Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
But again, if her husband was FORCED to pay into the system... ie... they TOOK from her, why should she not get it back? That which she is 'depending on' is largely her families contributions to the system.
The Tea Party Needs To Kidnap Mittens!
- Thread starter Dixie - In Memoriam
- Start date
But again, if her husband was FORCED to pay into the system... ie... they TOOK from her, why should she not get it back? That which she is 'depending on' is largely her families contributions to the system.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
ROFLMAO... uh, yeah... you go for the above. See how that works for you.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Not when it comes to ObamaCare, and certainly not when it comes to single payer.
A lot of people still don't.
Not much.
True! Mostly because of the unnecessary burdens of ObamaCare on corporate America.
I would argue, if they are unemployed, they probably ARE without coverage. Now, I guess, in theory, if we ever reach 51% unemployment, ObamaCare might become popular....at least, by your logical thinking here. As it stands, most of us want it repealed.
They're also starting to realize we can't just keep extending unemployment indefinitely, and at some point, this will also have to stop.
As far as I know, there has never been ANY guarantee of a good job. This depends largely on the individual and their motivation to find a good job. While it is difficult to maintain a good job with a shitty work ethic, I know a few people who have great jobs and very little education. Again... depends largely on the individual and their motivation.
It never has been a guaranteed investment, and generally speaking, no investments are guaranteed.
Again, you are expecting to find "guarantees" in life, and that isn't realistic, Apple. We don't live in a world where things are guaranteed to you. For the most part, you receive what you earn through work and determination, not because you are entitled. I'm sure many people are realizing that Marxist Socialist policies of this administration are killing businesses, stifling corporations ability to grow and expand, and costing us millions upon millions of jobs.
Again, government will eventually have to play a smaller role, because we can't afford the government we have. Our debt now matches our GDP, which I realize, doesn't mean a thing to a moron like you, but this can't be sustained long term. And you are right, there is a contingent of Americans who think like you, that happiness can only come from the teat of government assistance. All I can say is, you are all in for a rude awakening soon.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
Especially when there's so many grasshoppers that want everyone else to solve all their problems.
apple0154
MEOW
How many jobs are vacant due to a lack of employees compared to the number of unemployed. People are unemployed because there is no job for them to do which means everyone doesn't have to work.
apple0154
MEOW
Many countries have social policies and business is still operating.
A large majority of the debt is due to wars and the bailout, not government programs to help people. The money is there or, rather, was there but it was used for other purposes. I'm sure you recall Rummy's famous remark, "War was an option we could afford." Well, let's take those taxes that are/were saved for war and use them for health care.
In other words the so-called excess, the ability to fund wars, will be used for health care and UI and pensions and, maybe, child care and school lunches and ........It's not a matter of raising taxes. It's a matter of changing spending and if you listened to Romney, the jackass, he's preaching more military spending.
Other countries manage all sorts of programs by directing funds to them rather than somewhere else. It's not all that complicated.
Obama inherited a mess. The bailouts had already started. The wars were in progress. Have you taken note of how Obama has handled conflicts? A handful of soldiers to get Osama instead of 100,000 troops! Involvement in Syria or Egypt or whereever by sending some help and then....gone. That is real $avings as opposed to the wackos who are talking about invading Iran.
The point is there is enough money. The money used to rebuild Afghanistan and Iraq should have been used to rebuild the US. The hundreds of thousands of soldiers being paid by you are rebuilding another country. That's where your tax dollars are going and it's the Repubs that ran up the bill and the tab is still running because the army can't just up and leave. Obama is slowly digging the country out of the hole the Repubs put it in and at the same time working on improving the "general welfare" of all citizens. (I had to get general welfare in there somewhere.)
As Obama stated turning things around is like turning around an ocean liner. It's a big, wide, slow turn but it is turning and another four years will see more social programs and less wars. The cream of the crop of citizens, the healthy, active, energetic, full of ideas citizens are in another country rebuilding it. It's insanity. The US needs those "survivors", if you will. People who are able to improvise and adapt and make a thing work. Entrepreneurs, by another name.
