Healthcare is not a right!?

[NeetaT]

“But the incident will be used as justification to spend hundreds of billions of dollars — many times more than the proposed health care bill — because we must defeat our powerful enemies.”

I’m retired “SOF” and frankly I can’t see enough of these idiots die. I will proudly support a bellicose nation.

[Anonymous]

[quote=NeetaT] […] I can’t see enough of these idiots die. I will proudly support a bellicose nation.[/quote]

We spend an awful lot of money just to have the pleasure of watching “idiots die.”

How do you suggest we continue to pay for it all?

Take a look at the numbers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_United_States_federal_budget

If we don’t raise taxes, then what do we cut in order to reduce the deficit?

If you don’t want to cut defense, then you pretty much have to eliminate everything else the government does. (This means no freeways, no national parks, no NASA, no FBI, nothing)

Social Security and Medicare are obvious targets, But it’s not that simple: they are also a source or revenue — cutting the benefit without removing SS and Medicare taxes would essentially be a tax increase.

But we spend it all on “liberal programs,” right?

No.

Look at the numbers.

Even if we eliminated all of welfare and unemployment spending completely, and threw away the Departments of Health and Human Services, and the Department of Education, and a few other small agencies, it still wouldn’t be enough to make up for the $600+ billion deficit.

Cut defense spending by half and we still have the largest military in the world by far. And we might actually be able to balance the budget.

[I think we’ve merged with the “How could anyone brag …” thread.]

[Anonymous]

[quote=NeetaT] […] I can’t see enough of these idiots die. I will proudly support a bellicose nation.[/quote]

We spend an awful lot of money just to have the pleasure of watching “idiots die.”

How do you suggest we continue to pay for it all?

Take a look at the numbers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_United_States_federal_budget

If we don’t raise taxes, then what do we cut in order to reduce the deficit?

If you don’t want to cut defense, then you pretty much have to eliminate everything else the government does. (This means no freeways, no national parks, no NASA, no FBI, nothing)

Social Security and Medicare are obvious targets, But it’s not that simple: they are also a source or revenue — cutting the benefit without removing SS and Medicare taxes would essentially be a tax increase.

But we spend it all on “liberal programs,” right?

No.

Look at the numbers.

Even if we eliminated all of welfare and unemployment spending completely, and threw away the Departments of Health and Human Services, and the Department of Education, and a few other small agencies, it still wouldn’t be enough to make up for the $600+ billion deficit.

Cut defense spending by half and we still have the largest military in the world by far. And we might actually be able to balance the budget.

[I think we’ve merged with the “How could anyone brag …” thread.]

[Anonymous]

[quote=NeetaT] […] I can’t see enough of these idiots die. I will proudly support a bellicose nation.[/quote]

We spend an awful lot of money just to have the pleasure of watching “idiots die.”

How do you suggest we continue to pay for it all?

Take a look at the numbers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_United_States_federal_budget

If we don’t raise taxes, then what do we cut in order to reduce the deficit?

If you don’t want to cut defense, then you pretty much have to eliminate everything else the government does. (This means no freeways, no national parks, no NASA, no FBI, nothing)

Social Security and Medicare are obvious targets, But it’s not that simple: they are also a source or revenue — cutting the benefit without removing SS and Medicare taxes would essentially be a tax increase.

But we spend it all on “liberal programs,” right?

No.

Look at the numbers.

Even if we eliminated all of welfare and unemployment spending completely, and threw away the Departments of Health and Human Services, and the Department of Education, and a few other small agencies, it still wouldn’t be enough to make up for the $600+ billion deficit.

Cut defense spending by half and we still have the largest military in the world by far. And we might actually be able to balance the budget.

[I think we’ve merged with the “How could anyone brag …” thread.]

[Anonymous]

[quote=NeetaT] […] I can’t see enough of these idiots die. I will proudly support a bellicose nation.[/quote]

We spend an awful lot of money just to have the pleasure of watching “idiots die.”

How do you suggest we continue to pay for it all?

Take a look at the numbers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_United_States_federal_budget

If we don’t raise taxes, then what do we cut in order to reduce the deficit?

If you don’t want to cut defense, then you pretty much have to eliminate everything else the government does. (This means no freeways, no national parks, no NASA, no FBI, nothing)

Social Security and Medicare are obvious targets, But it’s not that simple: they are also a source or revenue — cutting the benefit without removing SS and Medicare taxes would essentially be a tax increase.

But we spend it all on “liberal programs,” right?

No.

Look at the numbers.

Even if we eliminated all of welfare and unemployment spending completely, and threw away the Departments of Health and Human Services, and the Department of Education, and a few other small agencies, it still wouldn’t be enough to make up for the $600+ billion deficit.

Cut defense spending by half and we still have the largest military in the world by far. And we might actually be able to balance the budget.

[I think we’ve merged with the “How could anyone brag …” thread.]

[Anonymous]

[quote=NeetaT] […] I can’t see enough of these idiots die. I will proudly support a bellicose nation.[/quote]

We spend an awful lot of money just to have the pleasure of watching “idiots die.”

