Thursday, September 20, 2012

Huffington Post Comments, 9/17/2012, Part III

Me:

Very shortly I will be required to pay for healthcare insurance weather I want to or not.

The new CAFE requirements for new cars will restrict my ability to buy certain cars.

Then there are the 300,000 other pages of rules and regulations (see: U.S. Code) that interfere with things like the with of the stairways in my house, what kinds of gas that I'm allowed to buy, how fast I'm allowed to drive, waiting periods before buying firearms, etc.

I'm not claiming that all of these rules and regulations have come from this administration, but its added to them.

Why is it that many on the left accuse the right of using "talking points" and then frequently say that anyone who disagrees with them gets their info from places like Rush?

Taxes are lower in a large part thanks to Regan, fyi.

Raising taxes is not the same thing as limiting services.

I've listed two specific examples of this administration interfering with our freedom. Can you name one example of one service that the republicans have eliminated in the past 10 years?

I happen to be an unemployed 26 yo white male with a bachelor's degree.

This recession was not caused solely with help from the republicans, the democrats helped.

How can you claim that a country that has regulations on the water flow allowed from our shower heads (see: U.S. Code) suffered from a lack of regulations?

 berzsa

What do you mean healthcare insurance whether you wan it or not? If you don't have health insurance the rest of us have to pick up the bill in case of your illness. If you can't afford health insurance, the government will help you out. What's more fair than that? All civilized countries have universal healthcare, for goodness' sake! The CAFE requirements are not on you.. It is not about your freedom to buy or not gas-guzzlers. It is on the automotive industry to manufacture cars that will burn less gas. What's wrong with that? You will still be able to use and buy used monster trucks, but the new ones will be more environment friendly and fuel efficient. Where is your freedom interfered with? Limiting services is the same as raising taxes because you would have to pay fees for services that were free before so there will be sufficient revenue to lower Romney's taxes. Regulations have been accumulating since the Constitution was written. There haven't been more new ones during this administration than during the others. I am sorry that you can't find a job. Maybe if this obstructionist Congress hadn't blocked the job bills......

Me:

In your previous comment you questioned where we've lost freedoms. I gave you an example. Now you argue that that loss of freedom is "fair."

What are you trying to argue: our new healthcare law isn't a loss of freedom or that it is but its fair?

You say that if I get injured and don't have insurance then the government will pay my bills. This is a loss of freedom for those who would end up paying for my bills. This is a problem of socialism, not a problem of a lack of healthcare insurance.

So what if other counties have socialized their healthcare? I thought that your first comment was that we have not lost freedoms and now you are arguing that that loss is a good thing.

Isn't it grand with just the signing of a bill into law the government will make cars use less gas? And with no costs to boot!

If signing a law just, magically I assume, improves things with no costs or bad side effects, then why doesn't the government wave their magic pens and declare an end to poverty?

You said "raising taxes by eliminating services." If you have to pay for your own retirement, then that is not a tax.

How would one of the job bills have improved the economy?

We've tried more government spending before and it has never improved the economy. 

berzsa

You do go all over the place, don't you? We already pay for your emergency healthcare if you don't have health insurance. If you had, and if you can't afford the premiums the government helps you, we would have to pay much less, since you had prevenive care and insurance in case of emergencies. You don't like the word fair, Ok..... what about logical? What I meant about the cars is that there will be less and less gas guzzlers manufactured. You can still buy whatever is available. I am not talking about your own retirement, I don't even know what you mean by that..... the end of Social Security or Medicare? Wow! And that wouldn't be a new burden, if you have a problem with the word "taxes"...... you really are hung up on semantics aren't you? I am talking about fees and expenses. How would the job bill help the economy? You are kidding, aren't you? And look it up, stimulus and government spending in recession times, does improve the economy. Always has!

Me:

Having the government pick up the tab for people who go to the emergency room and cannot pay for it is a problem of socialism, not a problem of a lack of healthcare insurance.

My apologies, if I seemed to have gone from topic to topic. I am trying to argue the case that more government always means worse results, and less government always means better results. (I had figured that since these comments are in response to a generic "Republicans are bad" article, that all political issues are on the table.)

If we are going to continue this discussion, then would you mind listing the subjects that you wish to discuss? I will try and stick only to the subjects that you want to talk about. 

If I am "hung up" on the word taxes, then it is because I would like to have a word's definition mean the same thing every time.  You have used the word "taxes" to mean: the money extracted by the government from the people, and to mean: things that people purchase on their own.

