# Disincentive To Work



## Eric Christian (Oct 4, 2013)

Whats the point of busting your ass to try to make a better life for your family when the cards are pretty much stacked against the middle class now? So yeah I did some rough calculation based on the numbers provided by the government. Family A is a married couple with two kids. The father is the sole income provider and makes a gross yearly income of $65,000. Taxed at 15% ($6600) the net is roughly $58400. Now subtract another approximately $1200 dollars for state income tax and social security and you've got $57200. Now consider the mandatory expense of Obamacare which would work out to roughly $5400. This further reduces the original gross income to a net of $51800. So divided up over 12 months thats $4316 a month. 

Now take family B which is also a married couple with two children and the father is head of household. Only he makes $28000 a year. He pays zero federal and state income taxes because this is poverty level. So yeah, this family is eligable for $400 worth of food stamps a month. This just added $4800 to their income so now theyre at $32800. Now consider that $450 a month Obamacare plan that Family A had to pay for is free. Now Family B's income has been boosted by $5400 which takes it to $38200. Now factor in each adult can get a free Obamaphone which is a $100 a month value so now their income is actually $40600. Of course there are a few other free sh1t programs Family B can get on like H.E.A.T for instance but bottom line Family A father is busting his ass working 10 hours days for an additional $933 a month... Ask yourself, is really worth it?


----------



## ghostred7 (Oct 4, 2013)

IMO...absolutely. Every little bit helps. $933 is a lot of extra meat to freeze/store for my family. Extra expense should a car, house, etc needs a repair. Extra money to take my family out to do something fun and bond.

So yes. To me, busting ass for extra provisions of any kind for my family is very much worth it.


----------



## will_shred (Oct 4, 2013)

I would say it's worth it simply to not rely on government aid, and I'm about as left wing as they get. If you can work a decent job and lift yourself above the need for government aid, it's worth it. If you really need government aid to keep your head above water, then that's fair as well assuming you make an effort to lift yourself out of said situation.


----------



## Murmel (Oct 4, 2013)

Does it really hurt so much to help out the less fortunate with some taxes?


----------



## Hollowway (Oct 4, 2013)

I'm all for helping out the less fortunate, but the system is definitely set up in a way that rewards not working. Unfortunately the only thing keeping a lot of people off government welfare (not literally "welfare," but all forms of assistance) is pride, and wanting to earn what they get paid. Obviously in higher incomes this is less of an issue, but at the middle class and lower middle class level the incentive is to keep your income low to qualify for all the aid, not get married so your spouse's income is not figured in with yours, have a bunch of kids when you're really young to get assistance for them, etc. the whole thing would work if everyone was honest and wanted to move upward, but there are way too many disincentives to bust your butt unless you can make substantially more than the average worker.


----------



## angus (Oct 4, 2013)

If you have to ask yourself if it is really worth it, you are missing the point. If the opportunity to earn an extra $1k/mo, with the potential for upward mobility, increased earnings, savings, investments, etc, is _not worth it to you because someone else makes almost as much for less work_, then you have your priorities way off base. Why are you worrying about other people, and why is that figuring into what _you_ are doing? Either way you'll pay taxes- that isn't going away.

I've never honestly met anyone who intentionally kept their income down, avoided marriage and had tons of kids just to maximize their aid and minimize taxes. People can reference "I know a guy...", but really, anyone smart enough and knowledgable enough in taxes/government programs is also smart enough to not be making that little cash (and smart enough to know that that is a stupid idea). 

People are so paranoid about everybody being parasites. Yeah, there are some. A greater number aren't. You have to pay your taxes either way. Just focus on your career and family. Moving on.

(By the way, the same goes for people making tons of money. They just might deserve it, so stop crying. Again, moving on.)

(Also, why did you factor in the Affordable Care Act expense in family A? He's making that much, but doesn't have healthcare provided for at his job?)


----------



## Eric Christian (Oct 4, 2013)

Oh jeez I forgot to subtract the equivalent $400 bucks Family B gets in food stamps and deduct it from Family A which now brings the difference to $533. So yeah now is it really worth it to bust your ass when all you do is get punished? This is a the culmination of a massive social engineering program that has specifically targeted the middle class. First in the 80's & 90's our government allowed all the manufacturing jobs to be overseas meanwhile dropping tariffs all the while increasing taxes on the middle class and also growing social welfare programs exponentially. 

So yeah, the father in Family A is a auto mechanic and the father in Family B is a Starbucks Barista/Manager. Both are making almost the equivalent money but you tell me who's working harder?


----------



## angus (Oct 4, 2013)

You aren't getting punished. What happens to them doesn't affect you.

The crossover line is shitty, sure, but how it is sensible to punish people making less just so you can feel less aggrieved? That's a very primal, envious instinct, isn't it?


----------



## Eric Christian (Oct 4, 2013)

angus said:


> (Also, why did you factor in the Affordable Care Act expense in family A? He's making that much, but doesn't have healthcare provided for at his job?)



I don't think you've been paying attention bro. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that forcing people to buy a product is constitutional. Employer provided health insurance for the entire Family A is $624 a month and that's with the employer picking up half the premium. On the other hand, the "Bronze" Obamacre plan weighs in at $450. Never mind the fact that in 3 years most private health insurance companies will be driven out of business by the Soviet system we have let ourselves be sucked into.


----------



## skeels (Oct 4, 2013)

^ But you already added that to the other family's imaginary income.

Your math is flawed. And your argument is hypothetical. 

Like Angus said, most people don't even know anyone who purposely makes their life crappy in order to be lazy and spongy. But there are people at all ranges of the spectrum trying to take advantage of every loophole to get more. 

I don't personally know any billionaires who are screwing people left and right to get more. I hear theyre out there though.

I do know the crackhead who lives next door who doesn't work and always tries to sponge cigarettes from passersby. I don't envy his lazy lifestyle. 

I meet more veterans at the food pantry.


----------



## Eric Christian (Oct 4, 2013)

angus said:


> You aren't getting punished. What happens to them doesn't affect you.
> 
> The crossover line is shitty, sure, but how it is sensible to punish people making less just so you can feel less aggrieved? That's a very primal, envious instinct, isn't it?


 
You just don't get it do you? Of course the father in family A is getting punished. Indirectly through his income taxes he is basically funding the father of family B to stand around pouring coffees and playing grab ass with all the female Baristas and Milf customers... Lol...


----------



## Eric Christian (Oct 4, 2013)

skeels said:


> ^ But you already added that to the other family's imaginary income.
> 
> Your math is flawed. And your argument is hypothetical.



Regardless what the government says when family B gets $400 in food stamps I consider that income. Logically then, you would need to deduct an equivalent $400 from family A's gross to be fair. My math is fine.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Oct 4, 2013)

Murmel said:


> Does it really hurt so much to help out the less fortunate with some taxes?



It's evil and wrong. You shut your damn socialist Euro face! 

I had a convo with someone at work the other day and I've been hearing alot about people getting upset about how universal healthcare is bad because we have immigrants in this country... Is there a single country that doesn't? Is every immigrant in every country legal?

Further, we pay for all sorts of social programs to help people that were born in this country and don't even work. Now, granted illegal immigrants usually don't pay taxes. At the same time, the jobs they do are jobs most Americans don't want to do. Like cleaning public restrooms so your pompous ass has a clean place to drop a stinker... Construction, so you have a building to park your high horse out in front of every day to earn your money and pay your taxes. This isn't to down play either of these jobs, but if I had my way I'd continue getting paid to think so that when/if my body fails me I'm still useful and employed... 

It seems to me like folks think too much about about what's in their pockets right here and now versus considering what everything they do and/or pay for actually goes toward. The money immigrants aren't getting taxed on goes to furthering their lives the same as the jobs they do furthers yours.

I'm not encouraging people to come here illegally and work, but I feel like the issue gets painted a bit too black and white because people want a reason to bitch about their financial situation. 

And why would it ever not be worth it to keep busting your ass to keep up your lifestyle? To conceded is to become exactly what you're complaining about...

The problem is partially ppl worrying too damn much about what's in everyone else's pockets as opposed to just minding their own business and doing what they need to do to help themselves and their family survive. To blame someone else for your inability to do so is a cop out in my opinion. Learn to manage your finances. You may have to cut back on this or that from time to time or perhaps just a short period of time, but keeping your head above water is the point so as long as you have that, why worry about how someone else gets their nut?


----------



## skeels (Oct 4, 2013)

Meanwhile through our indirect acquiescence and compliance, people are being shot and bombed and our world is being poisoned while the rich fat cats are laughing all the way to the bank.

Bickering over the way the pennies are spent while fortunes are wasted on death seems.... 

Sanctimonious.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Oct 4, 2013)

^Not enough e-rep in the world for that post...


----------



## Hollowway (Oct 4, 2013)

I'm not sure I've got much to add in terms of weighing in on Obamacare, etc., but I do think that the incentives in this country would be better aligned if they rewarded those working or those doing something to further the health, goodwill, esteem, etc of the citizens of the country and world. It makes little sense to me that someone can make a comfortable living by day trading stocks, for example. This is contributing nothing to anyone other than the actual day trading "industry." In my ideal world, trading and selling stocks inside of a 24 hour window would have a much higher capital gains tax than ordinary income. And all of these Wall Street shenanigans, where private equity firms buy companies, take out a loan to pay themselves an arbitrary salary, and then have the companies pay them back, should be illegal. The problem is that these companies are often doing nothing to further the development of a product, or investmenting in developing something, and are instead using the financial industry to generate money. It tells the brightest people in the country that if you want to make a comfortable living you should be a doctor or lawyer. But if you want to be wealthy you should be a banker. So we have, at the low end of the income spectrum, an incentive to not work because you could receive the same stuff for free, and at the high end of the income spectrum and incentive not to work (i.e produce, help or invest in something that changes something for the better beyond your own personal income) because you can make more money by manipulating financial instruments.


----------



## Rev2010 (Oct 4, 2013)

Eric Christian said:


> So yeah now is it really worth it to bust your ass when all you do is get punished?



The problem with your math is that both families listed (or head of household rather) are still working. And I would hazard a guess that the guy working for $28,000 a year has a much shittier job and is treated more poorly and has far less sick days and vacation time, not to mention likely no year end bonus, than the $65,000 employee.


Rev.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Oct 4, 2013)

Yea man... I make more than both of those dudes in the example and I take days off whenever the hell I want. Most of my friends that don't and make less money:

1. Work much harder than I do on a daily basis--usually physically.
2. Have shittier hours than I do. I can go in to work, leave "early" and telecommute the rest of the day if it better suits my schedule for that day. And I even have entire days designated solely for telecommuting. I know MANY people that can't say that whether they have a comparable salary or not.
3. Have less or NO sick days. I still get paid when I'm sick.
4. Don't even have a healthcare OPTION provided by their employer.
5. Don't have a retirement plan OPTION provided by their employer.

Hell my job even gives us stock options which is essentially just free money if they match you on it--which they do. They also match me dollar for dollar on my 401k contributions... 

Etc... 

So if I get taxed a little more for extra flexibility, so be it. Because from my vantage point, no matter how the math works out, I'm still in a financially better situation and am more likely to qualify for loans that may help me out when times do get rough... There's clearly a reason I was buying a house at 25 and my friends were (and some still are) just trying to leave their parents' house. And I was out of my house 3 years prior to even purchasing a home. The "don't tax me bro" thing is a bit overblown it seems. That or I'm the luckiest son of a bitch in America which we all know isn't true.


----------



## Rev2010 (Oct 4, 2013)

Konfyouzd said:


> I make more than both of those dudes in the example and I take days off whenever the hell I want.



Me too, I make more than the "upper" guy in his post. I was able to pickup a nearly $2000 Carvin and have a $4600 Jackson custom in the works... I'd say yeah... even with taxes having the income I do is better than even sitting home not working and getting the income the lower guy gets in his post. Though I'll admit my bank account in almost NIL at this point. I've travelled all over the world many times, I've been to Hawaii five times, Saint Martin eight times, Venice twice, Germany over a dozen, stayed in two castles in Germany and two in Scotland, etc. I certainly couldn't do any of that shit on $28,000. Granted, my wife works as well and for the past 7 years live on the first floor of her parents house which also saves us extra money from the even higher rent I was paying prior. But I moved out of home when I was 20 and have supported myself since.

Some arguments here are quite true though... how the government can force you to either buy a form of healthcare or be penalized is pure criminal. Overall though I'd hope in the long run having the government involved in healthcare will reign in the overpricing involved in the industry, that too is pure criminal. I had a friend who had a pain in his left hand. He finally went to a hospital and they admitted him after a scan showed a possible, non-threatening, blood clot. They were supposedly running tests to find out the origin of the clot. Well, they never did and a simple inject I believe it was broke up the clot and he was released after three days in the hospital. He had no health insurance. Wanna know what they billed him? $25,000!!!!!! He didn't have it obviously and got a medicare filing to cover the costs due to his low income... but WTF... $25,000!!??? For a clot in his hand. 

I hope eventually the government can force these criminals to stop overcharging. Unfortunately, with all the corruption in politics I seriously doubt that will happen.


Rev.


----------



## darren (Oct 4, 2013)

All those millionaires holding positions in your government are probably delighted that you see the lower class as a threat to your middle class existence, instead of the upper echelons of society that get away with paying far less than their fair share.

Social engineering indeed. 

American class warfare is playing out exactly as they want it to... which means the rich will continue to get richer and more powerful, and the middle and lower classes get to fight each other for what's left.


----------



## angus (Oct 4, 2013)

Eric Christian said:


> I don't think you've been paying attention bro. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that forcing people to buy a product is constitutional. Employer provided health insurance for the entire Family A is $624 a month and that's with the employer picking up half the premium. On the other hand, the "Bronze" Obamacre plan weighs in at $450. Never mind the fact that in 3 years most private health insurance companies will be driven out of business by the Soviet system we have let ourselves be sucked into.



Nevermind the situation where private companies are going to benefit from this because the Affordable Care Act allows you to shop for a policy from a private insurer that meets your needs, thus bringing more customers to private insurers. 

Nobody is going out of business. And this system does not even remotely resemble anything Soviet. 

But thanks for playing into the hands of lazy political rhetoric. (As Darren succinctly said.)

Why is our country becoming so increasingly petty and looking at fellow citizens as enemies pilfering coins out of their pockets? Jesus, the greatest generation is a long time ago, wasn't it?


----------



## Konfyouzd (Oct 4, 2013)

angus said:


> Why is our country becoming so increasingly petty and looking at fellow citizens as enemies pilfering coins out of their pockets? Jesus, the greatest generation is a long time ago, wasn't it?





Well if they can get us to resent one another we pay less attention to the things about them we *should* resent. 

Didn't Rome bite the dust in a similar fashion? Economic instability, internal conflict, people around the world wanting to put a foot in their asses...


----------



## angus (Oct 4, 2013)

Eric Christian said:


> You just don't get it do you? Of course the father in family A is getting punished. Indirectly through his income taxes he is basically funding the father of family B to stand around pouring coffees and playing grab ass with all the female Baristas and Milf customers... Lol...



Couple things:

1) You need someone to pour coffee, much in the same way that you need someone to dig ditches, pave roads, and pump sewage. They aren't going to get paid much, and while they probably are not Nobel laureates, it doesn't mean they are necessarily lazy, bad, or just there because they want to avoid work. It's a horrible argument. 

2) Yes, his income tax is funding programs that other family needs. But, the proportion of his income going to that is really, really small. Like, a few dollars. Your taxes pay for a TON of programs. You think it actually makes any functional difference to the family paying in? Per program, no, not at all. 

That it gets stuck in their craw is another issue. It always strikes me as similar to some teenager who worries about his penis size- the real issue is that he has nothing going on in his life, not that his peen is tiny, but the emotions get poured into his crotch. Freaking out that $6 of your federal taxes go to welfare, and $2.50 to food stamps, is such a tremendous waste of energy that it can only be because you don't have bigger issues to put your time into, imo. 

(I realize that is a silly, reductionist view, but you get the comparison.)

We all pay taxes. Maybe it would be helpful if you viewed them as a yearly payment for your right to be a US citizen, and work, live and earn a living for your family here. But your focus should be on what you are earning, how you can better yourself and your career, and not rooting out those terrible poor people and their pilfering ways. 

Want a better life? Find ways to earn a dollar, not save a nickel.


----------



## skeels (Oct 4, 2013)

darren said:


> All those millionaires holding positions in your government .



Taxation without representation. Where have we heard that before?

We need a broke president. 

Hey, I'm broke. I'll do it. Does it pay good?


----------



## darren (Oct 4, 2013)

Konfyouzd said:


> Well if they can get us to resent one another we pay less attention to the things about them we *should* resent.
> 
> Didn't Rome bite the dust in a similar fashion? Economic instability, internal conflict, people around the world wanting to put a foot in their asses...



There have been a lot of rumblings in the last decade or so that we are indeed witnessing the decline of the American empire. If America defaults on its debts, i can see the whole house of cards coming down REALLY fast.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Oct 4, 2013)

Sometimes you need to be brought down a peg. Shit might suck for a bit if the people around me come to appreciate things more I feel like it might be worth it. Not that I'd wish that on any nation--much less my own. I simply don't really fear the idea (yet ).


----------



## darren (Oct 4, 2013)

skeels said:


> Taxation without representation. Where have we heard that before?



I find it INCREDIBLY ironic that most of the "Tea Party" conservatives are exactly the kind of people Americans SHOULDN'T want running their country... Rich, powerful, connected, and buying votes left, right and centre, slashing taxes in the name of "trickle-down economics" (which has been proven over and over by economists that it DOES NOT WORK), making their rich friends richer, destroying the middle class and making the divide between the super-rich and the poor ever wider.


----------



## angus (Oct 4, 2013)

....and yet smart enough to make the poorer, rural white people think the "Tea Party" represents them and their interests. 

Republicans (even the moderate ones) have always been very, very good/successful at that, though.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Oct 4, 2013)

skeels said:


> Taxation without representation. Where have we heard that before?
> 
> We need a broke president.
> 
> Hey, I'm broke. I'll do it. Does it pay good?


It pays well enough. 

I'll be almost old enough to run next time there's an election... I feel a power metal campaign song comin'... 

America loves shock value... Thumb through an economics book for like... Err... Ya know... Get the cliff notes...

Then just be as unorthodox as possible while speaking really clearly and be sure to put on your "kind eyes" face so people can see that you're also compassionate. 

DO NOT mention any binders or the women you may have trapped inside.

Profit...


----------



## angus (Oct 4, 2013)

skeels said:


> We need a broke president.



Obama is actually about the closest you'll get- before the income from his book a couple years before his first presidency run, he was not worth much. Clinton was about the same. 

I do NOT want a broke president, though. If he can't get his finances in order, regardless of his work background, why do I think he can sustain the enormous, enormous workload and responsibilities required of a president?! 

He does not have to be from wealthy families, though, a la most presidents.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Oct 4, 2013)

I think he means broke in comparison to rich which is... Everyone else... 

And broke doesn't always mean an inability to manage one's finances. Sometimes it's just a severe lack of income. Remember Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory? Charlie was just poor...


----------



## AxeHappy (Oct 4, 2013)

I'm still trying to figure out how Family A is being punished by making more money...?


----------



## Konfyouzd (Oct 4, 2013)

The taxing and such... No free phone... 

To quote Raven Simone in Dr. Doolittle: "What I'm s'posed to do w/o my ceeeeell phone?!" 

Or was that some other little girl in some other movie? 

The way I see it... If families that struggle to stay above water should just be stepped over then women shouldn't get in free before a certain hour at bars and clubs.


----------



## angus (Oct 4, 2013)

Konfyouzd said:


> And broke doesn't always mean an inability to manage one's finances. Sometimes it's just a severe lack of income.



Oh certainly- except what jobs would someone have that would qualify/ready for the presidency that would not involve reasonable income? I guess that's my point. It is difficult not to have reasonable money/income but have jobs that would be suitable training for a president.


(My god, could my grammar have been worse before edit?)


----------



## Konfyouzd (Oct 4, 2013)

That makes sense. I could see maybe a teacher being suitable. And before I continue I apologize if bringing up teachers offended any teachers among us. But I do hear a lot of griping from teachers about how much money they don't have and I hear teachers are a relatively underpaid profession. I haven't looked into the numbers myself.

At any rate, that's at least one profession that comes to mind as someone who "might" at least have to struggle a tiny bit that could potentially be presidential material. Good teachers have to have leadership skills, effective time management, communication, decision making, so on... And depending on their interests outside of what pays the bills they may very well be suitable for the job.


----------



## ilyti (Oct 4, 2013)

Lots of good arguments in this thread.

Ultimately, I don't think this is going to change the OP's opinion though.


----------



## Eric Christian (Oct 4, 2013)

ilyti said:


> Lots of good arguments in this thread.
> 
> Ultimately, I don't think this is going to change the OP's opinion though.



Correct. That's because I see what's going on now as nothing more than income redistribution. I think everyone is missing the big picture however. That is the fact that many people are simply going to come to the same conclusion I have and they're going to basically stop working so hard. I mean really it's just human nature. What idiot is going to work twice as hard as someone else and make virtually the same amount of money at the end of the day? Once this starts trending were pretty much going to have two classes of people just like back in the Middle Ages. Serf peasants and the Lords and royalty.


----------



## ilyti (Oct 4, 2013)

Good luck with that, America.


----------



## Hollowway (Oct 4, 2013)

darren said:


> All those millionaires holding positions in your government are probably delighted that you see the lower class as a threat to your middle class existence, instead of the upper echelons of society that get away with paying far less than their fair share.
> 
> Social engineering indeed.
> 
> American class warfare is playing out exactly as they want it to... which means the rich will continue to get richer and more powerful, and the middle and lower classes get to fight each other for what's left.



Amen.

Aaaand...



darren said:


> I find it INCREDIBLY ironic that most of the "Tea Party" conservatives are exactly the kind of people Americans SHOULDN'T want running their country... Rich, powerful, connected, and buying votes left, right and centre, slashing taxes in the name of "trickle-down economics" (which has been proven over and over by economists that it DOES NOT WORK), making their rich friends richer, destroying the middle class and making the divide between the super-rich and the poor ever wider.



Amen.


----------



## darren (Oct 4, 2013)

Eric Christian said:


> Correct. That's because I see what's going on now as nothing more than income redistribution. I think everyone is missing the big picture however. That is the fact that many people are simply going to come to the same conclusion I have and they're going to basically stop working so hard. I mean really it's just human nature. What idiot is going to work twice as hard as someone else and make virtually the same amount of money at the end of the day? Once this starts trending were pretty much going to have two classes of people just like back in the Middle Ages. Serf peasants and the Lords and royalty.



Income redistribution and the widening gulf between the ultra-rich and the ultra-poor are two completely polar opposite concepts. If what were happening is truly "income redistribution", then you wouldn't be seeing the widening poverty/prosperity gap.

What you are seeing is the ultra-rich taking power in government, and tilting the tax laws in their own favour, obliterating the middle class completely, but all the while making you think that what they're doing is in YOUR best interests. 

I think too many people have too much pride to go on social assistance just because they can. They'll keep trying on principle. THAT is human nature.


----------



## Rev2010 (Oct 4, 2013)

Not to mention no one wants to deal with filing all the required paperwork. And things like welfare include unannounced visits to your house to prove you're still there at home unemployed and impoverished. I know, my mother was a single mom supporting two kids on welfare for a period of my youth. 


Rev.


----------



## will_shred (Oct 4, 2013)

Eric Christian said:


> You just don't get it do you? Of course the father in family A is getting punished. Indirectly through his income taxes he is basically funding the father of family B to stand around pouring coffees and playing grab ass with all the female Baristas and Milf customers... Lol...



So by making that statement you are assuming that the members of Family B want to work for shitty pay at a shitty job just so they can piss off people who are making more by collecting welfare? 

You're also assuming that minimum wage jobs are easy and require very little work, or else how could a hard working family also be lazy? Ever bused tables? yeah the work itself takes no brains but you bust your ass and make nothing. 



I can't see any flaw in that logic.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Oct 4, 2013)

'd


----------



## Murmel (Oct 4, 2013)

Eric Christian said:


> Correct. That's because I see what's going on now as nothing more than income redistribution. I think everyone is missing the big picture however. That is the fact that many people are simply going to come to the same conclusion I have and they're going to basically stop working so hard. I mean really it's just human nature. What idiot is going to work twice as hard as someone else and make virtually the same amount of money at the end of the day? Once this starts trending were pretty much going to have two classes of people just like back in the Middle Ages. Serf peasants and the Lords and royalty.


From what I understand, you want them to stop taxating the middle class while letting the upper class roll on as they are? Initially I thought you just wanted to get rid of welfare all along.

The problem with taxating the upper class more than the rest is that _they _are gonna get pissed about it too. 
"We work much harder than the middle class, why shouldn't we get to keep our money?". There's quite a lot of this going on where I live. Sweden is definitely not a tax haven for the rich.

I'm all for making people who earn more pay more, to keep the country running nicely for _everyone_. Though, I can definitely understand their frustration. The obvious middle class frustration is also very understandable.


----------



## angus (Oct 4, 2013)

darren said:


> Income redistribution and the widening gulf between the ultra-rich and the ultra-poor are two completely polar opposite concepts. If what were happening is truly "income redistribution", then you wouldn't be seeing the widening poverty/prosperity gap.



