plane hits building in Austin

[apple0154]

And your logic is taking money from those who have earned it and giving it to those who haven't.

Notice the key word here, is EARNED.

So what do you suggest, let them suffer? If that's the case just come right out and say you don't give a damn about other people. Why argue about the ways to help them when you simply don't want to help them? Why argue against the specifics of UHC if you don't care whether or not people have it?

 

[USFREEDOM911]

So what do you suggest, let them suffer? If that's the case just come right out and say you don't give a damn about other people. Why argue about the ways to help them when you simply don't want to help them? Why argue against the specifics of UHC if you don't care whether or not people have it?

That's what you want to do.
If a drug company doesn't agree with the Governments lowball price, you don't mind the patient having to live with (using your words) a "pay or suffer" method.

 

[apple0154]

That's what you want to do.
If a drug company doesn't agree with the Governments lowball price, you don't mind the patient having to live with (using your words) a "pay or suffer" method.

There is no alternative. Otherwise, the government would be a captive customer. Besides, the same thing happens with private insurance. Each plan specifies which drugs they will pay for.

As I mentioned before by virtue of a universal plan covering everyone there is less likelihood a specific drug would not be covered. A drug company can refuse to lower prices to a private insurer covering, say, ten million people and 1% or 100,000 require a specific drug. The private company wouldn't care all that much about 100,000 people.

Then consider a universal plan. Three hundred million people. One percent would equal 3 million people. There is a better chance to get the drug covered if you're one of 3 million as opposed to one of 100,000.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

There is no alternative. Otherwise, the government would be a captive customer. Besides, the same thing happens with private insurance. Each plan specifies which drugs they will pay for.

As I mentioned before by virtue of a universal plan covering everyone there is less likelihood a specific drug would not be covered. A drug company can refuse to lower prices to a private insurer covering, say, ten million people and 1% or 100,000 require a specific drug. The private company wouldn't care all that much about 100,000 people.

Then consider a universal plan. Three hundred million people. One percent would equal 3 million people. There is a better chance to get the drug covered if you're one of 3 million as opposed to one of 100,000.

But all this might be able to be avoided, if the Government was willing to negotiate.

 

[apple0154]

But all this might be able to be avoided, if the Government was willing to negotiate.

Of course and that's exactly what governments do, negotiate.

 

[WinterBorn]

That's exactly what I've been saying. Working hard does not guarantee wealth. And the other side of the coin is being wealthy does not guarantee the person worked hard.

There has never been any guarantee of becoming wealthy or staying that way.

This entire part of the conversation started because some people think that the wealthy should be taxed hugely and the rest of us get a free ride. No, there is no guarantee that if you work hard you will be wealthy. No, there is no registry of wealthy people listing who inherited, who worked hard, and who stole their money.

But this "soak the evil rich" tax scheme is totally unfair. And THAT was the point that was being argued.

 

[WinterBorn]

You took exception with the comment that MOST got that way from hard work. No one argued that all got that way via hard work. No one said that hard work guarantees wealth. It is a significant factor and probably the most significant factor for the newly wealthy.

That needed repeating.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Of course and that's exactly what governments do, negotiate.

But your original offering said nothing about the Government negotiating.

 

[WinterBorn]

That doesn't mean it has to be ordered that we are so dependant on singular resource supply grid that is controlled by corporations, or governments. no difference there. We could make it policy that all people learn agriculture.

Think of the gas we would save not having to ship stuff all round. Decentralized production prevents the single points of failure which occur in a more hiearchical and externally controlled structure. Self reliance makes sense as a plan for society.

That would only work if you killed off huge portions of the population. For example, there are more than 8 million people in NYC. How in the hell do you get them all onto useable land to grow food? They might be able to do a little in vacant lots and on rooftops. But certainly not enough to handle 8 million people.

And the inefficiency of everyone growing their own food would lead to major nutritional deficiencies.

There are approximately 2.27 billion acres in the USA (counting Alaska and Hawaii). There are over 308 million people living in the USA. With no buildings, roads, houses or anything to interfere with farming, that would give every man, woman & child 7.35 acres to farm.

The facts ruin your grand ideas.

 

[WinterBorn]

So what do you suggest, let them suffer? If that's the case just come right out and say you don't give a damn about other people. Why argue about the ways to help them when you simply don't want to help them? Why argue against the specifics of UHC if you don't care whether or not people have it?

But we are not talking about anyone giving anything. We are talking about taking large portions of earned income by force.

 

[apple0154]

There has never been any guarantee of becoming wealthy or staying that way.

This entire part of the conversation started because some people think that the wealthy should be taxed hugely and the rest of us get a free ride. No, there is no guarantee that if you work hard you will be wealthy. No, there is no registry of wealthy people listing who inherited, who worked hard, and who stole their money.

