Thorgi Duke of Frisbee Posted December 7, 2011 Author Report Share Posted December 7, 2011 Obama to America: You suck. I understand this plays well to those outside of America or those who feel that America owes them something but to people like me who go to work daily and try to do the best I can to support my family. Replace working or middle class with prolitariat and replace "the rich" with bourgeois and you have something straight from Marx and Lenin. Jonah Goldberg said that if you woke up out of a coma from 3 years and heard that speech you'd have no idea this man was our president. Seriously, this man's disdain for his fellow citizens sickens my stomach. On the flip side, I guess Obama can no longer deny being a socialist. He's the bonafide reincarnation of Huey Long. I guess there is no "right" candidate at this time in our country. And that's fucking scary. Hmm, maybe I should give this whole presidency thing a try... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P4: Gritty Reboot Posted December 7, 2011 Report Share Posted December 7, 2011 Uh... persecuted for speech? Pretty sure that goes against everything this country was founded upon. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted December 7, 2011 Report Share Posted December 7, 2011 @Battra: I don't want to get into an argument, but I do want to say that as someone who also goes to work daily to support his family I disagree with you. And no, I don't feel like America owes me anything. I look at this from the perspective of someone who makes more than the national median income and say that we, those who are well enough off, should do more to help those who aren't. That means that yes, I will vote for a candidate who promises to raise my taxes to support social programs. Don't assume that everyone who thinks that way does so because it would be a personal financial benefit to them, or that they feel they are owed something. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorgi Duke of Frisbee Posted December 7, 2011 Author Report Share Posted December 7, 2011 (edited) Uh... persecuted for speech? Pretty sure that goes against everything this country was founded upon. OK, wrong words. But he should have his ass kicked for hate speech. Edited December 7, 2011 by DukeOfPwn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P4: Gritty Reboot Posted December 7, 2011 Report Share Posted December 7, 2011 Alright, agreed! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battra92 Posted December 7, 2011 Report Share Posted December 7, 2011 At what point is something a "fair share?" If you want to help someone, donate to the Salvation Army! They have done more for the people of this and other countries than all our tax Government has never created any good for anyone. How's the War on Poverty doing? How about the trillions thrown down the shitter in TARP? Or if you're that dead set on paying higher taxes, nothing is stopping you from making a donation to the treasury. http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/gift/gift.htm OK, wrong words. But he should be charged for hate speech. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Amendment 1: Constitution of the United States. This also applies to stuff that you disagree with. It also applies to stuff that I disagree with. The answer to speech you don't like is more speech. Banning "hate" speech (who decides it anyway) is an abridgement of our basic Liberties. Unless you are inciting a riot or spreading defamation ALL speech ought to be protected. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorgi Duke of Frisbee Posted December 7, 2011 Author Report Share Posted December 7, 2011 Yeah, you were right about that. He has every right to be an ignorant asshole. But please don't donate to The Salvation Army. They are a disgusting organization that discriminates others for their religious beliefs and sexual orientations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battra92 Posted December 7, 2011 Report Share Posted December 7, 2011 You do realize the Salvation Army is a church ... right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P4: Gritty Reboot Posted December 7, 2011 Report Share Posted December 7, 2011 They're a religious organization and have the right to discriminate based on religion. I know they've gotten themselves in some controversy over the same-sex marriage issue, but it's impossible to deny that they've done tons of good the world over. If you don't support them that's your right of course, but Battra's point remains that private organizations are a great way to support charity apart from government involvement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted December 7, 2011 Report Share Posted December 7, 2011 Salvation Army is a religious organisation though. Surely something a bit secular like Red Cross would be a bit better if you're donating? However charities and gov'ts tend to have different aims of what they fund (I reckon the US gov't spends consideriablly more on the US people as opposed to something like Red Cross spending tons on international aid) so it's hardly akin to taxes just cos you're paying for something. As a commie brit I'm all for socialised services. The awesome knowledge I could step outside and get ran over and everything will be okay. I just don't think I could put into words how awesome it is to have that knowledge. It just seems so insane to see Americans so vehemently opposed to socialised services like an NHS. Heck just the idea that most Americans are Christian, yet most of the nation is also so opposed to helping the ill n suffering. It's like lolwut. