- Aug 4, 2009
- 281,368
- 142,407
- 2,615
I'm sure all the Military People you know avoid CHAMPUS and VA coverage so they can pay for expensive medical procedures out of pocket. It comes with being a friend of the Dude
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Liberals for wealth redistribution
- Thread starter RetiredGySgt
- Start date
I'm sure all the Military People you know avoid CHAMPUS and VA coverage so they can pay for expensive medical procedures out of pocket. It comes with being a friend of the Dude
Like I said...What if someone wants treatment on demand?
Lots and lots of people seek out products and services using numerous criteria other than low/no costs to themselves...You probably didn't know that, didja?
Lots and lots of people seek out products and services using numerous criteria other than low/no costs to themselves...You probably didn't know that, didja?
- Aug 4, 2009
- 281,368
- 142,407
- 2,615
Like I said...What if someone wants treatment on demand?
Lots and lots of people seek out products and services using numerous criteria other than low/no costs to themselves...You probably didn't know that, didja?
Yes...I know that people pay for Boob Jobs out of pocket
don't think of it as re-distribution -- this is talk radio polemics, and it doesn't give you a good angle on your problem.
the U.S. has the largest consumption economy in history. to be healthy, your economy requires a certain level of middle class consumption. but your economic system -- free market neoliberalism -- is no friend of the middle class. don't kid yourself, the market HATES when a pampered labor market springs up along one of it's supply chains. Capital LOVES third world labor markets. middle class entitlements are way too expensive. . .
but I digress. reagan asked you good folks to discontinue everything being done to create a solvent middle class. [remember: in the 50s & 60s, you folks were buying TVs, cars, blenders, sofas, aluminum siding, lawn ornaments, and refrigerators in record numbers. You had the money because your government made sure that your immense manufacturing profits found their way down to the workers, who were supported handsomely with every manner of benefit, from high wages, cheap housing, education, medical and retirement... not to mention a thriving public sector of museums, parks, highways, public transportation, and public works. The old America invested heavily in the middle class, which lead to immense consumption and economic activity. [the economy does well when the middle class has money to buy things. Trickle up wealth! it dies when only the wealthy have money and the working classes are kept alive on subsistence wages and credit]
But, so . . . Ronnie told you nice folk that government no longer needed to worry about investment in the middle class. in fact, you were told that government involvement in the economy stagnated growth, i.e., no bureaucrat will ever possess enough information to regulate supply and demand effectively. only capitalism, driven by human nature itself, can calibrate incentives, investments, and resources effectively. Sadly: the big government which won WWII, put a man on the moon, and saved the gipper's father was now, conveniently, the problem. Ronnie's goals were transparent: to give tax breaks and deregulation to all the new wealth created by the glorious postwar years. he said that removing middle class investment and giving the money back to the wealthy would translate into re-investment, innovation, and jobs -- indeed, the resulting economic activity of his historic tax cuts and omnivorous deregulation would lift all boats higher than any crippling welfare state. he was right to an extent: 40 years of liberalism punctuated by LBJs excessive Great Society had left you chaps with a bloated, inefficient mess.
but everybody knew ronnie and margaret were preaching voodoo, because at precisely the time they were promising more jobs, they quietly laid the foundation for a hyper-globalization, i.e., they were shipping jobs to cheaper labor markets. good bye middle class.
Tragically, "Morning in America" was created by deficit spending. It was an illusion born of credit cards and artificially cheap energy. (Please study the Reagan deficits. He was the first modern president to completely abandon pay-as-you-go. He set you folks on a voyage from which you would never return). When the money stopped tricking down, and the wealthy transferred their newfound wealth to decadent lifestyles and dynastic inheritances, the middle class was kept alive with creative debt instruments.
