BoatShoes;1522668 wrote: And, the only people who will pay any taxes are personally irresponsible rent-seekers/moochers.

While not technically a tax, EVERY small business person will take a significant hit. Of course, that's of little relevance to the non-productive such as yourself.

Have you ever actually DONE anything?

It's probably just me, but does anyone else love the back and forth between BS and gut? It's honestly the best part about the forums.

queencitybuckeye;1522727 wrote:While not technically a tax, EVERY small business person will take a significant hit. Of course, that's of little relevance to the non-productive such as yourself.

Have you ever actually DONE anything?

Didn't he say he was a community organizer?

This is the organization that with Heritage Action is primarying people like Mitch McConnell and yet they rank all of these countries with socialized health care as having more economic liberty??

Geez, Boat...you mean all these countries 'rank ahead of us' in individual economic freedom...and we haven't yet fully fully implented ObummerKare? When we do...how low is THAT going to drop us???...and more importantly, as these rankings take into account other issues besides healthcare, where have we gone wrong...and what else can we do to get government off our backs so we can be restore our country to the top in the freedom rankings????

There is no evidence for your claims that individual freedoms will be trampled.

?????Let's see...we have mandates, we have taxes, we have penalties issued by the IRS, we have a limitation of choices and actions. Exactly what would you define this as?

HitsRus;1523016 wrote:?????Let's see...we have mandates, we have taxes, we have penalties issued by the IRS, we have a limitation of choices and actions. Exactly what would you define this as?

The Nanny State?

^^^^exactly...cradle to grave 'control'. But to call it a 'nanny' state implies the benignness of an adult taking care of a helpless child. Are we 'helpless?

Boat seems to think it is the "paranoid fantasies" of the American conservative to fear the loss of individual liberty by an ever expanding government. But this is not new, and we have been properly warned by those who have witnessed this firsthand.......

“’Tis a Mistake to think this Fault [tyranny] is proper only to Monarchies; other Forms of Government are liable to it, as well as that. For where-ever the Power that is put in any hands for the Government of the People, and the Preservation of their Properties, is applied to other ends, and made use of to impoverish, harass, or subdue them to the Arbitrary and Irregular Commands of those that have it: There it presently becomes Tyranny, whether those that thus use it are one or many.”---John Locke

Locke also writes..

: “whenever the Legislators endeavor to take away, and destroy the Property of the People, or to reduce them to Slavery under Arbitrary Power, they put themselves into a state of War with the People, who are thereupon absolved from any farther Obedience, and are left to the common Refuge, which God hath provided for all Men, against Force and Violence. Whensoever therefore the Legislative shall transgress this fundamental Rule of Society; and either by Ambition, Fear, Folly or Corruption, endeavor to grasp themselves, or put into the hands of any other an Absolute Power over the Lives, Liberties, and Estates of the People; By this breach of Trust they forfeit the Power, the People had put into their hands, for quite contrary ends, and it devolves to the People, who have a Right to resume their original Liberty.”

We have every right to resist a law that thru a partisan temporary majority was legislated....and the 'legislative' have a duty to correct such abuse.

".cradle to grave 'control'."

The interesting thing about this concept is that when you discuss this with Western Europeans (pretty much the authors of the subject) and talk about quality they eventually cave and admit that it doesn't work. But it is going to work in a diverse, country of 330 million people? Our government can't even get a website correct and we want to give them more authority?

I fail to see why we have to 'be like Europe', or why what they should be model/ideal for us to strive for.

Our government can't even get a website correct and we want to give them more authority?

moreso, we know how Washington operates...the shifting politics...and somehow they should be the ones in charge of our own healthcare?...and look at the agencies that operate within...are they anything more than fiefdoms that operate autonomously, passing laws, mandates and directives formulating policies without any direct representation to the taxpayers. It is hard to understand why anyone would want even more of this.

gut;1522690 wrote:I just found it comical for you to use "rent seeking" in the perjorative when it forms the basis of your entire political philosophy...Or do you not understand that socialism/redistribution is organized rent seeking?

Even funnier that you attach the concept to Obamakare and opt-out tax. No, those who choose to pay the tax in lieu of higher premiums are merely making rational economic decisions under the rules of the game established by the socialists. The real rent seekers are those who used the political system to get another subsidized entitlement.

Hope that clears it up for ya

You keep using that word Socialism. I don't think it means what you think it means. It should be clear by now based on what I've written on this site that I'm not a "socialist" (you really mean welfarist) like you mean the term but condescension and derision are your preferred methods of argument as opposed to profitable discussion.