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P4: Gritty Reboot Posted December 7, 2011 Report Share Posted December 7, 2011 I am a libertarian and personally love helping the needy and poor and destitute; I just don't think it's our government's place to forcibly take money from certain demographics in order to support other demographics. It's disingenuous to depict our position as "opposed to helping the ill n suffering"; we simply have a different approach to how that might look. While it's true that our current system is broken and needs a total fresh start, I'm not convinced that further centralization and nationalization of health services would work for America, regardless whether or not it works in other countries (and the NHS is certainly not perfect either). Though it might be better than what we have, which is a blend of government regulation and artificially sky-high care costs, plus a regulated third-party payment system that contributes to the insane cost of care, I'm of the opinion that each country needs to independently evaluate what's best for its makeup and size--and that may not be socialism for us. Bottom line, this is not an issue of America's current free market system vs. a socialized solution. We do not have free market health care in the US but instead have the downsides of both capitalistic approaches and socialized approaches combined into one nightmarish mess. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted December 7, 2011 Report Share Posted December 7, 2011 Aren't the demographics pretty much "those with" "those without". Those with cash, an education, good health, and those without. I've completed my state funded education, I am in good health and hopefully I'll soon have cash(however for now I am "without"). I'll gladly pay taxes to fund education, to help someone with the ill luck of bad health, and to keep people in housing, warm in winter. I guess it's just how I've been brought up. sharing is carting n all that. I'll agree the NHS is not a perfect system, but it is an awesome system. I'm a cesarean with jaundice, I split my head open when I was a kid, was in a sling after accident in PE, had part of my finger sliced off, been bitten by a german shepard, I've worn glasses since I was 13 and early this year I had a filling. Grand total cost of 22 years of healthcare: £40. (And however much I paid extra for the coating on my glasses, I think £20). Up until a few years ago when I started kotakuites n hanging out with americans the thought that health care would cost had never ever crossed my mind. (yes I'm aware, taxes). I'm not really seeing how size would be an issue, people still have same illness n ailments whether you have 50 people or 50 million. If the NHS could run fine 70 years ago in a time before internet and data management, I'm sure it's not a huge issue to scale up with micro-management of services. America is home to thousands of global corporations that manage billions of customers, I'm sure it's not to hard to serve just 300million customers. Run it like a corporation, just don't be a corporation. You guys run a census yes? What the hell do you use them for now if not to micro-manage the lives of 300million people. We don't just have the NHS as a body controlling services for all 70million folks at once. It's broken down into Primary Care Trusts, which work on a local level. Here's mine for example. They use census data to dictate what is needed where. So if one area has more old folks than normal, then more care homes n care workers are added. I think the main issue America has with socialised services isn't size, it's the same issue that you guys seem to have with pretty much everything else these days: corporations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P4: Gritty Reboot Posted December 7, 2011 Report Share Posted December 7, 2011 Grand total cost of 22 years of healthcare: £40. Grand total cost to you--someone else was forced to pay for it. I'll gladly pay taxes to fund education, to help someone with the ill luck of bad health, and to keep people in housing, warm in winter. I guess it's just how I've been brought up. sharing is carting n all that. We don't need much government for these things; time and again it's shown that heavy government interference in these markets only causes higher cost, whether subsidized or not. I fail to see how forcing some to pay for others' healthcare is sharing in any sense of the word. I think the main issue America has with socialised services isn't size, it's the same issue that you guys seem to have with pretty much everything else these days: corporations. I am not sure what you mean by this. I am not saying that a free market health care system would cost less for every single person in America, but that it would cost drastically less overall: costs are costs whether paid for by others' tax money or out of your own pocket or by charities. That being said, of course socialized