But this "soak the evil rich" tax scheme is totally unfair. And THAT was the point that was being argued.

It was raised that the rich worked harder, sacrificed more than other people and it was wrong to take some of their money, thorough taxes, to help the less fortunate and I countered that is usually a bunch a bull. That was the discussion and you continue along the same vein by talking about free ride.

 

[WinterBorn]

It was raised that the rich worked harder, sacrificed more than other people and it was wrong to take some of their money, thorough taxes, to help the less fortunate and I countered that is usually a bunch a bull. That was the discussion and you continue along the same vein by talking about free ride.

To help the less fortunate? Ok, so everyone who is poor just had bad luck? And those who are not poor were just lucky?

I say it is wrong to have one set of standards for one group of people and another for another set of people. You disagree.

As I said before, by your way of thinking, SM is correct in his continued insistence that gays not be allowed to marry. It was just their bad luck to be born gay. And, after all, life is not fair.



Actually, the issue that I raised is that its wrong to soak one group in order to give breaks to another group. I cannot say for certain that all wealthy people got there by hard work. But I can say that plenty of poor people stay that way for lack of it. And I speak from personal experience with plenty of poor people.

 

[apple0154]

To help the less fortunate? Ok, so everyone who is poor just had bad luck? And those who are not poor were just lucky?

I say it is wrong to have one set of standards for one group of people and another for another set of people. You disagree.

As I said before, by your way of thinking, SM is correct in his continued insistence that gays not be allowed to marry. It was just their bad luck to be born gay. And, after all, life is not fair.

Actually, the issue that I raised is that its wrong to soak one group in order to give breaks to another group. I cannot say for certain that all wealthy people got there by hard work. But I can say that plenty of poor people stay that way for lack of it. And I speak from personal experience with plenty of poor people.

I have no idea what gays have to do with this. If they want to marry why should I care?

I don't have different standards for people. In fact it's the opposite. Our lives are determined by more than hard work. Just as many obtained their riches through luck and circumstance and timing many of the poor have ended up where they are due to the same thing; no luck, bad circumstances, poor timing.

Furthermore, many poor have given up. It could be due to psychological problems or physical aliments or some tragedy they never dealt with......the point is healthy people try to live a comfortable life and unless the poor person is content with the lifestyle they have we owe it to them to help.

That does not mean ripping off the wealthy. Those who can contribute should do so but, naturally, the more one has the more they can contribute. It is no vendetta against the rich.

I think it should be obvious that anyone who is suffering would like to end the suffering. If they don't they must be mentally ill, the same as with some teenagers who cut themselves. I don't mean they're crazy. I mean they need help and one of the first things we have to do is ensure everyone gets proper medical attention.

No, the HR bill is not perfect but it's a start. Of course, if one believe they have no obligation to help others then arguing about a universal plan is pointless. If no plan is desired then none will be appropriate, regardless.

 

[WinterBorn]

I have no idea what gays have to do with this. If they want to marry why should I care?

I don't have different standards for people. In fact it's the opposite. Our lives are determined by more than hard work. Just as many obtained their riches through luck and circumstance and timing many of the poor have ended up where they are due to the same thing; no luck, bad circumstances, poor timing.

Furthermore, many poor have given up. It could be due to psychological problems or physical aliments or some tragedy they never dealt with......the point is healthy people try to live a comfortable life and unless the poor person is content with the lifestyle they have we owe it to them to help.

That does not mean ripping off the wealthy. Those who can contribute should do so but, naturally, the more one has the more they can contribute. It is no vendetta against the rich.

I think it should be obvious that anyone who is suffering would like to end the suffering. If they don't they must be mentally ill, the same as with some teenagers who cut themselves. I don't mean they're crazy. I mean they need help and one of the first things we have to do is ensure everyone gets proper medical attention.

No, the HR bill is not perfect but it's a start. Of course, if one believe they have no obligation to help others then arguing about a universal plan is pointless. If no plan is desired then none will be appropriate, regardless.

"Those who can contribute should do so but, naturally, the more one has the more they can contribute".

That sounds nice. But its not quite reality. The reality is that you think that "Those who can contribute will be forced to do so but, naturally, the more one has the more they can have taken from them by force."

I have no problem with anyone who wants to contribute more. I think it is one of the most noble acts a person can perform.

But there is a huge difference between someone who contributes and someone who has their hard earned money taken from them by force.

And there is no method of determining which of those receiving the "contributions" are needy because of circumstances or because of their own actions and choices.

As I said at the beginning of this thread, there are too many examples of people who worked hard, studied hard and made something of themselves despite being born in the worst circumstances, for it to be dismissed.

