Socialized medicine does not work...

[Maryland Patriot]

It can't work, because the deadbeats will always abuse the system every time…

In socialized medicine, there are no deadbeats, except for people who don't pay their taxes, like Donald Trump.

how about the ones that pay no taxes because they are already sucking off the taxpayer for their welfare.
Kinda makes them a double deadbeat if you ask me.

Oh, shaddup. I'm sick of hearing about you stingy assholes and your welfare whining.

well to be honest, we are somewhat sick of you thieving bastards constantly trying to take more of what is rightfully ours to pay for your free lifestyle.
I guess it all depends on how much self respect you have, if you have none, then you have no problem stealing other peoples labor.

Amble over to the nearest rosebush, sit and ROTATE. I've never taken anything from the government. People like you hurt the conservative argument more than you help it with your stupid overgeneralizations.

never taken from the government? Somehow I doubt it, but lets for a moment pretend that you have not.
You still think it ok to take needed dollars from one person against their will in order to give it to someone that refuses to provide for themselves.
That, is theft.
considering that social programs are basically 70% of the U.S governments expense, I would have to say that if I were to get 70% of my taxes back, it would pay for a new car.
So, your social programs have cost people a great deal. Its not fair. If I earn it, I should be able to spend it as I please. The only things that should be covered by taxpayers are those things that are specifically listed in the constitution as a duty of the government to provide. Nothing more. all social programs should be charity based.

 

[Dragonlady]

those jobs are meant for high school kids, high school kids do not need a living wage. If you want a living wage then get training in a specific field or an education that will qualify you for a career job. You start paying the cashier at the fast food place a living wage and it wont be long before that fast food place is out of business.
I know you think the owner of that fast food franchise is getting rich, but the reality is that he is not, in some cases, the owner might not even make much more than a living wage. People like you that think every job can pay enough to raise a family on has no clue what it costs to run a business.
How about a grocery store? should everyone there make a living wage? where will that money come from? grocery stores only operate on about a 2% profit margin, so where is the money to double or triple everyones wages coming from? oh thats right, raise the price of the food they sell. but wait, if they do that, then that new living wage wont be enough to buy the food at the higher prices.
How about we just accept the fact that not everyone has put enough into their education to qualify for a living wage.

Jobs in fast food outlets are not meant for high school kids. If they were, they'd be closed during school hours. I'm not suggesting that one should be able to raise a family on a minimum wage job, but it should pay enough to pay rent and buy food for the worker. Currently even those things have to be subsidized for the workers.

Fast food franchisees aren't getting rich but the executives at MacDonald's and Burger King sure are. Those are some of the most profitable corporations in America. Seems like the corporate headquarters take all of the profits, leaving the people who actually make and sell the burgers with little to show for their work.

4% of gross sales is what the McDonalds corporation takes from its Franchises. 4%. really is not that much.
oh, and they would be closed during the school hours, not really, there are also college kids, kids with half days, kids that dont have classes every day (those are the smarter kids)

I worked with franchise agreements, including McDonalds. Yes, they pay 4% of sales for a franchise fee, but the stores are also owned by head office and rented to the franchisee. The store owner pays a huge upfront fee and buys a turnkey operation, paying rent for the store, in addition to franchise fees, and rent is not static.

Rent is paid as a flat amount or as a percentage of sales. The advertizing and promotion fee is not less than 4% of sales. That's in addition to the 4% basis franchise fee. There are also monthly fees for software licenses and support, which can add around $1,000 per month to the fees payable.

So yes, really, head office skills off every dollar imagineable. And if the owner falls behind on these payments, well, the corporation owns the store. They'll simply evict him and put someone else in there who can upfront the close to $1 million in startup capital.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

those jobs are meant for high school kids, high school kids do not need a living wage. If you want a living wage then get training in a specific field or an education that will qualify you for a career job. You start paying the cashier at the fast food place a living wage and it wont be long before that fast food place is out of business.
I know you think the owner of that fast food franchise is getting rich, but the reality is that he is not, in some cases, the owner might not even make much more than a living wage. People like you that think every job can pay enough to raise a family on has no clue what it costs to run a business.
How about a grocery store? should everyone there make a living wage? where will that money come from? grocery stores only operate on about a 2% profit margin, so where is the money to double or triple everyones wages coming from? oh thats right, raise the price of the food they sell. but wait, if they do that, then that new living wage wont be enough to buy the food at the higher prices.
How about we just accept the fact that not everyone has put enough into their education to qualify for a living wage.