But, any way, as usual, hardcore conservatives such as yourself are only concerned with the p00r rent-seekers (hence why it's necessary to use the term) and pay lip service to the multitude of other types. If an actor finds it rational to opt out of insurance they choose to pay a price for this choice as is typical in any pigouvian tax regime. FWIW, IMHO, a full employment capitalist policy eliminates the very type of rent-seeking enterprise by teh p00rz that you're talking about so maybe you'll get on board, eh?

HitsRus;1523068 wrote:^^^^exactly...cradle to grave 'control'. But to call it a 'nanny' state implies the benignness of an adult taking care of a helpless child. Are we 'helpless?

Boat seems to think it is the "paranoid fantasies" of the American conservative to fear the loss of individual liberty by an ever expanding government. But this is not new, and we have been properly warned by those who have witnessed this firsthand....

You're right. It's not new. But guess what? John Locke, Karl Marx, Friedrich Hayek...all smart men who turned out to be wrong. You said there was systemic inertia. Marx said the collapse from capitalism into socialism and finally communism was inevitable. Hayek said social insurance was the road to serfdom. etc. etc.

This has not happened. There is no systemic inertia. Indeed, public administration in the cause of general welfare makes us more free in many instances. The rest of the world has moved on and accepted this...that we won't become subjects to perverse tyranny.

And additionally...you're a smart man. Surely you know some democrats/librulz. Who among them craves cradle to the grave control? Do you think that Marcy Kaptur, Dennis Kucinich, Marcia Fudge, Ted Strickland....that these people are motivated by cradle to the grave control??? It's nonsense. It's a red herring that avoids the arguments made by people who disagree with your view on the role and size of public administration.

HitsRus;1523016 wrote:Geez, Boat...you mean all these countries 'rank ahead of us' in individual economic freedom...and we haven't yet fully fully implented ObummerKare? When we do...how low is THAT going to drop us???...and more importantly, as these rankings take into account other issues besides healthcare, where have we gone wrong...and what else can we do to get government off our backs so we can be restore our country to the top in the freedom rankings????




?????Let's see...we have mandates, we have taxes, we have penalties issued by the IRS, we have a limitation of choices and actions. Exactly what would you define this as?

Obongocare will probably raise our ranking when more individuals have more economic freedom to obtain health care services as is currently the case in all of the countries above us. I would say those things are small infringements on pure individual liberty that ultimately result in a greater and more robust liberty...an extension of the matter in which we formed a country by giving up certain pure liberties to avoid living in the state of nature that we could've chosen after the revolution.

HitsRus;1522643 wrote:LOL...remember "obummerKare" is only constitutional beause it IS A TAX.....and a huge one on the middle class.

Effectively, it is the largest tax increase in the history of the country.

And it is, without question, a clear redistribution of wealth strategy ...... and Karl is applauding barack all the way.


Reminder: ALL brought to you 100% by democrats and socialists and marxists impersonating democrats.



Change we can believe in ....

sleeper;1522811 wrote:Didn't he say he was a community organizer?

Close. I vote for a living. Voting for Democrats in exchange for valuable consideration in the form of SNAP, section-8, WIC for my baby momma's, Heating assistance, ObongoFonez and Medicaid yields a comfortable existence.

queencitybuckeye;1522727 wrote:While not technically a tax, EVERY small business person will take a significant hit. Of course, that's of little relevance to the non-productive such as yourself.

Have you ever actually DONE anything?

QuakerOats;1522696 wrote:It is apparent he is a Cloward-Piven strategist.

The Cloward-Piven strategy was as stupid and futile as starve the beast. The Federal Government empowered by the Founding Fathers to provide the currency cannot be starved of "revenue" or overrun by welfare recipients. However their end goal of a basic income replacing the duplicitous and inefficient welfare system was desirable and they should've pursued it through the legislative process rather than such a ridiculous insurgency. Do that and make it a requirement to work X amount of hours and provide a Buffer Stock of Employed labor rather than our current Buffer Stock of unemployed discourage welfare recipients who private employers don't want to employ and you're on to something.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/report-us-spent-37-trillion-welfare-over-last-5-years_764582.html


Staggering!

obamanomics: trickle up poverty

BoatShoes;1523129 wrote:Close. I vote for a living. Voting for Democrats in exchange for valuable consideration in the form of SNAP, section-8, WIC for my baby momma's, Heating assistance, ObongoFonez and Medicaid yields a comfortable existence.

You'd make a good President then.