 

[Timshel]

All this nonsense about luck. Like I said, everyone gets good breaks and bad breaks. Some fail to take advantage of their opportunities and bemoan their setbacks. There is no such thing as luck. Luck is always ascribed after the fact.

 

[Minister of Truth]

I don't have different standards for people. In fact it's the opposite. Our lives are determined by more than hard work. Just as many obtained their riches through luck and circumstance and timing many of the poor have ended up where they are due to the same thing; no luck, bad circumstances, poor timing.

Your saying this refrain over and over again will never actually make it true. I can tell you, I will never be a rich man, and its not because of my horrible luck or any kind of malevolent forces, but because I simply lack the basic skills to acquire riches. I don't have a creative mind, any mathematical, scientific or technological skills whatsoever, and the list goes on from there.

While this has frustrated me for a long time, and has caused me to experience bouts of self-pity and self-loathing, it has not caused me to fall so low as to spout liberal talking-points about class and control of resources. All I can do is try to find something to do with the few skills I actually possess, and move on from there.

Of course, there is always the off chance of winning the lottery, marrying a rich woman, or killing a bunch of al-Queda twerps for bounty money, but I try to remind myself that the odds are slim. At least the rich spouse notion has better odds.

 

[Timshel]

Yeah, I am not sure I have what it takes either. I have a knack of not finishing things and I have not been very disciplined in my spending. If I buckle down I could do it, but as of yet I have not been able to do that for an extended period.

I have improved my lot from the conditions in which I was raised, though.

It's got nothing to do with luck.

 

[apple0154]

All this nonsense about luck. Like I said, everyone gets good breaks and bad breaks. Some fail to take advantage of their opportunities and bemoan their setbacks. There is no such thing as luck. Luck is always ascribed after the fact.

As I detailed previously to what can I attribute bumping into my Real Estate agent at the video store, purchasing a building at half the market value, developers moving into the area, land values soaring and, a few years later, selling for six times what I paid? That required absolutely no hard work. It was either luck or guardian angels.

The other building I purchased, although not at half price, also benefited from not only the general housing bubble but developers moving into the area. That netted three times my purchase price.

I wasn't a Real Estate speculator. I was a blue collar worker. I was lucky.

 

[WinterBorn]

As I detailed previously to what can I attribute bumping into my Real Estate agent at the video store, purchasing a building at half the market value, developers moving into the area, land values soaring and, a few years later, selling for six times what I paid? That required absolutely no hard work. It was either luck or guardian angels.

The other building I purchased, although not at half price, also benefited from not only the general housing bubble but developers moving into the area. That netted three times my purchase price.

I wasn't a Real Estate speculator. I was a blue collar worker. I was lucky.

First off, how did you make the money you used to buy the building?

Secondly, do you have any idea how many people would have passed up the bargain in favor of the latest gadget or to spend their money doing something fun?

Yes, there is some luck involved in many instances. But to try and chalk it all up to luck is to make a mockery of those who busted their butts to get somewhere.





The point of all of this is why do you think its ok to soak one group for 35% of their money, and let another group not pay at all, or pay far less?

 

[apple0154]

Your saying this refrain over and over again will never actually make it true. I can tell you, I will never be a rich man, and its not because of my horrible luck or any kind of malevolent forces, but because I simply lack the basic skills to acquire riches. I don't have a creative mind, any mathematical, scientific or technological skills whatsoever, and the list goes on from there.

While this has frustrated me for a long time, and has caused me to experience bouts of self-pity and self-loathing, it has not caused me to fall so low as to spout liberal talking-points about class and control of resources. All I can do is try to find something to do with the few skills I actually possess, and move on from there.

Of course, there is always the off chance of winning the lottery, marrying a rich woman, or killing a bunch of al-Queda twerps for bounty money, but I try to remind myself that the odds are slim. At least the rich spouse notion has better odds.

You don't know how your life will work out. You're young. I'm sure I was just as "incompetent" as you when it came to building riches. I was over 40 before I could throw away the grocery list and put into the cart whatever I felt like at the time. I was over 40 before I could go the casino and drop a couple of grand without waking up in a cold sweat the next morning.

Money isn't nor ever was an obsession of mine. Other than enjoying a relatively short period of extravagance when I sold my property I live no differently than the way I did the first 40 years of my life. I know my good fortune is due to luck and circumstance and those things can change.

As for your comment, "While this has frustrated me for a long time, and has caused me to experience bouts of self-pity and self-loathing, it has not caused me to fall so low as to spout liberal talking-points about class and control of resources" I have never suggested leveling the field.

My point is anyone without adequate food and shelter and medical care deserves assistance.