Bravo- I was going to say the same thing. 

I feel like people throw around income redistribution, socialism, Marxism, serfdom, etc, without really understanding what these things are, what they look like, how they got there, and what political undercurrents lead to their installation. 

We are not at that level. But somehow our rhetoric is.


----------



## will_shred (Oct 4, 2013)

Eric Christian said:


> Regardless what the government says when family B gets $400 in food stamps I consider that income. Logically then, you would need to deduct an equivalent $400 from family A's gross to be fair. My math is fine.



More like Family B gets food stamps because family, A, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, and K paid their social security taxes and collectively only paid $40 per month each so family B could eat. 

Also, you may not be aware of this, but the mean SNAP benefit for a household is only about $4.50 per day, so that's about $135 per month. Not $400. If SNAP benefits were $400 per month we (the USA) probably wouldn't have the problem of people not being able to afford things like fresh foods (raw meats, veggies, fruits, ect) while on food stamps.


----------



## angus (Oct 4, 2013)

LETS NOT LET REAL NUMBERS GET IN TEH WAY OF AN EMOTIONAL ARGUMENT PLZ KTHXBYE


----------



## skeels (Oct 4, 2013)

darren said:


> What you are seeing is the ultra-rich taking power .





Eric Christian said:


> .. going to have two classes of people just like back in the Middle Ages. Serf peasants and the Lords and royalty.



The funny thing is that these things happened a looooooong time ago.

We don't have to worry about it happening. It's already been done.


----------



## will_shred (Oct 4, 2013)

skeels said:


> The funny thing is that these things happened a looooooong time ago.
> 
> We don't have to worry about it happening. It's already been done.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Oct 4, 2013)

But Huey says he's the devil


----------



## skeels (Oct 4, 2013)

^Hee hee!

Good ol' trickle down Reagonomics!

Made coke cheap for the yuppies and pot expensive for the poor hippies.


----------



## skeels (Oct 4, 2013)

I just wanted to revisit this discussion to give EC some credit.

To be fair, a lot of Americans are trifling fools with no prospects and no purpose. 

My drive home takes me from the trendy, fashionable part of town near the college with its bustling nightlife and film festivals to a seedy neighborhood where porches are full of little kids at ten o'clock at night. 

Like many Northern cities, the torch has passed from championing civil rights and equality to segregation and distrust. Anyone who tells you that poverty is not a weapon wielded by the elite is foolish. It's been this way since before recorded history. 

But even the bible says it is wrong to have too much while others have not enough. "Grinding the face of the poor"

Now, I'm not talking about the slimy manager over at Starbucks who is hitting on the young ladies who work there. It sounds like you know this dude. I'm talking about the young mother who struggling to raise her kids and go to school to better her life and future of her children. A lot of those who are poor do not remain so for a long time. 

These are all also "first world problems". poverty in a lot of parts of the world means that you have a dirt floor no electricity struggle to get food can't read and s*** in a little ditch outside your home. Also there are roving gangs of dudes with machetes killing people.but if we can't keep our own house in order what hopes have we of doing any greater benefit to the rest of the planet.

There are those who stayed in a state of complacency in all strata of our economically compartmentalized society for their entire lives.


----------



## mcd (Oct 5, 2013)

Murmel said:


> Does it really hurt so much to help out the less fortunate with some taxes?



I wish I had more of a say in who I helped. I am totally against the dregs of society that leech onto my hard work for an easy life. 

OP if it makes you feel any better, I'm taxed more than what Family B earns a year. So i'm pretty upset about the amount of taxes our country takes in the first place.


----------



## Datura (Oct 5, 2013)

$933 dollars a month buys a lot of guitars...


----------



## Azathoth43 (Oct 5, 2013)

I bet family B drives a brand new Cadillac to the food stamp office also.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Oct 5, 2013)

Hollowway said:


> I'm all for helping out the less fortunate, but the system is definitely set up in a way that rewards not working. Unfortunately the only thing keeping a lot of people off government welfare (not literally "welfare," but all forms of assistance) is pride, and wanting to earn what they get paid. Obviously in higher incomes this is less of an issue, but at the middle class and lower middle class level the incentive is to keep your income low to qualify for all the aid, not get married so your spouse's income is not figured in with yours, have a bunch of kids when you're really young to get assistance for them, etc. the whole thing would work if everyone was honest and wanted to move upward, but there are way too many disincentives to bust your butt unless you can make substantially more than the average worker.


 

Well said. That's the unfortunate reality of the situation.
There's just too many people who will take the path of least resistance.
There's also an epidemic of system abuse.

I know of many people right here that play the psycho/depressive card and don't have to work a day in their lives. 
Of course they live off peanuts, but a lot of people don't care as long as they don't have to work.
And collecting the check qualifies them for so many other breaks (most of rent, most of utilities, most of food/link card, FREE HEALTHCARE ect...,
Some of these breaks are state subsidized, which is part of the reason Illinois is financially screwed.


----------



## exo (Oct 5, 2013)

So apparently, the head of household in family B, who makes $14/hr putting in 40 hours a week with the mental stress of dealing with the rude, disrespectful general public and the succession of rude, lazy teenage employees that don't really give two shits about doing their job properly that HE has to answer to the general public AND his corporate folks for doesn't "bust his ass" and is apparently some sort of deadbeat? That's what I'm gathering........and that attitude is pure, unadulterated selfish BULLSHIT. 

Moreover, it's an absolutely ass backwards way of looking at it. The guy running Family B would HAPPILY deal with the tax and expense difference and the "paying for other people's shit" that goes with it to put another $500 a month into his checking account. He's not the lazy bastard in the equation....


----------



## traditional (Oct 5, 2013)

I don't exactly have a stance in this discussion since I'm from Aussieland, but I have to note how awesome this forum is when I can be on one page reading two people bicker about chrome vs black hardware, or other trivial concepts, then go to another where people are seriously discussing economics, social engineering, class structures, etc.
<3 sevenstring.org


----------



## skeels (Oct 5, 2013)

mcd said:


> I wish I had more of a say in who I helped. I am totally against the dregs of society that leech onto my hard work for an easy life.
> .



That would be the politicians.


----------



## Demiurge (Oct 5, 2013)

Considering that Obamacare may barely survive the presidential term of the president who put it into place, I'd say that the incentive to work is that one's ability to work and their employability is a much more durable thing than the funding- let alone existence- of subsidies for those who don't. 

There are always politicians trying to drag these tax breaks, subsidies, benefits, etc. the chopping block every year, and it's only a matter of time before the right president, the right proportion of whichever party in the house & senate, or the right economic situations in place either eliminate or cripple those programs. No way in hell would I choose to depend on that.


----------



## rectifryer (Oct 5, 2013)

You can't subtract cost from family A then add it to Family B; that artificially doubles the amount. Considering this, do you really have a point anymore? If it's that the middle class is diminishing, I agree. I don't attribute it to a system that just started since the middle class collapse has been occurring since the 60s, though.


----------



## rectifryer (Oct 5, 2013)

exo said:


> So apparently, the head of household in family B, who makes $14/hr putting in 40 hours a week with the mental stress of dealing with the rude, disrespectful general public and the succession of rude, lazy teenage employees that don't really give two shits about doing their job properly that HE has to answer to the general public AND his corporate folks for doesn't "bust his ass" and is apparently some sort of deadbeat? That's what I'm gathering........and that attitude is pure, unadulterated selfish BULLSHIT.
> 
> Moreover, it's an absolutely ass backwards way of looking at it. The guy running Family B would HAPPILY deal with the tax and expense difference and the "paying for other people's shit" that goes with it to put another $500 a month into his checking account. He's not the lazy bastard in the equation....



I'd say it's his personal responsibility to find a more marketable field. I don't think it's right to completely shrug personal responsibility to the shoulder of the system. If you start a family while making 14$ an hour that is on you. I'd even say that's completely irresponsible.


----------



## angus (Oct 5, 2013)

Demiurge said:


> Considering that Obamacare may barely survive the presidential term of the president who put it into place, I'd say that the incentive to work is that one's ability to work and their employability is a much more durable thing than the funding- let alone existence- of subsidies for those who don't.




Unlikely, in this case- like medicare, once it gets going it is going to be incredibly unpopular to remove, and financially a gigantic mess. One the populations who stand to benefit the most- the poor- tend to vote republican in most parts of the country, so it will become a very difficult political move to convince them they no longer need that cheap health care.


----------



## texshred777 (Oct 5, 2013)

ONLY $933 a month? 

Shit, that's 77% of my current net income after child support and (even higher)taxes. I help people and save lives for a living. I am not working at McDonald's and gaming the system. 

I'd gladly work (even)harder for ONLY $933 more per month. That's the perspective of someone who is ACTUALLY poor.

And I'm not the one bitching about it.

Edit:
I still believe I'm in much better condition to improve my standing than say, random guy born in the dirt in India. In my own time I'm studying and learning a trade, my father and I are looking to start a family business.


----------



## Eladamri (Oct 5, 2013)

Eric Christian said:


> You just don't get it do you? Of course the father in family A is getting punished. Indirectly through his income taxes he is basically funding the father of family B to stand around pouring coffees and playing grab ass with all the female Baristas and Milf customers... Lol...



And there speaks a man who's never worked a shitty service job. My friends who work in Costa work 60 hour weeks, sometimes starting at 5 am and are physically and mentally ruined after a bad shift.


----------



## Edika (Oct 5, 2013)

To the OP, simple arithmetic will allow you to add the food stamps, but since the healthcare is free i.e. they don't pay for it, how is it added to their income? So in the end the poorer family is 1582.67 dollars less than the "wealthier" family. It may not seem much to you but even the 933 dollars are 400 dollars more than the basic salary in my home country nowadays.
Also just because the poorer guy is being paid less doesn't mean he works less than the richer guy. And if you are making that much per year/month then bravo you are making more me and I have two phd's in semiconductor physics (just in case you want to play the get an education, work harder and rainbows and unicorns will shoot out of our ass argument).
For someone that has the word Christian in his last name and has stated that is Christian several times in this forum it is a very unchristian attitude to hold. Unless Jesus did what Republicans politicians are proclaiming, that he endorsed capitalism. And of course they would say that, they are filthy rich, they don't want to share their wealth but must appear Christian at the same time. Cognitive dissonance much?
Unfortunately the middle class was the carrot that the upper class was holding to the lower class in order not to revolt against them.


----------



## exo (Oct 5, 2013)

rectifryer said:


> I'd say it's his personal responsibility to find a more marketable field. I don't think it's right to completely shrug personal responsibility to the shoulder of the system. If you start a family while making 14$ an hour that is on you. I'd even say that's completely irresponsible.




The way economics work is that there is ALWAYS someone on the bottom of the dogpile. ALWAYS. 

Why are you assuming that he STARTED the family on $14/hr, and hasn't been economically thrust into his situation thru outisde forces? Have you been paying attention to the US economy over the last 5 years at ALL?! And as far as "find a more marketable field" goes? you assume he isn't making the attempt, and that the competition out there for a better paying job is slight enough he's going to land one. The economic landscape of the US right now, and for the last half decade counter's that preconception at evry single turn......You assume the fact that family B recieves aid indicates they're abdicating responsibility, when if you're looking at the situation HONESTLY.......the guy is ACTUALLY WORKING A PRETTY SHITTY 40 HR/ A WEEK JOB, instead of working PT hours riding the gravy train. The hypothetical situation used as an example by the OP is NOT what it is being portrayed as if one is looking at it with open eyes, and you're assuming a LOT about the situation that you don't know.

To re-iterate.......there is ALWAYS going to be someone on the bottom of the dogpile. That's why we can afford all the shit we have as middle class/1st world country citizens. The scary thing to me (and this isn't directed at you, but a general comment on societal attitudes) is how many people not only have their blinders on about it, but rather than try and help out someone who may be struggling, they'd rather give' 'em a hearty "screw you", and behave like Gollum with his Precious..........me, I don't have the time or energy to waste on being bitter like that.


----------



## LLink2411 (Oct 5, 2013)

angus said:


> You aren't getting punished. What happens to them doesn't affect you.
> 
> The crossover line is shitty, sure, but how it is sensible to punish people making less just so you can feel less aggrieved? That's a very primal, envious instinct, isn't it?


I like you.


----------



## Metal_Webb (Oct 5, 2013)

Tell me how hard your lifestyle is where you work a few dozen hours a week and live comfortably while there's hundreds of millions of people around the world who live in complete poverty with little hope for a better future.


----------



## AxeHappy (Oct 5, 2013)

In an interesting turn of fact, the middle/lower class in North America is actually economically closer to those millions of poor people around the world than the elite rich in North America.

Life style wise, certainly closer to the rich but it is certainly worth thinking about.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Oct 5, 2013)

Are the people who are so angry that the government is forcing them to pay for health insurance also angry that the government forces them to pay for auto insurance? I'm not using this as an "Ah-HA! GOTCHA!" question, either. I'm genuinely curious, since I can't recall ever hearing about large movements for that to be done away with. Is that because that's a State gov't thing rather than Federal?


----------



## abandonist (Oct 6, 2013)

Eric Christian said:


> Correct. That's because I see what's going on now as nothing more than income redistribution. I think everyone is missing the big picture however. That is the fact that many people are simply going to come to the same conclusion I have and they're going to basically stop working so hard.



So go ahead and do it. If you're so sure of your convictions, then live up to them.


----------



## vilk (Oct 6, 2013)

I disagree with OP on the grounds that he is implying that the person making more money is actually working harder than the person who makes less.


----------



## Hollowway (Oct 6, 2013)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> Are the people who are so angry that the government is forcing them to pay for health insurance also angry that the government forces them to pay for auto insurance? I'm not using this as an "Ah-HA! GOTCHA!" question, either. I'm genuinely curious, since I can't recall ever hearing about large movements for that to be done away with. Is that because that's a State gov't thing rather than Federal?



Huh. That's a really good question, and I never even thought about that. It's essentially the same issue. In other words, you could make the same arguments - except that in health care people get treated irrespective of whether they have insurance (and therefore raise the rates of others via cost shifting). But there's even a little of that in there, too.


----------



## abandonist (Oct 6, 2013)

Insurance (and credit) are scams. We're forced to participate.


----------



## Hollowway (Oct 6, 2013)

baron samedi said:


> I disagree with OP on the grounds that he is implying that the person making more money is actually working harder than the person who makes less.



Maybe, but you have to admit he has a point that many of the incentives are there to encourage less work, not more. For instance, I have a co-worker who is a single mom with 2 kids and she was told by one of the counselors at the state-funded insurance program that she'd be better off quitting her job and just going fulling on government assistance because she'd actually be further ahead than if she kept working. I'm a fan of helping the less fortunate, but I think its weird that you can work a full time job and end up with less "benefits" than if you were 100% on government assistance. Again, it only happens right at that borderline, but it does happen. 
Though, in the big picture I have to go with what Darren/Angus, etc said, that complaining about this stuff is pretty much a waste of time given how much unfairness happens at the top 1% of the income in this country.


----------



## abandonist (Oct 6, 2013)

There'll always be a dividing line. It's just a matter of fixation.


----------



## Eric Christian (Oct 6, 2013)

rectifryer said:


> You can't subtract cost from family A then add it to Family B; that artificially doubles the amount. Considering this, do you really have a point anymore? If it's that the middle class is diminishing, I agree. I don't attribute it to a system that just started since the middle class collapse has been occurring since the 60s, though.





Edika said:


> To the OP, simple arithmetic will allow you to add the food stamps, but since the healthcare is free i.e. they don't pay for it, how is it added to their income? So in the end the poorer family is 1582.67 dollars less than the "wealthier" family. It may not seem much to you but even the 933 dollars are 400 dollars more than the basic salary in my home country nowadays.
> Also just because the poorer guy is being paid less doesn't mean he works less than the richer guy. And if you are making that much per year/month then bravo you are making more me and I have two phd's in semiconductor physics (just in case you want to play the get an education, work harder and rainbows and unicorns will shoot out of our ass argument).
> For someone that has the word Christian in his last name and has stated that is Christian several times in this forum it is a very unchristian attitude to hold. Unless Jesus did what Republicans politicians are proclaiming, that he endorsed capitalism. And of course they would say that, they are filthy rich, they don't want to share their wealth but must appear Christian at the same time. Cognitive dissonance much?
> Unfortunately the middle class was the carrot that the upper class was holding to the lower class in order not to revolt against them.



Are you kidding me? How is it income? Its a $450 health insurance premium that they're not going to have to spend any of his $2333 monthly income on. That makes $2783. How is that so hard to understand? Its added to their income because its now mandatory to purchase health insurance it if you can afford it. Get it now? If you're under the poverty level its free and if you can afford it then you must buy it. Logically then if its free for one income level and another has to pay for it then its either a penalty for the wealthier family or income for the poorer family. Spin it any way you want. Same with the food stamps. Family B is eligible for $400 in food stamps or "Oregon Trail" as it called here (and you get a fancy credit card with a covered wagon on it) but basically its paid for with federal dollars from the which ultimately is part of the USDA. Again, Family A has to pay $400 for their food whereas Family B gets their food for free. I consider that a portion of their income in both cases. That takes it up to $3383 including all the other freebies added in. Now contrast that with the net monthly income of the other guy $3916 which is a difference of $533.

Now several people made inferences that a somehow a service or retail worker works just as hard as an auto mechanic. Obviously they have no idea what they're talking about. First off, most if not all modern auto mechanics have 2 year associates degrees. Secondly, most if not all have at least $20,000 invested in a toolbox and tools. More likely $50,000 if they're master mechanics. Thirdly, an auto mechanic works long hours performing physically strenuous work that involves extensive skills to accomplish under sometimes dangerous conditions. 

Now lets look at the Barista or the Cashier. No school required, Check. No tools required, just pair of khaki pants, a black shirt a green apron, or perhaps a carpal tunnel brace, Check. Dangerous conditions... wait.... oh yes... the possibility of yet another senseless coffee spill or perhaps some steam burns from the espresso machine or heaven forbid maybe a slip and fall at the end of the evening when mopping up the toilets... 

Jeez guys, give me a break.


----------



## Eric Christian (Oct 6, 2013)

Hollowway said:


> Maybe, but you have to admit he has a point that many of the incentives are there to encourage less work, not more. For instance, I have a co-worker who is a single mom with 2 kids and she was told by one of the counselors at the state-funded insurance program that she'd be better off quitting her job and just going fulling on government assistance because she'd actually be further ahead than if she kept working. I'm a fan of helping the less fortunate, but I think its weird that you can work a full time job and end up with less "benefits" than if you were 100% on government assistance. Again, it only happens right at that borderline, but it does happen.
> Though, in the big picture I have to go with what Darren/Angus, etc said, that complaining about this stuff is pretty much a waste of time given how much unfairness happens at the top 1% of the income in this country.



This is the whole point of the post. Once the middle class is gone there won't be anybody left to pay the income taxes that fund all this nonsense and the gravy train will come to a crashing halt....


----------



## vilk (Oct 6, 2013)

Yeah, but like, I know people who get paid a lot more than auto mechanics and do hardly anything at all. Some jobs are harder than others, regardless of the pay. Not all low wage workers are baristas. Not all hard working people are auto mechanics. There are lots of different jobs for people to do, and most people aren't in full control of what jobs they can and cannot do. I agree that people who work hard putting stress on their body should have some kind of perks to their job. But certainly that isn't the same as saying that people who work jobs that don't demand severe physical stress don't deserve health insurance or government assistance if they aren't making enough to support their family. 

Furthermore, just because you think your job is harder than someone else's doesn't mean that it is. And it seems painfully obvious these days that one's yearly income is not usually proportionate to how much work they actually do. The difficulty of a job is relative to a person (despite that salaries are not always relative to jobs).. I know people who hate talking to people so much that they prefer to work manual labor than have to deal with customers. And I know people with a completely opposite opinion. Both think the other's job is harder. Some peoples bodies are better equipped to deal with physical stress, and some people are better equipped to deal with mental stress, some people aren't equipped to deal with either. And they all go to work.


----------



## Eric Christian (Oct 6, 2013)

baron samedi said:


> Yeah, but like, I know people who get paid a lot more than auto mechanics and do hardly anything at all. Some jobs are harder than others, regardless of the pay. Not all low wage workers are baristas. Not all hard working people are auto mechanics. There are lots of different jobs for people to do, and most people aren't in full control of what jobs they can and cannot do. I agree that people who work hard putting stress on their body should have some kind of perks to their job. But certainly that isn't the same as saying that people who work jobs that don't demand severe physical stress don't deserve health insurance or government assistance if they aren't making enough to support their family.
> 
> Furthermore, just because you think your job is harder than someone else's doesn't mean that it is. And it seems painfully obvious these days that one's yearly income is not usually proportionate to how much work they actually do. The difficulty of a job is relative to a person (despite that salaries are not always relative to jobs).. I know people who hate talking to people so much that they prefer to work manual labor than have to deal with customers. And I know people with a completely opposite opinion. Both think the other's job is harder. Some peoples bodies are better equipped to deal with physical stress, and some people are better equipped to deal with mental stress, some people aren't equipped to deal with either. And they all go to work.



Skilled labor is skilled labor regardless of the physical aspect I suppose. People spend 6 years getting a Masters degree in software engineering and make $150,000 a year working for Autodesk right down the street from my work and I'm not jealous. I follow behind their Porsches and Ferraris every morning and I don't care cause I would hate sitting at a desk programming and doing math. Doctors spend 10+ years at school and make half a million dollars a year poking around peoples insides... no thanks. My point is no more free sh1t for people that can help themselves and increase their income of their own volition. No more rewards for slackers. I live in a city full of hipster slackers and its pitiful and sickening to stand behind them at the 711 check out using the Oregon Trail card to buy sodas and chips and then watch them get into a late model Subaru with skies on the roof on their way to the mountain.


----------



## dudeskin (Oct 6, 2013)

I'm in the uk, and if I could even love up the the converted amount of any of those numbers if be happy. I work my ass off, have done since I was old enough for a job. This country is on it's knees in terms of job prospects at the moment. My missus can't find a job with more than 15 hours a week. We have looked endlessly to get one so we can afford more than just getting the rent paid for and a few coins left over. 

I personally get fed up when I can't be active. I am not the kind of person who enjoys hand outs. I would rather carry on working hard for the rest of my life than calculate how much different I could love if I claimed off the system. It wouldn't be much different for us but I have morals and a strong desire to achieve something with my life. 

The problem with people who have more is that they always want more. That's what our government is doing at the moment. The rich get richer and the poor can barely survive. 
I have friends that have never worked but they have a better car than us and go on 3 or 4 holidays a year with the kids. I know they claim for everything possible too. 
I could not live this way. 

When your complaining about 60 odd thousand dollars income, think about those of us who earn 7 for a 44 hour week. Plus the fact that it costs more to love here. 
I personally love that when I got hit by a car, an ambulance came and sorted me out in hospital. I don't understand this insurance crap. We are all humans that bleed the same. Why should people who have money get help and people who don't suffer because they can't afford to be looked at. Forgive me if I'm incorrect, but that's what I see at a glance. 
It sounds stupid to me. 

Moral of the story: work your ass off and be greatfull for the things you have, not what others have.


----------



## skeels (Oct 6, 2013)

Eric Christian said:


> Skilled labor is skilled labor regardless of the physical aspect I suppose. People spend 6 years getting a Masters degree in software engineering and make $150,000 a year working for Autodesk right down the street from my work and I'm not jealous. I follow behind their Porsches and Ferraris every morning and I don't care cause I would hate sitting at a desk programming and doing math. Doctors spend 10+ years at school and make half a million dollars a year poking around peoples insides... no thanks. My point is no more free sh1t for people that can help themselves and increase their income of their own volition. No more rewards for slackers. I live in a city full of hipster slackers and its pitiful and sickening to stand behind them at the 711 check out using the Oregon Trail card to buy sodas and chips and then watch them get into a late model Subaru with skies on the roof on their way to the mountain.



You're opening yourself up to a lot of criticism.

So why is it not cool for the guy at Starbucks to say, "Get covered with grease and bust my knuckles wrenching on cars? No thanks." Because you say he should work harder? Sorry dude but that's total hypocrisy. Maybe the guy rides a bike and thinks cars are for assholes.

Maybe the kid at the 711 has doctors for parents and they give them all the skiis and subarus and time shares on the mountain. In which case, they are entitled to use their "hard earned" money however they want. Maybe this kid busts his ass to be a doctor and skiing is his only enjoyment in life and he's an orphan and he inherited the Subaru from his grandma who died.

But many have given the worst gift of all to their kids. The gift of entitlement.

Thinking you "deserve" something in today's society is a way for us to selfishly say that someone else doesn't. Most of these things we say we "desrve" are merely privileges that we in fact abuse and misuse. 

Maybe the slackers are right. they've seen previous generations busting their ass to make a living and to provide for their families get nowhere. They see that hard work and perseverance and saving money doesn't work because you just get screwed in the end. Maybe we should all take a lesson from them and kick back and try to enjoy our lives a little and look for those loop holes which we all do anyways.

It's my experience that most jobs and business are evil pursuits. Doctors? The ultimate slackers. Have my RN take care of you, write you an illegible scrip to line the pockets of the crooked pharmaceutical companies then I'm off to play golf. IT workers? Making the world a better place to sit in front of a computer and eat chips and soda and play video games and b**** about stuff on the interwebs. and don't even get me started about car mechanics.