Jobs in fast food outlets are not meant for high school kids. If they were, they'd be closed during school hours. I'm not suggesting that one should be able to raise a family on a minimum wage job, but it should pay enough to pay rent and buy food for the worker. Currently even those things have to be subsidized for the workers.

Fast food franchisees aren't getting rich but the executives at MacDonald's and Burger King sure are. Those are some of the most profitable corporations in America. Seems like the corporate headquarters take all of the profits, leaving the people who actually make and sell the burgers with little to show for their work.

4% of gross sales is what the McDonalds corporation takes from its Franchises. 4%. really is not that much.
oh, and they would be closed during the school hours, not really, there are also college kids, kids with half days, kids that dont have classes every day (those are the smarter kids)

I worked with franchise agreements, including McDonalds. Yes, they pay 4% of sales for a franchise fee, but the stores are also owned by head office and rented to the franchisee. The store owner pays a huge upfront fee and buys a turnkey operation, paying rent for the store, in addition to franchise fees, and rent is not static.

Rent is paid as a flat amount or as a percentage of sales. The advertizing and promotion fee is not less than 4% of sales. That's in addition to the 4% basis franchise fee. There are also monthly fees for software licenses and support, which can add around $1,000 per month to the fees payable.

So yes, really, head office skills off every dollar imagineable. And if the owner falls behind on these payments, well, the corporation owns the store. They'll simply evict him and put someone else in there who can upfront the close to $1 million in startup capital.

some stores are corporate owned, some shareholder owned and some are owned by the actual proprietor of the store, or Privately.
There are options to having a McDonalds. Those that are owned privately can not be taken by the corporation, the corporation can take down the signs and force changes to any other patented facet of the organization, I dont know but maybe the color scheme or the arches, whatever, but the owner would lose the right to sell as McDonalds however he would have the right to turn his store into anything he wanted once the signs were all down.

 

[Dragonlady]

those jobs are meant for high school kids, high school kids do not need a living wage. If you want a living wage then get training in a specific field or an education that will qualify you for a career job. You start paying the cashier at the fast food place a living wage and it wont be long before that fast food place is out of business.
I know you think the owner of that fast food franchise is getting rich, but the reality is that he is not, in some cases, the owner might not even make much more than a living wage. People like you that think every job can pay enough to raise a family on has no clue what it costs to run a business.
How about a grocery store? should everyone there make a living wage? where will that money come from? grocery stores only operate on about a 2% profit margin, so where is the money to double or triple everyones wages coming from? oh thats right, raise the price of the food they sell. but wait, if they do that, then that new living wage wont be enough to buy the food at the higher prices.
How about we just accept the fact that not everyone has put enough into their education to qualify for a living wage.

Jobs in fast food outlets are not meant for high school kids. If they were, they'd be closed during school hours. I'm not suggesting that one should be able to raise a family on a minimum wage job, but it should pay enough to pay rent and buy food for the worker. Currently even those things have to be subsidized for the workers.

Fast food franchisees aren't getting rich but the executives at MacDonald's and Burger King sure are. Those are some of the most profitable corporations in America. Seems like the corporate headquarters take all of the profits, leaving the people who actually make and sell the burgers with little to show for their work.

4% of gross sales is what the McDonalds corporation takes from its Franchises. 4%. really is not that much.
oh, and they would be closed during the school hours, not really, there are also college kids, kids with half days, kids that dont have classes every day (those are the smarter kids)

I worked with franchise agreements, including McDonalds. Yes, they pay 4% of sales for a franchise fee, but the stores are also owned by head office and rented to the franchisee. The store owner pays a huge upfront fee and buys a turnkey operation, paying rent for the store, in addition to franchise fees, and rent is not static.

Rent is paid as a flat amount or as a percentage of sales. The advertizing and promotion fee is not less than 4% of sales. That's in addition to the 4% basis franchise fee. There are also monthly fees for software licenses and support, which can add around $1,000 per month to the fees payable.

