So how much Gov is 2 much Gov?

[Mr.Fitnah]

When people have to work for four months out of the year to feed the government that interfers with personal liberty.
UHN will put corruptible price tags on health care If you dont have the right party affiliation or know the right people, you wont get care.


Ultimately, the complete lives system does not create “classes of Untermenschen whose lives and well being are deemed not worth spending money on”,91 but rather empowers us to decide fairly whom to save when genuine scarcity makes saving everyone impossible.
Principles for allocation of scarce medical interventions : The Lancet

 

[nodoginnafight]

When people have to work for four months out of the year to feed the government that interfers with personal liberty.
UHN will put corruptible price tags on health care If you dont have the right party affiliation or know the right people, you wont get care.

I agree whole-heartly with your first point about heavy taxation and overspending. It should be addressed. I'm not sure everyone agrees about which expenditures are expendable however.

Your second point - about having to belong to the correct party to get healthcare - well, I see absolutely no justification for the concern, but obviously, people are free to be concerned about what they want to be concerned about.

I personally think, however, that there is a lot more documentation and evidence to support concerns about global warming than there is to support fear of "party affiliation based healthcare."

But I'd like to add that I respect you right to disagree and appreciate the opportunity to discuss it with you respectfully.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

When people have to work for four months out of the year to feed the government that interfers with personal liberty.
UHN will put corruptible price tags on health care If you dont have the right party affiliation or know the right people, you wont get care.

I agree whole-heartly with your first point about heavy taxation and overspending. It should be addressed. I'm not sure everyone agrees about which expenditures are expendable however.

Your second point - about having to belong to the correct party to get healthcare - well, I see absolutely no justification for the concern, but obviously, people are free to be concerned about what they want to be concerned about.

I personally think, however, that there is a lot more documentation and evidence to support concerns about global warming than there is to support fear of "party affiliation based healthcare."

But I'd like to add that I respect you right to disagree and appreciate the opportunity to discuss it with you respectfully.

I support smaller government .
Man made global warming is another issue, now it is called climate change cause it is getting cooler,It jut another control mechanism . for another forum and another thread.

History leads me to conclude that desire for power and personal weakness will lead people to divide and conquer, party lines are one division there are many others like wealth race and education.
I find no benefit of name calling or insults in exploring ideas.

 

[nodoginnafight]

I find no benefit of name calling or insults in exploring ideas.

I really enjoy kicking it around with folks like you. Even if I don't agree 100%

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Since the left wing has no problem that I have seen with
Cap and trade,
Health care regulation
Acorn becoming part of the government
A line item in the stimulus package - under the heading "neighborhood stabilization activities" - sets aside $4.19 billion for low-income advocacy groups such as ACORN.
Tarp spending
Bail outs and
neo-facsim .
I want to know how much government is to much and what is a fair federal tax rate for a family of 3 making 50,000 dollars a year?

What shouldn't the Government do for people ?

Thanks?

What shouldn't the govt do for the people:

Wait i got an easier question.....what should the govt (federal) do for the people:

1) protect us from foreign threats
2) stay out of our way/lives

State govt:

1) Roads, Police, schools, fire.
2) Anything their local constituents vote them to do and nothing more.


Real simple if you live under the rules of a constitutional republic .

 

[Oddball]

The problem is people inventing rights which there by diminishes the true rights.

Are you saying that to preserve rights, we need to take some away?

What he's saying is that in order to create special "civil" rights by fiat for favored constituencies, you end up squeezing out the natural unalienable rights of all.

By definition, the rights of every man precede and are superior to all governments.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Dude: Thanks, but he has clarified to me what he was saying himself. And I've really enjoyed the exchange.

 

[editec]

Thanks.

So are saying that you feel the force, the impact, and the value of our "real" rights have been diluted by the "invention" of "illegitimate" rights?

I believe the cavalier way government spends money has a negative affect on my pursuits and liberty, I believe UHC will have a negative effect on life.

Well finally, something we can both agree on.

Yes, the government certainly spends far too much money.

We can probably agree to disagree on specifics of what is wasted spending and what is not, but at least we can agree on the basic premise that our government is out of control.

 

[Oddball]

Ok, I hear you. The imagined right of government to spend money has a negative impact on your real right to liberty?
And UHC (an imagined right for all to receive health care) will have a negative impact on your life?

I don't see the connections. Can you explain how?

Properly defined, rights don't impose obligations upon others to perform for you to enjoy the right. For example, the completely specious "right" to medical care imposes a burden upon the fit, to mitigate and pay for the health consequences of the lifestyles of the obese.

The "how does that impact you life" argument is a red herring.

 

[editec]

Ok, I hear you. The imagined right of government to spend money has a negative impact on your real right to liberty?
And UHC (an imagined right for all to receive health care) will have a negative impact on your life?

I don't see the connections. Can you explain how?

Properly defined, rights don't impose obligations upon others to perform for you to enjoy the right. For example, the completely specious "right" to medical care imposes a burden upon the fit, to mitigate and pay for the health consequences of the lifestyles of the obese.

That is very true.

Just as the "right" not to have our nation invaded imposes a burden on the fit to go out and defend our nation in times of war.