(and now you are lying in that bed)
regardless, you had a good run. but I fear in another 20 years your teeth will look like ours.
carter told you to worry about petroleum. he explained where an over dependence on the middle east would lead. ronnie said carter was just another "sky is falling" lefty trying to control the economy. what was reagan's first act as president? he tore down the solar panels on the white house roof. yes, he was heavily funded by big oil and big finance, but nobody is perfect. he opted to increase oil dependency at precisely the time he should have put on the breaks. in order to pull it off, he invested money you didn't have in a MASSIVE military system, i.e., big guns were needed NOT ONLY to stabilize the middle east, but to ensure the flow of capital and goods across an unstable globe. and he didn't price the pentagon into the pump, i.e., he muted what would have been strong price signals, i.e., don't kid yourself, once you include the cost of military extraction, the real cost of oil is unaffordable. too late now.
but yes, policing the globe ain't cheap, and washington has done well to hide the cost by blaming all your problems on social spending. Let's face it: you are borrowing yourself into oblivion to keep the empire going, and you have finally bumped into your borrowed against future. it gets worse: the cheap energy is gone, i.e., the very basis for your postwar suburban expansion was a bad bet. your entire infrastructure is now twisting in the wind, and it will slowly unravel. you spent the last 40 years not doing what carter begged you to do: create a plan B, or at least decrease your daily consumption of oil (slowly, over time) so you wouldn't be so exposed to rising costs. now you're stuck inside "the greatest misallocation resources in history", created by an over investment in a diminishing resource. you chose wrongly in 1980.
the U.S. has the largest consumption economy in history. to be healthy, your economy requires a certain level of middle class consumption. but your economic system -- free market neoliberalism -- is no friend of the middle class. don't kid yourself, the market HATES when a pampered labor market springs up along one of it's supply chains. Capital LOVES third world labor markets. middle class entitlements are way too expensive. . .
but I digress. reagan asked you good folks to discontinue everything being done to create a solvent middle class. [remember: in the 50s & 60s, you folks were buying TVs, cars, blenders, sofas, aluminum siding, lawn ornaments, and refrigerators in record numbers. You had the money because your government made sure that your immense manufacturing profits found their way down to the workers, who were supported handsomely with every manner of benefit, from high wages, cheap housing, education, medical and retirement... not to mention a thriving public sector of museums, parks, highways, public transportation, and public works. The old America invested heavily in the middle class, which lead to immense consumption and economic activity. [the economy does well when the middle class has money to buy things. Trickle up wealth! it dies when only the wealthy have money and the working classes are kept alive on subsistence wages and credit]
But, so . . . Ronnie told you nice folk that government no longer needed to worry about investment in the middle class. in fact, you were told that government involvement in the economy stagnated growth, i.e., no bureaucrat will ever possess enough information to regulate supply and demand effectively. only capitalism, driven by human nature itself, can calibrate incentives, investments, and resources effectively. Sadly: the big government which won WWII, put a man on the moon, and saved the gipper's father was now, conveniently, the problem. Ronnie's goals were transparent: to give tax breaks and deregulation to all the new wealth created by the glorious postwar years. he said that removing middle class investment and giving the money back to the wealthy would translate into re-investment, innovation, and jobs -- indeed, the resulting economic activity of his historic tax cuts and omnivorous deregulation would lift all boats higher than any crippling welfare state. he was right to an extent: 40 years of liberalism punctuated by LBJs excessive Great Society had left you chaps with a bloated, inefficient mess.
but everybody knew ronnie and margaret were preaching voodoo, because at precisely the time they were promising more jobs, they quietly laid the foundation for a hyper-globalization, i.e., they were shipping jobs to cheaper labor markets. good bye middle class.
Tragically, "Morning in America" was created by deficit spending. It was an illusion born of credit cards and artificially cheap energy. (Please study the Reagan deficits. He was the first modern president to completely abandon pay-as-you-go. He set you folks on a voyage from which you would never return). When the money stopped tricking down, and the wealthy transferred their newfound wealth to decadent lifestyles and dynastic inheritances, the middle class was kept alive with creative debt instruments.
