The Left and One Party Rule

[apple0154]

The problem is #1 taxes and regulation swallow up the seed corn of capitalist investment and slow the economy.

Hmmm. I doubt that. At least not "legitimate" businesses. There are many people who want to go into business for themselves and virtually to every individual the reason is money. I don't have a very favorable view of small businesses and by small I mean a handful of employees. I've had experience with small business when it comes to the building trades and there's more crooks and scams than I care to remember.

For another example, take hairdressing. What regulation is placed on someone who opens a hairdressing shop? Do they need a certificate other than a note from a friend saying they can cut hair?

If there's a decent business to invest in large corporations have tons of money at the ready.

#2 socialist programming creates disincentives for self-respect self-reliance and incentives laziness and reliance on sucking the government tit.

Healthy human beings want to get ahead in life. Sure, there are abusers but the question to ask is, "why?" In far too many cases people have become unemployed, lost everyhing they've worked for and just given up. Help was too little, too late. And then there's the cat and mouse welfare game. Being a slumlord I became familiar with welfare folks. Authorities (case workers) would show up unannounced to visit single Moms while looking for men's clothing or a misplaced letter with a man's name on it sitting on a hall or kitchen table. One woman told me if her boyfriend stayed overnight she always checked to see he didn't leave any clothes there. Their job, the case worker, was to find ways to disqualify people. They weren't there to help the person who needed help. What do people think will happen when that type of atmosphere is present?

#3 socialist minded politicians use social programs to bribe the vote of the ignorant and lazy bastards and those politicians have to come up with new bribery programs for every election so it never ends and there’s never enough money and folks will only stand for so much taxation until they’ll start a revolution.

Or start demanding services for their taxes instead of military jaunts around the globe. Once it's realized the military industrial complex made money off the implements of war, the Afghans benefitted from new infrastructure, schools, etc., and the US citizen got the finger from their bank manager when trying to renew a mortgage things will change. Obama is trying to deal with it by implementing ObamaCare, withdrawing troops, fighting wars more efficiently but like the old saying goes you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. People voting for Romney who proposed more war ships but was against spending money on health care. As long as there are large numbers of people like that change is going to be difficult.

 

[Robo]

Sorry, that argument doesn't hold water. Germany has had socialized medicine for over 100 years. Are there any doctors in Germany? Most of the industrialized countries have had socialized medicine for 40 or 50 years. That's long enough for the doctors who were there at the beginning to be retired now. How is it possible those countries still have doctors if one is to believe a lack of incentive will result in serious shortages.

The population of Germany is 81 million, the population of America is 300 million. The population of America is aging and that means fewer healthy young folks to pay into a socialized healthcare system. Figure it out.

America not only already has a shortage of doctors, but also has a shortage of institutions to train doctors. That’s why we’re already seeing the effects of the American federal government’s socialized medicine of Medicare and Medicaid having to import doctors from foreign countries like India and citizens often having to see nurse practitioners instead of doctors. The net effect of socialized medicine here in America is already showing a downgrading of healthcare and we haven’t even allowed the federal; government yet to burden us with the total socialized package. The end result of that when it actually happens can only be a diminished quality of healthcare and an ever increasing burden on our national debt or excessive federal taxation that can only further slow our economic growth.

Actually most of the countries of Europe that have socialized medicine are in effect smaller in relation to America in population and thereby more easily managed situations when it comes to healthcare. They are in effect laboratories of socialized medicine with results that can and do give evidence one to the other how to operate a healthcare system and thereby best manage a healthcare system. Yet many of them are in worse financial shape than America because of their excessive socialism.

We could create a system here in the United States by following our Constitution and leaving our individual States be the healthcare laboratories for America. Allowing our federal government to establish a one size fits all system for America is insanity since history tells us our federal government is incompetent, corrupt, bloated and chock full of idiots.

The answer for America’s healthcare is follow the Constitution

“The powers not delegated to the United States, (the federal government), by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” (Amendment 10, United States Constitution)

Why do you have a problem with that? Have you no respect for our Constitution?

 

[Robo]

The difference is the majority of people benefit from social programs. This is at the root of people complaining about taxes. There was a study done in one of the northern European countries regarding taxes. I don't recall which one but people were supportive of taxes because they benefitted. Medical care. Child care. Public transportation. Unemployment/wage supplements. Rather than individuals saving for future expenses they contributed on an on-going basis. They didn't need to save for medical care because medical care would be available if they required it. They didn't need to save or plan for child care after a birth because there was government child care. Over the years they contributed so those things would be available. And a side thing the study showed, although definitely subjective, is the people were happier. Rather than worry about a medical fund and a child care fund and an unemployment fund they basically had paid for "insurance" for all those things. Their taxes were insurance policy payments, if you will. It resulted in a much less stressful lifestyle.