Hell. my job is the worst of the bunch. I put my life on the line on a daily basis in the second most dangerous occupation in this country to ensure the safety and reliability of the electricity to the comfortable homes of these doctors and IT guys and mechanics.

I'm perhaps the biggest idiot of all.


----------



## Rev2010 (Oct 6, 2013)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> Are the people who are so angry that the government is forcing them to pay for health insurance also angry that the government forces them to pay for auto insurance? I'm not using this as an "Ah-HA! GOTCHA!" question, either. I'm genuinely curious, since I can't recall ever hearing about large movements for that to be done away with. Is that because that's a State gov't thing rather than Federal?



You don't have to pay auto insurance if you don't want to own a car. How does one get out of paying for healthcare? Die? Leave the USA? And just for the record, as I've already mentioned I do personally think universal health care is an overall good idea and is better for people in the long run than our current system. I still think however that one should not be forced to buy healthcare or penalized for not buying health care. What about those religious nutbags that believe in leaving their lives in the hands of the lord and not going to doctors for problems? On one hand our government says they have the right to make that choice (not for their children though thank God!) so why should we force them to participate in the health care system against their will?


Rev.


----------



## Rev2010 (Oct 6, 2013)

Eric Christian said:


> Now several people made inferences that a somehow a service or retail worker works just as hard as an auto mechanic. Obviously they have no idea what they're talking about.



Wow oh wow. What about "managers" in corporate offices? What about CEO's? You're honestly saying all these people work that much harder than the guy in the mailroom, the janitorial staff?? GTFO. I've worked bottom of the barrel minimum wage jobs and I'll tell you right now they were harder and more exhausting than my IT job now. Sure my IT job requires all the mental knowledge I've gained and is worth more to a partner of my law firm making $800 an hour when his computer is down than the guy cleaning the bathroom. THAT is why I get paid more, but don't try and say I'm working _harder_ just because my paycheck is larger.

And since you like to throw around math, the average CEO makes 380x the average worker. That means in one year the average CEO makes what the average worker would after working for 380 years! Go on and tell us that CEO works 380x harder, it's humanly impossible.


Rev.


----------



## thraxil (Oct 6, 2013)

Rev2010 said:


> YWhat about those religious nutbags that believe in leaving their lives in the hands of the lord and not going to doctors for problems? On one hand our government says they have the right to make that choice (not for their children though thank God!) so why should we force them to participate in the health care system against their will?



The ACA does actually allow you to opt out on religious grounds. I'm not sure exactly how it's handled and enforced, but they did think of that. Of course the problem there is that they will probably opt out of *paying* for health care, but inevitably some will show up in ERs needing treatment and the rest of us will have to pay for it anyway...


----------



## darren (Oct 6, 2013)

Just because someone doesn't work a physically demanding job doesn't mean they don't work hard. 

I worked for nearly 20 years as a designer, art director and creative director. I worked my ass off. I regularly worked 60+ hours a week when I was starting out. I pulled all-nighters several times a year when there was work to be done and deadlines to be met. I regularly went to sleep thinking about work, and woke up thinking about work. Yes, I did most of my work sitting at a desk, but that doesn't mean I didn't "work hard". 

Besides, who are you to judge how "hard" a retail worker or a barista works? You interact with them for what, two minutes? Five minutes, tops. I've worked jobs like that, and it's exhausting being on your feet and interacting with people all day. And you get to do things like wipe up people's messes and clean their toilets, too! Yay! And don't let a shitty mood or a bad day interfere with your work, or customers will complain to management, and you'll pay consequences. 

Just because there are a few freeloaders who know how to milk the system doesn't mean you can judge everyone else in that situation by those standards. I would argue that MOST human beings have more dignity, self-respect and pride than that, and would rather put in a hard day of work at a menial job than sit at home getting handouts.


----------



## rectifryer (Oct 6, 2013)

exo said:


> The way economics work is that there is ALWAYS someone on the bottom of the dogpile. ALWAYS.
> 
> Why are you assuming that he STARTED the family on $14/hr, and hasn't been economically thrust into his situation thru outisde forces? Have you been paying attention to the US economy over the last 5 years at ALL?! And as far as "find a more marketable field" goes? you assume he isn't making the attempt, and that the competition out there for a better paying job is slight enough he's going to land one. The economic landscape of the US right now, and for the last half decade counter's that preconception at evry single turn......You assume the fact that family B recieves aid indicates they're abdicating responsibility, when if you're looking at the situation HONESTLY.......the guy is ACTUALLY WORKING A PRETTY SHITTY 40 HR/ A WEEK JOB, instead of working PT hours riding the gravy train. The hypothetical situation used as an example by the OP is NOT what it is being portrayed as if one is looking at it with open eyes, and you're assuming a LOT about the situation that you don't know.
> 
> To re-iterate.......there is ALWAYS going to be someone on the bottom of the dogpile. That's why we can afford all the shit we have as middle class/1st world country citizens. The scary thing to me (and this isn't directed at you, but a general comment on societal attitudes) is how many people not only have their blinders on about it, but rather than try and help out someone who may be struggling, they'd rather give' 'em a hearty "screw you", and behave like Gollum with his Precious..........me, I don't have the time or energy to waste on being bitter like that.


Where in my post did I say EVERYONE making 14$ an hour is irresponsible? I said anyone who starts a family while already being impoverished is. I state this to show its not black and white. Otherwise I completely agree. Its hard to communicate a moderate opinion on this topic in this climate today.


----------



## rectifryer (Oct 6, 2013)

Eric Christian said:


> Are you kidding me? How is it income? Its a $450 health insurance premium that they're not going to have to spend any of his $2333 monthly income on. That makes $2783. How is that so hard to understand? Its added to their income because its now mandatory to purchase health insurance it if you can afford it. Get it now? If you're under the poverty level its free and if you can afford it then you must buy it. Logically then if its free for one income level and another has to pay for it then its either a penalty for the wealthier family or income for the poorer family. Spin it any way you want. Same with the food stamps. Family B is eligible for $400 in food stamps or "Oregon Trail" as it called here (and you get a fancy credit card with a covered wagon on it) but basically its paid for with federal dollars from the which ultimately is part of the USDA. Again, Family A has to pay $400 for their food whereas Family B gets their food for free. I consider that a portion of their income in both cases. That takes it up to $3383 including all the other freebies added in. Now contrast that with the net monthly income of the other guy $3916 which is a difference of $533.
> 
> Now several people made inferences that a somehow a service or retail worker works just as hard as an auto mechanic. Obviously they have no idea what they're talking about. First off, most if not all modern auto mechanics have 2 year associates degrees. Secondly, most if not all have at least $20,000 invested in a toolbox and tools. More likely $50,000 if they're master mechanics. Thirdly, an auto mechanic works long hours performing physically strenuous work that involves extensive skills to accomplish under sometimes dangerous conditions.
> 
> ...


If donuts are free for kids but adults have to pay for theirs, that doubles the price of donuts for the adults? 

What you are missing, is that the prices are the same or lower ANYWAYS with ACA compared to before for most demographics. That is why your argument is based upon a fallacy. 

Please do not patronize me when you have not considered context. Other than that, I completely respect your position. I have a similiar experience working as an automechanic and as a waiter. I wouldn't say being a waiter was that much less work, but I made more and didn't have spend thousands a year on tools and education just to make 10-12$ an hour. ROI.


----------



## flint757 (Oct 6, 2013)

Rev2010 said:


> You don't have to pay auto insurance if you don't want to own a car. How does one get out of paying for healthcare? Die? Leave the USA? And just for the record, as I've already mentioned I do personally think universal health care is an overall good idea and is better for people in the long run than our current system. I still think however that one should not be forced to buy healthcare or penalized for not buying health care. What about those religious nutbags that believe in leaving their lives in the hands of the lord and not going to doctors for problems? On one hand our government says they have the right to make that choice (not for their children though thank God!) so why should we force them to participate in the health care system against their will?
> 
> 
> Rev.



Because plenty of people 'think' they don't need coverage, get hurt severely, end up in the hospital with no insurance, get a bill in the 5 figures that would even make someone well off panic and then either can't pay it off or are paying it off for years. It cost a lot of money to have a baby as an example. This will lead to people saying 'screw this' and not paying it off or they just end of defaulting on their debt because they can't survive while paying it off. Insurance is there to avoid those situations. At my work many opt to not get insurance. One of them got sick and ended up at the hospital with a bill of roughly $2000. He will need to go back in a couple of weeks too. If he had insurance his deductible would have been paid for through the first visit and he'd have to pay next to nothing for the rest of the year.

Same reason we have seat belt laws too. If you get hurt in a car accident because you decided not to where a seat belt it indirectly puts a financial burden on the rest of society and the doctors who had to fix you up.



thraxil said:


> The ACA does actually allow you to opt out on religious grounds. I'm not sure exactly how it's handled and enforced, but they did think of that. *Of course the problem there is that they will probably opt out of *paying* for health care, but inevitably some will show up in ERs needing treatment and the rest of us will have to pay for it anyway...*


----------



## Rev2010 (Oct 6, 2013)

flint757 said:


> Because plenty of people 'think' they don't need coverage, get hurt severely, end up in the hospital with no insurance



Bro, I understand the _reason_ but I'm talking about penalization for not having insurance. It's small, I believe it was something like $95 per person or 1% of you income past a certain tax bracket. So those people will still be without insurance and having to pay the government some money, no matter how little.


Rev.


----------



## flint757 (Oct 6, 2013)

Sounds more like an incentive to get insurance than a penalty to me honestly. The logic behind making everyone get insurance is to remove the grey area in medical billing. If everyone has health insurance medical costs WILL go down. Currently hospitals add the free ones into your costs. Kind of like how theft in the lunch cafeteria at my old high school raised the cost of the food for everyone (offset). On top of that the insurance companies do the same thing with your insurance cost.


----------



## Edika (Oct 6, 2013)

Eric Christian said:


> Are you kidding me? How is it income? Its a $450 health insurance premium that they're not going to have to spend any of his $2333 monthly income on. That makes $2783. How is that so hard to understand? Its added to their income because its now mandatory to purchase health insurance it if you can afford it. Get it now? If you're under the poverty level its free and if you can afford it then you must buy it. Logically then if its free for one income level and another has to pay for it then its either a penalty for the wealthier family or income for the poorer family. Spin it any way you want. Same with the food stamps. Family B is eligible for $400 in food stamps or "Oregon Trail" as it called here (and you get a fancy credit card with a covered wagon on it) but basically its paid for with federal dollars from the which ultimately is part of the USDA. Again, Family A has to pay $400 for their food whereas Family B gets their food for free. I consider that a portion of their income in both cases. That takes it up to $3383 including all the other freebies added in. Now contrast that with the net monthly income of the other guy $3916 which is a difference of $533.
> 
> Now several people made inferences that a somehow a service or retail worker works just as hard as an auto mechanic. Obviously they have no idea what they're talking about. First off, most if not all modern auto mechanics have 2 year associates degrees. Secondly, most if not all have at least $20,000 invested in a toolbox and tools. More likely $50,000 if they're master mechanics. Thirdly, an auto mechanic works long hours performing physically strenuous work that involves extensive skills to accomplish under sometimes dangerous conditions.
> 
> ...



What you obviously don't want to understand is that it doesn't increase their income to $2783, it gives them healthcare without reducing their income to $1833 per month. So they have $2333 to spend per month. I am not sure if everybody in their situation or in all the states are entitled to food stamps and if food stamps apply to all products. These people you mention, a family with kids and one working member, I am sure they don't want to live in a situation like that. Do you consider their individual situations or do you lump them all in one pot and take the worst case scenario just because it suits your viewpoints? Would you rather have them groveling for charity in a church? Would you feel better about yourself if you contributed to charity for a family like that rather than pay the government the money to redistribute via healthcare and welfare to your fellow citizens that are in need?

Just to be clear I am not questioning your work ethic and the effort you put on your profession. Obviously you are frustrated because by putting more hours into work and to provide for your family you don't have the income you are hoping to have. You are sacrificing time away from your family and from your personal activities, even though I assume you like your work, for a monetary difference from poorer people that is lower than what you expected. However I think that you are targeting all the wrong people in this situation and with all the wrong criteria. Just because you have an auto mechanic degree and work hard doesn't mean you'll get super rich. Maybe a bit better off than others but as you see not by much. If that was the case you'll have lot's more people in your country (or in any country) being rich and not have such a high rate of unemployment.


----------



## will_shred (Oct 6, 2013)

Something that's always bothered me is it seems like the corner stone of the right wing argument is that government doesn't do things efficiently and leaves too many loopholes. So, why are they advocating for no government when they could be advocating for smarter government?

I mean for example, I'm pretty sure Australia has a website where people can report other people who abuse their social safety net. Like... Yeah that has the potential for abuse as well. However it's certainly better than nothing, which is what politicians in America have been proponents of. A few lazy people are abusing a system that gives them money? _I am shocked_. I don't think we should scrap the whole system. I hate social security fraud just as much as anyone else, actually i'm pretty sure nobody likes social security fraud. But why should we punish people who really need this stuff and not focus more on being able to efficiently weed out the leeches?

Also, despite all the big words and numbers OP is throwing out there, I still don't see a problem with paying taxes that go towards helping people


----------



## Eric Christian (Oct 6, 2013)

Edika said:


> Just to be clear I am not questioning your work ethic and the effort you put on your profession. Obviously you are frustrated because by putting more hours into work and to provide for your family you don't have the income you are hoping to have. You are sacrificing time away from your family and from your personal activities, even though I assume you like your work, for a monetary difference from poorer people that is lower than what you expected. However I think that you are targeting all the wrong people in this situation and with all the wrong criteria. Just because you have an auto mechanic degree and work hard doesn't mean you'll get super rich. Maybe a bit better off than others but as you see not by much. If that was the case you'll have lot's more people in your country (or in any country) being rich and not have such a high rate of unemployment.



 You're mistaken. I don't recall specifying myself as one of the example families. Sorry if some of my statements might have qualified it like that. Anyway, these were truly fictional families with a bit of humor added in just to make the point that when one family gets the quantitative value of $400 in Food Stamps, $450 in Health Insurance Premiums and another $200 in Cellphone Service per month that this is actual tangible income as opposed to "free stuff" that come from some nebulous black hole.


----------



## skeels (Oct 6, 2013)

Dude I've seen those government phones. 

Up to 250 minutes a month.

Not a hundred dollar value. 

Hyperbole is one thing but don't compare apples to jeeps.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Oct 7, 2013)

As an amendment to my earlier post siting welfare and disability claim abuse;
New last night on CBS's 60 Minutes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jtekHrfq3w


----------



## Edika (Oct 7, 2013)

Eric Christian said:


> You're mistaken. I don't recall specifying myself as one of the example families. Sorry if some of my statements might have qualified it like that. Anyway, these were truly fictional families with a bit of humor added in just to make the point that when one family gets the quantitative value of $400 in Food Stamps, $450 in Health Insurance Premiums and another $200 in Cellphone Service per month that this is actual tangible income as opposed to "free stuff" that come from some nebulous black hole.



To be honest your examples and outrage where very specific not to be taken on face value. Mistaken maybe, crazy I think not


----------



## DVRP (Oct 7, 2013)

This is a pretty interesting read through. The thing I've learned from this thread...Eternally grateful I was born in Canada.


----------



## SD83 (Oct 7, 2013)

Interesting read, coming from Germany I wonder what everyday life costs in the states. Like, the price of food, rent, a car. I know gas is absurdly cheap compared to the price here, no idea about everything else. I kind of get the point. And as someone who grew up in such a "soviet system", where federal healthcare is mandatory (as is pension), I'm a bit confused. 
At 2.300 $ a month you get food stamps AND don't have to pay for the healthcare stuff? You might get a bit of additional money from the state if you go below 1.200 where I live, and you might qualify for state support to pay your rent if you earn less than about 14.000 $ a year. The breaking point for free healthcare & pension is at about 600 $ a month. 
And, 14$/h is bad? How about 11? How about 7? The 933$ difference is pretty much what I earn a month after all taxes etc. are paid. About 80$ go to the (mandatory) health insurance. I've got a light case of asthma and everyone in my family has huge problems with their backs, so that's most likely gonna hit me as well somewhere in the future. If it wasn't for the federal healthcare, I could as well just go shoot myself. Oh, great, 80 $ more per month. That will definitly pay for a few 10.000 $ surgery. Or long term physiotherapy. 
Sorry for the detour... at the moment, I just fail to grasp how, at 2.300 $ per month, which is about twice - thrice the salary of the real poor bottom of the working class in Germany (hairdresser, house-painter, demolition workers etc.) you qualify for food stamps and free healthcare. THERE is your problem. Not in the fact that all this exists, but that you don't even have to be remotly poor to qualify for it.
Sure, the 2.300-dollar-per-month-guy has a family to feed, but so do a lot of 1.400-dollar-per-month-guys over here that as far as I know don't get any state support. And to be honest, the thought that one person earns the money and the other stays at home and is completly dependand on the other is one that I do not like.


----------



## rectifryer (Oct 7, 2013)

SD83 said:


> Interesting read, coming from Germany I wonder what everyday life costs in the states. Like, the price of food, rent, a car. I know gas is absurdly cheap compared to the price here, no idea about everything else. I kind of get the point. And as someone who grew up in such a "soviet system", where federal healthcare is mandatory (as is pension), I'm a bit confused.
> At 2.300 $ a month you get food stamps AND don't have to pay for the healthcare stuff? You might get a bit of additional money from the state if you go below 1.200 where I live, and you might qualify for state support to pay your rent if you earn less than about 14.000 $ a year. The breaking point for free healthcare & pension is at about 600 $ a month.
> And, 14$/h is bad? How about 11? How about 7? The 933$ difference is pretty much what I earn a month after all taxes etc. are paid. About 80$ go to the (mandatory) health insurance. I've got a light case of asthma and everyone in my family has huge problems with their backs, so that's most likely gonna hit me as well somewhere in the future. If it wasn't for the federal healthcare, I could as well just go shoot myself. Oh, great, 80 $ more per month. That will definitly pay for a few 10.000 $ surgery. Or long term physiotherapy.
> Sorry for the detour... at the moment, I just fail to grasp how, at 2.300 $ per month, which is about twice - thrice the salary of the real poor bottom of the working class in Germany (hairdresser, house-painter, demolition workers etc.) you qualify for food stamps and free healthcare. THERE is your problem. Not in the fact that all this exists, but that you don't even have to be remotly poor to qualify for it.
> Sure, the 2.300-dollar-per-month-guy has a family to feed, but so do a lot of 1.400-dollar-per-month-guys over here that as far as I know don't get any state support. And to be honest, the thought that one person earns the money and the other stays at home and is completly dependand on the other is one that I do not like.


That's a reasonable criticism but our medical costs FAR outweigh any other country. Just having a kid with no complications is easily over 25k. Don't assume that since our milk is cheap, so is medical care.


----------



## Robby the Robot (Oct 7, 2013)

Don't know if this helps, but here's where I'm at.

I work in fast food. I currently making $8.50/hr as a crew member at Sonic. I've been at that pay rate for about a month now after about three months of busting my hump at my new store, when my old store wouldn't pay me the money I needed to be a manager. When I came to the store I'm at, as a crew member, with less responsibility, I came in at $8/hr. As a manager, a manager mind you, I was only make $7.75/hr, and I had to beg for that.

Now. I get a raise. That's all fine and well. Then the next week after the raise they cut my hours....then they cut my hours some more....then some more to the point where I'm scheduled to work 28-30 hours a week. I don't mind, but I go in early and leave later to make up the time lost that they tried to take off my schedule. Which poses the question, why give me a raise in the first place??

Now as a fast food employee, I have zero benefits, zero sick days, and zero vacation days. If I miss a day of work, tough. I get treated with somewhat respect, but I get dogged on more by crew members who are lazy than managers. 

Now as a guy who's on pace to make maybe $15,000-$17,000 this year before taxes (and that's pushing it) I don't want to be the guy who takes money away from the guy who went to school, got his degree, and got himself a better job make $50k+. Trust me, us lower tier guys don't do this on purpose.

Hope this helped somewhat.


----------



## mr_rainmaker (Oct 7, 2013)

I`ll just leave this here and back out of this thread very slowly.


----------



## flint757 (Oct 7, 2013)

That is a very misleading chart. It says number of poor people receiving TANF, but fails to mention how many people qualify as poor. As an extreme example if X state has 1 person in poverty and he is receiving TANF that is 100% poor people receiving TANF and in state Y there is 1000 in poverty and 10% of them receive TANF benefits (100). Telling half the story.

Here in Texas the lack of people on benefits isn't because people don't need it. The system here is setup to intentionally make sure next to nobody can get on any form of welfare. If you have a job it is next to impossible to get an ID, CHIPS, TANF, etc. because all the offices close before 5 and most jobs meant for the poor involve 12 hour shifts. What's my point? Those numbers are absolutely meaningless without context.


----------



## ilyti (Oct 7, 2013)

Yeah, I'm not American, but even _I_ know that Texas has more poor people than Maine. It's a misleading chart.

I wonder how much longer this thread will go on, and no one will change their opinion about anything. That's the problem with polarizing topics like health care or politics or religion - you come into it with your position firmly set, so nobody ever "switches sides." EC has his own view of the situation, and even though the majority of other posters disagree with it, presenting very logical arguments, what's the point? Are you still trying to get him to "see reason?" Or EC, are you trying to get the others to "see reason?" 

I just don't really get where it can go from here.


----------



## Eric Christian (Mar 3, 2014)

Eric Christian said:


> Whats the point of busting your ass to try to make a better life for your family when the cards are pretty much stacked against the middle class now? So yeah I did some rough calculation based on the numbers provided by the government. Family A is a married couple with two kids. The father is the sole income provider and makes a gross yearly income of $65,000. Taxed at 15% ($6600) the net is roughly $58400. Now subtract another approximately $1200 dollars for state income tax and social security and you've got $57200. Now consider the mandatory expense of Obamacare which would work out to roughly $5400. This further reduces the original gross income to a net of $51800. So divided up over 12 months thats $4316 a month.
> 
> Now take family B which is also a married couple with two children and the father is head of household. Only he makes $28000 a year. He pays zero federal and state income taxes because this is poverty level. So yeah, this family is eligable for $400 worth of food stamps a month. This just added $4800 to their income so now theyre at $32800. Now consider that $450 a month Obamacare plan that Family A had to pay for is free. Now Family B's income has been boosted by $5400 which takes it to $38200. Now factor in each adult can get a free Obamaphone which is a $100 a month value so now their income is actually $40600. Of course there are a few other free sh1t programs Family B can get on like H.E.A.T for instance but bottom line Family A father is busting his ass working 10 hours days for an additional $933 a month... Ask yourself, is really worth it?



Actually the numbers have been finalized for the Cover Oregon plan and the financial figures have changed slightly. The policy for Family A is $384 a month so $4620 a year instead of $5400 from the previous Federal Government figure I used. However the poverty level break off point at which Family B needs to start paying income tax and Obamacare premiums has risen from $28,000 to $32,500. Family A gets a savings of $800 and Family B could potential make an additional $4500 a year so now the net value of their untaxed income and their free stuff combine to a value of $45100 compared to the Net Income of Family A's $52580. So yeah now the father of Family A is only making an additional $623 a month closing the gap even further. 

It doesn't take a Masters Degree in Economics to realize that this mandatory Tax called the "Affordable Care Act" is designed to drive the middle class downwards into a Soviet style system. And just remember, these numbers will change every year as the bulk of young single professionals making from 60-150k simply refuse to buy the mandatory insurance because they're healthy and instead pay the small fine at tax time which accordingly will reduce the revenue stream that is being counted on to pay for everyone else. This is pure and simply income redistribution and hopefully it can be repealed with a new administration.


----------



## narad (Mar 3, 2014)

Eric Christian said:


> as the bulk of young single professionals making from 60-150k simply refuse to buy the mandatory insurance because they're healthy and instead pay the small fine at tax time



Who thinks like that? The need for insurance has very little to do with one's perception of healthiness. I think I'm a great driver...I still have auto insurance.


----------



## Cabinet (Mar 3, 2014)

Well study something useful in college and you won't worry about scraping by.


----------



## ihunda (Mar 3, 2014)

You know, for me, it's about having a minimum standard of health in 1st world countries.

For example I flew back from a trip in Vietnam to the US and frankly, I walked around a bad neighbourhood in Atlanta and I saw people looking worse than some beggars in Vietnam. Crooked teethes, malnutrition, skeleton faces, obvious signs of abuse... 

This should not happen in America or any other top G8 nation.


----------



## flint757 (Mar 3, 2014)

Especially considering poor people are far more likely to spread illnesses because of poorer living circumstances and expensive healthcare costs.


----------



## Eric Christian (Mar 3, 2014)

narad said:


> Who thinks like that? The need for insurance has very little to do with one's perception of healthiness. I think I'm a great driver...I still have auto insurance.



Driving is a privilege and a minimum of liability insurance is required to protect other citizens from your actions. On the other hand, being a healthly living American citizen doesn't require any health insurance. Needless to say, people live their entire lives making healthly & safe life decisions and never need any medical care besides a physical now and then which they pay for with cash. Young Americans see this and aren't signing up to pay high premiums so others can have free healthcare. It's really that simple. It boils down to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness plus unfair taxation without representation despite what the SCOTUS says. There are many stories about this if you want to search.