(and now you are lying in that bed)
regardless, you had a good run. but I fear in another 20 years your teeth will look like ours.
carter told you to worry about petroleum. he explained where an over dependence on the middle east would lead. ronnie said carter was just another "sky is falling" lefty trying to control the economy. what was reagan's first act as president? he tore down the solar panels on the white house roof. yes, he was heavily funded by big oil and big finance, but nobody is perfect. he opted to increase oil dependency at precisely the time he should have put on the breaks. in order to pull it off, he invested money you didn't have in a MASSIVE military system, i.e., big guns were needed NOT ONLY to stabilize the middle east, but to ensure the flow of capital and goods across an unstable globe. and he didn't price the pentagon into the pump, i.e., he muted what would have been strong price signals, i.e., don't kid yourself, once you include the cost of military extraction, the real cost of oil is unaffordable. too late now.
but yes, policing the globe ain't cheap, and washington has done well to hide the cost by blaming all your problems on social spending. Let's face it: you are borrowing yourself into oblivion to keep the empire going, and you have finally bumped into your borrowed against future. it gets worse: the cheap energy is gone, i.e., the very basis for your postwar suburban expansion was a bad bet. your entire infrastructure is now twisting in the wind, and it will slowly unravel. you spent the last 40 years not doing what carter begged you to do: create a plan B, or at least decrease your daily consumption of oil (slowly, over time) so you wouldn't be so exposed to rising costs. now you're stuck inside "the greatest misallocation resources in history", created by an over investment in a diminishing resource. you chose wrongly in 1980.
Last edited:
Then it's safe to say that you don't know too many military people.
Wrong again.
I work with nothing but military and ex military.
don't think of it as re-distribution -- this is talk radio polemics, and it doesn't give you a good angle on your problem.
the U.S. has the largest consumption economy in history. to be healthy, your economy requires a certain level of middle class consumption. but your economic system -- free market neoliberalism -- is no friend of the middle class. don't kid yourself, the market HATES when a pampered labor market springs up along one of it's supply chains. Capital LOVES third world labor markets. middle class entitlements are way too expensive. . .
but I digress. reagan asked you good folks to discontinue everything being done to create a solvent middle class. [remember: in the 50s & 60s, you folks were buying TVs, cars, blenders, sofas, aluminum siding, lawn ornaments, and refrigerators in record numbers. You had the money because your government made sure that your immense manufacturing profits found their way down to the workers, who were supported handsomely with every manner of benefit, from high wages, cheap housing, education, medical and retirement... not to mention a thriving public sector of museums, parks, highways, public transportation, and public works. The old America invested heavily in the middle class, which lead to immense consumption and economic activity. [the economy does well when the middle class has money to buy things. Trickle up wealth! it dies when only the wealthy have money and the working classes are kept alive on subsistence wages and credit]
But, so . . . Ronnie told you nice folk that government no longer needed to worry about investment in the middle class. in fact, you were told that government involvement in the economy stagnated growth, i.e., no bureaucrat will ever possess enough information to regulate supply and demand effectively. only capitalism, driven by human nature itself, can calibrate incentives, investments, and resources effectively. Sadly: the big government which won WWII, put a man on the moon, and saved the gipper's father was now, conveniently, the problem. Ronnie's goals were transparent: to give tax breaks and deregulation to all the new wealth created by the glorious postwar years. he said that removing middle class investment and giving the money back to the wealthy would translate into re-investment, innovation, and jobs -- indeed, the resulting economic activity of his historic tax cuts and omnivorous deregulation would lift all boats higher than any crippling welfare state. he was right to an extent: 40 years of liberalism punctuated by LBJs excessive Great Society had left you chaps with a bloated, inefficient mess.
but everybody knew ronnie and margaret were preaching voodoo, because at precisely the time they were promising more jobs, they quietly laid the foundation for a hyper-globalization, i.e., they were shipping jobs to cheaper labor markets. good bye middle class.
