(07-04-2014 11:02 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(07-04-2014 10:57 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-04-2014 10:30 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(07-04-2014 10:14 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(07-04-2014 10:13 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  So what do you want, a parade?

Acknowlegement that the money some are saving is on the backs of others. This is wealth redistribution pure and simple. Nothing more and nothing less.

You act like wealth redistribution is something unusual or something.

Under the GOP plan we had wealth redistribution too. From the poorer to the richer.

Everyone should be taxed at the same rate. And poor people get lots of free stuff that wealthier people pay for. The poor don't subsidize others, wealthier people do subsidize poorer people. The government encourages people to be poorer, more so the government rewards people for bad choices.

That seems to be what so many on the right just don't seem able to grasp. It isn't about wealth redistribution from the wealthy to the poor. It is about the wealth redistribution from the working class and middle class (what is left of us) TO the wealthy and the corporations (remember they are people too).


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

(07-04-2014 05:46 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  That seems to be what so many on the right just don't seem able to grasp. It isn't about wealth redistribution from the wealthy to the poor. It is about the wealth redistribution from the working class and middle class (what is left of us) TO the wealthy and the corporations (remember they are people too).
Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

And this is what so many on the left just don't seem to be able to grasp. Your proposed "solution," taxing the "rich" and corporations more, and redistributing that money to the poor, makes the problem worse, not better.

(07-04-2014 05:46 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(07-04-2014 11:02 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(07-04-2014 10:57 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-04-2014 10:30 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(07-04-2014 10:14 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  Acknowlegement that the money some are saving is on the backs of others. This is wealth redistribution pure and simple. Nothing more and nothing less.

You act like wealth redistribution is something unusual or something.

Under the GOP plan we had wealth redistribution too. From the poorer to the richer.

Everyone should be taxed at the same rate. And poor people get lots of free stuff that wealthier people pay for. The poor don't subsidize others, wealthier people do subsidize poorer people. The government encourages people to be poorer, more so the government rewards people for bad choices.

That seems to be what so many on the right just don't seem able to grasp. It isn't about wealth redistribution from the wealthy to the poor. It is about the wealth redistribution from the working class and middle class (what is left of us) TO the wealthy and the corporations (remember they are people too).


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

Why do you think you are entitled to a redistribution of someone else's money whether they are rich or poor? Make your own way.

(07-04-2014 07:54 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(07-04-2014 05:46 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(07-04-2014 11:02 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(07-04-2014 10:57 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-04-2014 10:30 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  You act like wealth redistribution is something unusual or something.

Under the GOP plan we had wealth redistribution too. From the poorer to the richer.

Everyone should be taxed at the same rate. And poor people get lots of free stuff that wealthier people pay for. The poor don't subsidize others, wealthier people do subsidize poorer people. The government encourages people to be poorer, more so the government rewards people for bad choices.

That seems to be what so many on the right just don't seem able to grasp. It isn't about wealth redistribution from the wealthy to the poor. It is about the wealth redistribution from the working class and middle class (what is left of us) TO the wealthy and the corporations (remember they are people too).


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

Why do you think you are entitled to a redistribution of someone else's money whether they are rich or poor? Make your own way.

I don't get much in the way of positive redistribution since I'm in the class that gets it taken from me at a disproportionately high rate and sent up and down the food chain. But to answer your question redistribution makes society function. No one goes it alone in a modern society. The economy doesn't work without redistribution. Try taking away the mortgage deduction and see who throws a fit. Do you really want the agriculture subsidies to go away? I kind of like having the hospital in town that they just built with a loan from stimulus. That fire truck in that modern fire station that travels on those state and federal highways are helpful as well. All of those are a result of wealth redistribution.

(07-04-2014 08:59 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  The economy doesn't work without redistribution.

The "you didn't build it" mentality is a coward's explanation. Put forth by cowards and repeated by the weak minded.

ACA isn't in trouble. the people trapped in it are in trouble.

(07-04-2014 09:27 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(07-04-2014 08:59 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  The economy doesn't work without redistribution.

The "you didn't build it" mentality is a coward's explanation. Put forth by cowards and repeated by the weak minded.

How is that supply of firewood coming? I wouldn't want you giving out half way through the winter and freezing to death on us.

(07-04-2014 10:00 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-04-2014 09:50 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(07-04-2014 09:33 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Politically, Obamacare cant be repealed unless another, means based program replaces it. Too many people are on it. Too many rural hospitals would go under.