Obama's ideas have to have time to come together, to coalesce. Less money spent on war. The ambitious young at home. Social programs which change the ambience, the perception, the awareness from one of fear to one of relative peace.
Have you noticed there is less talk about terrorists compared to the Bush years? I'm sure Obama has people looking out just as Bush did but the rhetoric has been toned down. The constant talk of war drains the people. Did you ever see that black guy on SNL who would say, "Just do it"? That's the Obama approach. He doesn't make a "weekly series" out of a problem like Bush did. In the end people just wanted to say, "Bomb them and get it over with!" :lol:
I will admit this probably goes back to my childhood as I clearly remember the missile crisis. Almost every night, 7 pm., just as Huckleberry Hound was about to start President Kennedy would appear.
He had all day when I was at school to appear on TV. He had all evening to appear on TV but noooooo, the only cartoon in the evening and he had to bump it! Bush reminded me of that. He was like part of the family telling us how his day went. Just do the damn job!!
(Picks up soap box and moves along.)
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
cawacko
Well-known member
Is this world government elected locally or globally or is appointed by people in power in various parts of the world? Does having a world government mean we eliminate countries like Canada, U.S. and Mexico for example are all one or do they each keep their sovereignty (sp)?
Co-operation rather than competition. Besides the fact that goes against human nature and competition is what drives us how would this work? Wasn't it Russia where farmers had to grow food for the government and it turned out so poorly that they finally gave them their individual plots of land which thrived?
What you are describing is basically what Atlas Shrugged was written about.
apple0154
MEOW
It would be voted on by people who were already in power. Leaders of their respective countries would vote on it. After all, they were voted into power to represent the people who voted for them. As for how it would operate it could work similar to how disagreements are settled regarding NAFTA and other deals signed between countries.
“Human nature” has been maligned. Studies have shown toddlers sympathize with other toddlers if they are treated unfairly. They will share toys or give their toy to one whose toy was taken. We also teach our children to take turns, wait in line. To assume trying to implement a kinder, gentler society will lead to financial collapse is nothing but fear-mongering by the greedy.
Most, if now all, of the failed socialist countries of the past failed due to corruption. After all, they came about through violence. The modern countries we consider to be socialist operate very well. In fact, the majority of citizens insist on government involvement in many programs. Those governments are democratically elected.
While I haven’t read Atlas Shrugged I have read numerous synopsis. It appears government corruption was involved. The solution is more open government.
Again, other countries have managed to provide services which the citizens not only approve of but insist on maintaining. There’s no reason it can’t be done in the US?
The current “policies” encourage greed and selfishness. Just look at what Greenspan said about the financial crisis. He either knew or didn’t care if the investments (financial instruments) were faulty and figured if enough people got burnt the “invisible hand” would operate and others would avoid such investments. Obviously, it didn’t work out that way. I don’t know why one would think that if the government tried to lessen people ripping off other people it would cause financial problems.
Take, for example, the bankruptcy laws. A person starts a roofing company. A couple of years later the roofs he installed start to leak, the tiles curl, etc. The roofs require replacement so the customers sue. The roofer files for bankruptcy. All that the customers have access to are the company’s assets; a rusty pick-up, a nailer gun and a couple of hammers. All the profits have been used to pay his home mortgage, his car payments, his vacations, etc. but are not touchable. Why? Is the encouragement of ripping off people and having laws in place to protect those doing the ripping off necessary for an affluent economy? If so, the least the benefactors can do is contribute financially to the less fortunate so individuals have the necessary food and clothing and medical care.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Weren't you the one who pointed out how important it is to distinguish between "social" and "socialist?" Now look who's confusing the two? Tellya what... why don't you list out all the successful and economically prosperous Socialist governments in countries the size of the US, over the entire history of the world? In fact, I will make this even easier for you... just name ONE?
The fact is, Socialist government consistently fails, time and time again, throughout history, it has never worked. Eventually, corruption and graft becomes widespread, as those who control power take all the pie and leave their fellow neighbors with nothing. Like a big giant ponzi scheme.