Tragically, "Morning in America" was created by deficit spending. It was an illusion born of credit cards and artificially cheap energy. (Please study the Reagan deficits. He was the first modern president to completely abandon pay-as-you-go. He set you folks on a voyage from which you would never return). When the money stopped tricking down, and the wealthy transferred their newfound wealth to decadent lifestyles and dynastic inheritances, the middle class was kept alive with creative debt instruments.
(and now you are lying in that bed)
regardless, you had a good run. but I fear in another 20 years your teeth will look like ours.
carter told you to worry about petroleum. he explained where an over dependence on the middle east would lead. ronnie said carter was just another "sky is falling" lefty trying to control the economy. what was reagan's first act as president? he tore down the solar panels on the white house roof. yes, he was heavily funded by big oil and big finance, but nobody is perfect. he opted to increase oil dependency at precisely the time he should have put on the breaks. in order to pull it off, he invested money you didn't have in a MASSIVE military system, i.e., big guns were needed NOT ONLY to stabilize the middle east, but to ensure the flow of capital and goods across an unstable globe. and he didn't price the pentagon into the pump, i.e., he muted what would have been strong price signals, i.e., don't kid yourself, once you include the cost of military extraction, the real cost of oil is unaffordable. too late now.
but yes, policing the globe ain't cheap, and washington has done well to hide the cost by blaming all your problems on social spending. Let's face it: you are borrowing yourself into oblivion to keep the empire going, and you have finally bumped into your borrowed against future. it gets worse: the cheap energy is gone, i.e., the very basis for your postwar suburban expansion was a bad bet. your entire infrastructure is now twisting in the wind, and it will slowly unravel. you spent the last 40 years not doing what carter begged you to do: create a plan B, or at least decrease your daily consumption of oil (slowly, over time) so you wouldn't be so exposed to rising costs. now you're stuck inside "the greatest misallocation resources in history", created by an over investment in a diminishing resource. you chose wrongly in 1980.
That's it exactly.
And we can pull out of this hole by repealing the Bush tax cuts, cutting our military budget, getting the fuck out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and switching to alternative energy and more fuel efficient cars.
MaggieMae
Reality bits
- Apr 3, 2009
- 24,043
- 1,635
- 48
The idea is to make private insurance so prohibitively expensive that it drives everyone to Big Daddy Big Gubmint for their coverage....From that point, a takeover of the entire industry is only inevitable, under the phony rubric of "See?...The market just doesn't work."If you don't think totally federalized and socialized "free" medical services isn't the end game, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.
I am sure many want that as their "end game".
However, this bill is the furtherest from that as night and day,black and white.
This bill mandates PRIVATE INSURANCE, more of the same old same old.
I know there are many that want what you claim but please point to ANY evidence in this bill that proves that.
Wanna buy a bridge?
The bill forces private insurance companies to be more competitive. Isn't that what capitalism is all about?
Againsheila
Gold Member
Check out this thread and note how many Liberal Democrats SUPPORT the concept of the US Government STEALING private citizens wealth. Yet they insist they are not socialist.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/124697-wealth-inequality-how-it-affects-the-economy.html
Freedom? No not if democrats had their way.
1) I'm not a democrat.
2) the wealthy didn't get there by themselves, they got there off the backs of the working people...it only makes sense that they should share enough of their wealth to give every working person a living wage.
MaggieMae
Reality bits
- Apr 3, 2009
- 24,043
- 1,635
- 48
rddean
Member #20394
"No one is better at getting Republicans to vote against their own self interests. We are paying the least amount of taxes in 50 years, and Republicans are screaming they are being over taxed. It's pathetic. They're pathetic."
No what's pathetic is that I have any money left from my pay check.How dare I take money home to spend on my needs.All my money should go to the state because who knows better then the state how to spend my money.I love these Libs who bitch about companies making money....I can't remember the last time I got a job from a poor man.Oh wait a second I can....Never.