Obamacare may get sick if young Americans don't sign up

Harvard poll shows trouble for health care, frustration with politics among millennials | The Rundown | PBS NewsHour | PBS


----------



## TedEH (Mar 3, 2014)

Eric Christian said:


> he makes $28000 a year...this is poverty level.



I'm a bit late to the party and didn't read the whole thread, so maybe I missed the explanation, but-

I know I'm "young" and don't really understand the world, but since when is $28k/yr considered poor?


----------



## Eric Christian (Mar 3, 2014)

TedEH said:


> I'm a bit late to the party and didn't read the whole thread, so maybe I missed the explanation, but-
> 
> I know I'm "young" and don't really understand the world, but since when is $28k/yr considered poor?



Yeah. You did miss the explanation. Go back and read the entire thread. 28k for a family of four is poverty level. But now it's 32.5k though for no taxes and a smorgasbord of government entitlements. I imagine they'll probably be be giving everyone a ration card for medical marijuana soon as well.


----------



## will_shred (Mar 3, 2014)

Eric, I have a serious proposal for you. How about we make it so that adults working full time won't be forced to use government aid to survive? 

Take Cotsco for example, the average cashier there makes 50k per year, and 89% of their employees qualify for benefits. This isn't because the government forces them to, they do that by choice. They are also a rather large national chain, and they still have crazy low prices. 

There are only two downsides for this as far as the company goes

1. They don't expand as quickly as other companies can. 

2. The big wings don't rake in absurd amounts of money, they are however still extremely well off. 

Or maybe, we have two different minimum wages. If you are under 21, the minimum wage is $8 per hour, if you are over 21 the minimum wage is $15 per hour. 

I say this because, if you're age 16-20 you probably do still live with your parents and don't need to make a wage to support yourself, most people I know never really considered moving out until they were around 21. When you're 21+, I mean that's when life really starts to set in. You want to move out, you might be getting married, ect. 

Does that sound reasonable? If not, why?


----------



## TedEH (Mar 3, 2014)

It's not reasonable because it's too general. You can't set an age limit because not everyone follows the same career path. Some people over 21 can and do live perfectly well with less than $15 an hour. And what about people that want to move out and get married/start a family at 19?

You also have to be careful raising the minimum wage. Some companies cannot afford to pay all of their employees more than $15, or maybe the work isn't worth $15/hr. Raising the minimum in those cases means that a company that could afford 10 people can now only afford 7 or 8- three people lose their jobs.

Then you have to take into account regional differences, etc.

Granted, I'm Canadian so the dollar values don't mean the same, but I would assume the concept is the same.


----------



## ArtDecade (Mar 3, 2014)

I'm middle class. I pay a lot in taxes. I don't mind helping other people, but it would be nice if some of that tax money made it back to me... like maybe free Museum passes or something. I get that my taxes pay for streets, the military, whatever else, but come on - toss me a bone sometimes. Ha.


----------



## will_shred (Mar 3, 2014)

TedEH said:


> It's not reasonable because it's too general. You can't set an age limit because not everyone follows the same career path. Some people over 21 can and do live perfectly well with less than $15 an hour. And what about people that want to move out and get married/start a family at 19?
> 
> You also have to be careful raising the minimum wage. Some companies cannot afford to pay all of their employees more than $15, or maybe the work isn't worth $15/hr. Raising the minimum in those cases means that a company that could afford 10 people can now only afford 7 or 8- three people lose their jobs.
> 
> ...




Fair enough, i'm just throwing ideas out there. However, I still don't think it's unreasonable. 

What about the 19 year old who wants to move out and have kids? I guess he will have to wait 2 more years until he qualifies for the higher wage, boo-hoo. I don't see how that's such a big deal. Unless for some odd reason he just HAS to, in which case the social safety net will still be around if he really needed the assistance. I think it's a good merger of the common liberal and convervative views. We shouldn't raise the wage because teenagers working entry level jobs don't need that much money, and we should raise it for the adults working full time who need the money to support themselves/famlies. 

Bringing manufacturing jobs back home might also be helpful


----------



## SpaceDock (Mar 3, 2014)

Eric Christian said:


> Yeah. You did miss the explanation. Go back and read the entire thread. 28k for a family of four is poverty level. But now it's 32.5k though for no taxes and a smorgasbord of government entitlements. I imagine they'll probably be be giving everyone a ration card for medical marijuana soon as well.



Eric, I really don't know why I keep viewing your threads, they are always filled with hate speech and political nonsense with no factual backing.

Poverty level for a family of four is $23,550 for the 48 contiguous states. 

I think everyone makes a moral decision as to whether they work or not, same reason why some people go to college or even get out of bed in the morning. I have been very poor and I have pulled myself up to where I am today, this isn't because of any "incentives" and I have never taken assistance even when offered. I work hard because I feel it is who I am. 

If you want to look at the world through shit colored glasses, that is your choice.


----------



## narad (Mar 3, 2014)

Eric Christian said:


> Needless to say, people live their entire lives making healthly & safe life decisions and never need any medical care besides a physical now and then which they pay for with cash. Young Americans see this and aren't signing up to pay high premiums so others can have free healthcare. It's really that simple. It boils down to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness plus unfair taxation without representation despite what the SCOTUS says. There are many stories about this if you want to search.
> 
> Obamacare may get sick if young Americans don't sign up
> 
> Harvard poll shows trouble for health care, frustration with politics among millennials | The Rundown | PBS NewsHour | PBS



Dude...the links do not support your spin on the young American mind at all. There is growing disapproval with the American government, yes - but not confined to political party. And yes, having young people enroll in the program is a crucial component, but no where is anyone saying, "We've polled young adults, and they believe they're healthy enough not to need insurance". That's not what insurance is about.


----------



## Watty (Mar 3, 2014)

Eric Christian said:


> Actually the numbers have been finalized for the Cover Oregon plan and the financial figures have changed slightly. The policy for Family A is $384 a month so $4620 a year instead of $5400 from the previous Federal Government figure I used. However the poverty level break off point at which Family B needs to start paying income tax and Obamacare premiums has risen from $28,000 to $32,500. Family A gets a savings of $800 and Family B could potential make an additional $4500 a year so now the net value of their untaxed income and their free stuff combine to a value of $45100 compared to the Net Income of Family A's $52580. So yeah now the father of Family A is only making an additional $623 a month closing the gap even further.
> 
> It doesn't take a Masters Degree in Economics to realize that this mandatory Tax called the "Affordable Care Act" is designed to drive the middle class downwards into a Soviet style system. And just remember, these numbers will change every year as the bulk of young single professionals making from 60-150k simply refuse to buy the mandatory insurance because they're healthy and instead pay the small fine at tax time which accordingly will reduce the revenue stream that is being counted on to pay for everyone else. This is pure and simply income redistribution and hopefully it can be repealed with a new administration.



It also doesn't take a PhD in psychology to see that you continue to spout right wing and conservative talking points like they're gospel.

A) Feel free to disagree with the means, but ensuring universal access to some form of healthcare in the USA is an end for which we need to strive. Notice that your side of political spectrum continues to waste taxpayer money to repeal what is now a law instead of proposing an alternate solution. That in and of itself should preclude you sympathizing with their position in your framing of the overall debate.

B) Feel free to use facts and statistics to reinforce your opinion, but realize that people are less likely to believe them (regardless of truth and accuracy) when you use rhetoric like "Soviet style" let alone the title of the thread itself.

C) Feel free to suggest it's a bad thing, but we need a measure of income redistribution in our country, especially in the form of closing tax loopholes among other programs that would explicitly affect the richest of our citizens (read: NOT middle class). And, while this program might end up having certain ramifications in this regard, that's not it's primary aim....so let's not pretend that's the goal.

D) I think the car insurance example is a good one as well, if not only because I'm a young male driver who is subsidizing the cost of other people in my demographic who tend to get in more accidents. Do I like it all that much? No. But I like the idea of having that safety net there. Does it give me a disincentive to drive safely as your model seems to suggest? Nope, not in the slightest. Of course this side of the argument ignores the legality of requiring insurance in the first place (not necessarily the case with healthcare), but the evidence above is enough to at least start a conversation as to why the overall intent of the program is a good idea.

At the end of the day, our society and its inner workings are changing exponentially faster than they did even a decade or two ago; stands to reason there are going to be kinks to iron out. I'm not saying that the ACA is the best way to solve this problem, but it's a whole hell of a lot better than doing nothing. You can either be a part of the effort to solve it or you can sit there listening to Fox News and bitch about the concerns they continue to raise. If you're of the mind to embrace the former, feel free to suggest a way to better the program...otherwise, you might find your time better spent elsewhere as you certainly aren't likely to be changing many a mind here.


----------



## will_shred (Mar 3, 2014)

Watty said:


> At the end of the day, our society and its inner workings are changing exponentially faster than they did even a decade or two ago; stands to reason there are going to be kinks to iron out. I'm not saying that the ACA is the best way to solve this problem, but it's a whole hell of a lot better than doing nothing. You can either be a part of the effort to solve it or you can sit there listening to Fox News and bitch about the concerns they continue to raise. If you're of the mind to embrace the former, feel free to suggest a way to better the program...otherwise, you might find your time better spent elsewhere as you certainly aren't likely to be changing many a mind here.



Watty, I think you kind of summed up my feelings about the current right wing movement. Nothing but pure obstructionists, all they say is NO NO NO to anything the progressives put forward (which is usually tried and tested economic policy, which for some reason they really seem to hate) and instead of offering a different solution, they say that we just need more religion and it's all the fault of satan or some other nonsense. 

_Something, Something, something, Obama. Something, Something, Something, Socialism._


If only the history books offered us a perspective of what a society dominated by Christian rule would look like... oh wait. They do. It's called The Dark Ages.

Oh, and another thing! I don't know many people who are actually on welfare personally, however I do know one guy. Who is a white, married, deeply religious man who has 3 kids which he can't afford. All of which have their health care paid for %100 by NY state, he doesn't pay federal income tax because he doesn't make enough money, and he constantly bitches about people on welfare being lazy.


----------



## Watty (Mar 3, 2014)

will_shred said:


> Watty, I think you kind of summed up my feelings about the current right wing movement. Nothing but pure obstructionists, all they say is NO NO NO to anything the progressives put forward (which is usually tried and tested economic policy, which for some reason they really seem to hate) and instead of offering a different solution, they say that we just need more religion and it's all the fault of satan or some other nonsense.
> 
> 
> If only the history books offered us a perspective of what a society dominated by Christian rule would look like... oh wait. They do. It's called The Dark Ages.



Amen man, glad to hear the support. And while the Dark Ages is technically correct, I feel like it might be overly tongue in cheek with regards to the contemporary issues. Odds are good that Christian rule today would still involve all the modern conveniences we currently enjoy (expect porn....them mormons hate porn), just with the word god plastered everywhere. I have a feeling we could say (note: just SAY) we're a Christian nation, and half of the folks would shut up, thinking they've won.

And likening it to an even more simple example (in case the earlier rhetoric was too much for some):

Liberal maze solution: "Hey guys, let's go this way, if it dead ends....we can also come back and try a different path."

Conservative maze solution: "Hey guys, let's continue to sit here (and jack off to the twisted interpretation of the Constitution, clean our guns, read our bibles, etc.) because it's what we've always done...


----------



## dedsouth333 (Mar 3, 2014)

Oh look... This thread is back... Yay...



Eric Christian said:


> I imagine they'll probably be be giving everyone a ration card for medical marijuana soon as well.


----------



## skeels (Mar 3, 2014)

My right to rip people off is only encumbered by the rights of people to be less stupid. 

Or my willingness to educate them.


----------



## Eric Christian (Mar 3, 2014)

will_shred said:


> Eric, I have a serious proposal for you. How about we make it so that adults working full time won't be forced to use government aid to survive?
> 
> Take Cotsco for example, the average cashier there makes 50k per year, and 89% of their employees qualify for benefits. This isn't because the government forces them to, they do that by choice. They are also a rather large national chain, and they still have crazy low prices.
> 
> ...



I like the idea of a company like Costco caring for their employees by paying them well and providing a good benefits package. However, I just don't want the government forcing companies to pay a certain wage. Wages should be based on an employees performance.


----------



## Eric Christian (Mar 3, 2014)

Watty said:


> It also doesn't take a PhD in psychology to see that you continue to spout right wing and conservative talking points like they're gospel.
> 
> A) Feel free to disagree with the means, but ensuring universal access to some form of healthcare in the USA is an end for which we need to strive. Notice that your side of political spectrum continues to waste taxpayer money to repeal what is now a law instead of proposing an alternate solution. That in and of itself should preclude you sympathizing with their position in your framing of the overall debate.
> 
> ...



First off I don't listen to or watch Fox News. I've never purchased a day of cable TV my entire life. Secondly, I was all for single payer across the board but that's not what we got is it? Instead we got a big giveaway to Big Insurance & Big Pharma with the middle class income brackets funding the entire scam. Of course then tons of labor unions like teachers for example got themselves exempted out of the scam in secret back room meetings. So much for transparency right?


----------



## Eric Christian (Mar 4, 2014)

SpaceDock said:


> Eric, I really don't know why I keep viewing your threads, they are always filled with hate speech and political nonsense with no factual backing.
> 
> Poverty level for a family of four is $23,550 for the 48 contiguous states.
> 
> ...


 
OK I was wrong on that figure as it changed however the poverty level for ACA is now 32.5K meaning you don't pay a dime for healthcare if you make under that as a family of four. However you do get taxed 15% on that amount which is $4875 which then takes you back down to $27625 which is $343 of additional income above poverty level a month... Hardly a windfall...


----------



## dedsouth333 (Mar 4, 2014)

Eric Christian said:


> I like the idea of a company like Costco caring for their employees by paying them well and providing a good benefits package. However, I just don't want the government forcing companies to pay a certain wage. Wages should be based on an employees performance.



This is the only part of this thread I'm going to even respond to because so far this thread is the epidomy of

Performance based pay would be great if companies actually did it. I won't say most but a lot of them don't for sure. I live in a shit hole town so close to the gulf that I can just about spit on dolphins and everyone is exploited for cheap labor. Hell, my uncle is the best mechanic I know and the highest payed indivual I know and he should be making triple what he is considering he's been with the same company for like 35 years. 

Most of the companies that I've ever dealt with or known anyone that has dealt with operate on 2 principles:

1. You're only as good as your last .... up.
2. If you're not happy with your pay, there's someone else that'll do it. 

To top it all off, you've practically admitted that you wouldn't be any different. You're complaining about paying your taxes. I'd hate to see how you handled employee paychecks.


----------



## Danukenator (Mar 4, 2014)

Eric, it's impressive you managed to quote Watty's whole post and only pick out the little bit about watching Fox News. Fine, your Father was the one that indoctrinated you. You really should address the other points.



> Secondly, I was all for single payer across the board but that's not what we got is it? Instead we got a big giveaway to Big Insurance & Big Pharma with the middle class income brackets funding the entire scam. Of course then tons of labor unions like teachers for example got themselves exempted out of the scam in secret back room meetings. So much for transparency right?



At the risk of sounding like a dick, was this the best you could muster? It's off topic and conspiratorial. 

1. Liberals are not part of a global conspiracy. Most major CEO's are CLEARLY going to favor conservative laws as they stand to benefit massively from conservative economic thought. So...why would these CEO's, who favor conservative policies, suddenly be in favor of liberal laws?

2. Republicans backed the bail outs. Deal with it and stop misrepresenting what happened. No one is saying bailouts were a good thing. Shit, Watty never even mentioned them. He also never mentioned labor unions...

3. You are impossibly obtuse and are probably a troll.


----------



## Eric Christian (Mar 4, 2014)

dedsouth333 said:


> This is the only part of this thread I'm going to even respond to because so far this thread is the epidomy of
> 
> Performance based pay would be great if companies actually did it. I won't say most but a lot of them don't for sure. I live in a shit hole town so close to the gulf that I can just about spit on dolphins and everyone is exploited for cheap labor. Hell, my uncle is the best mechanic I know and the highest payed indivual I know and he should be making triple what he is considering he's been with the same company for like 35 years.
> 
> ...



Since when is forcing me to buy a private companies product under penalty of law a Tax and not a "penalty"? Because SCOTUS said so? Hah! That's laughable. The same SCOTUS that said a giant multiple billion dollar corporation is a person? Maybe next SCOTUS will make a ruling that 2+2=5 and that's what we'll have to teach in schools right?


----------



## Eric Christian (Mar 4, 2014)

Danukenator said:


> Eric, it's impressive you managed to quote Watty's whole post and only pick out the little bit about watching Fox News. Fine, your Father was the one that indoctrinated you. You really should address the other points.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I don't have the energy to bullet point out every trite pontification Watty pulls out of his bowling bag because they usually involve him making some degrading stereotypical remark about my character. That said, I've never had the pleasure of meeting him so I'm not sure how he thinks he knows so much about me.


----------



## skeels (Mar 4, 2014)

Eric Christian said:


> . Wages should be based on an employees performance.



Then how do you explain all the millionaires who are running this place? 

I'm not a conspiracy nut, but... oh wait. Yes I am.


----------



## Watty (Mar 4, 2014)

Eric Christian said:


> I don't have the energy to bullet point out every trite pontification Watty pulls out of his bowling bag because they usually involve him making some degrading stereotypical remark about my character. That said, I've never had the pleasure of meeting him so I'm not sure how he thinks he knows so much about me.



All else aside (as I'm at work and only have an iPhone keyboard):

Words, syntax, and rhetoric, especially on topics such as these are enough to give a good idea of character, regardless of whether that aspect of it is displayed in social interactions with other people. You continue to show that you like being antagonistic (for its own sake) with regards to policies moving our society forward...I find that to be enough to justify calling you out on your position.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Mar 4, 2014)

Why do these threads always turn into ppl trying to race each other through a thesaurus in some silly passive aggressive pissing match when it's pretty much obvious from the beginning that there is no one "right" answer?

On that note... I'm googling "pontificate" 

EDIT: Got it... Wow... Now that's passive aggression...


----------



## Xaios (Mar 4, 2014)

Konfyouzd said:


> Why do these threads always turn into ppl trying to race each other through a thesaurus in some silly passive aggressive pissing match when it's pretty much obvious from the beginning that there is no one "right" answer?
> 
> On that note... I'm googling "pontificate"
> 
> EDIT: Got it... Wow... Now that's passive aggression...



Oh man, this is nothing. Surely you remember the days of Orb vs. Explorer.


----------



## Watty (Mar 4, 2014)

Konfyouzd said:


> Why do these threads always turn into ppl trying to race each other through a thesaurus in some silly passive aggressive pissing match when it's pretty much obvious from the beginning that there is no one "right" answer?
> 
> On that note... I'm googling "pontificate"
> 
> EDIT: Got it... Wow... Now that's passive aggression...



Not sure if part of the subtle jab was aimed at me, but this is just how I write... No thesaurus involved.


----------



## skeels (Mar 4, 2014)

Fourth and ten- time to pontificate.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Mar 4, 2014)

Watty said:


> Not sure if part of the subtle jab was aimed at me, but this is just how I write... No thesaurus involved.



No I"m very much used to how you write. It just seems like the moment someone starts getting bested in a debate the words they use start getting bigger...


----------



## Eric Christian (Mar 4, 2014)

Back on topic. More broken promises from a broken administration. 

Poorest of the poor left out of Affordable Care Acts health insurance expansion | CharlotteObserver.com

Who's falling through Obamacare cracks? Thousands too rich for Medicaid, too poor for subsidies | AL.com

Millions Are Now Realizing They're Too Poor For Obamacare

Lower 2014 income can net huge health care subsidy - SFGate


----------



## Watty (Mar 4, 2014)

Eric, when writing an opinion piece (as this is, to a certain extent), it's customary to present an argument and expound on a particular side of it using supporting evidence. Citing a myriad of articles that may or may not be factually accurate does very little to help your case, especially when the have titles hat are designed to be sensational in content.



Konfyouzd said:


> No I"m very much used to how you write. It just seems like the moment someone starts getting bested in a debate the words they use start getting bigger...



Ah, agreed.


----------



## Murmel (Mar 4, 2014)

Konfyouzd said:


> No I"m very much used to how you write. It just seems like the moment someone starts getting bested in a debate the words they use start getting bigger...



As a non-native English speaker, this is a big of a problem for me. I read through some of replies in this thread and just go "I think I get what he's saying.. wait.. no.. YES.. no.." 

There are too many words in the English language


----------



## Eric Christian (Mar 4, 2014)

Watty said:


> Eric, when writing an opinion piece (as this is, to a certain extent), it's customary to present an argument and expound on a particular side of it using supporting evidence. Citing a myriad of articles that may or may not be factually accurate does very little to help your case, especially when the have titles hat are designed to be sensational in content.
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, agreed.



I don't need to follow your MLA Formatting rules when I post here I just need to abide by Alex Chu's rules. Everything on posted on this particular subject is factually correct. I find it really amazing when the SF Chronicle tells its readers to make less money so they can get on the gravy train.


----------



## Watty (Mar 4, 2014)

Eric Christian said:


> Since when is forcing me to buy a private companies product under penalty of law a Tax and not a "penalty"? Because SCOTUS said so? Hah! That's laughable. The same SCOTUS that said a giant multiple billion dollar corporation is a person? Maybe next SCOTUS will make a ruling that 2+2=5 and that's what we'll have to teach in schools right?



I tried to type out multiple replies to this, but no matter what I tried....the amount of stupid in your first sentence (worded poorly to boot) is just mind boggling in the scope of the hypocrisy.



Murmel said:


> As a non-native English speaker, this is a big of a problem for me. I read through some of replies in this thread and just go "I think I get what he's saying.. wait.. no.. YES.. no.."
> 
> There are too many words in the English language



Yes, English is confusing to say the least. Hell, even having taken some Spanish in HS (4 years' worth, don't recall a thing), I still couldn't tell you much about the inner workings of it....other than that I understand them very well. Kind of like writing music without knowing anything about theory. If you're inclined to learn it a bit better, I'd suggest reading.....a lot.



Eric Christian said:


> I don't need to follow your MLA Formatting rules when I post here I just need to abide by Alex Chu's rules. Everything on posted on this particular subject is factually correct. I find it really amazing when the SF Chronicle tells its readers to make less money so they can get on the gravy train.



A) MLA formatting does not apply to content, rather it has to do with the overall appearance of a professionally written paper and its associated citations. I am, obviously, completely unaware if you attended college, but surely you would have encountered this requirement for papers had you written any, thereby knowing the difference. I think you were trying to be funny with this comment, and....you fell flat.

B) So....

*doesn't know who Alex Chu is
*googles Alex Chu
*doesn't see what a Koren pop singer has to do with forming a sound and reasonable argument
*perhaps you've actually been drunk this whole time and you identify with him? According to Wiki, he's been arrested for DUI....

(note that item 4 directly above is an attempt at lame, in-context humor....feel free to take stock and try again next time)

C) You missed the point of my previous statement....and by posting an article that advocates such a position, you've essentially proved it. It's easy to point to an opinion piece (from a local publication; no possibility of bias there, eh?) with inflammatory language and say "look at this inflammatory language that seems to prove what I believe." Let's hear commentary on it that doesn't allow for you to simply rest on your "it's a socialist takeover" laurels.

And you're the only one that's really stated anything in this thread as being the whole truth and nothing but whereas everyone else is disagreeing with you in casual terms or pointing out places where it seems you were wrong. Feel free to say everything has been 100% accurate, but given that the text of the bill is longer than most every book you could have possibly read in your lifetime and the content of your posts echoes right-wing talking points, I'm disinclined to take your word at face value.


----------



## narad (Mar 4, 2014)

Sass overload.


----------



## will_shred (Mar 4, 2014)

Konfyouzd said:


> Why do these threads always turn into ppl trying to race each other through a thesaurus in some silly passive aggressive pissing match when it's pretty much obvious from the beginning that there is no one "right" answer?
> 
> On that note... I'm googling "pontificate"
> 
> EDIT: Got it... Wow... Now that's passive aggression...




My friend, on this I really disagree with you. Economics, just like any other field of study, is a science. Which can be studied, and certain hypotheses can be backed with observation based evidence. Economics is also obviously extremely complected due to the overwhelming number of factors than go into it. 


I've just found that liberal/progressive policies are in line with evidence showing their effectiveness. I look at countries that have implemented policies, and see what works and what doesn't. 

When history shows how the policies being pushed my the right wing today have failed time and time again. 

I think that this is a particularly great example, and it happened just a couple days ago. 

Paul Ryan's Audit Of Federal Anti-Poverty Programs Finds Many Are Actually Very Effective | ThinkProgress

Also, the whole attitude of "Government is inefficient, therefore we should just do away with it" Makes no sense what so ever. If my car needs a tune up, I get it tuned up. I don't just take it to the scrap yard and walk for the rest of my life.


----------



## skeels (Mar 4, 2014)

narad said:


> Sass overload.



Ya dere hey?

Expressing differing viewpoints has deteriorated into some snide catty comments. 

I am so outta this thread.