So yes, really, head office skills off every dollar imagineable. And if the owner falls behind on these payments, well, the corporation owns the store. They'll simply evict him and put someone else in there who can upfront the close to $1 million in startup capital.

some stores are corporate owned, some shareholder owned and some are owned by the actual proprietor of the store, or Privately.
There are options to having a McDonalds. Those that are owned privately can not be taken by the corporation, the corporation can take down the signs and force changes to any other patented facet of the organization, I dont know but maybe the color scheme or the arches, whatever, but the owner would lose the right to sell as McDonalds however he would have the right to turn his store into anything he wanted once the signs were all down.

McDonald's owners have complained for years that corporate lives in a parallel universe and have no understanding of the realities of today's fast food business. With their multi-million dollar salaries they have been effectively poisoning generations of Americans unchallenged. Now with stories of disgusting pink goo being used in their foods, and who can forget the stuff that came out in "Supersize Me", well, it's a really bad time for corporate to screw over the franchisees and claim huge profits.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

those jobs are meant for high school kids, high school kids do not need a living wage. If you want a living wage then get training in a specific field or an education that will qualify you for a career job. You start paying the cashier at the fast food place a living wage and it wont be long before that fast food place is out of business.
I know you think the owner of that fast food franchise is getting rich, but the reality is that he is not, in some cases, the owner might not even make much more than a living wage. People like you that think every job can pay enough to raise a family on has no clue what it costs to run a business.
How about a grocery store? should everyone there make a living wage? where will that money come from? grocery stores only operate on about a 2% profit margin, so where is the money to double or triple everyones wages coming from? oh thats right, raise the price of the food they sell. but wait, if they do that, then that new living wage wont be enough to buy the food at the higher prices.
How about we just accept the fact that not everyone has put enough into their education to qualify for a living wage.

Jobs in fast food outlets are not meant for high school kids. If they were, they'd be closed during school hours. I'm not suggesting that one should be able to raise a family on a minimum wage job, but it should pay enough to pay rent and buy food for the worker. Currently even those things have to be subsidized for the workers.

Fast food franchisees aren't getting rich but the executives at MacDonald's and Burger King sure are. Those are some of the most profitable corporations in America. Seems like the corporate headquarters take all of the profits, leaving the people who actually make and sell the burgers with little to show for their work.

4% of gross sales is what the McDonalds corporation takes from its Franchises. 4%. really is not that much.
oh, and they would be closed during the school hours, not really, there are also college kids, kids with half days, kids that dont have classes every day (those are the smarter kids)

I worked with franchise agreements, including McDonalds. Yes, they pay 4% of sales for a franchise fee, but the stores are also owned by head office and rented to the franchisee. The store owner pays a huge upfront fee and buys a turnkey operation, paying rent for the store, in addition to franchise fees, and rent is not static.

Rent is paid as a flat amount or as a percentage of sales. The advertizing and promotion fee is not less than 4% of sales. That's in addition to the 4% basis franchise fee. There are also monthly fees for software licenses and support, which can add around $1,000 per month to the fees payable.

So yes, really, head office skills off every dollar imagineable. And if the owner falls behind on these payments, well, the corporation owns the store. They'll simply evict him and put someone else in there who can upfront the close to $1 million in startup capital.

some stores are corporate owned, some shareholder owned and some are owned by the actual proprietor of the store, or Privately.
There are options to having a McDonalds. Those that are owned privately can not be taken by the corporation, the corporation can take down the signs and force changes to any other patented facet of the organization, I dont know but maybe the color scheme or the arches, whatever, but the owner would lose the right to sell as McDonalds however he would have the right to turn his store into anything he wanted once the signs were all down.

McDonald's owners have complained for years that corporate lives in a parallel universe and have no understanding of the realities of today's fast food business. With their multi-million dollar salaries they have been effectively poisoning generations of Americans unchallenged. Now with stories of disgusting pink goo being used in their foods, and who can forget the stuff that came out in "Supersize Me", well, it's a really bad time for corporate to screw over the franchisees and claim huge profits.

could be, generally speaking I rarely eat at any fast food place. Not so much because of the pink goo,, although, that is another good reason, but more for health. I just dont think that type of diet is healthy for me.

 

[Dragonlady]

could be, generally speaking I rarely eat at any fast food place. Not so much because of the pink goo,, although, that is another good reason, but more for health. I just dont think that type of diet is healthy for me.

