F YOU VERY MUCH, MASSH0LECHUSETTS. in Off Topic Forum

0 Points

F YOU VERY MUCH, MASSH0LECHUSETTS.

Started By	Comment
DelosWorld		#521	[-]
Posts: 2187 (01/21/10 11:48 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Save time... see it my way. - Said ad! Remove this ad I'm pumping a lot of money into Soc Security that won't be there for me down the line, at least not without rampant inflation. Why should I or my future family depend on an irresponsible government like that? Why is it your business to decide how I prepare properly for my future? Like I said my goal is to keep as much money for myself should I need it down the line or not. What I do with it is my decision and I'l be the one totally responsible for being successful or screwing up my future.
iltwaaf		#522	[-]
Posts: 1049 (01/21/10 11:51 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	bucking fitch wrote: Being from Canada, I don't have a problem with government run health care and am actually very grateful for it. My husband was American and became a permanent resident in Canada. There are more people living in California than all of Canada. Also, Canadians come to the States for real care that they can't wait for in Canada.
DelosWorld		#523	[-]
Posts: 2188 (01/21/10 11:53 AM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	California is warmer than Canada.
Goosehead		#524	[-]
Posts: 2151 (01/21/10 11:54 AM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts	For the conservatives here, is it possible that a relatively competent/responsible government could one day convince you that large-scale collective action through the welfare state is something you could support? Or is your position purely ideological, i.e., I will do with my money what I please and government, by definition, is a wasteful and irresponsible thief?
DelosWorld		#525	[-]
Posts: 2189 (01/21/10 12:00 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Any examples?
Goosehead		#526	[-]
Posts: 2152 (01/21/10 12:11 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Well, to answer that question, I think you first need to determine what you want the outcomes of good government policy to be. For me, it's a fairly happy, secure, and relatively prosperous and cohesive society (with a large middle-class and a small disparity between the wealthiest and poorest individuals). So with that in mind, I'd say that most of western Europe has done pretty well and, especially, the old chestnut we call the Scandinavian welfare state model. But this means hight rates of taxation and prioritising certain programs over others. But we've gone over this debate time and time again. I'm just trying to get a sense why American conservatives hate the government so much: a) because it's proven to be incompetent and wasteful; or b) an ideological position a la Ron Paul and AMAI, i.e., free-markets always produce the best outcomes because individuals make the most rational choices when they are free to make them. I suppose this question has been debated to death here also, but for some reason I thought it might spark a new discussion. OH WELL!
StarrEise		#527	[-]
Posts: 10066 (01/21/10 12:14 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	squashthebeef wrote: Starr, you are arguing with people who have no ability to empathize. My empathy is reserved for the kids, not the asswipe parents who won't do whatever it takes to get their kids proper health care. What should they have done to get healthcare, exactly? They applied for any and every job they could find to get benefits - but those jobs were few and far between. And this was well before the state of Massachusetts forced the health insurance companies to offer plans to people outside of an employer plan - they should have paid $1800 a month for healthcare? On an annual income of $44K for a family of four? And then lose their home? Again, these were not people who are irresponsible or reckless...they worked hard for every thing they've ever had. It's just funny how you think you would never, in a million years, be in that situation, but you would be shocked at how quickly life can change.
Monsieur Muggles		#528	[-]
Posts: 9717 (01/21/10 12:15 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Goosehead wrote: For the conservatives here, is it possible that a relatively competent/responsible government could one day convince you that large-scale collective action through the welfare state is something you could support? Or is your position purely ideological, i.e., I will do with my money what I please and government, by definition, is a wasteful and irresponsible thief? You generalize too much. A conservative can be well-supportive of a charitable government. Where conservatives get irate most is what the charity is used for. If it's to pay for the necessary surgery for a child of a laid-off worker who got their job outsourced, sure, a conservative is likely to be benevolent. If it's to pay for the pain meds for a woman who had a boob job and abortion last week, not so much.
DelosWorld		#529	[-]