----------



## Mik3D23 (Mar 4, 2014)

Dat GIF^


----------



## Eric Christian (Mar 4, 2014)

I've spent the last hour or so looking at the ACA demographic trends so far and the overwhelming majority (79%) of ACA enrollees are receiving federal subsidies to defray the cost of the premiums. Of course the administration won't release the actual monetary numbers but suffice it to say it doesn't look financially sustainable even at this early time. The whole system is based on compelling young healthy professionals in the 18-34 age group to pay full price for their premiums without federal subsidies in order to pay for the older sicker applicants who will be paying little to nothing. This will fail.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Mar 4, 2014)

Eric Christian said:


> I've spent the last hour or so looking at the ACA demographic trends so far and the overwhelming majority (79%) of ACA enrollees are receiving federal subsidies to defray the cost of the premiums. Of course the administration won't release the actual monetary numbers but suffice it to say it doesn't look financially sustainable even at this early time. The whole system is based on compelling young healthy professionals in the 18-34 age group to pay full price for their premiums without federal subsidies in order to pay for the older sicker applicants who will be paying little to nothing. This will fail.


 
.

FOX NEWS has been telling me this all along .
And I do certainly believe them. (no joke)

edit; btw people, Brit Hume never bullshits.


----------



## Eric Christian (Mar 4, 2014)

TRENCHLORD said:


> .
> 
> FOX NEWS has been telling me this all along .
> And I do certainly believe them. (no joke)
> ...



I don't watch Fox News or listen to Lush Rimbaugh either. I personally think the USA could easily afford free Healthcare for everyone if we would stop all of our Warmongering and all the foreign aid we give away. The way we treat our own people is sickening. That said, the ACA isn't about anyone's health though, it was bought and paid for by big insurance & pharma and all their cronies.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Mar 4, 2014)

Eric Christian said:


> I don't watch Fox News or listen to Lush Rimbaugh either. I personally think the USA could easily afford free Healthcare for everyone if we would stop all of our Warmongering and all the foreign aid we give away. The way we treat our own people is sickening. That said, the ACA isn't about anyone's health though, it was bought and paid for by big insurance & pharma and all their cronies.


 

I'm for covert warmongering and no foreign aid .


----------



## Watty (Mar 5, 2014)

Eric Christian said:


> I've spent the last hour or so looking at the ACA demographic trends so far and the overwhelming majority (79%) of ACA enrollees are receiving federal subsidies to defray the cost of the premiums. Of course the administration won't release the actual monetary numbers but suffice it to say it doesn't look financially sustainable even at this early time. The whole system is based on compelling young healthy professionals in the 18-34 age group to pay full price for their premiums without federal subsidies in order to pay for the older sicker applicants who will be paying little to nothing. This will fail.



Social Securi.....cough



TRENCHLORD said:


> .
> FOX NEWS has been telling me this all along .
> And I do certainly believe them. (no joke)



I weep for your soul, sir.



Eric Christian said:


> I don't watch Fox News or listen to Lush Rimbaugh either. I personally think the USA could easily afford free Healthcare for everyone if we would stop all of our Warmongering and all the foreign aid we give away. The way we treat our own people is sickening. That said, the ACA isn't about anyone's health though, it was bought and paid for by big insurance & pharma and all their cronies.



Amen to putting down the guns and reducing the foreign aid.....however, I feel like you can't really comment all that much in this capacity being that you're more likely to have supported those people who would have allowed pharma to get where they are in the first place.


----------



## asher (Mar 5, 2014)

You mean all 0.8% of the federal budget that goes to foreign aid?


----------



## JoshuaVonFlash (Mar 5, 2014)

Watty said:


> Amen to putting down the guns and reducing the foreign aid.....however, I feel like you can't really comment all that much in this capacity being that you're more likely to have supported those people who would have allowed pharma to get where they are in the first place.


Those types have always perplexed me in the voting choices they make and the causes they support. They're usually the ones who are pro life (and as you mentioned, complain about the decisions the people they voted in make) and are against things like free healthcare, welfare, and any other service that keeps people from dying.


----------



## The Reverend (Mar 5, 2014)

This character assassination shit needs to stop. I understand getting shitty with people in the heat of an argument, but nothing makes you look like a f--king buffoon like saying someone's argument is invalid because they're a dick. I'm guilty of it myself, as you regulars know, but let's not dedicate multiple battles over multiple threads to hating on a motherf--ker. Shit's weak. 

I just deleted a huge post I had written about my experiences living below the poverty line. Some of you seem to have lost touch with it, or haven't experienced it yourselves. I broke down how much I made, how much I had to pay in bills, and what I had left over. 

It was f--ked. 

And this is four months before Obamacare mandated that I'd have to pay another $120 a month for health insurance. See Eric, what you forgot is that some states denied the Medicare expansion. So even though I make half the official poverty income a year, I still have to pay that. Or rather, I did. Guess what the penalty is until 2016? $92. F--k that. Then it skyrockets to 2% of my yearly income. I'm shaking in my boots. Such a penalty. Still cheaper than paying for it.

If I didn't have you paying for my Pell grant and student loans, I wouldn't be breaking even on this job. As it stands, I make just enough to pay my bills and never dip down below $2,000 in my bank account. For the first time in my adult life, I'm sitting on a surplus, even if it's loan money. If I don't maintain the balance, however, things will go right back downhill. 

To say that I don't work as hard as you is bullshit. I mean that in the general sense. I work harder than many of you, for $8 an hour. I've had jobs that were much more dangerous than a mechanic, required more work in terms of calories burned, and paid me $8 (after a $.75 promotion, too). Working full-time, that's $16,640. And guess what? Even had I purchased Obamacare, a good few doctors here in Texas are refusing to accept it.

Wut.

This means I continue my uninterrupted seven year streak of not seeing a doctor, dentist, or opthamologist. Luckily I feel pretty healthy. I wish the single-payer option wasn't gutted by those who thought this "entitlement" system was "disincentivizing" those who could work more but don't. Do you think there's a lack of people looking for work in the US? Do you think if we could all make more money (after taxes) than we are now we wouldn't? Do you know what makes want to just quit working altogether? The fact that if I don't take on debt, I won't get anywhere. I'd still be living in my podunk-ass hometown if I didn't take out student loans to fill in the gaps. There are no options there. If I was another Grimes County burn-out, I wouldn't even believe school was an option. Hell, looking at people who sold weed and meth and drove new trucks while I work (my criminal record is bad enough as is) for my money is demoralizing. Looking at my younger brother sponge off of my admittedly rich parents is demoralizing. You think waving food stamps (that I can't get - no kids) and a shitty phone in my face is enough to make it all okay? No, dude, it's not. 

I know I'm not a starving kid in Africa. I actually have found a great balance between being poor and living a comfortable life (on borrowed money, as it were). But don't be so thick as to think that there is a legitimate concern about the poor choosing to stay poor. Don't think that because I bought a guitar, or wear new clothes, or have a nice phone, that it's because I gamed the system somehow. You're looking at this labyrinthine system from the outside, claiming it's easily exploited, and I'm looking at it from the inside, wishing it was, because I'm about to die from stress and need a break. Pinching pennies or ignoring things I should repair or pay does not mean that you are paying for me to live a live just as comfortable as yours.

I don't pity you for your hypothetical loss, Eric. I thank you for giving me an education. I thank you for giving me breathing room for the first time in seven years. And I promise I'll pay it back, with interest. It may filter back to you in a weird way, like a paved road somewhere in Maine, or a National Park staying open just a fraction longer, but it'll get back to you. So who's really losing out?


----------



## asher (Mar 5, 2014)

On related notes:

evidence suggests that strong social safety nets promote social mobility, not the other way around.

There is one job for every three seekers, and in a concentrated urban area that can be as high as 1:6 or 1:8. Clearly they need to work harder.


----------



## Eric Christian (Mar 5, 2014)

Watty said:


> Amen to putting down the guns and reducing the foreign aid.....however, I feel like you can't really comment all that much in this capacity being that you're more likely to have supported those people who would have allowed pharma to get where they are in the first place.



Supported those people? As usual I have no idea what you're talking about because several times you've alluded to something but you keep being vague and saying stuff about how I should live in the South and junk which I still have no idea what you're talking about. Anyway, if you got something to say about me why don't you stop beating around the bush and spit it out?


----------



## SpaceDock (Mar 5, 2014)

^ It's funny because I keep thinking you are posting while drunk, but you claimed to be a non drinker.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Mar 5, 2014)

We're educating ourselves right out of the global job market.
Mike Rowe says so.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzKzu86Agg0


----------



## Watty (Mar 5, 2014)

The Reverend said:


> This character assassination shit needs to stop. I understand getting shitty with people in the heat of an argument, but nothing makes you look like a f--king buffoon like saying someone's argument is invalid because they're a dick. I'm guilty of it myself, as you regulars know, but let's not dedicate multiple battles over multiple threads to hating on a motherf--ker. Shit's weak.



Was this for me?



Eric Christian said:


> Supported those people? As usual I have no idea what you're talking about because several times you've alluded to something but you keep being vague and saying stuff about how I should live in the South and junk which I still have no idea what you're talking about. Anyway, if you got something to say about me why don't you stop beating around the bush and spit it out?



I don't know if you vote, but if you did...would you or would you not vote conservative?



TRENCHLORD said:


> We're educating ourselves right out of the global job market.
> Mike Rowe says so.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzKzu86Agg0



I agree, the college trap is ridiculous these days...


----------



## rectifryer (Mar 5, 2014)

Can you guys not see that politicians on both sides are pitting us against one another?


----------



## asher (Mar 5, 2014)

rectifryer said:


> Can you guys not see that politicians on both sides are pitting us against one another?



Show me.


----------



## rectifryer (Mar 5, 2014)

asher said:


> Show me.



Our system as it is currently implemented leaves voters with a false dichotomy to choose from. There are only two prominent parties, each with surprisingly opposite stances on everything. Either side will immediately seek to discredit the other on an issue regardless of the merits of the argument.


----------



## asher (Mar 5, 2014)

rectifryer said:


> Our system as it is currently implemented leaves voters with a false dichotomy to choose from. There are only two prominent parties, each with surprisingly opposite stances on everything. Either side will immediately seek to discredit the other on an issue regardless of the merits of the argument.



I mean, when you have two parties, you obviously want to show why you're better than the other option. Why wouldn't they take mostly opposite stances? I realize today's more extreme than normal here, but that's mostly because the GOP has decided to arbitrarily _hate_ everything Obama or Democratic, just because it's Obama or Democratic - it's not an argument in good faith right now. I don't really see how this is "playing voters against each other" though.


----------



## Mik3D23 (Mar 5, 2014)

asher said:


> I mean, when you have two parties, you obviously want to show why you're better than the other option. Why wouldn't they take mostly opposite stances? I realize today's more extreme than normal here, but that's mostly because the GOP has decided to arbitrarily _hate_ everything Obama or Democratic, just because it's Obama or Democratic - it's not an argument in good faith right now. I don't really see how this is "playing voters against each other" though.



Democrats are guilty of this too. Whether or not they do it as much or as extremely as republicans is a different question. I've had to unlike a few liberal pages on FB because all they would post is just republican/conservative hating nonsense. If you look at some liberal posts and websites, and go to the comments section, it's filled with hate speech toward conservatives. Both parties are very guilty of it, and it's a very "un-American" thing. I may disagree with just about everything a conservative says, but I wouldn't ever wish death upon them? But you are very right about the GOP in government that chose to hate everything Obama does. And while they do that, conservative citizens go around complaining how Obama doesn't allow anything to get done?


----------



## asher (Mar 5, 2014)

Mik3D23 said:


> Democrats are guilty of this too. Whether or not they do it as much or as extremely as republicans is a different question. I've had to unlike a few liberal pages on FB because all they would post is just republican/conservative hating nonsense. If you look at some liberal posts and websites, and go to the comments section, it's filled with hate speech toward conservatives. Both parties are very guilty of it, and it's a very "un-American" thing. I may disagree with just about everything a conservative says, but I wouldn't ever wish death upon them? But you are very right about the GOP in government that chose to hate everything Obama does. And while they do that, conservative citizens go around complaining how Obama doesn't allow anything to get done?



I should have clarified - I'm talking about actual officials. Obviously you can find extremely vocal and hateful groups as a subset of any large group of people


----------



## Eric Christian (Mar 13, 2014)

Uh oh...

ObamaCare&#39;s Secret Mandate Exemption - WSJ.com


----------



## Watty (Mar 13, 2014)

Mik3D23 said:


> Democrats are guilty of this too. Whether or not they do it as much or as extremely as republicans is a different question. I've had to unlike a few liberal pages on FB because all they would post is just republican/conservative hating nonsense. If you look at some liberal posts and websites, and go to the comments section, it's filled with hate speech toward conservatives. Both parties are very guilty of it, and it's a very "un-American" thing. I may disagree with just about everything a conservative says, but I wouldn't ever wish death upon them? But you are very right about the GOP in government that chose to hate everything Obama does. And while they do that, conservative citizens go around complaining how Obama doesn't allow anything to get done?



That's just it though; both sides ARE at fault, but one side is clearly worse than the other. Liberals say stupid shit, but Conservatives say shit that stupid doesn't even begin to cover.



Eric Christian said:


> Uh oh...
> 
> ObamaCare's Secret Mandate Exemption - WSJ.com



So, regardless of the implications, I find this overall logic chain bats hit insane:

1) Obama implements a means of providing affordable healthcare.
2) SCOTUS rules that it is law despite misgivings raised on behalf of certain entities/individuals.
3) Conservatives bitch, moan, waste money trying to repeal it, and drag their proverbial feet in an effort to get out of it somehow.
4) The Obama administration tries to meet halfway in certain instances (not saying the way that it's been done is ideal by any means).
5) Conservatives say that the fact that he's compromising to placate at least some of their initial complaints is a sign of his lawlessness and grounds for impeachment.

Now, this article says that the mandate's sign up timeline has been pushed out given that enough peoples' plans were cancelled in the wake of the ACA being passed. The language the article uses is a bit fuzzy and sounds biased to me, but ultimately, it sounds like they're essentially saying:

"We created a system where you can get affordable health care coverage. If you don't believe it's cheaper (because you haven't really looked) or if you object to it on grounds given by Fox News et. al. (propaganda does work, after all), feel free to submit this paperwork to take yourself out of the program entirely."

Implied is the:

"And don't come bitching to us when you hit a bump in the road."

I don't see how giving the conservatives EXACTLY what they want (aside from repealing it) is grounds to call Obama out on anything. 

NOTE: I'm NOT saying that the ACA is the best means of getting us universal health care; there are obviously problems with it that could potentially snowball in the right set of circumstances. That said, again....continually posting anti-ACA propaganda to show your political colors does nothing to advance the discussion or solve the problem.


----------



## Eric Christian (Mar 13, 2014)

Watty said:


> That said, again....continually posting anti-ACA propaganda to show your political colors does nothing to advance the discussion or solve the problem.



You again? Whatya get like updates on your phone anytime I post? Again you're being vague though. What political colors might those be?


----------



## The Reverend (Mar 13, 2014)

Obamacare is broken. I hope Government textbooks in the years to come will point to it as an example of what happens when you compromise on a good idea. I argued to the contrary to begin with, but seeing the reality now, I would rather have not had any reform as opposed to this. I can't thank conservative media outlets and their "death panels" enough for helping create a mass of reactionary, obstructionist people, who in turn are pandered to by career politicians who know where their bread is buttered. 

I gathered from that article that Obama is trying to quietly fix some issues with healthcare. I don't see a problem with that. For that matter, it's clearly public record, so I wonder how accurate "secret mandate" is. This isn't the same as secret courts deciding on the Constitutionality of things, though I can see how the article is trying to bring up the same associations.


----------



## skeels (Mar 13, 2014)

asher said:


> Show me.



Rich politicians represent rich "constituents", poor politicians represent. ...

Wait....


----------



## asher (Mar 13, 2014)

skeels said:


> Rich politicians represent rich "constituents", poor politicians represent. ...
> 
> Wait....



Yeah yeah politicians are corrupt money .... the poor guy etcetc.

Look, I get the skepticism. But blatant centrist-sounding "EVERYONE IS EQUALLY EVIL" (yay alliteration! Evil League of Evil?) is... usually flat-out untrue. Hence asking for more than just generalities and allegories.


----------



## Mik3D23 (Mar 13, 2014)

Eric Christian said:


> You again? Whatya get like updates on your phone anytime I post? Again you're being vague though. What political colors might those be?



I found his post very clear.. So I don't know where the vagueness you speak of was. It seems to me that you post for the sake of rustling jimmies and then whenever someone actually provides counterpoints and facts, you just pretend like you're being personally attacked. What was the point of saying "whatya get like updates on your phone anytime I post?", if not to make you feel better about yourself and show that you're just a troll


----------



## Watty (Mar 13, 2014)

Eric Christian said:


> You again? Whatya get like updates on your phone anytime I post? Again you're being vague though. What political colors might those be?



I pay attention to threads where I post, not to mention this is an important issue that is constantly misrepresented?


----------



## Eric Christian (Mar 13, 2014)

Watty said:


> I pay attention to threads where I post, not to mention this is an important issue that is constantly misrepresented?



lol... misrepresented? 

I've posted that Obama said the whole process was going to be transparent and then it was pushed through behind closed doors with all the fat hog lobbyist feeding at the trough. 

I've posted that upper middle class folks are specifically targeted to pay for others Obamacare but if you keep your income under a certain level you pay nothing and get many free subsidies which I consider as income. 

I've also posted that there are many groups such as teachers unions for example that lobbied and got themselves excluded from the compulsory part of Obamacare.

In addition I've posted that the big HMO & Pharma were behind the crafting of Obamacare because it benefits them not the American people.

Recently I've posted that only a fraction of the people expected to support the plan have signed up. Its so worrisome for Obama that he instituted a massive ad campaign on radio, television and the internet.

Now I've posted the fact that anyone can file for a hardship exclusion. 

All these facts can be verified Watty. You can keep towing your party line and sugar coating a turd but that doesn't negate that its still a turd.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Mar 13, 2014)

Mik3D23 said:


> Democrats are guilty of this too. Whether or not they do it as much or as extremely as republicans is a different question.



This is starting to get on my nerves. That as well as folks wanting me to take a black or white stance on an issue I see in several shades of gray and then discrediting anything I have to say with saying that I'm a closet member of whatever their opposing party is simply because I don't whole-heartedly agree with them.

This happens with my friends that are both liberal OR conservative. I now see them as all one group regardless of how they choose to divide themselves.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Mar 13, 2014)

*deleted*

Eff it...


----------



## Watty (Mar 13, 2014)

I was saying misrepresented in general. I'll respond more fully later.

Also, at least it's something rather than nothing....


----------



## Mik3D23 (Mar 13, 2014)

Konfyouzd said:


> This is starting to get on my nerves. That as well as folks wanting me to take a black or white stance on an issue I see in several shades of gray and then discrediting anything I have to say with saying that I'm a closet member of whatever their opposing party is simply because I don't whole-heartedly agree with them.
> 
> This happens with my friends that are both liberal OR conservative. I now see them as all one group regardless of how they choose to divide themselves.



This happens all the time. If I argue against a conservative standpoint, often the first rebuttal is something like "YOU FILTHY DEMOCRAT" and if I argue against a liberal standpoint I get the same thing. I don't get why people don't understand that you CAN hold your own viewpoints, not just strictly adhere to your party platform. The two party system is very much a bad thing for our country.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Mar 13, 2014)

Well there was a point in time when I just assumed I was democrat bc I tanned easier than everyone else. I've only recently realized after this extreme polarization that I only lean to the left... I don't live there... 

Actually... I never really gave a shit about political affiliations until this extreme polarization began.


----------



## flint757 (Mar 13, 2014)

I find it hard to believe anyone can hold all the same beliefs as a single party. That being said, my coworkers do seem to prove its validity. Towing the party line is an understatement here in Texas. You could put a chimp up for election and as long as it had the republican or tea party badge it'd get the vote.


----------



## wannabguitarist (Mar 13, 2014)

Can I bring this back around to the original post? 

-$933 a month is a pretty big ....ing deal. I make, good money, but I (if it was physically possible) would put in more hours a week for an extra $11k a year.

-Lower expenses /= more revenue. I understand your mental gymnastics but that's just not how accounting works. Higher net income compared to paying it before, but not an actual increase in revenue 

-Family B still has to pay social security and medical taxes. They will not get a refund of these amounts. Missed that in your calculation.

-Where are you getting the mandatory Obamacare expense of $5,400 for family A? The actual calculation? I pay way less than a 1/4 of that for insurance. 

Now, I don't disagree with everything you've said (ending up liking quite a few of your posts ) but your purely hypothetical examples have to be written up to provoke responses right?


----------



## Eric Christian (Mar 13, 2014)

wannabguitarist said:


> Can I bring this back around to the original post?
> 
> -$933 a month is a pretty big ....ing deal. I make, good money, but I (if it was physically possible) would put in more hours a week for an extra $11k a year.
> 
> ...



I left Social Security, Sales Tax, City Tax, Property Tax and State Income Tax out of the equation on purpose. Not sure I've ever heard of "Medical Tax" though. Certainly all these reduce the net income of both Families. The numbers have been revised since my original post but if you want to verify the numbers just go to CoverOregon.com


----------



## skeels (Mar 13, 2014)

asher said:


> Yeah yeah politicians are corrupt money .... the poor guy etcetc.
> 
> Look, I get the skepticism. But blatant centrist-sounding "EVERYONE IS EQUALLY EVIL" (yay alliteration! Evil League of Evil?) is... usually flat-out untrue. Hence asking for more than just generalities and allegories.



Generalities are generally untrue?

Not to sound... trite, but this is kind of becoming a philosophical thread.

EC posted disincentives to work. Generalizing essentially, but let us neither quibble nor mince.. And you know what? He is by and by touching on a larger flaw in the "system". Rich people need poor people. And they need them to stay poor. That's how they stay rich. 

They need a middle class that is comfortable enough to keep building their pyramids. They also need people who are poor and desperate to draw attention away from them.

Capitalism promotes greed and crime. It does not promote generosity or equality or justice nor does it reward virtue of the spirit or noble character. The "heroes" of the national stage are vapid, vacuous vermin that represent all that is selfish and shallow. 

And our two party array of republicrats does nothing to change this.

Sorry if this is vague.



My advice: be careful how you spend your money.


----------



## wannabguitarist (Mar 13, 2014)

skeels said:


> Generalities are generally untrue?
> 
> Not to sound... trite, but this is kind of becoming a philosophical thread.
> 
> ...





I honestly have no problem with any that (up until the Capitalism rant); any sort of society will have divisions between classes. There is no way for everyone to be equal and trying to force that upon society is unfair to those that are inherently more talented than others (not necessarily more "virtuous"). A healthier society will have a larger middle class, sure, but you can never truly eliminate poverty. You can only change what the relative standards are 

What is this change the republicrats could purpose?


----------



## Konfyouzd (Mar 13, 2014)

Skeels for president


----------



## asher (Mar 13, 2014)

wannabguitarist said:


> I honestly have no problem with any that (up until the Capitalism rant); any sort of society will have divisions between classes. There is no way for everyone to be equal and trying to force that upon society is unfair to those that are inherently more talented than others (not necessarily more "virtuous"). A healthier society will have a larger middle class, sure, but you can never truly eliminate poverty. You can only change what the relative standards are
> 
> What is this change the republicrats could purpose?



I don't think anyone ever argues that people that ....ing work their asses off and are really good at their jobs shouldn't be rewarded. What the system should really do is give everyone an equal footing to start from, so that becomes the limits to their success (aside from luck, etc) - not the set of parents they chose to be born to.

That is not really how our system currently functions and _that_ is the problem.


About the ACA, on a more general level: yeah, it absolutely has its problems. Would single payer have been better, "should" it have gone farther? Absolutely.

Was that politically feasible? Probably not.

Do you propose the cut down version that will pass, and still give millions of Americans health care, but still has significant problems? Or do you try to take a "good" system as far as it will go, despite the reality that it wouldn't go through?


----------



## skeels (Mar 13, 2014)

There is no reason that poverty could not be wiped from the face of the earth entirely. 

"Talent" =/= virtue. I would never presume to "force" virtue upon anyone because that is inherently impossible. Virtue comes from within. If someone says things could not be changed, they have become the problem. 

Changes in our world will not come from some imaginary "system" or from a political"party", they will only arise from the actions of individuals. 

And yes, I did rant a little bit. But I said nothing that was untrue. What do we idolize in this nation? Wealthy idiots. Justin Bieber? Miley Cyrus? Political puppets to power? Money is the driving force of capitalism and oh what an ephemeral pursuit it is.

Shouldn't humanity strive for something better?


----------



## asher (Mar 13, 2014)

skeels said:


> There is no reason that poverty could not be wiped from the face of the earth entirely.
> 
> "Talent" =/= virtue. I would never presume to "force" virtue upon anyone because that is inherently impossible. Virtue comes from within. If someone says things could not be changed, they have become the problem.
> 
> ...



You're still making widespread generalizations about who "we" are. Yeah, I know you're going to tell me that's what sells - but there are a lot of people who aren't buying.

And yeah, lots can absolutely be done about poverty. And a lot of that can be done with a social safety net.


----------



## wannabguitarist (Mar 13, 2014)

skeels said:


> There is no reason that poverty could not be wiped from the face of the earth entirely.