I never eat at McDonalds. When they first opened, I went a few times, and got violently ill for three days after. I stopped eating there - ever. I have some sort of inherited sensitivity to chemicals in food and have eaten organic or close to it, all of my life. McDonald's is the only fast food I've ever eaten that I have consistently had this reaction to.

For burger's, #1 are Hero Burgers, and #2 is Harvey's, #3 White Spot. All are Canadian chains. Harvey's is a national Canadian chain, Hero Burgers I've never seen outside of Toronto and Hamilton, and White Spot is in British Columbia. Wendy's is the only American Burger chain, I'll eat. Burger King is only marginally better than McDonalds in that it doesn't make me ill for three days after eating it, but it doesn't taste good.

 

[Dragonlady]

In socialized medicine, there are no deadbeats, except for people who don't pay their taxes, like Donald Trump.

There's also no incentive to "abuse" the system. Medical care is a given. If you're sick you go to the doctor. You're not going to get a bill for it or have to complete paperwork to do so. You just call the office and make an appointment, or walk into emergency.

and then wait 6 months for your appointment.
I like the way it is or was before the ACA screwed everything up. I would call and get a same day appointment, most I ever waited for a specialist was 5 days,

There's also no incentive to "abuse" the system. Medical care is a given. If you're sick you go to the doctor. You're not going to get a bill for it or have to complete paperwork to do so. You just call the office and make an appointment, or walk into emergency.

I'm so jealous. I was 100% behind it when I voted for Obama. That's what I thought I was going to get. Then we get this shambles of a mess instead.

might not be so jealous if you actually looked at how it was funded. You think fuel is expensive here? look at some places like NZ where a gallon of fuel is close to $7.00 due to taxes to cover the cost of the "free" health care.

I was willing to have a bigger hunk of my paycheck eaten. At least it would have been worth something if we had universal healthcare.

I would be willing to have a greater amount taken from my check if it went toward a wall and the cost of finding and deporting all of the illegals.
Hopefully that will come soon.

I'm sure that will happen (a greater amount taken from our checks). Yes, I heard on the news this a.m. that Trump is ordering the hiring of 15,000 more border guards and people to process the illegals. It's out of my hands; what will be will be.

How can Trump hire 15,000 border guards without asking Congress for an appropriation? He still hasn't filed an appropriation request for his wall yet.

 

[Dr Grump]

How about we just accept the fact that not everyone has put enough into their education to qualify for a living wage.

So they should be thrown on the scrap heap of society?

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Do 'pro-life' Republicans want 6-year-old Timmy Morrison to die along with Obamacare?

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

How about we just accept the fact that not everyone has put enough into their education to qualify for a living wage.

So they should be thrown on the scrap heap of society?

that would be a "mighty white" thing to do ....the Christian thing

 

[NCC1701]

https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/2016/709letter_DI_Senate_2016.pdf

So after responding to the mindless crap here, I happen to notice this letter to the Senate. The trustees are required by law, to inform congress, when reserves are going to fall below 20% of expenses. That is happening right now for Disability Insurance, and the rest later.

View attachment 113340
Only a mindless left winger can see a graph showing 0% as a future outcome, and conclude.... "it's not going broke!".

Stop with the unending ignorance. The facts win, over your opinion.

Are you sincerely ignorant or conscientiously stupid? That is the question. Your graph validates everything I quoted the SSA positing on their website. Do you think hey would post a graph that contradicts their own report???? DUHHH! The zero represents the year the "reserves are depleted" but the system won't be "broke" because millions of workers will still be paying into it. And when all the baby boomers die out in the next 20 years or so, the reserves will start to rise again.
IN the interim, though, Congress will have to act by either raising the FICA taxes or reducing individual benefits in conjunction with raising the minimum retirement age.
Theer is another more diabolical option. The government might find some way to liquidate everyone over 60...

Only in mindless leftard world does "Trust fund with ZERO reserves" mean it's not broke.

You are too stupid to continue debating with.

If you are too stupid to understand that I am simply agreeing with the SSA's website, indeed you are too dense to continue debating. Stop taking things personally. If the SSA says it is not going broke and explained clearly why not, that ought to be enough for anyone to understand. that "going broke" phrase has led younger Americans to believe there won't be anything left when they reach retirement age. That is false.