Obamacare will exist until there's a solution that guarantees lifetime access to healthcare for a price affordable to the insured. There are other solutions, but none from the GOP.

The GOP has offered solutions but like Zero, you have not paid attention. The totally partisan ZeroCare solution will not, cannot stand. It's doomed.

No their solution is 'more of the same' with no guarantee of affordable health care.

Under Texas' 'affordable health care system', I had to pay 9000 bucks a YEAR for my health insurance. Because I have Type 1 Diabetes. And the coverage was crap. On top of that, I'd have to pay another 3,000 on copays. 12 grand a year for healthcare. Please. And the coverage SUCKED; Thank God I'm wealthy. Most Texans aren't so lucky, and that's why Texas had the worst health care system in the country (based upon outcomes and coverage metrics) under the GOP plan Obamacare replaced

Under Obamacare. I have better insurance at less than half the cost.

The GOP plan. If you're sick or have a pre-existing condition, turn all of your assets over to some Medical Company CEO's lear jet fund and then the government might let you have some medicine. But no real expensive stuff, mind you.

Under every single GOP enacted health insurance initiative, access to health care and insurance has gone down, prices have gone up, and profits to health care administrators has gone up. With one exception, Mitt Romney's Massachusetts plan. Which of course, was the model for Obamacare.

My gosh, I used to actually take your input seriously, to some extent. Now you just come across as another clown in the parade. You, literally, have NO idea what you're babbling about. Pathetic.

(07-04-2014 05:46 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(07-04-2014 11:02 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(07-04-2014 10:57 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-04-2014 10:30 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(07-04-2014 10:14 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  Acknowlegement that the money some are saving is on the backs of others. This is wealth redistribution pure and simple. Nothing more and nothing less.

You act like wealth redistribution is something unusual or something.

Under the GOP plan we had wealth redistribution too. From the poorer to the richer.

Everyone should be taxed at the same rate. And poor people get lots of free stuff that wealthier people pay for. The poor don't subsidize others, wealthier people do subsidize poorer people. The government encourages people to be poorer, more so the government rewards people for bad choices.

That seems to be what so many on the right just don't seem able to grasp. It isn't about wealth redistribution from the wealthy to the poor. It is about the wealth redistribution from the working class and middle class (what is left of us) TO the wealthy and the corporations (remember they are people too).


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

Find me one rate table that has

Quote:wealth redistribution from the working class and middle class (what is left of us) TO the wealthy and the corporations

. Just one. Do you have ANY idea what the top 1, 10, or even 25% pay of your fare, if you're not one of them?

Tell me again you're also a government school teacher... God Help us.

Look it up. You have no idea who's paying your freight.

(07-05-2014 12:48 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(07-04-2014 09:27 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(07-04-2014 08:59 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  The economy doesn't work without redistribution.

The "you didn't build it" mentality is a coward's explanation. Put forth by cowards and repeated by the weak minded.

How is that supply of firewood coming? I wouldn't want you giving out half way through the winter and freezing to death on us.

Proving yourself weak minded and over the edge. It's ok, no one takes you seriously anyway.

(07-04-2014 08:59 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  But to answer your question redistribution makes society function. No one goes it alone in a modern society.

No, no, no. Redistribution does NOT make society function. That's simply wrong. It's the message that the left is trying to peddle, because such a notion would make it easier to rationalize a lot of nonsensical and illogical things that the left likes to support.

Quote:The economy doesn't work without redistribution.

Oh, it would work just fine without redistribution. It would be different, but it would work. It might even work better for those currently on the receiving end of the redistribution.

Quote:Try taking away the mortgage deduction and see who throws a fit.

I'm all for taking it away in exchange for lowered rates. Those European countries that leftists like to emulate don't have a home mortgage deduction. And I've benefitted from some pretty big deductions in the past (house is paid for now). And I supported taking it away when I was getting those deductions.

Quote:Do you really want the agriculture subsidies to go away?

Absolutely. Clinton and the republican congress actually started taking them away, and for the most part things got better for farmers. Then Bush started putting them back in order to get votes for his war.

Quote:I kind of like having the hospital in town that they just built with a loan from stimulus.

That's good for you. But it's bad for the rest. The questions are whether the good you derive from the hospital is greater than the bad imposed on others to pay for it, and whether that hospital was the best use that could have been made of those funds. Would the private sector have made better use of those funds if they had been available to them instead of used in this way? I don't know the answer to that question, and neither do you, but it's a question that needs to be asked regarding every single government expenditure.