You honestly think it's possible for everything to be equal in society (not from a rights standpoint of course, but from a financial standpoint)? Some people will always have more or less. The standard of living may change but "poverty" will always exist in one form or another. I'm not saying we shouldn't push for change; I just believe the idea that we can wipe out poverty is entirely unrealistic.



skeels said:


> "Talent" =/= virtue. I would never presume to "force" virtue upon anyone because that is inherently impossible. Virtue comes from within. If someone says things could not be changed, they have become the problem.



Right. I did not mean force virtue; I meant forcing equality. No upper or lower class. It would have to be forced because there will be people out there trying to have more. 



skeels said:


> Changes in our world will not come from some imaginary "system" or from a political"party", they will only arise from the actions of individuals.







skeels said:


> And yes, I did rant a little bit. But I said nothing that was untrue. What do we idolize in this nation? Wealthy idiots. Justin Bieber? Miley Cyrus? Political puppets to power? Money is the driving force of capitalism and oh what an ephemeral pursuit it is.
> 
> Shouldn't humanity strive for something better?



Rant may have been a strong word; I was in a hurry when I typed that first comment up 

As for the rest of that paragraph; I do not believe this is true:



skeels said:


> They need a middle class that is comfortable enough to keep building their pyramids. They also need people who are poor and desperate to draw attention away from them



It paints the upper class/filthy rich/whatever with way to wide of brush. I deal with enough of these people to know they're really not that different from you and I other than having a shit ton more money. There's not some cabal of wealthy people out there just trying to constantly distract the masses from the unknown machinations of their overseers 

(Yes that was a bit of a stretch but whenever someone brings up this argument it's the first thing that comes to mind)


----------



## skeels (Mar 13, 2014)

Good point. "We" sso'ers as a group are probably not spending our money on the new Cyrus/Bieber political manifesto.

What do we spend it on? Big corporate trust funds? Fast food chains? Do we spend it locally? Wisely? 

Democracy is not the answer if the majority is a bunch of insipid idiotic ignoramusses.


----------



## skeels (Mar 13, 2014)

Rebuttal to the Evil Shadow Overlord remark: then why aren't things getting better?

Are humans as a species just not very good?

ed: I'm not saying all rich people bad, but if you don't believe there are very specific groups with very specific influence and very specific agendas, maybe you aren't paying attention. 

Im not that old, but I have seen public policy shaped during my lifetime in what can only be described as an Orwelllian fashion.


----------



## skeels (Mar 13, 2014)

I've said too much.

I have gone waaaay off topic. 

To the Off Topic forum!


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Mar 13, 2014)

wannabguitarist said:


> You honestly think it's possible for everything to be equal in society (not from a rights standpoint of course, but from a financial standpoint)? Some people will always have more or less. The standard of living may change but "poverty" will always exist in one form or another. I'm not saying we shouldn't push for change; I just believe the idea that we can wipe out poverty is entirely unrealistic.



Everyone doesn't have to be equal for poverty to cease to exist. "Poverty" isn't just the lowest income bracket, it's being so poor that you can barely afford to keep yourself or your family alive. If the "poorest" people were able to live comfortably without fear of how to keep a roof over their head or food on the table, they wouldn't be living in poverty, even if there were also multibillionaires in the world living far more extavagant lives.


----------



## Eric Christian (Mar 13, 2014)

skeels said:


> Generalities are generally untrue?
> 
> Not to sound... trite, but this is kind of becoming a philosophical thread.
> 
> ...



You Sir have a much better command of the English language than I and a much better way of expressing the intrinsic concept and perception of this grand ponzi scheme.


----------



## Watty (Mar 14, 2014)

Eric Christian said:


> You Sir have a much better command of the English language than I and a much better way of expressing the intrinsic concept and perception of this grand ponzi scheme.



So, you acknowledge that it's a ponzi scheme......and yet you still choose to support the party (or at least tear down the opposing one) that is more likely to allow it to continue to grow is scale and scope?


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Mar 14, 2014)

I don't call it a scheme, I call it nature.

I'd much rather we have an organic corruption than a government-regulated one.

Unfairness is a reality of life, both plant and animal life.


----------



## skeels (Mar 14, 2014)

Yeah, in nature we marvel at the speed of the cheetah who pounces on the bounding gazelle in the eternal struggle of survival that is a delicate balance of interdependence.

Where I live, it's called getting mugged.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Mar 14, 2014)

skeels said:


> Yeah, in nature we marvel at the speed of the cheetah who pounces on the bounding gazelle in the eternal struggle of survival that is a delicate balance of interdependence.
> 
> Where I live, it's called getting mugged.


 
We're definitely getting mugged right now, and I agree we have been under both party's "leadership".
They're the one's having the party every night .


----------



## pink freud (Mar 14, 2014)

TRENCHLORD said:


> Unfairness is a reality of life, both plant and animal life.



No, unfairness only exists in beings capable of metacognition, and as such the "fairness" of any such being's life is subject to manipulation.


----------



## wannabguitarist (Mar 14, 2014)

pink freud said:


> No, unfairness only exists in beings capable of metacognition, and as such the "fairness" of any such being's life is subject to manipulation.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Mar 14, 2014)

pink freud said:


> No, unfairness only exists in beings capable of metacognition, and as such the "fairness" of any such being's life is subject to manipulation.


 
fair enough


----------



## wannabguitarist (Mar 14, 2014)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> Everyone doesn't have to be equal for poverty to cease to exist. "Poverty" isn't just the lowest income bracket, it's being so poor that you can barely afford to keep yourself or your family alive. If the "poorest" people were able to live comfortably without fear of how to keep a roof over their head or food on the table, they wouldn't be living in poverty, even if there were also multibillionaires in the world living far more extavagant lives.



I think I took it a little too far because I totally agree with this. Poverty was the wrong word to use


----------



## flint757 (Mar 14, 2014)

The problem is that when everyone starts making more, they start charging more...and then call it inflation.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Mar 14, 2014)

Ultimately the price and demand thing takes over. It might take awhile to settle in though, and it can be manipulated to a point for awhile.




It's like I've posted before; 
You can't squeeze the wealthy unless/until society totally collapses.
These Corporate fat-cats and CEOs have yachts, mistresses and vacations in the Caribbean to still fund.
Can't put the squeeze on them cuz they'll just pass it down the line to the workers and consumers, and you can't squeeze the poor because you can't squeeze blood from a turnip.

It's the middle class that takes the shaft, and with the middle-class shrinking (hey I thought this wasn't a class system lol) it'll take a total system meltdown before the rich will be forced to downgrade, but until then it's the middle first, and then they'll take the poor's remaining turnips.

It's sad because so many in the middle started out at the low end of the middle, and many came from the lower class and slaved to move up.


----------



## asher (Mar 14, 2014)

Man, you'd think we never used to have strong financial regulation and very high tax rates at the top of the income spread that kept inequality much lower or anything that coincided with an economic boom or anything.


----------



## Eric Christian (Mar 14, 2014)

Watty said:


> So, you acknowledge that it's a ponzi scheme......and yet you still choose to support the party (or at least tear down the opposing one) that is more likely to allow it to continue to grow is scale and scope?



Party? I'm not sure what you're talking about. You keep hinting at something but you need to be more specific.


----------



## Rev2010 (Mar 14, 2014)

skeels said:


> There is no reason that poverty could not be wiped from the face of the earth entirely.



I admire your enthusiasm, but please do enlighten us on why there is no "reason" it can't be eliminated.

See you're forgetting one thing... human nature. Sure, if everyone on Earth chipped in we could eliminate poverty, absolutely!! But human nature has a way of not allowing that, and unless human nature changes radically, which I seriously doubt will ever occur before we eliminate ourselves, poverty unfortunately will never be eradicated. There's always mentalities of "I earned this money... why should I give it to some unemployed loser lowlife with 5 kids?" or the "Well what does this person offer to society? Nothing? Well I'm not giving them a cent". Or the "Why are you having kids if you can't afford to feed them???" - many look at many third world nations and wonder why if they can't even feed themselves they are having exponential population growth.

There are so many mentalities stopping people from giving up a portion of their income to help others in need. Sure a lot of it is a result of a disassociated and more privileged mentality, not having to witness or experience what it's like being on the other end of the spectrum. Then there is also the mentality that poverty and the lowest classes are growing and simply can't ever be fully contended with. Mostly all of it though is human nature. There is greed. There is heartlessness. There is lack of hope. There's disassociation. There's rationalizations (even if often highly flawed).

Poverty won't be eliminated until we change fundamentally as a species. And brother... that is sadly a looong ways off. We live in a society where the average pay of first responders (fireman, EMT, Police, etc) is $44,000 a year whereas a man who's good at putting a rubber ball through a metal hoop can make millions. 

*The above are just argumentative examples, not personal opinions by any means!*


Rev.


----------



## Mik3D23 (Mar 14, 2014)

Rev2010 said:


> I admire your enthusiasm, but please do enlighten us on why there is no "reason" it can't be eliminated.
> 
> See you're forgetting one thing... human nature. Sure, if everyone on Earth chipped in we could eliminate poverty, absolutely!! But human nature has a way of not allowing that, and unless human nature changes radically, which I seriously doubt will ever occur before we eliminate ourselves, poverty unfortunately will never be eradicated. There's always mentalities of "I earned this money... why should I give it to some unemployed loser lowlife with 5 kids?" or the "Well what does this person offer to society? Nothing? Well I'm not giving them a cent". Or the "Why are you having kids if you can't afford to feed them???" - many look at many third world nations and wonder if they can't even fee themselves why are they having exponential population growth.
> 
> ...



This is far from a universal mentality. Charity/empathy is very much hardwired into our brains, but the problem is that the majority of people don't even realize just how rampant poverty actually still is in our world. Some may not care, or just block it out of their brains, but I'd bet most people don't realize how much poverty actually exists in our world. Also, that last sentence is right on the money-generally, population growth and standard of living are an inverse relationship. The less developed a country is, the more children per family. If we could get the entire world out of poverty, there is a chance that our population would stabilize. 

Also, I don't believe in the "human nature" argument. Humanity is capable of astonishing things, and the idea that "human nature" won't allow us to overcome poverty or war is just adding to the issue. And your last paragraph, I honestly don't think us changing as a species is very far off. In the last two decades alone our society has changed monstrously, and the people that are afraid of these changes (not pointing anybody out) are the ones holding us back as a species.


----------



## Watty (Mar 14, 2014)

Eric Christian said:


> Party? I'm not sure what you're talking about. You keep hinting at something but you need to be more specific.



Most every position you've supported and talking point you've referenced has been on the lean towards the Republican party.

The Republican party has a monopoly on corporate greed, lobbying, and other political means of ensuring that the income gap stays as wide as it currently happens to be, Obamacare is prevented from working in a way that it COULD, and the overall social health of the nation is sorely diminished.

My point is that you're sitting here spouting rhetoric that runs directly in opposition to those in the best position to actually do something about those things you claim to be at odds with.



Rev2010 said:


> Poverty won't be eliminated until we change fundamentally as a species. And brother... that is sadly a looong ways off. We live in a society where the average pay of first responders (fireman, EMT, Police, etc) is $44,000 a year whereas a man who's good at putting a rubber ball through a metal hoop can make millions.



Amen to this for sure.

A corollary to this position is the fact that the rich seem to consistently ignore the fact that the only reason they're rich is because they've been able to take advantage of a system that involves all of us and our collective agreement to live together through a social contract we lovingly refer to as the government.


----------



## asher (Mar 14, 2014)

I call it the ".... other people" mentality.


----------



## Rev2010 (Mar 14, 2014)

@Watty - thanks for the insult but no, I don't consider myself Republican nor Democrat, though I did vote democrat for Obama's first term. I consider myself to be an in the middle just use your brain type. I find it quite unnerving that you think only the Republicans have a monopoly on corporate greed... the Democrats do as well. Both sides are guilty of corporate greed, and more so political manipulation through corporate funding. If you think differently then -> 


Rev.


----------



## Watty (Mar 14, 2014)

Rev2010 said:


> @Watty - thanks for the insult but no, I don't consider myself Republican nor Democrat, though I did vote democrat for Obama's first term. I consider myself to be an in the middle just use your brain type. I find it quite unnerving that you think only the Republicans have a monopoly on corporate greed... the Democrats do as well. Both sides are guilty of corporate greed, and more so political manipulation through corporate funding. If you think differently then ->
> 
> 
> Rev.



Uh....I agreed with you? The other bit was directed at Eric...

And I suppose I wasn't using monopoly in completely the correct sense, but it was essentially meant to imply that Republicans typically utilize the aforementioned political traits for things that are more detrimental to the country than do Democrats. The system IS ....ed, but the Republicans ARE doing more to harm it.


----------



## Rev2010 (Mar 14, 2014)

Doh, I'm so sorry man! I'm on my phone and didn't realize you'd quoted EC first. Totally my bad and I sincerely apologize! God I feel stupid lol. 

Rev.


----------



## Watty (Mar 14, 2014)

No worries....haha


----------



## asher (Mar 15, 2014)

Watty said:


> Uh....I agreed with you? The other bit was directed at Eric...
> 
> And I suppose I wasn't using monopoly in completely the correct sense, but it was essentially meant to imply that Republicans typically utilize the aforementioned political traits for things that are more detrimental to the country than do Democrats. The system IS ....ed, but the Republicans ARE doing more to harm it.



Like, this is what gets me about some of what we've seen argued. Yeah, there are a lot of problems and there are a lot of fat cats and useless ....s, but it's not even _close_ to equitable, and saying that nobody there cares at all, or is trying to do anything that will help, is just rubbish.


----------



## jimwratt (Mar 15, 2014)

So no one wants to ask the trillion dollar questions? Why are the mechanics not earning enough to get ahead since they work so "hard"? Why is the Barista not earning enough to survive? Say what you will about the major political parties and the paltry rations we call "entitlements." The issue is that we allow major corporations (like Starbucks) to make millions in annual profits by subsidizing their substandard wages. We subsidize Walmart's store-level payroll because they won't use their own profits to compensate the employees that generate those profits in the first place. Then we have the nerve to get mad at those folks for staying alive. GTFO with that bull.


----------



## Eric Christian (Mar 15, 2014)

Watty said:


> Most every position you've supported and talking point you've referenced has been on the lean towards the Republican party.
> 
> The Republican party has a monopoly on corporate greed, lobbying, and other political means of ensuring that the income gap stays as wide as it currently happens to be, Obamacare is prevented from working in a way that it COULD, and the overall social health of the nation is sorely diminished.
> 
> My point is that you're sitting here spouting rhetoric that runs directly in opposition to those in the best position to actually do something about those things you claim to be at odds with.



Boy that took a lot of courage Watty. Congratulations. After weeks of cautiously tiptoeing around making subtle generalizations that I "belong in the South" and such you've finally mustered enough courage to call me a "Republican" right? Is that what I'm hearing here? I just wanted to clarify that you are in fact calling me a Republican OK? That's what I should understand right? So anyone who goes against the Obama administration is automatically labeled a Republican correct?


----------



## JoshuaVonFlash (Mar 15, 2014)

Eric Christian said:


> Boy that took a lot of courage Watty. Congratulations. After weeks of cautiously tiptoeing around making subtle generalizations that I "belong in the South" and such you've finally mustered enough courage to call me a "Republican" right? Is that what I'm hearing here? I just wanted to clarify that you are in fact calling me a Republican OK? That's what I should understand right? So anyone who goes against the Obama administration is automatically labeled a Republican correct?


No, he's saying your views lean very much on the side of the typical Republican.


----------



## asher (Mar 15, 2014)

JoshuaVonFlash said:


> No, he's saying your views lean very much on the side of the typical Republican.



And has multiple times at that.


----------



## narad (Mar 15, 2014)

JoshuaVonFlash said:


> No, he's saying your views lean very much on the side of the typical Republican.



If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, but identifies as a niche political affiliation to present itself in a free-thinking, uncategorizable, and unbiased light on an internet forum, it's a duck.


----------



## Watty (Mar 15, 2014)

narad said:


> If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, but identifies as a niche political affiliation to present itself in a free-thinking, uncategorizable, and unbiased light on an internet forum, it's a duck.



A+



Eric Christian said:


> Boy that took a lot of courage Watty. Congratulations. After weeks of cautiously tiptoeing around making subtle generalizations that I "belong in the South" and such you've finally mustered enough courage to call me a "Republican" right? Is that what I'm hearing here? I just wanted to clarify that you are in fact calling me a Republican OK? That's what I should understand right? So anyone who goes against the Obama administration is automatically labeled a Republican correct?



Actually, it took no courage at all....it IS the internet after all. If we're comparing relative bravery in presenting our ideas, I should think your expression regarding the fairer sex happens to be worth a whole hell of a lot more than my assigning a political lean to your views based on all the available evidence. And I'm not going to go back through every post that I've made in response to yours to see if I explicitly called you a Republican, but I should think that your commenting on issues such as these would mean that you're at least well educated enough to read between the proverbial lines to know that's what's happening instead of acting surprised when it is finally laid out for you in plain english.

And I certainly never said that everyone who doesn't like the Obama administration is a Republican. I'm significantly more liberal than I am conservative, and there's plenty his administration has done that I disagree with. I am, however, calling you a Republican because of the way you've presented your views in light of the popular conservative conception of how each should play out. It's not my fault if you're unaware of the fact that your beliefs seem to lie strongly along the conservative party line.

And in case it still isn't clear to you, I'll reiterate my position again, for clarity's sake:

F_u_ck. Partisan. Politics.

There are objectively good ideas and there are objectively bad ideas (the standard to which they are being compared being equal and agreed upon). I simply maintain that the Democrats tend to favor the former while the Republicans embrace the latter on the basis that they are resting on their morals instead of being pragmatic about real world repercussions. I'm not some blindly hardcore leftist attacking you simply for having the views that you do, I'm calling you out because you say something "silly" without much in the way of a qualifier or supporting evidence. Every time I've done so, you've tried to pussyfoot around the issue by saying that I'm making an ad-hominem or that you think I'm not being clear in my refutation of what you're saying.

We disagree; that much is clear. But trying to sully the content of the debate by focusing on the people involved instead of the issue itself is backasswards.

Edit: On topic....I don't know what exactly it means in the overall scheme of things, but I've seen reported in a few places that we finally have enough people signed up for the ACA as to make it casually solvent from a financial perspective. While it remains to be seen whether or not that's the truth or a sustainable trend, it is certainly a step in the right direction.


----------



## Grindspine (Mar 17, 2014)

I have three college degrees and am paid far below the national average for my certification in a specialty in medicine. I did get some grants in college, but most of the money was loans and some money from working in gas stations.

I am not getting much in handouts, nor am I paying comparatively much in taxes.

I do hate that because of the new laws, my girlfriend is getting her hours cut instead of getting insurance. The law is basically penalizing those who do not pay insurance companies and guarantee profit margins.

It is unfortunate that this health care overhaul is restructuring in a way that does not improve coverage as much as it improves income for the insurance companies. What is being ignored, however, is the problem of the inconsistent billing from health care providers though. It is a travesty that depending on insurance or lack thereof, one is charged differently for the same healthcare services.


----------



## asher (Mar 17, 2014)

Grindspine said:


> I have three college degrees and am paid far below the national average for my certification in a specialty in medicine. I did get some grants in college, but most of the money was loans and some money from working in gas stations.
> 
> I am not getting much in handouts, nor am I paying comparatively much in taxes.
> 
> ...



That does suck. But it'd be really, really hard to write the law in a way that prevents companies from being selfish assholes like that and still get it passed - or, hell, I'm really not sure how you word that anyhow.

Maybe the next go around after the reach of corporate money is strongly diminished and Big Industry gets sucked less we can write them out. But the law's still gotten millions of Americans new health care they never had and decreased the costs for many, which I think gets looked over a little too much.


----------



## wheresthefbomb (Mar 17, 2014)

I oppose "work," as in, the having of a career in which I work to further someone else's dream, on an ideological basis. Various degrees of privilege have allowed me to realize this in my own life. The protestant work ethic is a dinosaur we should leave behind us. Wage slavery vs. starvation isn't a choice.


----------



## tacotiklah (Mar 17, 2014)

wheresthefbomb said:


> I oppose "work," as in, the having of a career in which I work to further someone else's dream, on an ideological basis. Various degrees of privilege have allowed me to realize this in my own life. The protestant work ethic is a dinosaur we should leave behind us. Wage slavery vs. starvation isn't a choice.



Boom, headshot!!!

Seriously, we as a society have let ego, pride, and vanity inflate to the point where we actively condemn the less fortunate. We can't embrace the harsh truth that we are in a time period where more have less. We cannot face that fact, and instead pretend that it doesn't happen, all while we are fighting over the scraps left to us by those that deem themselves greater.

A saying I came up with recently that pertains well here: Our idea of freedom is trying to extend by a few inches the cages in which we have trapped ourselves in. We have the "I don't need nothing from no one" attitude, and in the process of that, we enslave ourselves. We spend less time with our families, and we value cutthroat tactics and the "screw you, I got mine" mindset. Like with all things, individualism is best kept in moderation.


----------



## bigswifty (Mar 17, 2014)

Rev2010 said:


> I admire your enthusiasm, but please do enlighten us on why there is no "reason" it can't be eliminated.
> 
> See you're forgetting one thing... human nature. Sure, if everyone on Earth chipped in we could eliminate poverty, absolutely!! But human nature has a way of not allowing that, and unless human nature changes radically, which I seriously doubt will ever occur before we eliminate ourselves, poverty unfortunately will never be eradicated. There's always mentalities of "I earned this money... why should I give it to some unemployed loser lowlife with 5 kids?" or the "Well what does this person offer to society? Nothing? Well I'm not giving them a cent". Or the "Why are you having kids if you can't afford to feed them???" - many look at many third world nations and wonder why if they can't even feed themselves they are having exponential population growth.
> 
> ...



I'm with MiC3D23 on this.

While i do agree with some of the statements made toward the end of your post Rev, we need to all get this idea of "human nature" out of our book of excuses. Like, seriously.

It really gets to me when another individual plays the human nature card for diverging some of the twisted realities of our world. Were talking about HUMANS, the most advanced species on the planet, in the history of the planet, and in the Universe, as far as we are aware. We are where we are now because of our advanced intelligence and brainpower.

Now, humans may not ever "evolve" to an even higher intellectual level, per se (not without genetic modifications, I believe), but we will evolve culturally. We have been since our species arose and can pretty much credit our success to the collective cultural efforts made over time. Which is why "human nature" is nothing more than a lame excuse. If anything the term should be "human behavior", and it should include in that definition that human behavior is malleable.

But let's be real here. More in line with the comments made by the OP for this thread, if we're going to end poverty or minimize social class boundaries or whatever, it will never happen when people still spend a large bulk of time debating trivial issues like homosexuality, evolution vs creation, race, colour, gender, etc. People need to learn to live and let live. That homosexuality is perfectly fine. That I believe this and you believe that. That we are equal as humans no matter what colour, gender or "race" (another stupid term, IMO). 

There are too many people concerned with the next American Idol and not with the issues stated above, or the issues in Venezuela, or Ukraine, or the Middle East. A lost plane? Call me apathetic, but there are bigger issues going on. Sure, that is an issue, but why run around in the dark trying to find something that is apparently lost, when we can instead focus on REALLY PRESSING ISSUES right in front of our eyes. But then there is big Media, and all the working bee drones who will swallow what is given to them and then go buzzing back to work..

I derailed in this post but I do think that our species is turning things around slowly. Of course there are still those who hold us back as a whole, and there have been new issues created as others have been solved, but stepping back and looking at the last century reveals quite a bit of hope. It also shows that there is no true human nature, and to think there is would be to suggest that we are static creatures, when we are really extremely dynamic both individually and culturally. If we convince ourselves of a good idea (which we have the ability to do) and commit to it, we collectively have the power to do ANYTHING as a species. That is the beauty and the curse, and it all lies in human behavior.


----------



## darren (Mar 19, 2014)

We may not have any other choice BUT to change our ways. 

Nasa-funded study: industrial civilisation headed for 'irreversible collapse'? | Nafeez Ahmed | Environment | theguardian.com


----------



## skeels (Mar 19, 2014)

^Yup.


----------



## asher (Mar 19, 2014)

darren said:


> We may not have any other choice BUT to change our ways.
> 
> Nasa-funded study: industrial civilisation headed for 'irreversible collapse'? | Nafeez Ahmed | Environment | theguardian.com



This has been the case for several years now - it's going to be a case of getting everybody to actually do anything.





So we're boned.


----------



## skeels (Mar 19, 2014)

I believe you have hit upon the point of anarchism. No one "gets" anyone to do anything except themselves.

Be careful where you spend your money. 

I know the gubmint is spending about half of it. .....

unless you're really rich in you have a lot of it in offshore accounts in which case the government never sees a dime. Or if you're a big corporation in which case the government probably gives you a lot of extra loot too.


----------



## Rev2010 (Mar 19, 2014)

dbrozz said:


> we need to all get this idea of "human nature" out of our book of excuses. Like, seriously.