Posts: 2190 (01/21/10 12:19 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	How about we better follow the Constitution with a limited federal government and have more power taxation and spending at the local levels? Let the Feds deal with national security and other basics and let the local governments tax and spend so they're more responsible to the taxpayer. Right now it's all topsy-turvey with the majority of taxes going to the federal government and less to states, counties, etc. Flip it around so citizens have a better voice for what happens with their tax dollars and that would be a good first step to better government.
pearly whites		#530	[-]
Posts: 1729 (01/21/10 12:28 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Save time... see it my way. - Said ad! Remove this ad ^this
iltwaaf		#531	[-]
Posts: 1051 (01/21/10 12:29 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	People need to understand that one of the most liberal States in the country voted against healthcare reform. It means that they didn't want it..
Goosehead		#532	[-]
Posts: 2154 (01/21/10 12:30 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts	edit: replying to Delos's post: That might be true. I haven't looked into it enough, but I appreciate the concept of devolution of powers, and I'm especially interested in the devolution of powers (along with participatory budgeting in neighborhoods a la Porto Alegre) to big cities as a possible way to engage citizens on a more local level. I've said for a long time that I think some countries are simply TOO BIG, and I include Canada in this, of course. Although I love Quebec, the thought of them separating might make sense from a simple "governability" perspective. So genuine question, Delos: can you ever imagine supporting a proposal to break up the US into a series of independent nation-states with full autonomy over domestic and foreign policy? Maybe this is the true test of one's commitment to the logic of devolution of powers to the states? Or does the idea of a "United" America trump all such principles?
glazerboy		#533	[-]
Posts: 3710 (01/21/10 12:34 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts	squashthebeef wrote: Starr, you are arguing with people who have no ability to empathize. My empathy is reserved for the kids, not the asswipe parents who won't do whatever it takes to get their kids proper health care. at those people who think because they have private health insurance they aren't paying for other people's health care. What the fuck do you think health insurance is? Don't like "socialized medicine"? Surprise - you already have it in private health insurance, where the costs of everybody in the insurance pool are distributed over everybody, whether you use the benefits or not. Don't like other people having to pay for somebody's health care? I'm sure your employer will be glad to hear that and will gladly stop paying their share of your premiums.
merkyl		#534	[-]
Posts: 63979 (01/21/10 12:51 PM) Registered loser Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Go look up what "socialized" means and get back to us.
dennydoylelives		#535	[-]
Posts: 3070 (01/21/10 12:54 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts	glazerboy wrote: squashthebeef wrote: Starr, you are arguing with people who have no ability to empathize. My empathy is reserved for the kids, not the asswipe parents who won't do whatever it takes to get their kids proper health care. at those people who think because they have private health insurance they aren't paying for other people's health care. What the fuck do you think health insurance is? Don't like "socialized medicine"? Surprise - you already have it in private health insurance, where the costs of everybody in the insurance pool are distributed over everybody, whether you use the benefits or not. Don't like other people having to pay for somebody's health care? I'm sure your employer will be glad to hear that and will gladly stop paying their share of your premiums. The big difference is, instead of money being taken off the top by an insurance company that has to compete against other insurance companies, thereby having some control over overhead expenses, money comes off the top to pay for graft, political favors, bureaucratic salaries, union thug pacifying, government lawyers, and other stuff wholly unrelated to healthcare before the first dime goes to healthcare related expenses. The Democratic plan will only add to the cost of healthcare. Politicians of both parties will make sure that they and their supporters get their slice of the pie, and turn it into a perpetual payola machine that's constantly in need of more funding, because somehow, no matter how much money is thrown into the healthcare pot, there will never be enough going to it's stated purpose to actually "fix" the healthcare system.
BillGuido		#536	[-]