Having been one of the last Americans who faced (and lost) the draft lottery, I completely understand why you might, as an American, feel somewhat put out that you might be asked to stand and deliver when others (who can not stand and deliver) aren't being so asked.

Civilization tends to do that sort of unfair thing to some of us, doesn't it?

The strong much protest the weak, the wealthy must help the poor, the young must help the aged.

It's all very terrible, isn't it?

Perhaps we were better off when we lived in anarchy and only the strong and swift won the race.

I understand that utopia is still available to people in Somalia.

You migh consider moving there to be finally free of these egregious obligations that society is imposing on you.

Let me know if you need directions for getting there.

I'll be happy to oblige.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Ok, I hear you. The imagined right of government to spend money has a negative impact on your real right to liberty?
And UHC (an imagined right for all to receive health care) will have a negative impact on your life?

I don't see the connections. Can you explain how?

Properly defined, rights don't impose obligations upon others to perform for you to enjoy the right. For example, the completely specious "right" to medical care imposes a burden upon the fit, to mitigate and pay for the health consequences of the lifestyles of the obese.

The "how does that impact you life" argument is a red herring.

Dude, thanks and I appreciate your input, but I'd prefer to wait and let him answer the questions I asked him for himself. I'm not trying to be offensive, I appreciate your input.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

I was pretty sure I already answered

 

[pal_of_poor]

The federal government is huge, no matter who is in charge. I wish we hadn't wasted all the money for half a century getting stuck in all these wars, and spent vast sums on defense, only to attack other countries, or involve ourselves in their civil wars. But some disagree, and they spend the money. I have no control over this big government spending, and by the same token, some advocate our spending on social issues, like getting health care to those who don't have it. I fully support these, and some people could care less, have no values, and are willing to let people die, in hopes that they will benefit somehow, or that it will fit in their narrow little construct of what they think things should be.

But one shouldn't miss the fact that eight of the ten Trillion in debt we've accrued has been built during republican administrations, and are largely due to tax cuts for the rich, in a time when we were already in debt. It's like a guy having two jobs, barely paying his bills, still going further into debt, and deciding in the midst of all that, to quit his jobs (the tax cuts are).

We should all be more concerned with collecting enough in taxes, to pay the bills, and realize that we all have different priorities. I say tax the people who have tripled their wealth in the last thirty years, at least until the debt is paid off, and we are no longer in the wars. That's what FDR did, he had a 91 percent tax rate on the top earners.

Honest enough?

 

[pal_of_poor]

Ok, I hear you. The imagined right of government to spend money has a negative impact on your real right to liberty?
And UHC (an imagined right for all to receive health care) will have a negative impact on your life?

I don't see the connections. Can you explain how?

Properly defined, rights don't impose obligations upon others to perform for you to enjoy the right. For example, the completely specious "right" to medical care imposes a burden upon the fit, to mitigate and pay for the health consequences of the lifestyles of the obese.

That is very true.

Just as the "right" not to have our nation invaded imposes a burden on the fit to go out and defend our nation in times of war.

Having been one of the last Americans who faced (and lost) the draft lottery, I completely understand why you might, as an American, feel somewhat put out that you might be asked to stand and deliver when others (who can not stand and deliver) aren't being so asked.

Civilization tends to do that sort of unfair thing to some of us, doesn't it?

The strong much protest the weak, the wealthy must help the poor, the young must help the aged.

It's all very terrible, isn't it?

Perhaps we were better off when we lived in anarchy and only the strong and swift won the race.

I understand that utopia is still available to people in Somalia.

You migh consider moving there to be finally free of these egregious obligations that society is imposing on you.

Let me know if you need directions for getting there.

I'll be happy to oblige.

I always point out that the HBO series Deadwood, is the idyllic Republican Dream, a world without taxation, and one where you can just shoot someone and feed them to the hogs, and no one will bother you. A world where sewage runs freely in unpaved streets.

People should focus more on what their taxes do, as well as how much they have left over after they pay taxes. I know as much as the top income group pays, they've still got a ton of money left. So why all the whining? Want to get into a lower tax group--get a job at Hardee's. You'll be happy then, paying such a small amount in taxes....oh wait, that's right, you won't have those hundreds of thousands left, will you. How would that work for you. Rich folks have turned into such ingrates.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

Yeah that war of poverty really paid off.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Yeah that war of poverty really paid off.

For some people it did.

But I guess the same can be said for the war on drugs, the war on Vietnam, the war on Iraq, etc .......

 

[nodoginnafight]

I wonder if some wars are worth fighting even if it is clear that you cannot completely vanquish your foe?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

I wonder if some wars are worth fighting even if it is clear that you cannot completely vanquish your foe?

I say yes, if it matters to you you should always fight....even if victory seems or is impossible.

 

[Ringel05]

I wonder if some wars are worth fighting even if it is clear that you cannot completely vanquish your foe?

Personally I find it's preferable to rolling over an playing dead.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

I wonder if some wars are worth fighting even if it is clear that you cannot completely vanquish your foe?

Personally I find it's preferable to rolling over an playing dead.

I knew i'd agree with a post of yours eventually