Quote:That fire truck in that modern fire station that travels on those state and federal highways are helpful as well. All of those are a result of wealth redistribution.

Those are not redistribution. Spending money to get something in return is not redistribution. Redistribution is taking money away from people who made it and giving it away to people who did nothing, in exchange for the nothing that they have done. Public safety and highways are basic government services. Taking money from everyone to provide those services to everyone is nothing like redistribution. Trying to equate performance of legitimate government functions with redistribution is the dishonest and disingenuous argument that people like Elizabeth Warren are making.

(07-05-2014 12:48 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(07-04-2014 09:27 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(07-04-2014 08:59 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  The economy doesn't work without redistribution.

The "you didn't build it" mentality is a coward's explanation. Put forth by cowards and repeated by the weak minded.

How is that supply of firewood coming? I wouldn't want you giving out half way through the winter and freezing to death on us.

That's a stupid analogy.

Because Yes I need firewood but no I didn't get the firewood for free.
I either cut it down from the trees on my property, paid for it with currency or bartered something I had to trade for it.

We should all be providing goods and services to each other as we function as a society, paying for them via barter or with currency. No one should be getting their firewood for free. The person asking for their firewood for free would be run out of Dodge on a rail as a freeloader.

As Americans scrambled ahead of the July Fourth holiday weekend on Thursday afternoon, the Department of Health and Human Services released 1,296 pages of new regulations dealing with payment rates to doctors and hospitals.

The timing of the news release is part of a long pattern for President Obama's administration, which has often used holidays as an opportunity to dump dense regulatory changes when most reporters and Americans are focused on their holiday plans.

The release came at 4:15 p.m.

Last year, the Obama administration used the days surrounding the July 4th holiday as an opening to announce a delay to the employer mandate and to disclose the fact that the exchanges would operate on the honor system, doling out benefits without properly verifying information provided by applicants.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/hhs-releas...le/2550506

(07-05-2014 08:32 AM)smn1256 Wrote:  As Americans scrambled ahead of the July Fourth holiday weekend on Thursday afternoon, the Department of Health and Human Services released 1,296 pages of new regulations dealing with payment rates to doctors and hospitals.

The timing of the news release is part of a long pattern for President Obama's administration, which has often used holidays as an opportunity to dump dense regulatory changes when most reporters and Americans are focused on their holiday plans.

The release came at 4:15 p.m.

Last year, the Obama administration used the days surrounding the July 4th holiday as an opening to announce a delay to the employer mandate and to disclose the fact that the exchanges would operate on the honor system, doling out benefits without properly verifying information provided by applicants.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/hhs-releas...le/2550506

As any professional PR person knows……
unpopular or detrimental news about or from your organization is released late on a friday, ideally on a friday before a holiday so that it is ignored or swallowed up by the news of the weekend.

The Obama spin machine is on full speed.

(07-05-2014 07:58 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(07-05-2014 12:48 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(07-04-2014 09:27 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(07-04-2014 08:59 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  The economy doesn't work without redistribution.

The "you didn't build it" mentality is a coward's explanation. Put forth by cowards and repeated by the weak minded.

How is that supply of firewood coming? I wouldn't want you giving out half way through the winter and freezing to death on us.

That's a stupid analogy.

Because Yes I need firewood but no I didn't get the firewood for free.
I either cut it down from the trees on my property, paid for it with currency or bartered something I had to trade for it.

We should all be providing goods and services to each other as we function as a society, paying for them via barter or with currency. No one should be getting their firewood for free. The person asking for their firewood for free would be run out of Dodge on a rail as a freeloader.

I guess you don't have a clue as to what that meant. Think about it.

(07-05-2014 07:45 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-04-2014 08:59 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  But to answer your question redistribution makes society function. No one goes it alone in a modern society.

No, no, no. Redistribution does NOT make society function. That's simply wrong. It's the message that the left is trying to peddle, because such a notion would make it easier to rationalize a lot of nonsensical and illogical things that the left likes to support.

Quote:The economy doesn't work without redistribution.

Oh, it would work just fine without redistribution. It would be different, but it would work. It might even work better for those currently on the receiving end of the redistribution.

Quote:Try taking away the mortgage deduction and see who throws a fit.

I'm all for taking it away in exchange for lowered rates. Those European countries that leftists like to emulate don't have a home mortgage deduction. And I've benefitted from some pretty big deductions in the past (house is paid for now). And I supported taking it away when I was getting those deductions.