As an aside, the process is far more complex than you might realize. As Baby boomers reach retirement age many are staying on the job and getting social security at the same time. But as long as they work they still have to pay income taxes ...HOWever, the LFPR reflects, among other things, that millions of BBs are retiring. And withTrump placing a freeze on Federal jobs, he is contributing to the projected shortfall of the Trust Funds by reducing the federal workforce where higher pay translates into more taxable income and more FICA tax volume. But it doesn't stop there. The private sector workforce growth is going to be curtailed too if Trump's immigration plan works-out. I don't know if anyone has stopped to think about how much income tax ad FICA revenue will be lost when the undocumented workers go.

No, your explanation is dumb. By your logic nearly no one in the entire country which has filed bankruptcy is broke.

In fact, I have co-worker right now, that filed bankruptcy. But he still has a job. So he still has income. So by your idiotic, and brainlessly stupid perspective..... he's not broke! He's never gone broke! Yes he has zero money in the bank, and all his assets are sold off now.... but no no, because he's got an income still... he's not broke!

No... he's broke. Having money coming in still, doesn't mean he's not broke. He's got no money in the bank or anywhere. Yes he still has just enough to keep fuel in the car so he can get to work, but he's lost everything. He's broke.

You.... are an idiot. You have proven to everyone here, you are disqualified to talk about this subject.

Thanks for playing. Have nice day.

How many times do I have to tell your dumbass that it is not MY LOGIC that you are wrestling with. BTW, you should know that bankruptcy is not the proper term for government shortfalls. You analogy is stupid

For other interested parties with common sense, not YOU Andylusion, be aware that when the reserves of the OAIS is depleted by 2034( I don't think Congress will allow that to happen) the income for those Trust Funds will be enough for 3/4 of obligations through year 2090. That is 56 years. Since inception the Trust Funds have collected bout 19 Trillion dollars and have paid out about 16 Trillion. That three trillion balance will sustain full benefit payouts until around 2034-37.

Since the inception of the Social Security program in 1935, scheduled benefits have always been paid on a timely basis through a series of modifications in the law that will continue. Social Security provides a basic level of monthly income to workers and their families after the workers have reached old age, become disabled, or died. The program now provides benefits to over 50 million people and is financed with the payroll taxes from over 150 million workers and their employers. Further modifications of the program are a certainty as the Congress continues to evolve and shape this program, reflecting the desires of each new generation.

This article describes the financial status of the Social Security program, including an analysis of the concepts of solvency and sustainability and the relationship of Social Security to the overall federal unified budget. The future is uncertain in many respects, and based on new information, projections of the financial status of the Social Security program vary somewhat over time. What is virtually certain is that the benefits that almost all Americans become entitled to and most depend on will be continued into the future with modifications deemed appropriate by their elected representatives in the Congress.

Here is the ink that some, like Andy, will read into and pick out portions alluding to insolvency. But the article gives an in depth look at how approaching insolvency issues were handled in the past and how they will likely be handled now and in the future to keep those checks coming. The Funds are not going to go broke, although to some, it appears that way right now, But that is nothing new, we have been there before and I am confident that Congress will rise to the occasion once again to keep the Funds solvent enough to keep paying full benefits well int the future. Again, a the risk of it being misread, and turned against me I submit the link with no hesitation or mental evasion.
Glean the knowledge herein and petition your congressperson to act to take measures to bolster the Trust RESERVES with all due haste as congress has done twice before.

The Future Financial Status of the Social Security Program

Yes of course liberal, it continues to 'evolve' by having to repeatedly raise taxes to save it, that's your sick version of 'progress'. I am in one of the first generations that will get less than I put into it in absolute dollar terms and each generation after me gets the shaft worse and worse. For those of us who can think that is a failure, but alas you cannot comprehend such subtleties.

 

[NCC1701]

It can't work, because the deadbeats will always abuse the system every time…

In socialized medicine, there are no deadbeats, except for people who don't pay their taxes, like Donald Trump.

There's also no incentive to "abuse" the system. Medical care is a given. If you're sick you go to the doctor. You're not going to get a bill for it or have to complete paperwork to do so. You just call the office and make an appointment, or walk into emergency.

and then wait 6 months for your appointment.
I like the way it is or was before the ACA screwed everything up. I would call and get a same day appointment, most I ever waited for a specialist was 5 days,

It can't work, because the deadbeats will always abuse the system every time…

In socialized medicine, there are no deadbeats, except for people who don't pay their taxes, like Donald Trump.