care would be better than what we have now: we couldn't possibly get any worse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted December 7, 2011 Report Share Posted December 7, 2011 If you want to help someone, donate to the Salvation Army! I don't like the Salvation Army specifically, but I do take your point, and I do give to charity. Government has never created any good for anyone. You can't honestly believe this can you? I mean, I can understand the argument that using government to cure social ills is less efficient and effective than private charity (I disagree but I understand it), but you can't honestly believe that government has never done any good at all, can you? Or if you're that dead set on paying higher taxes, nothing is stopping you from making a donation to the treasury.http://www.treasuryd...d/gift/gift.htm It's not that I specifically desire to pay higher taxes, it's that I would be willing to do so in order to support better social programs. But the state of federal spending is such that I disagree with its priorities, and so I'm not just going to give them more money that they'll spend on something other than what I want them to. (To be clear: I pay my taxes, I'm not one of those crazy people who refuses to because they don't like what the government spends it on, I'm just not going to voluntarily give more.) Basically the crux of it is that I wish the government would do more to help people, and I would be willing to pay more in taxes in order to accomplish that. I don't have some desire to just give money to the government for the sake of giving money to the government. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.Amendment 1: Constitution of the United States. This also applies to stuff that you disagree with. It also applies to stuff that I disagree with. The answer to speech you don't like is more speech. Banning "hate" speech (who decides it anyway) is an abridgement of our basic Liberties. Unless you are inciting a riot or spreading defamation ALL speech ought to be protected. This I agree with 100%. ^5 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted December 7, 2011 Report Share Posted December 7, 2011 Grand total cost of 22 years of healthcare: £40. Grand total cost to you--someone else was forced to pay for it. Damn here's me thinking I'd already headed that response off with the "I'm aware of taxes". Yes I'm aware the magical NHS fairy doesn't just shit out medicine and doctors. Question though: What has total cost being for you? The direct costs that is. I'm not really sure where it's been shown "time n time again" that gov't = higher costs. Our entire NHS is cheaper than just the half-arsed stuff you guys have with Medicare n whatnot, never mind the inclusion of private health care on top. (17% compared to 23%)*. As far as the whole "corporations" I'm talking "big-pharma". It's probably why you guys have such huge costs is there's no cap on it. As the saying goes "give em an inch, they'll take a mile". If pill A costs 50p to make and the company sells this to the gov't for £1 the gov't shouldn't just go "okay", should tell them to fuck off. It's the gov't after all. My understanding of Medicare as it is now, the gov't doesn't own..anything. It just sort of pays the bills. Bit like our housing benefits (it pays the rent on private accommodation, as opposed to council housing where the council owns the houses. So the private rent could be as high as landlord asks n the gov't will pay it). Basically the crux of it is that I wish the government would do more to help people, and I would be willing to pay more in taxes in order to accomplish that. I don't have some desire to just give money to the government for the sake of giving money to the government. Similar thoughts here. And looking at the whole expenditures thing you guys really need to re-jigger. The US gov't needs a mum. Like when you're in a store and you pick up the super turbo action man with stealth goggles and eagle eyes and she says "Do you really need that?". Increasing taxes won't do diddly squat if a fifth of that is just getting blown on wars. Just seems a bit opposite to the whole "government of the people, by the people, for the people" you guys were meant to have going on. *you know looking at those, fuck health care, education doesn't even appear as its own section on US expenditures, it's "discretionary spending". (please tell me I'm reading it wrong. I really shouldn't be that low. 1.4%?) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted December 7, 2011 Report Share Posted December 7, 2011 I don't know what numbers you're looking at, but education costs are handled mostly by the states, so most of the money wouldn't show up on federal spending. *Edit* - I do agree that we don't spend enough on education though. I've seen studies (no I don't have links) that say that for every $1 you spend on education you save $6-7 in corrections (courts, prison, etc). 