This seems to be a common problem for those of you on the left:

http://neckbeardchronicles.blogspot.com/2012/09/defineing-words-for-left.html

"And look it up, stimulus and government spending in recession times, does improve the economy. Always has!"

Rather than telling you to look up the fact that stimulus spending does not improve the economy, I will look it up and give you a quote.  I doubt that you would trust a quote from someone on the right; how about a quote from FDR's Secretary of the Treasury, on the subject of increased government spending?

"We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong … somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. … I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. … And an enormous debt to boot."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Morgenthau_Jr

***

Me:

And the democrats are owned by unions, especially the teachers unions.

FYI, I'll be voting for Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate. Neither party will do good things.

But my first comment was to defend the republicans because this article's author say that the R position is only good for white males, whereas their positions (if followed) are not different for any race or gender.

I hope that the tea party or the libertarian party is the next party of the right. Let's start with a balanced budget and move forward with a limited government rather than the near unlimited one that we have now.

 blueline2

 Are you saying that unions today have power equal to large corporations and the evangelical movement--that is a joke-it's sad. Take a good look at union membership in the last 30 years-it's down to about 16% of what it once was--they, unfortunately, are on the way out--they overstepped their bounds a long time agao and are paying for it now.

As for your libertarian vote, in my opinion, you're wasting it. The two major parties control who/what gets on ballots. Your candidate may get on ballots in some states, but won't be near to winning in any of them. Maybe in 2016 or 2020, we'll have viable realistic 3rd parties, but not yet. Good luck.

By the way, I doubt you would like what this country looks like if we insisted on balancing the budget in a short time. Unemployment would shoot well above 25%--you guys seem to forget that lots of private sector jobs only exist because of government contracts (Boeing, McDonnell, GE, etc.) Most of California would be out of work. Or are you one of those dreamers who thinks the budget can be balanced with no defense cuts--trust me, so called entitlements for seniors are peanuts compared to what has been spent on the DoD since 2001. Don't forget, in order to balance the budget you would need to pay for Iraq and Afghanistan. Like I said--good luck.

Me: Didn't respond. I have better things to do.

If balancing the budget resulted in high unemployment, then how is that different from our current unemployment and underemployment numbers?  How can anyone be opposed to a balanced budget?

***

Me:

Which republican claims to want higher taxes for "the rest of us"?

By "take away our Medicare" do you mean adjust it for those currently under 55 so that it will be properly funded in the future?

By "rights to abortions" do you mean the "right" to end the life of an unborn person?

Aside from subsides to large companies (which the democrats helped with, and are wrong) what have the republicans given to the wealthy?

How would not raising taxes on the top 1% and attempting to limit government spending "impoverish the rest of us"?

spinotter11

Mouthpiece for the crooks.

Me:

Your comment has convinced me to give up my ideals of smaller government.

Pray tell me how I can go about singing the praises of more and more and more government.

I see the light!

What we need is more and more and more regulations! And more and more and more government assistance and subsidies for businesses and anyone else who favors democrats!

Thank you for showing me how wrong I was! 

***

Me:

Let me try again, and you can tell me if I have put any thought into this one, deal?

The republican's stated positions of lower taxes, less government spending, and fewer laws and regulations affecting our lives is race and gender neutral.

A law saying that the same number of women must be involved in a colleges' sports programs, for example is sexist.

A law saying that not hiring a minority or women because of their race or gender is racist.

A law that keeps the taxes the same for wealthy people is not, in any way, racist or sexist.

Gman225

Are youi asking me to agree or diagreen with your examples of laws? You're not being clear here.

1. I agree
2. I agree3. I agree

Me:

The stated goals of the republicans are not racist or sexist, nor is their aim to help one group at the expense of another.

The democrats goals, however, are to divide us by race and gender, to support the notion that one group is oppressing another, and they create laws like Title IX and affirmative action, which are specifically racist and sexist.

If we want everyone to be treated equally, then we need to have the same rules for everyone.

***

Me:

Their stated policies are to have lower taxes and more freedom for everyone.

The democrats had significant power in congress and the white house when many of the handouts for businesses (stimulus) and nationalization of GM, Chrysler, and many banks.

You seem to suggest that you think that republicans are racist and sexist, instead of merely having a different idea for what is best for everyone.