There's also no incentive to "abuse" the system. Medical care is a given. If you're sick you go to the doctor. You're not going to get a bill for it or have to complete paperwork to do so. You just call the office and make an appointment, or walk into emergency.

I'm so jealous. I was 100% behind it when I voted for Obama. That's what I thought I was going to get. Then we get this shambles of a mess instead.

might not be so jealous if you actually looked at how it was funded. You think fuel is expensive here? look at some places like NZ where a gallon of fuel is close to $7.00 due to taxes to cover the cost of the "free" health care.

I was willing to have a bigger hunk of my paycheck eaten. At least it would have been worth something if we had universal healthcare.

then pay it, I however am not so willing to keep getting ripped off

 

[NCC1701]

It can't work, because the deadbeats will always abuse the system every time…

In socialized medicine, there are no deadbeats, except for people who don't pay their taxes, like Donald Trump.

how can you people be this stupid?

 

[NCC1701]

oh I see, YOU determine the standard and if YOU are happy then we are set. I reject the idea that you are something special there snowflake, and let me be clear in my conversation with you, I am not bitching as much about your HC system as I could not really care less what you do down there, I am bitching about you specifically. You are a self-righteous asshole declaring your thoughts and health care system superior.

Another thing to get straight here dumbfuk, it is the left, with people like you, that is constantly bitching here in the states. A lot of them don't work, and guess who is spending their days protesting?

Unlike you Petal? Bitching? Have you been on here the past eight years? All you neo con loons have been doing is bitching and moaning.

**** off about not working you arrogant ****. White unemployed trailer trash are the ones who voted for the Orange Buffoon.

I'm not saying our healthcare is superior, I'm saying socialised medicine is not as bad as you little Petals say it is. I'm defending it because you nimrods don't have a clue what you are talking about.

We pay more for socialized medicine than you do on a per capita basis, so we are actually more socialized than you and it is a fiscal failure. We have twice as many people on disability, and therefore also Medicaid and Medicare, than you have population. We have more underperforming minorities as a percentage than you as well. I have been in a single payer single provider system in the military, and it sucks.

It is terrible, it never has enough money and all the left does is ***** that we need more of it. It is quite clear who the non working and non tax paying people vote for here in the US, care to correct that lie?

My ***** is with lefty pricks like you declaring it a success and demanding more of this failure.

 

[NCC1701]

I dont complain about taxes, I complain about the way they are wasted trying to keep those alive that serve no purpose to society.

And just who are YOU to judge the worthiness of any human?

If Im paying for them, Im buying the right to judge.
just like any employer has the right to judge the people he pays, just like any one has the right to judge anyone that they pay.
Dont want me to judge? dont force me to pay them.

An employer doesn't get to judge and determine if an employee is worthy of life. To suggest they can is as egregious as anything I have heard, especially when that judgement is biased and based on assumptions. And your tax dollars aren't yours once you send that check in. It belongs to all of us, and is at the disposal of those officials charged with distributing it as they see fit. That being said, we al judge people in one way or another; but, when your judgement turns potentially pathological to the point that you see other human beings as being unworthy of life, especially those you judge by appearance alone, you may need to see a psychiatrist.

But an employer does get to judge if he's worthy of pay.

I don't care what you think is pathological or not. If 51% say that you don't get our money, then you don't. Welcome to democracy idiot. That's it works.

And by the way... if you try and push this too far.... You end up with people keeping their money, no matter what you say. Again, look at Greece. As taxes went up and up, people paid less and less. Same is true here in America. It's called the shadow economy, where people simply refuse to pay tax, and there is nothing you can do about it. The shadow economy is worth an estimated $2 Trillion dollars. That's mechanics that do cash only backyard business. That's pipe fitters, and HVAC, that do work off the books.

The more you demand that our tax money is yours to have, the more of us simply refuse to pay it.

Yeah, we'll see how much you demand we pay for your programs in the years to come.

The discussion was about one of you RW homicidal maniacs entertaining the thought of liquidating people you deem unworthy of life for economic reasons.

nobody said anything about liquidating people you liar

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Do 'pro-life' Republicans want 6-year-old Timmy Morrison to die along with Obamacare?

evidently you all actually know his name, how come the liberals are going to let him die instead of sending him the money for care?
Any idea how ignorant it is to use a child as a disposable pawn in your fight for the "right" to steal more of the working peoples paycheck?
instead of using this as a political ploy, you really should see to it that the little tyke gets the care he needs, write that check today.
Unless of course this is bull shit, as I suspect it is since nobody has ever been denied health care because they couldnt pay.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

How about we just accept the fact that not everyone has put enough into their education to qualify for a living wage.