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted December 7, 2011 Report Share Posted December 7, 2011 Good good. Was thinking something had to be iffy there. Any idea of where overall national expenditure would be listed then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P4: Gritty Reboot Posted December 7, 2011 Report Share Posted December 7, 2011 Yeah, I agree Dean that our system is worse than yours--which is why I say socialized would almost certainly be better than what we have now. To say that ours is more expensive in order to disprove government involvement=higher costs doesn't fly, because we have extremely heavy government involvement as it is. It's just not well implemented at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanb Posted December 7, 2011 Report Share Posted December 7, 2011 and of course we have total hands off gov't... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P4: Gritty Reboot Posted December 7, 2011 Report Share Posted December 7, 2011 What is your point? Generally speaking, and apart from specialized situations and natural monopolies, free markets tend to bring costs down. Comparing the US to the UK in healthcare is unhelpful because both are heavily regulated by government, with differing degrees of government waste and completely unique methods of subsidizing and providing healthcare to their citizens. That free markets have better prices is usually not the argument proponents of socialized care would take issue with, but rather they would argue that the increased costs of regulation are worth it to ensure that everyone is covered. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted December 7, 2011 Report Share Posted December 7, 2011 but rather they would argue that the increased costs of regulation are worth it to ensure that everyone is covered. This is the position I would take. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockyRan Posted December 8, 2011 Report Share Posted December 8, 2011 (edited) At what point is something a "fair share?" If you want to help someone, donate to the Salvation Army! They have done more for the people of this and other countries than all our tax Government has never created any good for anyone. How's the War on Poverty doing? How about the trillions thrown down the shitter in TARP? Or if you're that dead set on paying higher taxes, nothing is stopping you from making a donation to the treasury. http://www.treasuryd...d/gift/gift.htm OK, wrong words. But he should be charged for hate speech. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Amendment 1: Constitution of the United States. This also applies to stuff that you disagree with. It also applies to stuff that I disagree with. The answer to speech you don't like is more speech. Banning "hate" speech (who decides it anyway) is an abridgement of our basic Liberties. Unless you are inciting a riot or spreading defamation ALL speech ought to be protected. We're talking about the United States here, the country that glorifies greed and selfishness. Nothing significant would come out of public programs funded purely by people's volition. Remember that a big chunk of people donate for the tax breaks and little else, and remember that a very big reason why the economy is stalling is due to the fact that big corporations absolutely refuse to invest in their own companies and create jobs simply because it's not profitable. Nothing gets done for the greater good unless someone or something forces it so. That is the way the US has always worked. EDIT: Also, somebody should let Rick Perry know his campaign is over already, unless he wants to supply comedians with great material for years to come with his incredibly poor rhetoric. Edited December 8, 2011 by RockyRan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thursday Next Posted December 8, 2011 Report Share Posted December 8, 2011 No leader would ever campaign for a cause that they fundamentally disagree with.. Can a candidate disagree with a personal belief and still uphold others' rights to hold those beliefs? I like to think an ideal champion of human rights would campaign his/her heart out to defend the people's liberty to live their own lives, regardless of his/her own personal opinion on those choices. Ok, I think I wasn't clear in what I meant there. No candidate would campaign for a policy that they don't think is right. If Obama campaigns to remove the restrictions on gay marriage and so forth, it's because he disagrees with restricting the right to choose who we marry, not because he thinks that gay marriages are fricking awesome. It seems from his campaigning in support of removing the restrictions that his personal belief is that people should have the right to choose who they marry, even if they don't choose what he would, Bachman (based on the video) believes that you do not have the right to choose who you marry, you just have a choice of marry the opposite sex, or don't get married. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted December 8, 2011 Report Share Posted December 8, 2011 Going back to the war on religion in this country, my wife informs me that we are no longer celebrating Christmas, we're celebrating the winter solstice. We now have a solstice tree and solstice lights and are giving each other solstice presents. I'm okay with this, except unlike Christmas I have to work on the solstice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Jack Posted December 8, 2011 Report Share Posted December 8, 2011 Jesus wasn't actually born in December anyway so who gives a shit, really. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.