How do you suggest we continue to pay for it all?

Take a look at the numbers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_United_States_federal_budget

If we don’t raise taxes, then what do we cut in order to reduce the deficit?

If you don’t want to cut defense, then you pretty much have to eliminate everything else the government does. (This means no freeways, no national parks, no NASA, no FBI, nothing)

Social Security and Medicare are obvious targets, But it’s not that simple: they are also a source or revenue — cutting the benefit without removing SS and Medicare taxes would essentially be a tax increase.

But we spend it all on “liberal programs,” right?

No.

Look at the numbers.

Even if we eliminated all of welfare and unemployment spending completely, and threw away the Departments of Health and Human Services, and the Department of Education, and a few other small agencies, it still wouldn’t be enough to make up for the $600+ billion deficit.

Cut defense spending by half and we still have the largest military in the world by far. And we might actually be able to balance the budget.

[I think we’ve merged with the “How could anyone brag …” thread.]

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=davelj][quote=urbanrealtor]

5.4 percent of my income for universal health care is not one of them.[/quote]

First, isn’t 5.4% the marginal (as opposed to “effective”) rate that kicks in for couples earning over $1 million (and individuals earning over $500,000)? (Maybe I’ve got the break points wrong.)

Second, are you certain that use of the term “my” (indicating “your”) applies here? Or should that be “one’s.”[/quote]
You are right I think but that is still a couple of non-points. I don’t think that the thrust changes based on the semantics.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=davelj][quote=urbanrealtor]

5.4 percent of my income for universal health care is not one of them.[/quote]

First, isn’t 5.4% the marginal (as opposed to “effective”) rate that kicks in for couples earning over $1 million (and individuals earning over $500,000)? (Maybe I’ve got the break points wrong.)

Second, are you certain that use of the term “my” (indicating “your”) applies here? Or should that be “one’s.”[/quote]
You are right I think but that is still a couple of non-points. I don’t think that the thrust changes based on the semantics.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=davelj][quote=urbanrealtor]

5.4 percent of my income for universal health care is not one of them.[/quote]

First, isn’t 5.4% the marginal (as opposed to “effective”) rate that kicks in for couples earning over $1 million (and individuals earning over $500,000)? (Maybe I’ve got the break points wrong.)

Second, are you certain that use of the term “my” (indicating “your”) applies here? Or should that be “one’s.”[/quote]
You are right I think but that is still a couple of non-points. I don’t think that the thrust changes based on the semantics.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=davelj][quote=urbanrealtor]

5.4 percent of my income for universal health care is not one of them.[/quote]

First, isn’t 5.4% the marginal (as opposed to “effective”) rate that kicks in for couples earning over $1 million (and individuals earning over $500,000)? (Maybe I’ve got the break points wrong.)

Second, are you certain that use of the term “my” (indicating “your”) applies here? Or should that be “one’s.”[/quote]
You are right I think but that is still a couple of non-points. I don’t think that the thrust changes based on the semantics.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=davelj][quote=urbanrealtor]

5.4 percent of my income for universal health care is not one of them.[/quote]

First, isn’t 5.4% the marginal (as opposed to “effective”) rate that kicks in for couples earning over $1 million (and individuals earning over $500,000)? (Maybe I’ve got the break points wrong.)

Second, are you certain that use of the term “my” (indicating “your”) applies here? Or should that be “one’s.”[/quote]
You are right I think but that is still a couple of non-points. I don’t think that the thrust changes based on the semantics.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=aldante]

Urban,
The topic is whether or not healthcare is a right. I did not see anything that you wrote telling us why you think it is a right. You are way far a field. I think another thread on what the Constitution movement or the tea party movement would be appropriate. [/quote]
I actually did say that I did not think it was a right, but that I feel that more efficient use of public resources is a responsibility.

In other words, I don’t want it in the constitution but if we are going to have universal health care (which we have had for 40 years now) this is more efficient allocation of costs than the current method.

Also, I would argue that the nature of the conversation between you and I did have the character of the tea party thing as a salient component. Read through our previous posts and I think you will agree.
[quote=aldante]

You are welcome to look at campaignforliberty.com for information as well. My view is that the lack of solidarity is more a symptom of any new movement. The ideas that you listed are part of those ideas. The problem is that any neo-con who benefited from the big government is trying to foist his/her identity on this movement and any identiy crisis is from the outside – not the inside. It is a new movement and the degree to which it takes hold is the degree to which people want tostand up for thier freedom.
[/quote]
I don’t think that the distinction between inside and outside division is a valid one.
Every movement has fracture but the way a movement succeeds is by having common “important” parts (whatever those may be). This is why the Christian Coalition was so powerful for so long. It took a while for them to sort out their sentiments and find a president to back them but they did meet with a fair amount of success. They still do. Tea bag is not there yet.
[quote=aldante]
I do an am. Voting is only a small part of the equation. Getting candidates who truely represent the freedom movement is the hardest and takes the longest.