Quote:Do you really want the agriculture subsidies to go away?

Absolutely. Clinton and the republican congress actually started taking them away, and for the most part things got better for farmers. Then Bush started putting them back in order to get votes for his war.

Quote:I kind of like having the hospital in town that they just built with a loan from stimulus.

That's good for you. But it's bad for the rest. The questions are whether the good you derive from the hospital is greater than the bad imposed on others to pay for it, and whether that hospital was the best use that could have been made of those funds. Would the private sector have made better use of those funds if they had been available to them instead of used in this way? I don't know the answer to that question, and neither do you, but it's a question that needs to be asked regarding every single government expenditure.

Quote:That fire truck in that modern fire station that travels on those state and federal highways are helpful as well. All of those are a result of wealth redistribution.

Those are not redistribution. Spending money to get something in return is not redistribution. Redistribution is taking money away from people who made it and giving it away to people who did nothing, in exchange for the nothing that they have done. Public safety and highways are basic government services. Taking money from everyone to provide those services to everyone is nothing like redistribution. Trying to equate performance of legitimate government functions with redistribution is the dishonest and disingenuous argument that people like Elizabeth Warren are making.

It only means what fits your rhetoric.

(07-05-2014 09:22 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(07-05-2014 07:58 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(07-05-2014 12:48 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(07-04-2014 09:27 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(07-04-2014 08:59 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  The economy doesn't work without redistribution.

The "you didn't build it" mentality is a coward's explanation. Put forth by cowards and repeated by the weak minded.

How is that supply of firewood coming? I wouldn't want you giving out half way through the winter and freezing to death on us.

That's a stupid analogy.

Because Yes I need firewood but no I didn't get the firewood for free.
I either cut it down from the trees on my property, paid for it with currency or bartered something I had to trade for it.

We should all be providing goods and services to each other as we function as a society, paying for them via barter or with currency. No one should be getting their firewood for free. The person asking for their firewood for free would be run out of Dodge on a rail as a freeloader.

I guess you don't have a clue as to what that meant. Think about it.

You need others to help you get through the winter. I don't.

I am the ant. You are the grasshopper.
Ask Aesop if you don't have a clue what I mean.

(07-05-2014 09:27 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  It only means what fits your rhetoric.

So you can't make any substantive argument against any of the points I made?

(07-05-2014 08:32 AM)smn1256 Wrote:  As Americans scrambled ahead of the July Fourth holiday weekend on Thursday afternoon, the Department of Health and Human Services released 1,296 pages of new regulations dealing with payment rates to doctors and hospitals.

The timing of the news release is part of a long pattern for President Obama's administration, which has often used holidays as an opportunity to dump dense regulatory changes when most reporters and Americans are focused on their holiday plans.

The release came at 4:15 p.m.

Last year, the Obama administration used the days surrounding the July 4th holiday as an opening to announce a delay to the employer mandate and to disclose the fact that the exchanges would operate on the honor system, doling out benefits without properly verifying information provided by applicants.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/hhs-releas...le/2550506

Like clockwork. HHS needs to be abolished.

(07-05-2014 09:28 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(07-05-2014 09:22 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(07-05-2014 07:58 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(07-05-2014 12:48 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(07-04-2014 09:27 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  The "you didn't build it" mentality is a coward's explanation. Put forth by cowards and repeated by the weak minded.

How is that supply of firewood coming? I wouldn't want you giving out half way through the winter and freezing to death on us.

That's a stupid analogy.

Because Yes I need firewood but no I didn't get the firewood for free.
I either cut it down from the trees on my property, paid for it with currency or bartered something I had to trade for it.

We should all be providing goods and services to each other as we function as a society, paying for them via barter or with currency. No one should be getting their firewood for free. The person asking for their firewood for free would be run out of Dodge on a rail as a freeloader.

I guess you don't have a clue as to what that meant. Think about it.

You need others to help you get through the winter. I don't.

I am the ant. You are the grasshopper.
Ask Aesop if you don't have a clue what I mean.

You must not see all the ways you get help making it through the winter. If you fall down the mountain and break your arm and Grizzly Adams happens by and sets the arm, cooks up some bear meat, brings in and keeps the fire going while you mend you make it. If he is setting traps 20 miles away when you fall you freeze to death in your cabin. The illusion of the self sufficient hero is a myth. It rarely existed in the frontier 200 years ago, it does not exist at all today.


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App