I’ll say it again, the real difference is that most all European countries are in worse financial condition than the United States and we’re in pretty damn bad shape economically. We have a 16 trillion $ national debt and rising like a space shot. If European economics is such a great thing, why is Greece, Ireland, Spain and Italy all being bailed out by the Euro Zone? Seems Europe is finding out that there’s a limit to socialism if they want to avoid world bankruptcy, huh?

BTW, the reason America is in such crummy shape economically, is because we’ve been following the lead of Europe socially and on top of that we’ve allowed Europe to anoint us as the world’s protector and police force. And we still have idiots in Washington that think that a grand and wonderful thing.

 

[Robo]

That's just not true. Like I said before there is a difference between jobs/money and a shortage of commodities. For example, there is enough food produced to feed everyone in the US. So, how do we feed the person who doesn't have the money to buy food? Do we just take it from the farmer? That wouldn't go over very well so we supply the poor person with enough money to buy the food. Where do we get the money from? We get the money, via taxes. We get back a portion of the money from the person who received the money for the food.

So in effect instead of just taking the food from the farmer, you take the farmer’s money and his neighbor’s money to by the food from the farmer and spread the agony, right? In that process the poor have NO incentive to work for the money to buy the farmer’s food, they lose all of their self-respect and self-reliance and become enslaved to reliance on the government thereby guaranteeing that they’ll always vote for the leftist that promises them the most of other people’s money, food and whatever else they can bribe them with, right?

 

[Robo]

Poverty is the relationship of individuals to each other, not a specific amount of dollars. The goal of social programs is not to redistribute wealth, however, if the disparity is too great between individuals poverty results. If enough people can afford to pay $10.00 for a tomato then the price of tomatoes will be $10.00. How is someone earning minimum wage supposed to be able to buy tomatos? The person who receives the $10.00 is taxed and the money (food stamps) given to the minimum wage earner so they can buy tomatoes.

So then the goal of socialism is to make everybody, (or as many people as possible), as poor as possible so prices will be low, right?

Actually the minimum wage should be for nothing more than entry level employment. The minimum wage should be left to the authority of the States because the States have that constitutional authority and the federal government has no constitutional authority to even be messing with it and amendment 10 forbids the feds from messing with it. The minimum wage actually causes unemployment for entry level employees who would otherwise have jobs if all government stayed out of the picture.

 

[evince]

Folks, I have a couple of questions I would like to throw at you.

1) Do Liberals really think that by eliminating the Conservative voice in America, that everything would be fine?

2) Where would Conservatives fit in modern America?

I qualify that last question as I think that to be a Conservative, you cannot adopt the so-called "fiscally conservative, socially liberal" copout.

Does the phrase "permanent Mjority" ring a bell to you?


Your party did this to its self.


They apposed anything and everything Obama sided with including their OWN BILLS.


You want to blame someone for the near death of the republican party ...........NUT UP...........Look in the mirror and quit blaming everyone else for what you idiots did to your party with CHEATING in elections and having NO moral code.

 

[Robo]

There is no shortage of things. There is an inequality of money so great that poverty is becoming more and more rampant. The only reason a family can't live on $20,000/yr is because a large number of families are making $80,000 or $100,000/yr. Social programs even that out when it comes to necessities such as medical care. It can go further and deal with food and housing and other necessities. No one is suggesting every one should get a new car or a vacation home. The point being either we give people money so they can afford necessities or we remove necessities from the marketplace.

Nearly half of the voting population of America pays NO income taxes and even a larger % of Americans are receiving some amount of federal government assistance and in every election the leftist politicians promise more new social programs to bribe the vote. Where does it end? At what point will the left be satisfied? It’s a very successful and alluring system that the left has created to bribe the vote. The problem with it is that sooner or later the house of cards will implode on itself because it’s not sustainable, and so very easy to figure out why it’s not sustainable. But evidently that’s beyond the left’s intellect.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

Does the phrase "permanent Mjority" ring a bell to you?


.

No, I'm sorry Desh, they don't remember that. The key to understanding the right wing mind is knowing they remember nothing. Every day is a fresh start for righties because they have no effing clue what happened yesterday! Every morning they wake up wondering "Who am I? Where am I? How did I get here?" It's why they lead such exciting lives.