BoatShoes;1523129 wrote:Close. I vote for a living. Voting for Democrats in exchange for valuable consideration in the form of SNAP, section-8, WIC for my baby momma's, Heating assistance, ObongoFonez and Medicaid yields a comfortable existence.

And its all tax-free ........... imagine that.

Over a BILLION on the failed website now:

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/330335-report-obamacare-spending-to-top-contractors-tops-1b-



almost hilarious

“The administration announced it would provide a new ‘shop and browse’ feature Sunday, but it’s not giving consumers the real picture,” CBS’ Jan Crawford said Wednesday morning. “In some cases, people could end up paying nearly double of what they see on the website…”

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/10/23/scathing-cbs-report-obamacare-improvements-leading-to-incredibly-misleading-price-quotes/

I would say those things are small infringements on pure individual liberty that ultimately result in a greater and more robust liberty

a more robust liberty????...maybe in an elitist's opinion.....you know what is best more so than an individual knows for himself?

But guess what? John Locke, Karl Marx, Friedrich Hayek...all smart men who turned out to be wrong. You said there was systemic inertia. Marx said the collapse from capitalism into socialism and finally communism was inevitable. Hayek said social insurance was the road to serfdom. etc. etc.

This has not happened. There is no systemic inertia

They're wrong? you know that? maybe you are a bit premature in your judgement. We are but 100 years since the first income tax, 80 years since the first of the major social programs....the explosion of government regulatory agencies....and now another huge step...and you feel comfortable saying that Locke and Hayek are 'wrong'. If it hasn't happened YET...it is because of resistance to the inertia.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/10/24/obamacare_operator_fired_after_taking_call_from_hannity_hannity_to_give_her_a_years_salary.html



absolutely unbelievable; if I were her I would sue the holy hell out of these tyrants in this administration.

HitsRus;1523318 wrote:a more robust liberty????...maybe in an elitist's opinion.....you know what is best more so than an individual knows for himself?



They're wrong? you know that? maybe you are a bit premature in your judgement. We are but 100 years since the first income tax, 80 years since the first of the major social programs....the explosion of government regulatory agencies....and now another huge step...and you feel comfortable saying that Locke and Hayek are 'wrong'. If it hasn't happened YET...it is because of resistance to the inertia.

I am comfortable saying that Locke and Hayek and Marx are wrong, yes. Democracy is much more powerful and resistant than they envisioned.

And it has nothing to do with individual knows best for himself vs. powerful elites knowing what's best for the individual or however else you want to paint that false meme. The Social Contract that Locke and co. talk about is all about how the rights and privileges that come with its formation leads to more general welfare and ultimately more liberty than in the state of nature. For example, granting the power to the Sovereign to publicly administer Courts that will enforce property rights leads to a more fruitful society and liberty than people hunkering down and having to defend their own property themselves, etc.

I am comfortable saying that Locke and Hayek and Marx are wrong, yes. Democracy is much more powerful and resistant than they envisioned

....ugh...maybe resistant and powerful...but only because of resistance to the inertia. I am quite certain, that without that resistance, government usurpations would have occurred much earlier in our history and much more frequently. I am comfortable with saying that you are one who is wrong, rather than Locke and Hayek.

The Social Contract that Locke and co. talk about is all about how the rights and privileges that come with its formation leads to more general welfare and ultimately more liberty than in the state of nature. For example, granting the power to the Sovereign to publicly administer Courts that will enforce property rights leads to a more fruitful society and liberty than people hunkering down and having to defend their own property themselves, etc.

I guess you are free to misinterpret "Locke and Co" how ever you want, but the will of the people to grant authority to a government to promote the general welfare does not apply to 'ObongoKare" as it was written (and not read) and passed, except by an elitist vision of what's good for the country. The bill does not enjoy the support of an overwhelming majority of people, was forced legislation by a partisan temporary majority...a majority that was quickly dispersed by the will of the people in 2010. Further those charged with admiinistratiion, refused to negotiate any changes and shut down the government rather than address the legitimate concerns of a significant amount of the 'people'....an abuse of the power granted to it by 'the people'. It is this abuse that Locke rails against.

QuakerOats;1523425 wrote:http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/10/24/obamacare_operator_fired_after_taking_call_from_hannity_hannity_to_give_her_a_years_salary.html

absolutely unbelievable; if I were her I would sue the holy hell out of these tyrants in this administration.

Well, she's kind of a moron. Shouldn't need anyone to tell you not to badmouth your company to the media or radio, or even talk about problems they're having.