Your post is sincere and genuine at heart and I admire that, but when you start off with something like the above it's really hard to take your points as reasonably valid. Firstly, you simply can't just write off human nature, or as you prefer to call it human "behavior" because it's a fact, not a myth. Just look at how human beings turn into animals over saving a few dollars on Black Friday. People have been *trampled* to death, not even talking about the fist fights. Also look at how human beings act under heavy distress, be it natural disasters, poverty, etc - we do things we wouldn't normally do, sometimes horrendous. Now I know what you're going to say - "But that's survival instinct" and yes it is, but we still have a portion of that constantly inside of us even while we're doing quite well. We think things like, "I EARNED this money! Why should I give any of it away to some loser that can't hold a job and has 4 kids?". It's a sad but true fact, and please don't tell me you honestly think many people out there don't think that way. Can I ask, are you donating to help feed starving children in third world countries possibly due to seeing one of those commercials? Probably not, and if you say you are I still reserve some doubt. Human nature would account as a good reason why a small minority of people are donating to help other impoverished people and the majority are not. 

Nature, behavior, they are simply two words both implying a very similar thing - one being static and one temporal. While yes, we've definitely improved to a degree, it's going to still be a long road to Utopia... if such a thing is even possible.


Rev.


----------



## estabon37 (Mar 19, 2014)

Rev2010 said:


> you simply can't just write off human nature, or as you prefer to call it human "behavior" because it's a fact, not a myth ... We think things like, "I EARNED this money! Why should I give any of it away to some loser that can't hold a job and has 4 kids?".



I've been a little selective in my quoting here to try and get some context. Please don't think I'm ignoring the rest of the post. 

I think the problem here is in defining human behaviour as 'fact', and then using an example that plenty of people throughout this thread have said they oppose. Many of us do not consider paying taxes to be "giving money away to losers" - there are enough people in society that think publicly funded social programs are important enough that it's one of the primary political divides. So I don't think anybody can say that humans definitively feel that they deserve to keep everything they've earned when many, many people deliberately vote for parties and policies that will take their money. Altruism is a large part of human nature, and if you look at the OECD's data on volunteering in the United States (scroll down to the "Community" section) you'll see they've found that 77% of Americans have helped a stranger in the last month, and the average time spent volunteering is about double the average for OECD nations overall. This doesn't suggest a disinclination to help those in need.

Speaking to the thread's overall direction, rights vs responsibilities is a central conversation in political, ethical, and athropoligical studies, and it's at the heart of this conversation. For example, I spent ten years in the workforce paying taxes on up to three jobs at a time, as well as every purchase I made - this was my responsibility as a citizen. My right then, is to take advantage of that tax money if I ever found myself in a position that made me eligible to access those funds. I decided to become a student, and I have spent the last 3.5 years on government benefits so I can dedicate myself to study. When I leave university, I'll get a job again (hopefully in my field), and I'll start paying taxes again - moving back to fulfilling my responsibilities as a citizen who has exercised his rights. 

I think this kind of social mobility is closer to the truth of welfare and benefits than the kind of 'fixed' examples we have been using up to this point. It's a little harder to make a case against welfare's existence when only 19.6% of families with dependent children who access these funds do so for more than five years. 

Anyone who clicked my first link to the OECD data might also want to have a look under "Jobs", which is in blue and is very relevant to this thread. Of particular note in my opinion is "Personal Income" on the right. The US is #1 at $54,450 per person, far above the OECD average of $34,466, though the bottom 20% of Americans earn only $24,080, which is slightly worse than ... Israel and New Zealand. These two countries have universal health care, with Israel making it compulsory to have health insurance in the 1990s, and is now the fourth most efficient health system in the world, compared with the United States at #46. The ACA is far from perfect, but with a record like that something had to be done. If the US cleans up its inefficiency in health care, it might find enough money left over to provide greater welfare to more citizens (which interestingly enough, might keep more of them out of hospitals).


----------



## will_shred (Mar 20, 2014)

darren said:


> We may not have any other choice BUT to change our ways.
> 
> Nasa-funded study: industrial civilisation headed for 'irreversible collapse'? | Nafeez Ahmed | Environment | theguardian.com



On that subject, I think that humanity won't be able to get anything done to further itself past where we are now until we realize that we are not states, nations, nationalities, or races. We are one insignificant species, trying it's best to survive on our insignificant planet. When we realize that and start working together, that's when we will see leaps and bounds of progress being made.


However, that's one hell of a paradigm shift. If I said that in any public forum I would probably be called a smelly hippy and told to go back to my commune.


----------



## asher (Mar 20, 2014)

will_shred said:


> On that subject, I think that humanity won't be able to get anything done to further itself past where we are now until we realize that we are not states, nations, nationalities, or races. We are one insignificant species, trying it's best to survive on our insignificant planet. When we realize that and start working together, that's when we will see leaps and bounds of progress being made.
> 
> 
> However, that's one hell of a paradigm shift. If I said that in any public forum I would probably be called a smelly hippy and told to go back to my commune.



Hell, I'd be happy with a paradigm shift to "other people matter and we should care about their well-being", which would honestly solve most of the problems right there.

ed: these may me more similar than I first meant.


----------



## bigswifty (Mar 20, 2014)

Rev2010 said:


> Your post is sincere and genuine at heart and I admire that, but when you start off with something like the above it's really hard to take your points as reasonably valid. Firstly, you simply can't just write off human nature, or as you prefer to call it human "behavior" because it's a fact, not a myth. Just look at how human beings turn into animals over saving a few dollars on Black Friday. People have been *trampled* to death, not even talking about the fist fights. Also look at how human beings act under heavy distress, be it natural disasters, poverty, etc - we do things we wouldn't normally do, sometimes horrendous. Now I know what you're going to say - "But that's survival instinct" and yes it is, but we still have a portion of that constantly inside of us even while we're doing quite well. We think things like, "I EARNED this money! Why should I give any of it away to some loser that can't hold a job and has 4 kids?". It's a sad but true fact, and please don't tell me you honestly think many people out there don't think that way. Can I ask, are you donating to help feed starving children in third world countries possibly due to seeing one of those commercials? Probably not, and if you say you are I still reserve some doubt. Human nature would account as a good reason why a small minority of people are donating to help other impoverished people and the majority are not.
> 
> Nature, behavior, they are simply two words both implying a very similar thing - one being static and one temporal. While yes, we've definitely improved to a degree, it's going to still be a long road to Utopia... if such a thing is even possible.
> 
> ...



Thanks for the reply.

Now I disagree with how you say human nature/behavior is a fact. Estabon made the point for me in saying that you made a statement which is true of only some people. "Human nature" is a term used to describe things which do not apply to the population as a whole.

So let me elaborate on what I meant before. Human nature is not a fact, it is an umbrella term containing several traits that gets thrown into situations gone bad to describe why people do what they do. But, using your Black Friday example (brack friday bundaru), we can see that there are many many other factors at play. Just because some portion of the population decides that a PS4 is more important than their own well being, doesn't mean it is in every humans nature to be greedy. Nor is it tied into survival or stress. It's more closely tied to culture and stupidity. 

Human nature cannot be a fact, because the whole idea of it is completely dependent on ones cultural norms. Some scientists will argue all humans are inherently greedy and self centered, while others will argue that altruism and collectivism is a prominently ingrained trait of our species. I say it is both, but the way we are brought up and the culture we live through will suppress certain traits and amplify others.

When I say it is dependent on cultural norms, I mean this: Western culture and now most of the world revolves around consumption. Consumption is the reason why a 42 minute TV show requires an hours space, in order to cram in 18 minutes of commercials. Now when you are raised FROM DAY 1 with ad's crammed into every corner of daily life, telling you buy this because a) it will make you look cool, b) it will make you happier in life, c) it will get you the girl, d) it will make others think more highly of you, or whatever other reason, it should be obvious why people exert particular traits over others. In this case, self-importance and greed. It isn't just TV. The average person in a North American city sees roughly 1000-4000 ads every day (transit, billboars, tv, newspaper, books, internet, product logos, etc). THAT is a fact.

So let's assume the post above (or two.. I forget) with the scenario of a culture without insignificant issues over race or nationality is true, where people do not desire more physical possessions but instead strive to connect with others and strengthen everyone as a whole. Where is the human nature in this? It seems now that the entire nature of this culture would be opposite to what we call human nature now..

There are countless examples of communities across the globe that operate from this perspective as opposed to ours. I find Western consumer culture to be one of the biggest, if not THE biggest contributor to many of the present issues in the world today.

As for your point about giving relief money for those in need overseas, I do not do this. I have in the past, and do not think it is actually solving the issue. It is almost sad to think that people believe giving say, a meal, to someone over in Africa living in poverty, only to have them sh*t out of luck the next time the dinner man comes around because "your friend in North America decided _______ was a better option than giving you another meal" is a good idea/solution. Those simply serve to help people who are better off financially feel better about themselves so they can go on consuming over here instead. Besides, half of these charities probably don't do all of what they promise. I would much rather pay someone to teach a skill or educate children and families over in poverty struck countries, or help out myself. I plan on one day travelling far and wide, and would love to help build shelters and teach people who need it.
The guy/team who invented the Life Straw (http://www.buylifestraw.com/)? THAT is a major contribution. The charities you mention, not quite.

Not all humans are self centered and materialistic*. Of course, there are infinite degrees to which this can vary person to person.. Not just one or the other. But as people begin to look away from the consumers market in order to seek fulfillment in life, then the paradigm shift will start to accelerate. 

* Guitars do not factor into the equation here. Consumption of guitars is forgivable, and encouraged


----------



## skeels (Mar 20, 2014)

will_shred said:


> On that subject, I think that humanity won't be able to get anything done to further itself past where we are now until we realize that we are not states, nations, nationalities, or races. We are one insignificant species, trying it's best to survive on our insignificant planet. When we realize that and start working together, that's when we will see leaps and bounds of progress being made.
> 
> 
> However, that's one hell of a paradigm shift. If I said that in any public forum I would probably be called a smelly hippy and told to go back to my commune.


 

Socrates said, "I am a citizen not of Athens, not of Greece, but of the world." And that was a long time ago. Many moons.

I think they called him a commie, too.


----------



## Eric Christian (Mar 23, 2014)

A young girl with a truthful message...


----------



## Necris (Mar 24, 2014)

^ Yeah, she's pretty much ended up where I am; with the main difference being I didn't vote for the guy the first time around and wouldn't have the second time either had Romney not been the alternative.

Although I have to ask, how does that video directly tie in to the thread?


----------



## narad (Mar 24, 2014)

Necris said:


> Although I have to ask, how does that video directly tie in to the thread?



Cleavage?


----------



## Eric Christian (Mar 24, 2014)

Necris said:


> ^ Yeah, she's pretty much ended up where I am; with the main difference being I didn't vote for the guy the first time around and wouldn't have the second time either had Romney not been the alternative.
> 
> Although I have to ask, how does that video directly tie in to the thread?



She talked about how Obamacare was nothing more than a big slop trough for big HMO & Pharma. I think she sums up the feelings of most younger people that were suckered into voting for B.O.


----------



## Watty (Mar 24, 2014)

Eric Christian said:


> She talked about how Obamacare was nothing more than a big slop trough for big HMO & Pharma. I think she sums up the feelings of most younger people that were suckered into voting for B.O.



"Suckered into voting for Obama."

Are you kidding me?

Maybe it had something to do with the fact they didn't want a homophobic, anti-choice, anti-poor, (the list goes on) stooge in office who's main goal was to reduce taxes on the rich. I think the ACA was a very small factor in getting him elected.

Maybe it's just me, but I'd rather live in a slightly unstable country where equal rights are held to be important rather than a stable one based on a Christian theocracy...

Edit: Again, let's not pretend that the right has anything better in the works...big pharma aside.


----------



## narad (Mar 24, 2014)

Eric Christian said:


> She talked about how Obamacare was nothing more than a big slop trough for big HMO & Pharma. I think she sums up the feelings of most younger people that were suckered into voting for B.O.



By "talked about" you mean...ranted while a series of propagandized pictures scrolled through the backdrop? Whatever reasonable debate might be had on the topic, some random attention-seeking youtuber regurgitating the talking points of _other random attention-seeking youtubers_ isn't helping anyone. 

If you form your political opinions from youtube, there's no saving you. You're just a bored weekend away from believing in the illuminati and modern day plesiosaurs.


----------



## SpaceDock (Mar 24, 2014)

Eric Christian said:


> She talked about how Obamacare was nothing more than a big slop trough for big HMO & Pharma. I think she sums up the feelings of most younger people that were suckered into voting for B.O.



What you don't get is that people like me were voting against McCain/Romney, not for Obama. 

It was the lesser of two evils.


----------



## Watty (Mar 24, 2014)

^ Amen.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Mar 24, 2014)

Rev2010 said:


> if such a thing is even possible.



Possible? Sure...

Probable? 

...


----------



## Eric Christian (Mar 24, 2014)

SpaceDock said:


> What you don't get is that people like me were voting against McCain/Romney, not for Obama.
> 
> It was the lesser of two evils.



There were other choices you know. If only 34% voted for one of them things might have been different. Tell me one thing the girl said that is less than truthful...


----------



## narad (Mar 24, 2014)

Eric Christian said:


> Tell me one thing the girl said that is less than truthful...



Well basically everything she says is suspect, because she's dealing with terribly complicated issues and summarizing them in one sentence. I don't know many of these issues, but I have the common sense to know there is more at play, so I decided to nitpick one at random for 5 minutes. 

There was a shot of a news broadcast reading something like, "Obama signs NDAA granting indefinite detention of American citizens.", which she attributed solely to Obama. Some quick Googling would point out, besides anything else that may be misleading about that statement, that it was John McCain who pushed for that power to remain in the bill (which is actually rather uncharacteristic of McCain, who I always at least appreciated for being stern on PoW type issues due to his own personal experience):

_In November, a bipartisan group of Senators affixed an amendment to the NDAA that would have explicitly prohibited the military from detaining American citizens on US soil. But earlier this week, a House-Senate conference committee led by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) stripped away that measure._

All points are complex. Politics is complex. It is, in fact, purposely complex. If you wanted a government where the president had significant sway over all of these issues, and electing a new president meant sweeping reforms against resistance from congress, then you aren't looking for a democracy. Democracy averages out - over a wide enough window it's quite clear we're making improvements, as viewed from the perspective of a modern citizen.


----------



## Eric Christian (Mar 24, 2014)

narad said:


> Well basically everything she says is suspect, because she's dealing with terribly complicated issues and summarizing them in one sentence. I don't know many of these issues, but I have the common sense to know there is more at play, so I decided to nitpick one at random for 5 minutes.
> 
> There was a shot of a news broadcast reading something like, "Obama signs NDAA granting indefinite detention of American citizens.", which she attributed solely to Obama. Some quick Googling would point out, besides anything else that may be misleading about that statement, that it was John McCain who pushed for that power to remain in the bill (which is actually rather uncharacteristic of McCain, who I always at least appreciated for being stern on PoW type issues due to his own personal experience):
> 
> ...



Nothing terribly complicated about the assassination of two American citizens by their own government. They were simply executed without any trial. All targeted killings like this were directly authorized by the Commander in Chief.

Anwar al-Awlaki - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## narad (Mar 24, 2014)

Eric Christian said:


> Nothing terribly complicated about the assassination of two American citizens by their own government. They were simply executed without any trial. All targeted killings like this were directly authorized by the Commander in Chief.
> 
> Anwar al-Awlaki - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



I don't even care. Suspected Al-Qaeda operative in Yemen. I'm not a fan of the run-all-over-the-world-assassinating-people thing that governments love to do, but if that's how we're going to play it I don't see why it matters what country someone was born in. An enemy combatant is an enemy combatant.


----------



## Eric Christian (Mar 24, 2014)

narad said:


> I don't even care. Suspected Al-Qaeda operative in Yemen. I'm not a fan of the run-all-over-the-world-assassinating-people thing that governments love to do, but if that's how we're going to play it I don't see why it matters what country someone was born in. An enemy combatant is an enemy combatant.




You don't even care? I'm an American and I do care about the Bill of Rights and Constitution of these folks. Many Americans have fought and died for these two citizens. Neither committed an offense that warranted the death penalty, nor were either given due process of our laws.


----------



## narad (Mar 24, 2014)

Eric Christian said:


> You don't even care? I'm an American and I do care about the Bill of Rights and Constitution of these folks. Many Americans have fought and died for these two citizens. Neither committed an offense that warranted the death penalty, nor were either given due process of our laws.



And if an American citizen had been a commander in an opposing unit in a previous war, would we have arrested them or killed them? The definition of war has changed, and as tangential as all of this is, certainly discussing that is much too far removed from the topic of this thread. But you conflate two issues: 1.) what is the status of an American citizen who plots, orders, or encourages violence against other American citizens, i.e., what constitutes an enemy combatant, and 2.) what is appropriate treatment for such combatants. 

Like I said, I'd prefer we'd just mind our own, but if we're going to pursue this more general definition of war then citizenship is a non-issue, and has always been a non-issue. 



Eric Christian said:


> Many Americans have fought and died for these two citizens.



Too ironic. We should have a seance to see just how much effort they believe we should go through to detain people who wish harm to American citizens.


----------



## Eric Christian (Mar 24, 2014)

narad said:


> And if an American citizen had been a commander in an opposing unit in a previous war, would we have arrested them or killed them? The definition of war has changed, and as tangential as all of this is, certainly discussing that is much too far removed from the topic of this thread. But you conflate two issues: 1.) what is the status of an American citizen who plots, orders, or encourages violence against other American citizens, i.e., what constitutes an enemy combatant, and 2.) what is appropriate treatment for such combatants.
> 
> Like I said, I'd prefer we'd just mind our own, but if we're going to pursue this more general definition of war then citizenship is a non-issue, and has always been a non-issue.
> 
> ...



If that's the case then by the laws we have in place we right now we follow the process to change the Bill of Rights and Constitution to allow American citizens to be executed without a trial not just make up something behind closed doors and call it real when it clearly violates the law of the land. All three branches of our Federal government are bound to follow the Bill of Rights and Constitution. Each member takes an oath to protect the Bill of Rights and our Constitution. At which point they don't keep the oath then we are in a state of lawless anarchy pure and simple.


----------



## Watty (Mar 24, 2014)

Yep, let's bring that situation up again....

BENGAZI.
BENGAZI.
BENGAZI.

Bring a substantive talking point and not a polarized piece of conservative rhetoric to the table and we can talk.


----------



## narad (Mar 24, 2014)

Separate from the issue of whether it's warranted or constitutional, the lack of pragmatism is also disconcerting. Let's make a big deal about the rights of two citizens on foreign soil who aim to do harm and train/motivate others to other American citizens, while neglecting issues that affect the 318 million other citizens. Just like the conservative media: something important to do domestically? Let's get 24 hour news coverage seeking to scandalize Benghazi for six months. Priorities are all a mess. 

There's statistically more innocent people currently on death row, which is ultimately a more egregious injustice, but it's difficult to make that a political issue so let's not talk about reforms to the criminal justice system which affects millions. We'll just talk about the two men whose motives were so infringing on the safety of the American public that they were identified on a shortlist of terrorists, and weren't included under it. I'm not saying it's right, but it's clearly more of a talking point than a substantial issue, and would be way down on the list if we were sorting it by the degree it actually affects American citizens.

I also love how people include "with drones!" like it ups the scandal even more. Jeez Obama, kill your people with other people, just like everyone else!

EDIT: ^^ ha, yea, just what I was thinking with Benghazi.


----------



## asher (Mar 24, 2014)

Watty said:


> Bring a substantive talking point and not a polarized piece of conservative rhetoric to the table and we can talk.



Wishful thinking at this point, I'd say. Ever leaning more heavily towards troll.


----------



## SpaceDock (Mar 24, 2014)

I'm glad he's keeping all of this repubtardness confined to one thread.


----------



## Eric Christian (Mar 24, 2014)

SpaceDock said:


> I'm glad he's keeping all of this repubtardness confined to one thread.



"Repubtardness" 

That's pretty cute. Maybe Webster will eventually add that to their hipster dictionary.

However, I'm not affiliated with that party. Thanks for the insinuation though.


----------



## SpaceDock (Mar 24, 2014)

^ just messing with ya


----------



## Watty (Mar 24, 2014)

Eric Christian said:


> However, I'm not affiliated with that party. Thanks for the insinuation though.



See Narad's earlier comment about your political proclivities. 

You may not be officially affiliated with the Republican party, but you regurgitate enough of their rhetoric and talking points that it honestly doesn't make much of a difference expect on paper.

Note that this is not an insult. It's a statement of fact. You've attacked:

Drone Killings
Obamacare
Government Handouts

Let alone any actual content, the way in which you've titled or raised each point proves you aren't coming to the table unbiased and willing to be educated. An open mind is important in debates like these. I think it speaks volumes that most of us have voiced in some way or another that we don't necessarily support Obama and the Democrats, but we're certainly NOT going to let the Republicans and their Christian cohorts get their grubby hands on the helm of our country. Lesser of two evils, simple as that.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Mar 24, 2014)

narad said:


> I don't even care. Suspected Al-Qaeda operative in Yemen. I'm not a fan of the run-all-over-the-world-assassinating-people thing that governments love to do, but if that's how we're going to play it I don't see why it matters what country someone was born in. An enemy combatant is an enemy combatant.





Where we're born and to whom we're born is arbitrary... Our loyalties are not.

Hell there are laws in some states that will allow me to shoot a man if he enters my home uninvited... That's an American too most likely... You gonna go on a damn crusade for that guy too?

Most of the people I don't like in this world are American. Why? I live in America. I'm not gonna act like we're always cool just because we happened to have been born in the same general region of the globe. That's ri-goddamn-diculous.


----------



## Eric Christian (Mar 24, 2014)

Watty said:


> See Narad's earlier comment about your political proclivities.
> 
> You may not be officially affiliated with the Republican party, but you regurgitate enough of their rhetoric and talking points that it honestly doesn't make much of a difference expect on paper.
> 
> ...



The big difference is their rhetoric is just that... nothing more than talking points designed to placate their voters so they can attempt to take over the government again from the other group of crooks. If you think for a minute that Republican Senators & Congress Members are actually against Drone Killings, Obamacare & Handouts you're seriously mistaken. First if all drones are made by aerospace companies that these guys all own stock in plus the factories are often in their home districts so they get kickbacks from that. Next Obamacare is a big giveaway to big HMO & Pharma which they all again own stock in plus they move back and forth freely from the government to executive positions within these companies. And lastly Republicans love nothing more than a whole culture of people on food stamps & welfare because this creates more people on drugs and alcohol to create a steady stream of fodder for their privately owned prisons & law enforcement. 

You really ought to read more Watty before your knee jerks again and you label someone else a Republican just because they said something negative about your precious Messiah Obama.


----------



## Mik3D23 (Mar 24, 2014)

Eric Christian said:


> The big difference is their rhetoric is just that... nothing more than talking points designed to placate their voters so they can attempt to take over the government again from the other group of crooks. If you think for a minute that Republican Senators & Congress Members are actually against Drone Killings, Obamacare & Handouts you're seriously mistaken. First if all drones are made by aerospace companies that these guys all own stock in plus the factories are often in their home districts so they get kickbacks from that. Next Obamacare is a big giveaway to big HMO & Pharma which they all again own stock in plus they move back and forth freely from the government to executive positions within these companies. And lastly Republicans love nothing more than a whole culture of people on food stamps & welfare because this creates more people on drugs and alcohol to create a steady stream of fodder for their privately owned prisons & law enforcement.
> 
> You really ought to read more Watty before your knee jerks again and you label someone else a Republican just because they said something negative about your precious Messiah Obama.



So if republicans secretly want these things so much, why are they so vehemently against them? Why have they spent 6 years not allowing progress to be made just because of the same topics over and over again? What do they gain out of pretending to be against the things that they secretly support?

P.S.: Watty never flat-out called you a "republican" (that I saw at least, I may be wrong); as far as I saw he simply deduced from the views and the way you talk about these issues that you seem to be aligned with a typical conservative. First of all, why do you get so offended when being apparently called a republican, and try so hard to make it look like Watty is attacking you? There's a difference between debating and personally attacking someone.. A debate cares not for the person debating, only for facts, which I don't see you present many of. Also, remarks like "just because they said something negative about your precious Messiah Obama" to people who have stated multiple times they don't necessarily support Obama or democrats in general just serves to discredit you.


----------



## The Reverend (Mar 25, 2014)

This thread has become a waste of time. An entertaining waste, but a waste nonetheless. 

*Any* claim that isn't supported by evidence is a useless claim. If I read an article, and they don't mention where they got their facts from, it's not taken to heart. If I read an article, and it says something that isn't supported by facts, I don't take it seriously. If I read an article that mentions other articles that do the aforementioned, I don't take it to heart. The same applies for any other media I consume. 

Here's a thought experiment to try: If you don't believe what the government or the media says because they have an agenda, why do you believe what random people will say? Don't they have an agenda, too? If we're constantly being lied to, why is it only suspected of large entities? Should we believe that only they have motive and gain to lie?


----------



## Watty (Mar 25, 2014)

All hail Alex Jones!


----------



## Eric Christian (Mar 27, 2014)

Getting Obamacare seems to be one thing but actually finding healthcare providers that will actually accept it is quite another thing apparently. Not from FauxNews either...