 

[evince]

No, I'm sorry Desh, they don't remember that. The key to understanding the right wing mind is knowing they remember nothing. Every day is a fresh start for righties because they have no effing clue what happened yesterday! Every morning they wake up wondering "Who am I? Where am I? How did I get here?" It's why they lead such exciting lives.

brain damage may be the answer.

 

[Robo]

Government housing. No landlord to exploit the tenants. The government buys a building and rents it to tenants. Rents only have to increase in order to keep up with costs. If there is a sudden housing shortage and rents in the neighborhood increase by 50% there is no need for the government to increase rents by anywhere near that amount.

All of that has already been tried in the old Soviet Union and failed miserably. It failed because without profits there is no incentive to provide anything of any real value. Communist countries live in squalor, North Korea, Cuba. Have you no sence of economic history?

 

[evince]

the brain damage is evident in the above poster.

why cant they see anything in other than black and white?

 

[Robo]

Child care. Compare a woman making $60,000/yr to one making $20,000/yr. If there are sufficient women making the larger salary child care businesses will charge a high price, well above what the woman making $20,000/yr can afford. How do we level the field?

The playing field gets leveled when people have incentive to level it by their own talents and ambitions and the government minds its own business and that’s not morally acceptable by bribing the vote.

 

[Robo]

Governments can make the proper changes. Many have and with medical care every country that implemented such a plan saves money. And the vast majority of citizens in those countries insist on keeping their respective plans. No exception. What more can anyone ask for?

This country could save one hell of a lot more money by following the Constitution and leaving healthcare to the States constitutional authority and keeping the morons and idiots in the federal government out of the healthcare business where they have no constitutional authority.

 

[evince]

dear idiot where is you basis in FACTS to claim such clap trap?

when was the last time you were proven correct on the prediction of the outcome of policy?

 

[evince]

time for this country to SHUN the stupid people who have failed to correctly predict ANYTHING for decades.

 

[apple0154]

The population of Germany is 81 million, the population of America is 300 million. The population of America is aging and that means fewer healthy young folks to pay into a socialized healthcare system. Figure it out.

That's a disconnect. It's all about proportionality. Canada has 35 million. How can Germany handle 81 million? The answer is the number of doctors is in porportion to the population. Another disconnect is the land size argument. There are few countries as spread out as Canada, yet, they manage medical care. The size of the country, be it square miles or population, makes no difference. The plans are adjusted accordingly.

As to the fewer people paying into the system nationalized health care costs at least 1/3 less than the US "pay or suffer" system and longevity is equal to or greater than in the US. There is no rational argument against government health care.

America not only already has a shortage of doctors, but also has a shortage of institutions to train doctors. That’s why we’re already seeing the effects of the American federal government’s socialized medicine of Medicare and Medicaid having to import doctors from foreign countries like India and citizens often having to see nurse practitioners instead of doctors. The net effect of socialized medicine here in America is already showing a downgrading of healthcare and we haven’t even allowed the federal; government yet to burden us with the total socialized package. The end result of that when it actually happens can only be a diminished quality of healthcare and an ever increasing burden on our national debt or excessive federal taxation that can only further slow our economic growth.

If more doctors immigrate to the US, GREAT! Supplying a needed service to the population AND paying taxes to support it. It's a win-win situation. And as for seeing nurses that's great, too. Do we want a person suffering from heartburn taking up the time of a heart surgeon just because they can afford to pay him/her? It's called screening just like requiring a referral from a family doctor to see a specialist.

When I was in pain from my auto accident I saw a family doctor. He followed the usual prescribing practice starting with analgesics, then sedatives/tranquillizers, then moving to codeine. Nothing worked so he referred me to a pain specialist. I was in his office less than 15 minutes and left with a strong narcotic. He had my file because files are electronically transferred. He knew the history. He didn't have to spend months trying different medication. My family doctor did that job. He informed me to slowly increase dosage until the pain dissipated then return to my family doctor and let him know what I needed. From that point on my family doctor would renew my prescription as needed. The specialist's time with me was reduced to a minimum. That's just one way savings are realized.

Actually most of the countries of Europe that have socialized medicine are in effect smaller in relation to America in population and thereby more easily managed situations when it comes to healthcare. They are in effect laboratories of socialized medicine with results that can and do give evidence one to the other how to operate a healthcare system and thereby best manage a healthcare system. Yet many of them are in worse financial shape than America because of their excessive socialism.