I think the democrats are wrong on essentially everything, but I don't think that that is because they are evil. I think that they should spend more time looking at what has happened to the countries that follow their policies, Greece, Italy, Cuba, etc. and they should spend more time looking at what happens when government gets smaller; look at the advances that China and India have made since deciding to make their government smaller.

Why is it that you think that only "rich white males" will benefit from electing republicans? Why would anyone who is not a "rich white male" support them if that was the case?

YCantWeAllJustGetAlong

I'm sorry, but I just don't believe most of what the Republicans say. Experience has showed me otherwise. They may state these goals but their actual policies are very different. Their policies are geared toward lowering taxes for the rich, and
this is especially ridiculous in this time, because without cutting expense (which they either refuse to say which ones they would cut, or say they want to cut things like Social Security or Medicare), this is a policy for bankrupting the country.
I think the Rebulicans are wrong on essentially everything, and time and time again most of their favorite policies such as trickle down or cutting taxes for the rich to stimulate job growth, have been proven wrong. But instead of learning from history, they just keep promoting these polices which help the upper class (mostly rich white males). And why not look at Germany, which has incredible social programs but is doing very well? I don't think you can use China or India as examples, because they are at a very different stage of development. I would never want to be like them: they don't have many things that make this country great. They have lack of pollution/environmental controls that make their people live in filth, and lack of many of the very freedoms that you say you want in a Republican candidate. It is very ironical that you hold up China as an example of what you admire.

Me:

I don't believe that either party will do what it says. But the republican goals (that they do make minimal moves towards) of lower taxes, including for the wealthy, and less government is much better than the democratic goals of spending more and more and more and then taxing more and more and more.

No republican wants to cut Social Security or Medicare funding, they want to change it for people currently under 55 to a system that will make each program sustainable into the future.

Could you point to where "trickle down" and reducing taxes have been "proven wrong?

Here is a counter argument for reducing taxes being "proven" wrong:

http://www.nationalreview.com/exchequer/327805/economic-policy-debate-not-rational-ritual

I admire the fact that China, and India, have gone from having most of their people live in absolute poverty (thanks to government policies similar to that of the democrats) and since reducing the size of the their governments (like republicans advocate) they have seen billions of people increase their life quality, income, and living standards.

For another example lets look at another example:

http://spootville.blogspot.com/2012/09/less-government-more-prosperity.html

Countries like China, India, and Vietnam are reducing the control of their governments and are watching the lives of their people improve dramatically. We are increasing the control of government over our lives and are watching our freedoms and lives decrease in quality.

***

Me:

 Its always good to start with name calling.

The republicans do indeed fall short of their stated goals. And so do the democrats.

How has Obama been doing on his campaign promises? http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/rulings/promise-broken/?page=1

The stated goals of the republicans are at least good. The goals of the democrats is to take from the rich and regulate everyone.

JustMeSayin

You seem to be taken in by the Republican grift I see. Aside from the overall grift or long con of the GOP, they have been working hard on their other goal of obstructing Obama and limiting him to one term. Fortunately, the Romney campaign is proving to be very inept and incompetent in this election.

As I said, there is one born every minute, so the Republican "base" will be forever renewed with more suckers. You appear to represent this base well.

Do you think that you will ever wake up to their grift? 

Me:

I marvel at the fact that you think the republicans are evil and stupid and yet ignore the fact that the democrats are no better.

Why must it be, since I disagree with your opinions, that I have been mislead by the republicans?

Isn't it possible that we have different political viewpoints because you prefer more government and less freedom and I prefer less government and more freedom?

If I am to "ever wake up to their grift", then I doubt that your name calling and insults are the way to convince me. If your goal is to convince me that I am wrong, then I suggest putting forth facts that support your case, rather than calling me names and insulting my intelligence.

***

Me:

 Yeah, I am. [joking about believing what I say]

I actually want the government to decide when, where, and how I get my healthcare. I also want the government to decide which car I should drive, how fast I can go, and what gas I can put in it.

But what I really want is for the government to decide how large of a soda that I can buy.

 14Kestrel

Uh..Ok. I see you are a deep thinker.
1. Buy the most expensive health insurance you want. No one is stopping you.
2. Buy any car you want. No one is stopping you.
3. Buy premium gas. The Koch's will love you.

Speed limits are probably a good idea. But go ahead, drive as fast as you like. When you hurt someone, don't complain of the consequenses.

Finally, Bloomberg is a Republican you nit wit. It was his soda idea. 

Me:

1. Can I buy healthcare insurance from across state lines? Can I buy healthcare insurance with a low premium and high deductible?