Posts: 3777 (01/21/10 01:06 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	glazerboy wrote: squashthebeef wrote: Starr, you are arguing with people who have no ability to empathize. My empathy is reserved for the kids, not the asswipe parents who won't do whatever it takes to get their kids proper health care. at those people who think because they have private health insurance they aren't paying for other people's health care. What the fuck do you think health insurance is? Don't like "socialized medicine"? Surprise - you already have it in private health insurance, where the costs of everybody in the insurance pool are distributed over everybody, whether you use the benefits or not. Don't like other people having to pay for somebody's health care? I'm sure your employer will be glad to hear that and will gladly stop paying their share of your premiums. Yup, and most likely the hard core conservatives like squash and his condescending ilk are dumpy, unathletic plops of skin and fat just shooting up the premium costs.
Beefcake		#537	[-]
Posts: 5721 (01/21/10 01:08 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Goosehead wrote: For the conservatives here, is it possible that a relatively competent/responsible government could one day convince you that large-scale collective action through the welfare state is something you could support? Or is your position purely ideological, i.e., I will do with my money what I please and government, by definition, is a wasteful and irresponsible thief? I'm quite content with the government creating a social safety net for its citizens (though I don't believe it has any obligation to do so), but that is quite different from a Welfare State. Probably the most important function of government, in my mind, is to provide all of its citizens with access to education, but I think the public school system as it exists today is a joke and embarrassment. And the biggest problem we have with ALL levels of government is a lack of accountability. In that sense, government should be treated more like a business: if you don't produce results, you get fired. I've never understood the "state government is better than federal government" philosophy for two main reasons: (1) we live in an international economy and have an interest in the entire country doing well; and (2) state governments are just as corrupt and unresponsive as the federal government. Jefferson's yeoman farmer is a nice fantasy, but the industrial revolution made him obsolete. I think a just society is one that helps insulate its citizens from bad luck, but individuals remain responsible for their bad decisions. I usually call myself a "Roosevelt Republican". TR analogized the government to an umpire or referee in a sporting competition: make sure everyone follows the rules and punish those who don't, so that every citizen gets a "Square Deal" at winning the game. I think since about 1960 or so, the government hasn't been concerned with making sure everyone plays fair, but instead want's to rig the game so that certain people (or groups of people) are given an advantage. I don't think there is anything fair about that.
BillGuido		#538	[-]
Posts: 3778 (01/21/10 01:10 PM) Reply Quote More Recent Posts	By "1960 or so", you mean the Civil Rights Act of 1964, correct? Yeah, because everyone had an equal/fair chance up to then.
airshowpilot		#539	[-]
Posts: 2492 (01/21/10 01:29 PM) Registered user Reply Quote More Recent Posts	StarrEise wrote: squashthebeef wrote: Starr, you are arguing with people who have no ability to empathize. My empathy is reserved for the kids, not the asswipe parents who won't do whatever it takes to get their kids proper health care. What should they have done to get healthcare, exactly? They applied for any and every job they could find to get benefits - but those jobs were few and far between. And this was well before the state of Massachusetts forced the health insurance companies to offer plans to people outside of an employer plan - they should have paid $1800 a month for healthcare? On an annual income of $44K for a family of four? And then lose their home? Again, these were not people who are irresponsible or reckless...they worked hard for every thing they've ever had. It's just funny how you think you would never, in a million years, be in that situation, but you would be shocked at how quickly life can change. You do what you can to take care of your family with the current cards you are dealt with. I lost my home and my job but I do what I can under the current rules and I haven't a problem with it. (Health Care) Your example shows of nothing but trying to get benefits and not finding solutions. Hell if you want to buy a policy get one at Sams Club/Costco and you will be taken care of, or use the free clinics or find churches that will assist you based on the sliding scale principle. They are a hell of a lot better than the VA, At least in this area. GET CREATIVE because People are generally good and I get assistance when it's needed.
Beefcake		#540	[-]
Posts: 5722 (01/21/10 01:30 PM) Registered User Reply Quote More Recent Posts	Save time... see it my way. - Said ad! Remove this ad BillGuido wrote: By "1960 or so", you mean the Civil Rights Act of 1964, correct? Yeah, because everyone had an equal/fair chance up to then. Yup. That was just my long-winded way of saying "I hate black people".

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

F YOU VERY MUCH, MASSH0LECHUSETTS.