Size doesn't matter and I'm talking countries here just in case some gal wants to take me to task. Populations and land area vary greatly. For example, in France doctors make house calls. That wouldn't be practical in Canada due to the sparcely populated areas so each country devises a plan suitable for their needs. "Brazil: 193 million people. Healthcare in Brazil is a Constitutional right.......the National Health Care System, known as Unified Health System - SUS. The SUS is universal and free for everyone." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_in_Brazil. While far from perfect and problems involving having an indigenous population going through a transition and cultural changes they are advancing. The US does not have that problem to deal with to same degree. Again, every plan is fine-tuned for the nation involved.

We could create a system here in the United States by following our Constitution and leaving our individual States be the healthcare laboratories for America. Allowing our federal government to establish a one size fits all system for America is insanity since history tells us our federal government is incompetent, corrupt, bloated and chock full of idiots.

After all these years does anyone expect individual States to carry the ball? While provinces in Canada have individual policies they all have to conform to certain basic principals and then tailor it to their specific circumstances. I think that's the idea behind ObamaCare. There has to be a platform from which to work because we know what will happen. Nothing has been done with the exception of Romney's Massachusetts that I'm aware of so to say leave it to the States is the equivalent of saying forget it.

The answer for America’s healthcare is follow the Constitution

“The powers not delegated to the United States, (the federal government), by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” (Amendment 10, United States Constitution)

Why do you have a problem with that? Have you no respect for our Constitution?

Huh? It appears you're unable to understand what you wrote. "Reserved to the people." Is there any American that was not aware of Obama's plan regarding medical care? Not only did he get it passed but the people re-elected him when the Repub mission/message was they would rescind it. Say what you will about ObamaCare but it certainly wasn't sprung unawares on the people and even if it was the people had a choice last November to get rid of it. The people have spoken. I ask, "Why do you have a problem with that? Have you no respect for our Constitution?"

 

[apple0154]

I’ll say it again, the real difference is that most all European countries are in worse financial condition than the United States and we’re in pretty damn bad shape economically. We have a 16 trillion $ national debt and rising like a space shot. If European economics is such a great thing, why is Greece, Ireland, Spain and Italy all being bailed out by the Euro Zone? Seems Europe is finding out that there’s a limit to socialism if they want to avoid world bankruptcy, huh?

BTW, the reason America is in such crummy shape economically, is because we’ve been following the lead of Europe socially and on top of that we’ve allowed Europe to anoint us as the world’s protector and police force. And we still have idiots in Washington that think that a grand and wonderful thing.

World bankruptcy? Please, do tell who the creditors are holding the mortgage on planet earth? I have repeatedly said we need what many object to and that's a form of one world government. The fields are still there. No one has absconded with the farm equipment and except for the HAARP conspiracies I don't know of anyone controlling the weather or claimimng cloud ownership so there is no need for falling food production. The same natural resources are here that were here 10 years ago minus what we used. There is plenty of water. The problem lies with a lack of water treatment plants. If they can plan for a fast speed rail service between LA and Las Vegas they can plan for a treatment plant or two.

This is all a manufactured crisis. Food, water, the ability to supply manufactured homes/shelters......there is no shortage. However, there will be a major problem if the West doesn't start to contribute to the rest of the world. If China and other countries have to scratch and scrape via capitalism to get ahead they are not going to turn around and ask if we need anything when they do surpass us.

There used to be public service ADS here saying violence begats violence and it showed a young girl with a bruised face. If that girl is mistreated growing up she is more likely to mistreat others, be it her companion or children. People repeat what they experience and if we (the West) watch people suffer while living in poverty our turn will come. Can we expect those countries to give a damn about us when, not if, the situation changes? Now is the time for the West and the rest of the world to get together and plan on a plan-etary scale. Let's help them develop their resources so they will be more willing to share with us later on. Let's teach them what we know and share technology. Let's work together. Let's give while we have something to give, offer while we have something to offer. That's the dreaded one world government people live in fear of, the people who have more now and erroneously believe they will always have more.

The "money" (resources, technology, etc) that the world had in 2000 hasn't left the planet so this bankruptcy idea is silly. There is time to change things while we still have things to offer but time is running out. We are one planet, one people. We better start to realize it before it's too late and when the President treats foreign leaders with respect rather than acting like a wanna-be gun slinger we're heading in the right direction.

 

[apple0154]

So in effect instead of just taking the food from the farmer, you take the farmer’s money and his neighbor’s money to by the food from the farmer and spread the agony, right? In that process the poor have NO incentive to work for the money to buy the farmer’s food, they lose all of their self-respect and self-reliance and become enslaved to reliance on the government thereby guaranteeing that they’ll always vote for the leftist that promises them the most of other people’s money, food and whatever else they can bribe them with, right?