More bumper sticker mentality.
I thought some of you people were making the argument that poor people could, if they desired, be as successful as rich people. Now you're suggesting that's not possible.
Although the story of Christopher Gardner is well-known (they made a movie "The Pursuit of Happyness"), he is a person who was homeless AND responsible for his child at the same time, but through perserverence and extreme hardship, went on to ultimately build his own brokerage house, Gardner Rich & Co in Chicago. I'm sure that one poor guy hired more than a few employees.
MaggieMae
Reality bits
- Apr 3, 2009
- 24,043
- 1,635
- 48
Then it's safe to say that you don't know too many military people.
It's much safer to say that you're full of shit--the quintessential right wing hack. And HACK would be accurate in describing you, although I normally hate the word.
Wowzers... Yet another a stunning and fact-pact post by Naggie. 
Economically speaking, competition and force are mutually exclusive terms, you ignorant fifth columnist hack.The idea is to make private insurance so prohibitively expensive that it drives everyone to Big Daddy Big Gubmint for their coverage....From that point, a takeover of the entire industry is only inevitable, under the phony rubric of "See?...The market just doesn't work."I am sure many want that as their "end game".
However, this bill is the furtherest from that as night and day,black and white.
This bill mandates PRIVATE INSURANCE, more of the same old same old.
I know there are many that want what you claim but please point to ANY evidence in this bill that proves that.
Wanna buy a bridge?
The bill forces private insurance companies to be more competitive. Isn't that what capitalism is all about?
Yeah, well old Naggie is as gullible as the day is long and dumber than a bag of hammers.
Par for the course.
Par for the course.
- Feb 12, 2007
- 59,384
- 24,018
- 2,290
Yeah. The government "Forcing" economic activity is the antithesis of Capitalism and Free Markets - a fact lost on those who refuse to see how Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the FHA are at ground zero of the financial crisis. And now the Obamanoids want to ruin health care the way they have the housing sector.
It's funny to see someone defend a situation which mandates that insurers all offer the same "one size fits all plan" which is further restricted via price controls as "competition".
So the criticism that there aren't enough cost controls has now morphed into its antithesis, "there are price controls!" How do I reconcile this with the claims in other threads that premiums are now skyrocketing? Perhaps I'll stop worrying and learn to love angry inconsistent talking points.
Premiums are skyrocketing in anticipation of extremely high risks being forced into the risk pool....As was all too predictable.
So much for authoritarian central control "controlling costs"....Well controlling them in a manner that brings them down , anyways.
So much for authoritarian central control "controlling costs"....Well controlling them in a manner that brings them down , anyways.
Premiums are skyrocketing in anticipation of extremely high risks being forced into the risk pool....As was all too predictable.
So much for authoritarian central control "controlling costs"....Well controlling them in a manner that brings them down , anyways.
Every other industrialized nation in the world has national health insurance, and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare.
Why don't you do some reading about how they control costs and cover everyone?
Irrelevant brain dead talking point is still irrelevant.
The bald-faced lie was that costs were going to be contained rather than skyrocketing, like they have.
The bald-faced lie was that costs were going to be contained rather than skyrocketing, like they have.
Charles_Main
AR15 Owner
Premiums are skyrocketing in anticipation of extremely high risks being forced into the risk pool....As was all too predictable.
So much for authoritarian central control "controlling costs"....Well controlling them in a manner that brings them down , anyways.
Every other industrialized nation in the world has national health insurance, and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare.
Why don't you do some reading about how they control costs and cover everyone?
This health care bill is not National Health insurance, or Universal Health care in any way shape or form.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 178
- Views
- 1K
- Replies
- 39
- Views
- 473
- Replies
- 102
- Views
- 1K
- Replies
- 1
- Views
- 114
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 6
- Views
- 24
- Replies
- 285
- Views
- 2K
- Replies
- 0
- Views
- 1
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8073
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 471
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-