2. The government's new CAFE laws make it much more expensive to buy cars that do not get the government's required mileage. The government has decided that people want to have cars that get higher mileage, so they added some laws that fine car companies that do not meet the government's new requirements.

If the government can solve a problem, like low gas mileage, and with no regard for the consequences, then why don't they create a law that "ends" poverty?

3. I do buy premium gas, my sports car accepts no other.

Bye the way, the government makes more in taxes than the oil companies make in profit on a gallon of gas.

http://spootville.blogspot.com/2012/09/liberal-logic.html

"Finally, Bloomberg is a Republican you nit wit. It was his soda idea."

Thanks for the name calling. The large soda ban is bad regardless of which party the politician who created it belongs to.

And bye the way:

Bloomberg was an independent when he created the soda ban.

"Originally a Democrat, he switched his enrollment to independent in 2008 and, running in 2009 on the Republican and Independence Party lines, he won a third term — only the fourth New York mayor in a century to do so."

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/michael_r_bloomberg/index.html

***

Me:

I'm a libertarian. But the republican's platform is correct on many issues. Abortion is killing the unborn, lower taxes are better than higher taxes (for anyone), something needs to be done to social security and medicare, etc.

The republicans will not make good on their campaign promises, but neither will the democrats.

And the democrats are opposed to freedom whenever they can be. Are they in favor of an option, not mandatory, union membership? They enforce CAFE laws that restrict which cars can be made. They helped bail out and nationalize several banks, and GM and Chrysler. They are in favor of taxing people more. Etc.

 Jason N

"Abortion is killing the unborn"

Untrue. A fetus is not a child, it can not breathe on it's own. For all intents and purposes, it's more parasite than child.

"lower taxes are better than higher taxes (for anyone)"

Tell that to the S&P, who downgraded our credit for GOP refusal to "increase federal revenues." Americas greatest period of economic expansion came at a time that tax rates for the upper class topped out in the 90% range.

"something needs to be done to social security and medicare"

And you think that something is privatizing SS (so retirees can watch them vanish in another crash like 2008) and making medicare a system of vouchers.... right. SMDH. Genius plans.

"They enforce CAFE laws that restrict which cars can be made."

LMFAO!! You think forcing fuel efficiency is a freedom killer?!? LMFAO!!! Yeah, allowing ourselves to grow increasingly more dependent on foreign sources of oil really helps protect freedom long term, right? WOW!

"Are they in favor of an option, not mandatory, union membership?"

Yes, they are in favor of optional union membership.

"Sen. Nicholas D. Kettle, R-Coventry, announced Thursday he has introduced a "right to work" bill that would make union membership optional for Rhode Island teachers."

http://news.providencejournal.com/breaking-news/2012/01/ri-bill-aims-fo.html

"They helped bail out and nationalize several banks, and GM and Chrysler."

Oh please do show which banks were nationalized lol, appreciate that.

"They are in favor of taxing people more. Etc."

Taxes don't take away freedom. Laws banning abortion do. Laws banning gay [His comment ended here.]

Me:

I did not say that "A fetus is not a child". What I said was, "Abortion is killing the unborn." What I mean by that is an abortion is the killing of an unborn person. If you would like to use some other term to call the unborn, you are welcome to do so. It does sound much better to call abortion killing a "fetus" rather than a person.

What do you suppose would happen if you asked a pregnant women about her "parasite"?

What makes you think that S&P downgraded our credit because of whatever you are accusing the republicans of?

Isn't it more likely that our credit was downgraded thanks to our enormous debt and yearly deficits? http://cbo.gov/publication/42636

My compliments on finding one democrat who says that he is in favor of "right to work".

Bank bailouts and nationalizations:

http://projects.propublica.org/bailout/list

For a description of "bank nationalization"

http://blogs.wsj.com/deals/2009/01/21/crisis-qa-what-bank-nationalization-means-for-you/

I notice that you are not arguing against my claim of GM and Chrysler nationalization.

As for you claim of "Taxes don't take away freedom." I would direct your attention to this article which disputes your claim.

http://ericpetersautos.com/2012/09/07/a-few-questions-to-ask/

An example from the article:

[A person today] "is compelled to give up whatever portion of the fruits of his labors others decide they are entitled to – and how this differs from the slave in the field being forced to pick cotton for the benefit of others . . . . Ask him what he thinks will happen if he declines to hand over the fruits of his labor… . " 

No comments:

Post a Comment