Instead of assuming the poor have no incentive to work try offering them a job. You have the cause and effect backwards. They rely on the government because they don't have a job. They didn't rely on the government and then quit their job. The same convoluted thinking is found in people who rant about other government programs as if government programs have been around for ever and the private sector never had a chance to deal with the problems. The private sector was unable to deal with the problems, thus, the government took over. Pensions. Welfare. Medical care. Housing. Food.......

Show us the government isn't needed before removing the programs. Show us the jobs. Give us the name of an individual who received a phone call from a company offering a job and the individual said, "Thanks, but no thanks. I prefer living on welfare." Surely there is ONE person someone knows considering it's supposedly so rampant, so obvious.

Jealousy? Greed? I don't know what it is but to say poor people receiving government assistance prefer that to having a decent job is just nonsense. Pure nonsense.

 

[apple0154]

So then the goal of socialism is to make everybody, (or as many people as possible), as poor as possible so prices will be low, right?

:lol: You're a funny man. The goal is to not have too big a discrepancy between people or, rather, not to have basic necessities priced out of the reach of certain people. That is solved by the government giving them money/stamps in order to purchase goods. If you know of another way I'm listening.

Actually the minimum wage should be for nothing more than entry level employment. The minimum wage should be left to the authority of the States because the States have that constitutional authority and the federal government has no constitutional authority to even be messing with it and amendment 10 forbids the feds from messing with it. The minimum wage actually causes unemployment for entry level employees who would otherwise have jobs if all government stayed out of the picture.

If minimum wage was restricted to entry level positions, however, there are many jobs that pay minimum wage. The problem is people are kicked off welfare programs when they get a job even though the job does not pay enough to survive, specifically minimum wage jobs. That is the danger, the drawback with low minimum wage. In effect it's telling the individual we're going to kick them off government assistance and give them a job whose benefits are less than government assistance. What logic is applied there?

On that note I'm off to bed. I'll pick this up tomorrow morning. Have a good night.

 

[apple0154]

Nearly half of the voting population of America pays NO income taxes and even a larger % of Americans are receiving some amount of federal government assistance and in every election the leftist politicians promise more new social programs to bribe the vote. Where does it end? At what point will the left be satisfied? It’s a very successful and alluring system that the left has created to bribe the vote. The problem with it is that sooner or later the house of cards will implode on itself because it’s not sustainable, and so very easy to figure out why it’s not sustainable. But evidently that’s beyond the left’s intellect.

At the point where everyone can obtain the necessities of life and that is sustainable in the US. There are two ways to go about that. Either give the people the money to obtain the necessary things, for example money to pay the rent, or have the government obtain housing and supply it to the people who require it. The same with medical care. In many countries the government has found it's cheaper to get involved in medical care as opposed to simply paying patient's private bills.

Businesses and government go on and on about the lack of skilled workers. Common sense dictates it's in the State's interest to have educated people. They will earn good money and pay taxes, yet, many places deny people on welfare or unemployment the right to attend school. I recall when I was on unemployment many years ago and the government was offering free courses for people on welfare so I asked if I could attend one of the courses. If I recall it was on building systems, basically computers that control heating and air-conditioning. (Like I said this was a long time ago when such things were relatively new on the market.) Anyway, it was explained to me that businesses support unemployment and business owners didn't want to pay people to go to school. So, what do the unemployed do? They either sit at home or in the bar and pass time. Such a waste. It's really a crime when the unemployed have time to attend school and increase their chances of getting a job and are denied the chance to do so although I see this craziness is changing in certain places.

Also, if I recall correctly a person is allowed a lifetime limit of 5 years on welfare. If that's correct what happens to the individual after that? Has the person ever been offered a job? Why isn't the government following up on that individual to determine exactly what the problem is. Are they clinically depressed? Is it due to a lack of education? Are they just a lazy bum? Instead of simply cutting the person off assistance they should be finding out what the problem is as there's obviously a problem. If government and businesses worked together they could give that individual a job and see what happens. Do they show up for work? Are they able to do the work? Try to solve the problem instead of just setting time limits.

The point is there are numerous ways governments can get involved. And businesses, too. Why shouldn't governments get involved? What crme is being committed by governments trying to help the citizens? If/when it's shown the individual just doesn't want to work and, by extension, doesn't want to eat and have a place to sleep then we have another problem that requires addressing. That individual has a mental problem. They are incapable of looking after themselves so they definitely need help.

If people are concerned about others taking advantage of the system more government involvement is necessary to prove one way or another if that's the case. If someone is straight up and really trying to correct/change their situation I feel we have an obligation to help. I think that would go a long way to satisfying the Left.