Got Obamacare insurance. Can't find doctors. - Mar. 19, 2014


----------



## narad (Mar 27, 2014)

Eric Christian said:


> Getting Obamacare seems to be one thing but actually finding healthcare providers that will actually accept it is quite another thing apparently. Not from FauxNews either...
> 
> Got Obamacare insurance. Can't find doctors. - Mar. 19, 2014



That's really no different from the scenario with fully privatized insurers. I've had to drive an hour and a half away for totally basic coverage for half a decade under my father's blue cross - blue shield / Aetna plan. I find that annoying, but in comparison I certainly wouldn't complain if I had to travel that far for a CAT scan or to see a top cardiologist, for instance.

She raises a fair point with the emergency situation, but again, no different from what I've been doing under private insurers in upstate NY for basically the entirety of 1995-2005.

But kudos an a legitimate media outlet at least.


----------



## estabon37 (Mar 29, 2014)

Now that this has apparently become the healthcare thread (being that the whole "disincentive to work" angle failed to spark enough anger), would anybody mind telling me whether or not there is a Republican response to the ACA? The vast majority of what I've seen from ACA opposers is just: "Stop Obamacare". I'd consider that fine if not for the fact the the health care system in the US was so broken that it was an international joke. Seriously, my girlfriend is an American citizen, and every time we've thought about moving over there so she can spend some time in a country she loves, we look at the lack of basic social safety nets that exist in every other Western nation and decide it's not worth the risk. 

What is the Republican party proposing as a means of providing actual health care to the majority of US citizens? This link is the closest I've found to a legitimate Republican alternative proposal, and it both retains portions of Obamacare and does nothing to reduce the deficit. One early paragraph in particular jumped out at me:



> Much of the Republican basewhat some people call the Tea Partywould be just fine with repealing Obamacare and calling it a day. The vast majority of the Republican base is employed or retired; these active GOP primary voters are sometimes unaware of the degree to which their health coverage is heavily subsidized by the tax code (more than $300 billion a year, in the case of the tax exclusion for employer-sponsored coverage) or financed by the government (more than $750 billion a year in Medicare spending).



So ... when Obama uses tax money to pay for health care it's socialism, but when the Republican base uses tax money to pay for health care it's ... well, it's hidden. Why is nobody talking about this? Or have I just been reading the wrong articles?


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Mar 29, 2014)

We had a good safety net. It was called "go to the ER and get treated if things got that bad."

What so many seem to be objecting to is that if you didn't have coverage then they stuck you with some huge bill.
Well who's job is it to pay for your bad health, even if you were born with it?
Easy. It's your own responsibility.

Why is it such a bad thing to have to suck it up and deal with your own misfortune?
So what. You have a big hospital bill hanging over your head and now you can't get a loan for a nice big house or a descent car. Boo Whoo whoo.

You're still alive. You got treatment. You just don't want to pay for it the rest of your life. Boo Whoo Whoo


People are now losing jobs, getting hours cut down to levels they can't even pay the bills, and now companies are choosing not to expand when they normally would so it's harder to find second jobs.

And I hate to break it to you FOX haters, but they called it all along as is.
They've been on top of this shit since the beginning, bringing the facts to the table, and all the liberals can do is ignore the facts.

I pitty these crybabies.


And the republicans are a bunch of screwballs also. Too many career politicians instead of statesmen.
There are some statesmen, but to get elected they are beholden to these old party organizations.

We should have just left everything alone and done nothing because less damage would be done that way. 
Until Washington gets an enema nothing will work, and they're the last people who will solve anything IMO.





Let's solve a big part of the problem right now ;;;;;;;;;;;;

From this point on, ALL the $ in our national budget for medical care be directed to those under 40yrs old.
People my age just need to get over themselves and accept that death is too near for us to burden the system with.
Let's spend the money on helping kids and young adults get the best care possible.
Older people need to accept their declining health and oncoming demise with bit more grace IMO.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm scared of dying, but if it comes down to my own treatment or some kid getting his daily grub, then I'll just have to grit my teeth and bare it.


AAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH, rant over, and all happy again now.


----------



## The Reverend (Mar 29, 2014)

TRENCHLORD said:


> We had a good safety net. It was called "go to the ER and get treated if things got that bad."
> 
> What so many seem to be objecting to is that if you didn't have coverage then they stuck you with some huge bill.
> Well who's job is it to pay for your bad health, even if you were born with it?
> ...



So I should care that people can't pay their bills, as long as they're not hospital bills? Methinks some cognitive bias is on display here. 

A bill that you can't pay is more than just not being able to get a nice house or a decent car. It's not being able to rent an apartment. It's not being able to buy a house, period. It's not being able to get jobs that require credit checks. It's paying deposits on everything, stretching what little money people have. 

Furthermore, and I know this won't persuade you, Trench, we're making people choose between a healthy, possibly productive life, and an unhealthy, unproductive life. Someone who is underemployed and chronically ill won't put as much into the system as someone who is underemployed and healthy. That should concern the budget-minded folks. 

I also don't see how you can be okay with watching people's lives get ruined. Where does that come from? Do you think people can come back from anything without outside help? Or do you not care about the lives of others as long as it doesn't affect your life? Or is it something else altogether?


----------



## narad (Mar 29, 2014)

TRENCHLORD said:


> We had a good safety net. It was called "go to the ER and get treated if things got that bad."
> 
> What so many seem to be objecting to is that if you didn't have coverage then they stuck you with some huge bill.
> Well who's job is it to pay for your bad health, even if you were born with it?
> ...



While I prefer a certain level of free care to everyone, simply as part of being a decent human, I could get along with this mentality as well. But the problem with it is that the arrangements between hospitals and insurance companies has completely skewed the costs of treatments, artificially inflating them beyond what any middle class person can afford out of pocket.

My friend was recently kept in the hospital for about 4 nights after a double concussion. He received no actual treatment besides saline drips and hospital food, but his bill was more than five thousand dollars. It's hard to put a cost on advanced treatments because I don't know what goes into it, but you know, if you need cancer treatment those bills are enormous. And it's not a bill that hangs over your head, it's a bill you get up front. Good luck getting a loan sizable enough for that.

Ha, yes, I like the thread's complete metamorphosis into a completely different rag-on-Obama issue.


----------



## Murmel (Mar 29, 2014)

TRENCHLORD said:


> We had a good safety net. It was called "go to the ER and get treated if things got that bad."
> 
> What so many seem to be objecting to is that if you didn't have coverage then they stuck you with some huge bill.
> Well who's job is it to pay for your bad health, even if you were born with it?
> ...



I'm baffled at this post. Really.

In my commie country we all pay a share of our income to health care, which in turn makes it basically free.
My sister's meds would cost my family $5000/month, that's without taking hospital visits into account. We would be living in the fcuking street and she'd most likely be dead by now if we lived by your logic, and there are people worse off than us.

Your whole system seems to be flawed, Obamacare or not. But paying a small amount of your income each month to make life worth living for hundreds of thousands of people is a small price to pay.

There is no way you can have anyone in your proximity with any medical condition worth mentioning, because you would *never *say this if you did. The stupidity is beyond me.

I've said it before and I'll say it again; America is not worth spending your life in unless you're in the top 10% income bracket.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Mar 29, 2014)

Murmel said:


> I'm baffled at this post. Really.
> 
> In my commie country we all pay a share of our income to health care, which in turn makes it basically free.
> My sister's meds would cost my family $5000/month, that's without taking hospital visits into account. We would be living in the fcuking street and she'd most likely be dead by now if we lived by your logic, and there are people worse off than us.
> ...


 
You discluded my "plan" that solves this problem.

Free care and meds for everyone under 40. Unless she's not under 40, in which case it wouldn't be feasible to provide care.
I'm going on 40 myself, and I see no good reason to sacrifice the economic future of our children just to help old has-beens like me .


And to your last point; You must just watch the liberal dominated networks to even think like that. America is a great place to be poor.
America has "poor" people everywhere walking around in Air Jordans with their heads down, not out of shame, but because they're didling with their iphones.


And one revision to my plan (hey Obama revises things all the time right);
Free everything for any age people who have legitimate learning incapacities. (in old terms "retardation" to some degree)


With the money we'd save by not providing economic assistance to those 40 and older, we could once again return to super-power status and rule the world again .
Just like the old days . Hail Reagan!!!!


----------



## Murmel (Mar 29, 2014)

We all know that would never work, nobody would agree with that. I know I wouldn't, I'm not planning on dying from a random illness by 47 just because I can't afford the med bills.


----------



## estabon37 (Mar 30, 2014)

TRENCHLORD said:


> You discluded my "plan" that solves this problem.
> 
> Free care and meds for everyone under 40. Unless she's not under 40, in which case it wouldn't be feasible to provide care.
> I'm going on 40 myself, and I see no good reason to sacrifice the economic future of our children just to help old has-beens like me .


 
The problem with this plan is that it does nothing to combat the fact that the US health system is the least efficient in the world. Scroll down to page 4 of that OECD document and check out how much more money the US spent in 2010 than the other OECD nations ($2500 per person per year more than Norway, in second place with a 'social' system) only to see that all but six other nations have higher life expectancy.

Importantly, that document does not say that any particular system is the best, nor even that social systems are better than market systems. Mainly it says that every OECD nation is paying too much, but here are two important quotes:

"Australia, Iceland, Japan, Korea and Switzerland perform best in transforming spending into health outcomes."

"In more than one third of OECD countries, exploiting efficiency gains in the health care sector would allow improving health outcomes as much as over the previous decade while keeping spending constant (Figure 2, Panel B). Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States fall into this group."

Keep in mind that the OECD is a completely independent international organisation that gathers economic data and uses it to make recommendations to all governments of all persuasions in how to improve the lives of all of their citizens. This is why OECD data is useful: it's neutral, and beneficial.



TRENCHLORD said:


> And to your last point; You must just watch the liberal dominated networks to even think like that. America is a great place to be poor.
> America has "poor" people everywhere walking around in Air Jordans with their heads down, not out of shame, but because they're didling with their iphones.



An iPhone 5s in the US costs $200. An iPhone 5s in Australia costs $869. Those prices are taken from Apple's American and Australian websites. This is just one representation of how much cheaper 'junk' is in the United States compared with the rest of the world. Poor people can afford consumer electronics, but not decent health care. I couldn't find an official Nike website to compare shoe prices, but rest assured, the price differences are stark. For further reference, I bought an ESP Eclipse through a store I worked at for $2250, which was a thousand dollars less than its off-the-wall price, but a thousand dollars more than the US price. EDIT: The Australian dollar was stronger than the US dollar at the time (US$1.00 AU$1.10), which is important for price comparisons. The AU is currently weaker, but not so weak to make a $600 difference in the price of a phone.

Consumer goods are heavily, heavily taxed in this country, and much of that money pays for education, health care, public transport, etc... Having stuff does not mean one is living in luxury, it means you look nice and can fiddle with 'cheap' electronic goods up to the point where a broken bone costs you everything. 



TRENCHLORD said:


> And one revision to my plan (hey Obama revises things all the time right);
> Free everything for any age people who have legitimate learning incapacities. (in old terms "retardation" to some degree)



Most countries already do that. EDIT: I've made a stupidly massive generalisation, but when I make a mistake, I leave it behind because I feel I should be called out for it. The point of social safety nets is to help the disadvantaged, and most countries have disability pensions, so I guess this comes down to what dictates a 'learning incapacity'. As someone studying / working in education, I'd say it's a condition that in most nations with universal health care systems either gets you a disability pension, or allows access to subsidies for medicine. The over-medicating of young people in the US has been tackled on this forum before, and adding those details here would probably be overkill.



TRENCHLORD said:


> With the money we'd save by not providing economic assistance to those 40 and older, we could once again return to super-power status and rule the world again .
> Just like the old days . Hail Reagan!!!!


Apart from the potential for the country saving lots of money by cleaning up its health care system, there are other areas where the US outspends the rest of the world. For example, when you combine the military spending of China, Russia, the UK and Japan, countries #2-5 for total military spending in the world, the US still outspends all of them. Although the several wars the US has started or encouraged over the last decade or two did a lot to inflate the amount of money spent on its own military, buying tanks nobody wants because the factories exist in politically important states doesn't help. So there's probably efficiency problems in military spending that could balance the budget somewhat. 

On top of that, aged health care is one of the rare sectors that looks likely to grow over the next decade or two, what with most Western nations having less babies than they used to. Manufacturing and middle management are going out the window, whereas services jobs, such as those at aged care facilities, are the way of the future, especially for those who have little education and few skills. 

The OECD report suggests that the US can make changes to its health care system that will pay for themselves and vastly improve the system, but there's no incentive for politicians to do that when private lobby groups are shoving money into the pockets of the people on both sides of politics.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Mar 30, 2014)

estabon37 said:


> The problem with this plan is that it does nothing to combat the fact that the US health system is the least efficient in the world. Scroll down to page 4 of that OECD document and check out how much more money the US spent in 2010 than the other OECD nations ($2500 per person per year more than Norway, in second place with a 'social' system) only to see that all but six other nations have higher life expectancy.
> 
> Importantly, that document does not say that any particular system is the best, nor even that social systems are better than market systems. Mainly it says that every OECD nation is paying too much, but here are two important quotes:
> 
> ...


 


You make many of my core points so well. Thank You.

The U.S. government is no good with efficiency, not in the least bit, but yet here we are with liberals wanting to place even more tax money into their hands so they can just flush even more down the toilet with every passing year, more and more and more, or actually pocket a good chunk before pretending to flush it.

I've been telling you guys this for like three years now. Cut them off .
And btw, that's what the Tea Party is all about despite what the liberal smear/lie campaign works so hard to brand them to be.
They're about 99.9% good hard working people who are sick of being raped by the government and then watching the spoils being wasted on nonsense and losing causes.


----------



## narad (Mar 30, 2014)

estabon37 said:


> An iPhone 5s in the US costs $200. An iPhone 5s in Australia costs $869. Those prices are taken from Apple's American and Australian websites. This is just one representation of how much cheaper 'junk' is in the United States compared with the rest of the world. Poor people can afford consumer electronics, but not decent health care. I couldn't find an official Nike website to compare shoe prices, but rest assured, the price differences are stark. For further reference, I bought an ESP Eclipse through a store I worked at for $2250, which was a thousand dollars less than its off-the-wall price, but a thousand dollars more than the US price. EDIT: The Australian dollar was stronger than the US dollar at the time (US$1.00 AU$1.10), which is important for price comparisons. The AU is currently weaker, but not so weak to make a $600 difference in the price of a phone.
> 
> Consumer goods are heavily, heavily taxed in this country, and much of that money pays for education, health care, public transport, etc... Having stuff does not mean one is living in luxury, it means you look nice and can fiddle with 'cheap' electronic goods up to the point where a broken bone costs you everything.



Had to jump in here because I like the overall point but the foundation is flawed. The prices of phones in the US are low because they're not unlocked, and they require contracts (usually 2 years) to be subsidized to that point. It'd actually be $650 USD vs. 870 AUD, or 700 AUD vs 870 AUD. Apple is an American company, of course you pay a fee to import them.

I like universal healthcare, but the vibe that America is all pro-consumer and cheap electronics and Australia is not... jeez, Sydney is even more pro-consumerism than any of the major US cities I've lived in. Which is probably due to the flatter wealth distribution curve and the higher retail / service industry salaries. I'm not going to do the math on this one, but I imagine if looked at the buying power of the Australia middle class you'd find it's much higher than it is in America. The American average salary is $46k (for 2013), but it's 55K AUD (for 2013), so you can already see the slant, but we have the uber wealthy pulling that mean up. Australia doesn't.

Actually, all my camera stuff was cheaper to buy in Australia by hundreds of dollars. There the manufacturer isn't hosted in either country so it's a little bit fairer to compare.


----------



## estabon37 (Mar 30, 2014)

narad said:


> Had to jump in here because I like the overall point but the foundation is flawed. The prices of phones in the US are low because they're not unlocked, and they require contracts (usually 2 years) to be subsidized to that point. It'd actually be $650 USD vs. 870 AUD, or 700 AUD vs 870 AUD. Apple is an American company, of course you pay a fee to import them.
> 
> I like universal healthcare, but the vibe that America is all pro-consumer and cheap electronics and Australia is not... jeez, Sydney is even more pro-consumerism than any of the major US cities I've lived in. Which is probably due to the flatter wealth distribution curve and the higher retail / service industry salaries. I'm not going to do the math on this one, but I imagine if looked at the buying power of the Australia middle class you'd find it's much higher than it is in America. The American average salary is $46k (for 2013), but it's 55K AUD (for 2013), so you can already see the slant, but we have the uber wealthy pulling that mean up. Australia doesn't.
> 
> Actually, all my camera stuff was cheaper to buy in Australia by hundreds of dollars. There the manufacturer isn't hosted in either country so it's a little bit fairer to compare.



Good points, one and all. I didn't really mean to imply that Australia's higher consumer goods taxes pay for most of our social welfare systems, but when I look back at my post, that's pretty much what I did. Thanks for clearing that one up, dude 



TRENCHLORD said:


> You make many of my core points so well. Thank You.
> 
> The U.S. government is no good with efficiency, not in the least bit, but yet here we are with liberals wanting to place even more tax money into their hands so they can just flush even more down the toilet with every passing year, more and more and more, or actually pocket a good chunk before pretending to flush it.
> 
> ...



You're welcome, I guess  My major point in my previous post is that the governments of most OECD nations successfully provide social welfare services to their populations efficiently and effectively, and there's no reason the US government can't do the same thing. It really looks like you've boiled down the efforts and success of most Western nations' governments in providing social services as "nonsense and losing causes", but maybe I'm misinterpreting that last part of your post.

That aside, I think there's a bit of weird cognitive dissonance here. Claiming that the vast majority of Tea Party supporters, who are "more likely than Americans overall to be white, male, married, older than 45, regularly attending religious services, conservative, and to be more wealthy and have more education" are being "raped by the government" is at least as misleading as any lie told by the 'liberal smear campaign', especially being that most of the systems that exist in the US support them in their health and wealth without substantially helping the disadvantaged. The Affordable Care Act wasn't designed to help wealthy, healthy, middle aged people; one of its major purposes was in providing health care to millions of people who would not otherwise have it. The closest thing I could find to a Tea Party health reform alternative is from 2012 (and in my opinion looks much better than the pre-ACA system), and it still didn't provide health care to the people who needed it most. Importantly, by the accounts of this particular analyst it still would have raised premiums, and nobody knows what it would cost to implement, so fiscally it's as much a mystery as the ACA was. 

It just looks a lot like the Tea Party answer to everything is "eliminate the government, let the market take care of things". But there are major social problems such as homelessness, disease and disability, and access to education, that the market is either disinterested in solving, or only interested in providing to the affluent.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Mar 30, 2014)

estabon37 said:


> Good points, one and all. I didn't really mean to imply that Australia's higher consumer goods taxes pay for most of our social welfare systems, but when I look back at my post, that's pretty much what I did. Thanks for clearing that one up, dude
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

The less federal government intrusion the better IMO.
The only taxes that the feds should collect is for a big huge military and the cost of securing our borders and BASES (cough cough Clinton-Obama).
The cost of currency management, federal lands, road/air maintenance and such, yeah there's a few things to pay for, but after that it's done and over.

Social safety net programs should all be ran at the state and local level, as should social services and education.
The FEDS should also be kicked out of the student loan salesman business. Include with that the global loan shark business that only benefits the swindlers at the top.

How well are all these socialist nations really doing? I'm not really hearing much about it other than struggling economies and failed loan payments . Maybe FOX is just making it all up?


----------



## Necris (Mar 30, 2014)

TRENCHLORD said:


> And to your last point; You must just watch the liberal dominated networks to even think like that. America is a great place to be poor.
> America has "poor" people everywhere walking around in Air Jordans with their heads down, not out of shame, but because they're didling with their iphones.




You harp on this point a lot; a lot of the time when I see it it seems to stem from this idea that they aren't spending their money on the "right" things or don't deserve these things until they have the decency to stop being poor/get a job. 

So maybe we should spend that money on the "right" things (namely healthcare).

Lets walk out and get that job, I have no skills. Minimum wage, but at least I'm not on the dole anymore. What is the saying I hear a lot? "Any job is better than no job?", right?

Lets work 60 hours a week.
7.25*60*4 = $1740 per month.

$20,880 per year.
Hooray, I'm making slightly more per year than what would qualify as a living wage for a single Adult in my area, $19,776 per year. But that isn't useful if we're talking about me as a poor person.

40 hours a week, minimum wage. $13,920
Lets ignore having to pay for an apartment.

In my area if I were to forego an iPhone ($200) and Some Air Jordans (~$175) that money would pay for a single month of health insurance with a $2000 annual deductible before the insurance company started paying, there are cheaper plans, but they have higher deductibles.

So, what exactly is the benefit of throwing the $375 a month at insurance? That's 4500 a year just to keep the plan and an additional $2000 for it to actually kick in. $6500. That's nearly half of what I make all year.
Is it unreasonable to view that expense as wasted money when even with insurance any sort of extended stay at the hospital could cost me more than what I make in a month? 

There is a plan with a $0 deductible. But it's still $6345 a year. 

The plans that look affordable are sometimes actually worse long term. The cheapest I could find doesn't look too bad on it's face, $279.93 a month; $3359.16 a year. But the $4000 deductible brings that up to you potentially paying $7359 a year. One extended stay at the hospital is all it would take to spit you back on to the streets.

We're ignoring having to pay for an apartment, but I guarantee you even with the 60 hour a week income you would have a challenge making any of the plans work if we weren't. Add dependents and you're deep into the poverty level to begin with. Even with 2 full time jobs.

While you have to pay for a service plan at least an iPhone does something useful short term. (I can't really bring myself to try to justify the shoes; I think paying that much is borderline insanity regardless of income bracket. )


----------



## skeels (Mar 30, 2014)

You could use the iPhone to check the bus schedule because you couldn't afford a car.


----------



## estabon37 (Mar 30, 2014)

TRENCHLORD said:


> How well are all these socialist nations really doing? I'm not really hearing much about it other than struggling economies and failed loan payments . Maybe FOX is just making it all up?



They must be. The OECD nations I've been providing links for that have 'social' health care systems are democracies. Socialist and ex-socialist nations are struggling, but Canada, The United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Sweden, Japan, Italy, Sweden, France, Spain, Switzerland, Germany, South Korea and a few other nations aren't socialist nations. All of these nations manage to afford universal health care systems despite many of them being economic small fries compared to the US. If Fox News is suggesting that countries' economies are failing because they spend too much on health care, then yes, they're making it up. I don't watch Fox News, so ... is that something they're claiming these days?


----------



## Murmel (Mar 30, 2014)

^
I would be careful putting Japan on the list of nations doing well for themselves. I've been hearing lately that they will crash anytime because they're so ridiculously in debt.

I know nothing about economics so this might be BS, but it's what I've heard.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Mar 30, 2014)

skeels said:


> You could use the iPhone to check the bus schedule because you couldn't afford a car.


Sounds like a joke, but it's kinda legit... I use my phone for the same thing and I DO have a car...

"How well are all these socialist nations doing anyway?"

Take those glasses off and just consider whether or not some of the things they do could be useful over here... I swear I get tired of ppl trying to push everything into a clearly defined box seemingly only to afford ourselves the privilege of pointing our fingers and saying what we do is better...


----------



## narad (Mar 30, 2014)

Murmel said:


> ^
> I would be careful putting Japan on the list of nations doing well for themselves. I've been hearing lately that they will crash anytime because they're so ridiculously in debt.
> 
> I know nothing about economics so this might be BS, but it's what I've heard.



I doubt it - they've been saying the same thing about the US for forever. Looking at it now, the US owes $56k per person, and Japan owes $100k per person - that's so crazy! That's like every one of us went on Oprah, "You're getting a free house! You're getting a free house! You're _alll_ getting free houses!"

Also, totally apologize if those figures are off by an order of magnitude - too many zeroes to keep track of, but I think it checks out.


----------



## skeels (Mar 30, 2014)

narad said:


> ... that's so crazy! That's like every one of us went on Oprah, "You're getting a free house! You're getting a free house! You're _alll_ getting free houses!"



"And you're all getting a 30 year HARM!"


----------



## narad (Mar 30, 2014)

skeels said:


> "And you're all getting a 30 year HARM!"


----------



## asher (Mar 30, 2014)

narad said:


> I doubt it - they've been saying the same thing about the US for forever. Looking at it now, the US owes $56k per person, and Japan owes $100k per person - that's so crazy! That's like every one of us went on Oprah, "You're getting a free house! You're getting a free house! You're _alll_ getting free houses!"
> 
> Also, totally apologize if those figures are off by an order of magnitude - too many zeroes to keep track of, but I think it checks out.





Murmel said:


> ^
> I would be careful putting Japan on the list of nations doing well for themselves. I've been hearing lately that they will crash anytime because they're so ridiculously in debt.
> 
> I know nothing about economics so this might be BS, but it's what I've heard.



It's total bullshit. Note how, yes, people have been screaming about deficits! debt! omg inflation! for... years and years and years. And nothing has manifested. See also how they keep using different, repeatedly debunked arguments to *consistently call for spending cuts*.

Japan is actually a really good model for our current situation (see also Paul Krugman's writings; worked a Nobel Laureate out of his work there, and those models have accurately accounted for basically everything that's happened in the US in the last 8 years). It's a demand shortfall where the economy is up against the zero lower bound - where interest rates have basically no room to move down because they're already so low, and inflation is also extremely low.


----------



## skeels (Mar 31, 2014)

Although if you have to walk to work there's a lot to be said for a good comfy pair of shoes. ....


----------

