Obamacare

Post Reply New Topic

it is not that the righties don't want taxation per se, they just don't want the proceeds to help who they consider the "losers" [aka the 99%]. and they want only the 99% to be taxed.

Great video..

Two extremely common sense words says it all..

Social Animal..

Social Animals are always interdependent..on each other...

Only culture could give the illusion that they are not as interdependent as they are...

As there are people so far distanced from us..collecting the help from everyone else..to help us..our entire life..

And not only are we in debt to our fellow citizens..we are in debt to every ancestor that shares our genetics..for the collective intelligence that allowed us to produce any of the byproducts of culture we see ALL around us...We are even in debt for toilet..paper..a real problem without that stuff...

Well we are share almost all the same genetics..for thousands of years now...

We are simply part of a giant social supra organism of mind..NOt unlike the much smaller one of the wild wolf pack....

But no...only people who are blind to reality..do not understand the basic common sense fact that we all not only support each other..

We must support each other to survive for basic subsistence..just like the primitive peoples of the world still do today....

In the actual most peaceful societies..in these primitive societies..including the Amish..in sharing and interdependence...

That really works for the best.. overall.. for peaceful..and healthy..societies...

Scandinavian countries..are so far ahead of us..but maybe there will be some possibility to catch up one day..

If people don't give up...

I don't think I've met anyone who thinks the wealth of the planet is their own personal wealth. But yes , I agree.

Fine with me.

We don't do things on our own. We produce and exchange with other people. The more we produce, the more buying power we have.

What's your justification for forcing people to pay for non-production?

I don't see why these can't be private services. If you want them, you can pay for them. If you don't want them, you shouldn't have to pay for them.

You don't understand conservatives at all. The only people who believe the 1%/99% crap is radical liberals. Nobody else separates people that way.

The idiocy of the conservatives isn't in their desires about who gets taxed, it's the hypocrisy of claiming that it's okay to tax people for conservative causes and religious stupidity while simultaneously condemning taxation for social services.

Personally, I'm fed up with paying for the bigotry of both parties.

The issue is the ability for more than a few select elites to reap the benefits of production. The longer that the wealthiest people dominate, the less productive things will become over time. It doesn't matter how much you produce if no one can afford your end products.

Did you even watch the video?

It's all about the fact that YOU benefit from the peaceful, stable society that allows YOUR business to thrive.

YOU benefit from the rule of law enforced by our common government that allows YOUR BUSINESS to thrive.

YOU benefit from the free education system that trains YOUR employees that ALLOWS YOUR BUSINESS TO THRIVE.

YOU benefit from the infrastructure, roads, highways, and power grids built with EVERYONE'S TAX MONEY that ALLOWS YOUR BUSINESS TO THRIVE.

You, as a successful businessman, benefit from the government's maintenance of the general welfare FAR MORE than any 'welfare queen' who gets a few hundred dollars a month in food stamps and/or other benefits.


The idea that those who benefit the most from society owe the most to society has been part of the social contract since the Servian Reforms (2500 years ago in Rome).

Allow me to quote Senator Warren again:


As a successful businessman, thriving in this peaceful, law abiding, educated, highly developed, first world country, YOU OWE A LOT to our society.

Your resentment toward the poor is petty nonsense.

You need to check your arrogance, count your blessings, AND PAY YOUR FAIR SHARE IN TAXES.

Those taxes are just an investment in YOUR continued prosperity.

Despite the arbitrary line of 1%/99%, the numbers associated with them are accurate. The stats could have just as easily been calculated for the 5%/95% or 50%/50%.

So theoretically, if fire protection is a private service you choose not to pay for, it's alright to let your house burn down? If you don't want to pay for the upkeep of freeways, you can't drive on them? And as far as privatizing services, what could you possibly replace the US mail service with? UPS? Some other private mail service? I can send a letter across country for the cost of a postage stamp (under a dollar) - that will never be the case with UPS or any of the others. Privatization is a pipe dream which doesn't take into consideration the impossibility of paying for everything individually. Plus, as private costs would doubtlessly rack up, ability to pay would favor the affluent and only hurt the needy.

Yes. I don't agree with her worldview.


I don't agree with the assumption that government is the cause of a peaceful, stable society.


From what I can tell, the rule of law overwhelmingly makes thriving more difficult for my business.


It's not free. I pay for it. Against my will, I might add. Not only that, but I have to pay an unequal share to educate people that don't work for me as well.


Same answer as above. I pay an unequal share to provide these services to other people. I also don't agree with the assumption that government can provide these services better than private organizations.


If I pay $100 and receive $80 of services and someone else pays $0 and receives $20 of services, I'm operating at a net loss. I am not receiving a benefit. I am being forced to pay for services at below market value.


God has been a part of social contract for longer than that. I don't consider that as a credible argument to believe in god. Likewise, I don't consider 2500 years of social contract belief to be a credible argument to believe in a socialist principle.


No I don't. Any potential debt I owe to the aggregate of people in this country is far outweighed by the amount of my labor that goes into paying into the system. I am operating at a net loss.


I don't resent the poor. I resent people who feel that other people owe them something.


I pay far more than my fair share in taxes. Do you?


It's a terrible investment, with a negative ROI.

The numbers aren't relevant to my point. There is not a political group that wants to screw the majority in favor of the minority. The statement that "righties" want the elite to escape taxation and the rest to pay up is nothing but a demonization strategy.

Yes and yes.


If it won't be the case with a private company, that means that it's being subsidized. So, while you pay with a postage stamp, someone else has to pick up the difference in the actual cost of transporting that letter.


Why is it impossible to pay for things individually? We do it with everything else. What can't be paid for individually?


The number of bills would increase. The amount of those bills would decrease (competition).

Privatization would hurt the needy. I won't argue that. It takes away the redistribution of wealth that currently supports them through the threat of violence against those who are more affluent. I believe that in the long haul, it would help people more than it would hurt them, but it would definitely hurt in the short term. Personally, I would likely contribute substantially more to charity than I do now (because I do support voluntary redistribution of wealth to those who really need it).

You are making a profit (I assume) with your business, which contradicts this statement.



See above.

You're ignoring the context of my post, which was my relationship with the government.

I pay X dollars. I receive less than X in return. This is a net loss (and a negative ROI if you look at it as an investment).