I do not oppose individual property. Stop making this into some false argument between free market capitalism vs. communism. I believe there's a place in between these extremes that combines the best of both worlds. I think the free market is a good thing and obviously as an entrepreneur who has made my own living for four years I very much believe in the free market and in individual property. But I also believe in reasonable market regulations and in the importance of social programs such as national health care, public education, and social security. I do not think that you cannot have one without the other. I don't think an unfettered free market is the best for anyone in the long run. And that includes the rich elite who most want such a system. The main point I want to make is that it doesn't do any good to keep making this argument against some view point I don't actually have and which obviously Barack Obama doesn't have and that I really think hardly anyone has. I think almost everyone thinks there's a place for free markets and individual property. Where we disagree, it seems to me, is on whether or not it's appropriate to have regulations on that free market and whether it's a good thing to have social programs which are funded by taxes. Just because I think taxes are a reasonable thing in a society doesn't mean that I don't believe in individual property. It's just a big jump to make. Also I think it's interesting that it's the free marketers who are really loving Obama admin's new program today. Most of my people on the socialist side of things think he's on the wrong track with it. To be honest I'm not sure about the plan - I think it makes some good sense in a way. If it works then it's a good idea. That's how I feel about it, a bit more pragmatist on the economy I suppose. Some people put their dogmas above what really works.
Yes, it was talked about in the 2008 campaign....but never answered. Zibblu, Social Security is a horrible program. You pay the government all this money, they give it out to generations before us. This, in theory, is a great idea. But, then you have the government dipping into it and spending it on other things. Completely destroys the great theory. Kind of like communism. Once enacted it stops being good. I don't think the government is responsible enough to tell me what doctor I have to see, to give me my retirement money (except a disability check I get every month for a service connected disability), the disability program actually works for the most part. There are a few that fake things, but, usually they're caught. And the more taxes you have, the more it costs things to run. The more things cost to the end consumer. The worse the economy will stay. Good try with that one. You will never convince me that more government regulation is better than less.
I don't recall Obama ever producing a birth certificate that shows the hospital and attending doctors. You have a copy that you could share with us? Correct. How do you expect the Government to pay back the $1 trillion that Obama borrows every month.
Sorta makes Social Security sound like a legal Ponzi scheme, doesn't it? Al Gore was actually on the right track when he talked about a "lock box" for Social Security (except that he articulated it in a lousy way). It's a fallacy that there are any social security accounts, because with few exceptions most of the money the Federal government takes in goes into one large gigantic money pool. But the way the Feds manage Social Security reminds me of a saying, "The Federal Government doesn't solve problems, they subsidize them". Here's another one: "Republicans tell us Government is the problem then go on to prove they are right. Democrats tell us Government is the solution then go on to prove the Republicans are right".
http://thenextweb.com/2009/03/15/president-obama-twittered/ Just thought I would throw this one out there. If Obama Twittered. Quite funny.
Recession is when your buddy looses his job. Depression is when you loose your job. Recovery is when Obama looses his.
Another false argument. National health care has nothing to do with the government telling you which doctor you have to see. It has to do with all people being covered. You can still choose your doctor. If anyone gets in between a person and their doctor it's the insurance companies. Right now insurance companies deny coverage in any way they can. A lot of people can't even get covered. The system is royally screwed. And it's so sad that people make these false arguments about the "Government choosing your doctor" when so many people are without any doctor at all. --- As far as "never convincing" you. I'm sure that's true. But that only goes to prove one of my points: This is about dogma for people, not about what works. It's all about proving that your way of thinking is right even if it's not.
Have you read the Stimulus Bill? This is where it is tacked on. It's a matter of public record, you would do your due dilligence to read it and make your own decisions. Instead of drinking the Kool-aid like the rest of America. The government can even decide if you get surgery. And they will weigh the cost effectiveness of it. If you have a certain life expectancy, then you can only have certain surgeries. God forbid they at least make the rest of your years at least tolerable. Not only that, doctors must go to electonic medical records. And the government has access to them. HIPPA anyone? And any dr. that violates those policies will be fined and face other action such as loosing their license. Educate yourself. Stop drinking the Kool-Aid. Stop listening to everything the media tells you.