Still hoping to convert you.[/quote]I admire your optimism.
I really am a member of the liberal (not radical) left.
I genuinely believe in the government’s responsibility to protect rights and that is something I think we share.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=aldante]

Urban,
The topic is whether or not healthcare is a right. I did not see anything that you wrote telling us why you think it is a right. You are way far a field. I think another thread on what the Constitution movement or the tea party movement would be appropriate. [/quote]
I actually did say that I did not think it was a right, but that I feel that more efficient use of public resources is a responsibility.

In other words, I don’t want it in the constitution but if we are going to have universal health care (which we have had for 40 years now) this is more efficient allocation of costs than the current method.

Also, I would argue that the nature of the conversation between you and I did have the character of the tea party thing as a salient component. Read through our previous posts and I think you will agree.
[quote=aldante]

You are welcome to look at campaignforliberty.com for information as well. My view is that the lack of solidarity is more a symptom of any new movement. The ideas that you listed are part of those ideas. The problem is that any neo-con who benefited from the big government is trying to foist his/her identity on this movement and any identiy crisis is from the outside – not the inside. It is a new movement and the degree to which it takes hold is the degree to which people want tostand up for thier freedom.
[/quote]
I don’t think that the distinction between inside and outside division is a valid one.
Every movement has fracture but the way a movement succeeds is by having common “important” parts (whatever those may be). This is why the Christian Coalition was so powerful for so long. It took a while for them to sort out their sentiments and find a president to back them but they did meet with a fair amount of success. They still do. Tea bag is not there yet.
[quote=aldante]
I do an am. Voting is only a small part of the equation. Getting candidates who truely represent the freedom movement is the hardest and takes the longest.

Still hoping to convert you.[/quote]I admire your optimism.
I really am a member of the liberal (not radical) left.
I genuinely believe in the government’s responsibility to protect rights and that is something I think we share.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=aldante]

Urban,
The topic is whether or not healthcare is a right. I did not see anything that you wrote telling us why you think it is a right. You are way far a field. I think another thread on what the Constitution movement or the tea party movement would be appropriate. [/quote]
I actually did say that I did not think it was a right, but that I feel that more efficient use of public resources is a responsibility.

In other words, I don’t want it in the constitution but if we are going to have universal health care (which we have had for 40 years now) this is more efficient allocation of costs than the current method.

Also, I would argue that the nature of the conversation between you and I did have the character of the tea party thing as a salient component. Read through our previous posts and I think you will agree.
[quote=aldante]

You are welcome to look at campaignforliberty.com for information as well. My view is that the lack of solidarity is more a symptom of any new movement. The ideas that you listed are part of those ideas. The problem is that any neo-con who benefited from the big government is trying to foist his/her identity on this movement and any identiy crisis is from the outside – not the inside. It is a new movement and the degree to which it takes hold is the degree to which people want tostand up for thier freedom.
[/quote]
I don’t think that the distinction between inside and outside division is a valid one.
Every movement has fracture but the way a movement succeeds is by having common “important” parts (whatever those may be). This is why the Christian Coalition was so powerful for so long. It took a while for them to sort out their sentiments and find a president to back them but they did meet with a fair amount of success. They still do. Tea bag is not there yet.
[quote=aldante]
I do an am. Voting is only a small part of the equation. Getting candidates who truely represent the freedom movement is the hardest and takes the longest.

Still hoping to convert you.[/quote]I admire your optimism.
I really am a member of the liberal (not radical) left.
I genuinely believe in the government’s responsibility to protect rights and that is something I think we share.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=aldante]

Urban,
The topic is whether or not healthcare is a right. I did not see anything that you wrote telling us why you think it is a right. You are way far a field. I think another thread on what the Constitution movement or the tea party movement would be appropriate. [/quote]
I actually did say that I did not think it was a right, but that I feel that more efficient use of public resources is a responsibility.

In other words, I don’t want it in the constitution but if we are going to have universal health care (which we have had for 40 years now) this is more efficient allocation of costs than the current method.

Also, I would argue that the nature of the conversation between you and I did have the character of the tea party thing as a salient component. Read through our previous posts and I think you will agree.
[quote=aldante]

You are welcome to look at campaignforliberty.com for information as well. My view is that the lack of solidarity is more a symptom of any new movement. The ideas that you listed are part of those ideas. The problem is that any neo-con who benefited from the big government is trying to foist his/her identity on this movement and any identiy crisis is from the outside – not the inside. It is a new movement and the degree to which it takes hold is the degree to which people want tostand up for thier freedom.
[/quote]
I don’t think that the distinction between inside and outside division is a valid one.
Every movement has fracture but the way a movement succeeds is by having common “important” parts (whatever those may be). This is why the Christian Coalition was so powerful for so long. It took a while for them to sort out their sentiments and find a president to back them but they did meet with a fair amount of success. They still do. Tea bag is not there yet.
[quote=aldante]
I do an am. Voting is only a small part of the equation. Getting candidates who truely represent the freedom movement is the hardest and takes the longest.

Still hoping to convert you.[/quote]I admire your optimism.
I really am a member of the liberal (not radical) left.
I genuinely believe in the government’s responsibility to protect rights and that is something I think we share.

[Author]

Posts