of course the town didn’t have enough cancer patients to support a machine so no capitalist would have invested in one anyway. But some folks with a few extra dollars think they’re so impotant.

You're right, it is laughable, I laugh at you every time you bring it up, because the US has had government medical for nearly 50 years, it's called MEDICAID!

But everyone is not entitled to medicaid. Entitlement is based on how much money a person has. Again, a medical scheme based on how much money a patient has. That’s the problem. A proper government medical program is EVERYONE is entitled to health care, regardless of what money they have or don’t have.

First of all, I have no idea what you are talking about here. I don't know where the money came from to build the homes, or why they weren't sold. But I do have a question for you, did they build these homes out of lettuce or something? I mean, they rotted in a few short years, they were obviously not very well built homes.

They were built in Nevada. Some homes went from being worth over $300,000 to being worth less than $90,000. People who placed a deposit just walked away after a year or so. Later, they were infested with insects and small animals. Plus, many of the homes were deliberately damaged resulting in potential buyers not being able to get a home loan even if the price was low. Here’s an article describing what happens to foreclosed homes. http://articles.businessinsider.com...-rate-real-estate-foreclosures-or-short-sales

My point is the money was available to build new homes, then take the loss when they didn’t sell, then more money was available to build more homes. Then people say the country does not have the resources to shelter the poor. If the citizens can afford to build hundreds of thousands of homes across the country and let them deteriorate without being sold then there are the resources to build structures for the poor. The country isn’t bankrupt. The country and the citizens are not impoverished. That’s the point.

How much money the government has, doesn't have one thing to do with how much wealth the people have. Government's only means of generating money is through taxation or by printing more currency. Now, it could be a country that confiscates everyone's wealth, like Mao did in China, but we're talking about free capitalist countries. They generate money through taxation, which is enabled by economic growth and prosperity. Without economic prosperity and growth, there is no money to generate in tax revenues, and the government has to borrow money from other countries to pay the bills. This has been happening for years, and we are currently $16 trillion in debt and growing.

The government has the power to tax. Again, someone (a number of groups, I assume) had the money to build all those homes and they never sold them. Then another group or the same one (who knows) had the money to build more new homes.

The money the citizens possess has everything to do with the wealth of the government and country. Who/what do you think makes a government and country? It is not necessary to confiscate everyone’s wealth or all the wealth of any individual but there is nothing wrong with taxing individuals and it’s obvious there are individuals who can afford to pay more tax if they can afford to build houses that don’t sell and then build more.

The more you raise the taxes, the more you stifle economic growth and prosperity and the less revenue realized. You can set the tax rate at 100%, if no one is working or paying taxes, what difference does it make?

If taxes destroyed wealth and stifled investment then why aren’t northern European countries destitute? Check out the tax rate. Yours is the same argument used by those who oppose government medical and the argument has no basis in fact. None whatsoever.

So are Democrats and Republicans, and virtually any politician! Powerful governments are almost ALWAYS corrupt to the core. That's why our founding fathers had such great disdain for powerful central government.

Then fix the government. With available information and communication we can’t say there’s nothing we can do. The problem is most people just tolerate it until it develops into a major problem. Or others who are happy with the corruption like what happened in Greece. Everyone felt so good about cheating the government out of taxes. Maybe they’ll learn a lesson this time. Or still others who decided spending money on a war was preferable to paying someone’s medical expenses.

The problems of government are not going to get corrected until everyone works for the same goal. It’s not the fault of government if the people want it to spend money on war instead of medical. It’s not the fault of government if people want capitalism to include making money off sub-prime mortgages. When governments try to change direction, like Obama is trying to do, people yell Socialism. So, what do you want; money for war or money for health? Do you want low taxes for the people who build homes and let them deteriorate or do you want them to pay higher taxes so the government can shelter the poor?

Take note here, go-along-to-get-along moderates.... THIS is what they will say when our civilization collapses under the burdens of their plan! It's all OUR fault, we didn't want to pay more in taxes! If investors had only trusted and believed in liberalism more... If we had just gone along with their idiocy and willingly turned over our wealth to the government, it would have worked, but we didn't... so thanks for fucking it all up!

Well, I suppose one could put it that way. Or they could say some people believed in capitalism so much that they didn’t want people to get medical care unless they could pay for it and they wanted only the children who had well-off parents to attend good schools and they believed if families lived in motel rooms or shelters it would be a good education for the children and motivate them to become good capitalists and there was nothing better to foster co-operation among citizens than to watch ones neighbor lose their home and for the government to offer a pittance of financial support that would barely cover the cost of dog food. Oh, and we can’t forget the novel idea to foster capitalism in the children by offering them toilet brushes. And when civilization collapses the Repubs will say, “I don’t understand what happened. We tried to do everything by the capitalist's book.”