So they should be thrown on the scrap heap of society?

maybe they should get a job or an education like the rest of us that are stuck paying for the freeloaders.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

If Im paying for them, Im buying the right to judge.
just like any employer has the right to judge the people he pays, just like any one has the right to judge anyone that they pay.
Dont want me to judge? dont force me to pay them.

An employer doesn't get to judge and determine if an employee is worthy of life. To suggest they can is as egregious as anything I have heard, especially when that judgement is biased and based on assumptions. And your tax dollars aren't yours once you send that check in. It belongs to all of us, and is at the disposal of those officials charged with distributing it as they see fit. That being said, we al judge people in one way or another; but, when your judgement turns potentially pathological to the point that you see other human beings as being unworthy of life, especially those you judge by appearance alone, you may need to see a psychiatrist.

But an employer does get to judge if he's worthy of pay.

I don't care what you think is pathological or not. If 51% say that you don't get our money, then you don't. Welcome to democracy idiot. That's it works.

And by the way... if you try and push this too far.... You end up with people keeping their money, no matter what you say. Again, look at Greece. As taxes went up and up, people paid less and less. Same is true here in America. It's called the shadow economy, where people simply refuse to pay tax, and there is nothing you can do about it. The shadow economy is worth an estimated $2 Trillion dollars. That's mechanics that do cash only backyard business. That's pipe fitters, and HVAC, that do work off the books.

The more you demand that our tax money is yours to have, the more of us simply refuse to pay it.

Yeah, we'll see how much you demand we pay for your programs in the years to come.

The discussion was about one of you RW homicidal maniacs entertaining the thought of liquidating people you deem unworthy of life for economic reasons.

You want to pay for me, so I can quit my job, and live off your income? By all means, send me your checks, and practice what you preach.

It's pretty easy for you to demand others pay for the lives of everyone else. Funny how when it's your money, you don't do so well.

We have problem being FORCED to fund others. I have no problem with charity, and conservatives routinely give more to charity than you left-wingers ever do.

But forcing me to keep you alive, simply because you refuse to work? Yes, I agree with him on that. I'm a firm believer that if you don't work, you shouldn't eat.

By the way, all those Nordic countries you left-wingers all praise constantly, they don't do it your way either. They do it our way. I was looking up I think Denmark, and they don't have welfare at all... none. They have limited unemployment compensation. First you can't even collect until you work a full year. Then you only can collect if you are laid off, not if you quit, or are even relocated, and refuse to move. Then you can only collect for exactly one year, and if you don't work by then, you starve.

That's the kind of system I support. Not you. Not your welfare, leech of society living off the hard work of others for life, system that you propose and constantly push.

Go on, refuse to pay your tax obligation, I dare you! Besides going to prison, where you will be taken care of onMY DIME, how ironic. there are other ramifications.
If all Rw nuts stop paying their taxes, the left won't pay any either. Then guess what? Infrastructure starts to deteriorate; soldiers, teachers cops and firemen stop getting paid and walk off the job and we become sitting ducks for enemies who would pour through the unmanned ports of entry inTRUMP's wall!

at least you finally admit that the military and the police along with a well manned wall on the southern border is more important to the country than the freeloader that refuses to lift a finger to provide for themselves.
Progress is being made, before you know it, you will be voting American, (conservative)

 

[NCC1701]

How about we just accept the fact that not everyone has put enough into their education to qualify for a living wage.

So they should be thrown on the scrap heap of society?

they threw themselves there, so what?

 

[Maryland Patriot]

How about we just accept the fact that not everyone has put enough into their education to qualify for a living wage.

So they should be thrown on the scrap heap of society?

they threw themselves there, so what?

they really did, however again, nobody goes without care if they need it. Maybe someone can give me a link to a hospital that wheeled patients out the back door that were not ready to leave simply because they did not have insurance. ( excluding michelle obamas way of doing it, becuase,, well, she is a liberal and that would be detrimental to the conservatives are bad argument Articles: Michelle Obama's Patient-Dumping Scheme )