There is something to this. Social Security is for Baby Boomers. When they are gone the numbers close to retirement will be significantly lower that the Baby Boomers. They will be no Baby Boomer income to fund Social Security. Contemplate the number of Baby Boomers retiring (they are now 62-63). Average a life expectancy of 20 years after that and we will have a lot of money left over for us right? Wrong. The money will have been depleted, not retirement numbers but by number of funds being dispersed over that average of 20 years. There will not be money enough to finance the expected funds the Baby Boomers will received and that is depleted with their numbers. There will only enough to shine our shoes based on the amount of payments into Social security after the Baby Boomers retire. Do the math There two different factors about social security: 1) Baby Boomers depleting the funds 2) Baby Boomers not paying their social security after they retire. the Baby Boomers get their social security checks, small but large in numbers dispersed. Baby Boomers stop funding social security from working. Less numbers of dispersment for retired Baby Boomers and future retirees. With all of that contemplated, what about investments to supplement Social Security and Retirement?
Ooooh! Scary! Right now the insurance companies make these type of decisions based not on your health but on their bottom line. Capitalism and health care just don't mix.
Really? What kind of health insurance do you have that says they can choose to not allow you to have a surgery? If your insurance is like that, you need new insurance. You don't seem to like Captitalism much. You do realize there are plenty of other countries out there for you to go to right? Ones with populations thatlike socialism just like you? You would be more suited there than in the states where we pride ourselves on free market trade and the belief anyone can start a business and be successful.
I like capitalism just fine in general (with a reasonable amount of regulations to make sure that manipulations like the ones that lead to this economic downturn do not happen.) There are some areas though where it does not work: Schooling, health, police, fire departments, social security. There are some basic necessities of life that I believe should be "socialist." You can have that framework with a free market system on top of it. The two things are not mutually exclusive. Again with the false arguments... --- As far as what kind of health insurance do I have? Oh lordy, are you in for a surprise if you ever get sick. That's how all health insurance companies work. They are NOT on your side buddy.
False arguments? I could have sworn I saw you say "capitalism is not for me." So now you are contradicting yourself? You must have some crappy insurance that does that. Maybe my insurance company is just limited to actually helping you out? I'd advise you to switch your health insurance.
Off Topic: I'm happy to admit when President Obama is wrong. He is wrong when he says that legalizing marijuana won't help the economy.
Most health insurance companies won't cover those who need coverage most. Those with so called "pre existing conditions." Why is that? Because they know those people are more likely to need their benefits and will thus lose them money. A profit driven health care system is doomed to failure.
I know of no insurer that will not insure someone with a "pre-existing condition". No one is "denied" insurance. You just pay more for it.
Hey Mia, that's what the media told him to believe. And all obama supporters fail to acknowledge his lack of proof of eligibility to do the job. And I agree, legalizing Marijuana would help the economy. And really needs to get done. More than half of America smoke pot. It's effects are similar to alcohol. Why not? Just with the same laws regarding alcohol, go with MJ. This coming from the guy that is a certified Drug Recognition Expert, and used to investigate federal felony's for a living I am, and have been for a while, a supporter of legalizing pot. They could tax the crap out of it, and make a killing.
The only problem with the legalization of pot is that those that were doing it illegally already, will continue to do so rather than pay a tax. Here in WI cigarettes are like 7 or 8 bucks a pack now, up $2-3 in a few months or so I hear. Apparently April First their gonna raise the tax on Cigars 75 cents a pop as well. I really doubt the legalizing pot is gonna do anything more than cause new problems, and leave many of the same ones in existence. For the record, I support the legalization. If anything, it should help to keep stoners out of the courts and out of jail, and in front of the TV and Wii. Really want to help the economy? Raise the junk food tax, particularly Doritos and Mountain Dew. If you want to hit the pot heads, hit them in the stomach, not the doobage!
In the long run, the legalization of pot will help the economy. Less tax dollars spent on the corrections/judicial system, law enforcement not getting tied up for a guy with a joint, local businesses getting more money. If nothing more it will allow people to not have to worry about getting busted on the way home from the dealer. The thing is, it's going to have to stay in the package it was sold in, just like booze, to show the tax stamp on there, and keep a stoner out of jail for violating the tax law.