We look across the pond, at the socialist governments of Greece, Spain and Portugal, and what is currently happening there? Are the people HAPPY? Do they look HAPPY as they burn their cities to the ground? Are they cheering how great and wonderful it is that they are BANKRUPT? There are people who thought just like you, apple. They believed Socialism would propel them to greatness and solve all their problems.
Complete BUNK! We have a national debt of $15 trillion. That is about 7 times greater than the total cost of ALL wars America has EVER fought! And of course, 15 times greater than the bailouts. The budget deficit THIS year, is currently more than the cost of Afghanistan and Iraq combined. The majority of the budget deficit is the result of entitlement programs.
So, even by your own admission, the money is no longer there. We can disagree on why that is the case, but the bottom line is, we can't spend money that isn't there. You see, it's fine to look back in history and say we should have done this or that, but we can't go back in time and change it. I wish that I had made better investment decisions and was a wealthy as Donald Trump right now... it doesn't mean I can go out spending money like Donald Trump, because I wished I had done that! The fact is, I didn't do that, I made the choices I made, now I have to live with the consequences.
Here's the thing, we don't have excess money. We are currently spending $1.6 trillion MORE than we take in! We can't afford to keep doing this, because, right now, the biggest item in the budget, is the interest on the money we have already borrowed. Our choices are becoming very limited, we might still be able to salvage some social programs, if we modify the criteria and eliminate waste... but if we continue to act as if we have plenty of money and it's not an issue, we will eventually not be able to pay the interest on our debt, and America will default. Now it doesn't matter whether you realize this or not, you can stubbornly keep on arguing to the contrary, you can keep living in denial, but eventually, the reality is, we are going to go broke and our entire system of government is going to collapse. This means, there will be absolutely NO social programs.
Uhmm... No they don't, apple. Other countries implement feel good socialist policies, only to find out they can't afford them, and eventually collapse in chaos (like Greece) until the US comes along and bails them out.
FUCK YOU! OBAMA RAN ON THE PROMISE HE COULD FIX THE GODDAMN MESS!
Again, proverbial DROPS IN THE BUCKET compared to the massive $15 trillion national debt, to which Obama ALONE has added another $3 trillion.
Yes I have! He makes a speech and says how disappointed he is, and how much he hopes things will change, and then he ignores the conflict and lets the rest of the world figure out what to do, while he entertains rap stars and celebrities at the white house, with Michelle and the kids.
Operation Geronimo was planned out long before Obama had even announced he was running for president, you moron.
Let's be clear, Iran can NOT get a nuclear weapon! That is an option we can't have. If Obama can figure out a way to keep that from happening without involving troops, I am all for it, but the option of turning a blind eye and ignoring the problem while the Obama's entertain celebs, isn't a very good plan, in my opinion.
Again, moron... you are trying to spend money that has already been spent! Things don't work that way in reality! We spend money then it's gone, we don't get to spend it again on something else. I should have spent my money on paying off my mortgage instead of liquor and whores, but I didn't.... does that mean I can now stop making my house payments? Are you so fucking retarded you don't realize how stupid this sounded, or what?
The hundreds of thousands of soldiers being paid by you are rebuilding another country. That's where your tax dollars are going and it's the Repubs that ran up the bill and the tab is still running because the army can't just up and leave. Obama is slowly digging the country out of the hole the Repubs put it in and at the same time working on improving the "general welfare" of all citizens. (I had to get general welfare in there somewhere.)
Again (and again and again).... The total cost of Afghanistan AND Iraq, for the military conflict, the soldiers salaries, the cost of equipment, and the cost to rebuild the countries, is CONSIDERABLY LESS THAN THE COMBINED BUDGET DEFICITS for the past 3 years of Obama's administration! If we had saved the money an never went to Iraq or Afghanistan, and IF we had completely dismantled the military for the past three years, it still wouldn't have saved us enough money to eliminate the deficit.
Fuck the rest of your rambling, you're too long winded with your stupidity.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Take for example, a roofing company starting a business... the very fist thing they must do, is become licensed and bonded. You see, consumer protection agencies lobbied in the 1950s and 1960s, for some kind of measures to be put in place, to protect consumers against unscrupulous dealings. They formed associations for roofing contractors, which require certain standards are met, and they established things called "building codes" which must be followed by the roofer. So the scenario you are pointing out is so extremely rare, it isn't worth mentioning. These things did happen a good bit back in the 1950s, but again... we passed all kinds of laws and measures to prevent that. Today, a consumer only needs to ensure the contractor is licensed and bonded, and they can rest assured the job will be done to satisfaction, or they have a recourse for a claim in the event it isn't. Problem Solved (without Socialism!)
icedancer2theend
Verified User
She took nothing~
I believe she can take it, it just means she disnt practice what she preaches, she became what she hated.
I am not debating that they were his funds, I am pointing out that this women berated people for using their safety nets, and yet, here was Ayn doing what she criticized others for doing. It is being a hypocrit to me. To condemn someone, then turn around and do it yourself, hypocrisy.
If you don't agree, well, that is why it is my opinion and not yours.
icedancer2theend
Verified User
icedancer2theend
Verified User
I was asked by someone about a new attack on Rand, which some of the rabid haters on the Left were doing, alleging some sort of hypocrisy by Rand for "taking social security." Some childish writer at the rather unreliable AlterNet wrote an article entitled: "Ayn Rand Railed Against Government Benefits, But Grabbed Social Security and Medicare When She Needed Them."
The article claimed "Rand herself received Social Security payments and Medicare benefits under the name of Ann O'Connor." O'Connor was her married name but her given name was Alice not Ann, but then facts are not important to the smearbund.
The author quotes Michael Ford of the "Center for the Study of the American Dream," saying, "In the end, Miss Rand was a hypocrite but she could never be faulted for failing to act in her own self-interest." (I suggest "own self-interest" is redundant. What other kind of self-interest is there?)
I found this odd since Rand had commented that people who are forced to fund government programs are NOT immoral for taking the benefits for which they paid. For instance, it is not wrong for people to attend government schools, which are funded with their tax monies, whether they like it or not. They have to start with a false premise: that Rand said receiving Social Security, that one is forced to pay for, was wrong. Without that false claim they have no charge of hypocrisy. They pretend she took a position she never took and then accuse her of violating the position she didn't take.
The article claimed "Rand herself received Social Security payments and Medicare benefits under the name of Ann O'Connor." O'Connor was her married name but her given name was Alice not Ann, but then facts are not important to the smearbund.
The author quotes Michael Ford of the "Center for the Study of the American Dream," saying, "In the end, Miss Rand was a hypocrite but she could never be faulted for failing to act in her own self-interest." (I suggest "own self-interest" is redundant. What other kind of self-interest is there?)
I found this odd since Rand had commented that people who are forced to fund government programs are NOT immoral for taking the benefits for which they paid. For instance, it is not wrong for people to attend government schools, which are funded with their tax monies, whether they like it or not. They have to start with a false premise: that Rand said receiving Social Security, that one is forced to pay for, was wrong. Without that false claim they have no charge of hypocrisy. They pretend she took a position she never took and then accuse her of violating the position she didn't take.
Oh dear gawd, never mind...
christiefan915
Catalyst
Do you remember, years ago when Al Gore was all over the place preaching about being green and saving energy, etc., and some hacker got a copy of his electric bill and made it public, and it was around $30,000 for one year? And the RWs were all over cyberspace crowing that Gore didn't practice what he preached. Well, same thing with Rand but our RWs here will spin up the wazoo on how it's different. It's not different.
No, it is not different, you have to live what you preach, thanks.
cawacko
Well-known member
Christi, if one does not believe in S.S. or Medicare how do you they tell the government not to take S.S. and Medicare taxes out of their paycheck and in return they won't receive S.S. or Medicare in the future?