Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
faterikcartman
ParticipantStep 3: Profit!
ParticipantStep 3: Profit!
ParticipantStep 3: Profit!
ParticipantStep 3: Profit!
January 29, 2011 at 5:09 PM in reply to: Landmark State Decision in RE Agency and Disclosure Law #659637Participant[quote=SD Realtor]I am trying to not be civil but it is getting difficult.[/quote]
Freud is rolling on the floor with his mother’s slip laughing his arse off at that one. 😉
January 29, 2011 at 5:09 PM in reply to: Landmark State Decision in RE Agency and Disclosure Law #659700Participant[quote=SD Realtor]I am trying to not be civil but it is getting difficult.[/quote]
Freud is rolling on the floor with his mother’s slip laughing his arse off at that one. 😉
January 29, 2011 at 5:09 PM in reply to: Landmark State Decision in RE Agency and Disclosure Law #660303Participant[quote=SD Realtor]I am trying to not be civil but it is getting difficult.[/quote]
Freud is rolling on the floor with his mother’s slip laughing his arse off at that one. 😉
January 29, 2011 at 5:09 PM in reply to: Landmark State Decision in RE Agency and Disclosure Law #660442Participant[quote=SD Realtor]I am trying to not be civil but it is getting difficult.[/quote]
Freud is rolling on the floor with his mother’s slip laughing his arse off at that one. 😉
January 29, 2011 at 5:09 PM in reply to: Landmark State Decision in RE Agency and Disclosure Law #660771Participant[quote=SD Realtor]I am trying to not be civil but it is getting difficult.[/quote]
Freud is rolling on the floor with his mother’s slip laughing his arse off at that one. 😉
Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=faterikcartman] I’m sure we could save a fortune by embracing the health care system of 1890’s African Bushmen — but is that what we want?[/quote]
faterikcartman, I’m all for rationing the level of health care the government and insurance companies should be required to pay for. But everyone should have a basic minimum standard of care.
Ideally, national health care would reward people who take care of their health and punish (charge more) those who are health slobs.
A high, punitive tax on junk food would raise a lot of money and go a long way in improving national health.[/quote]
Doh! We’re back to disagreeing. If health care is a right, shelter is a right. If shelter is a right, food is a right. If food is a right, clothing is a right. Since many in government, both here and abroad, see internet access as a right, clearly, there is no end to it.
As for your carrot and stick ideas. By the same token then shouldn’t those who produce more and use fewer government services pay less in taxes, whilst net users be punished with higher taxes? The reality is our government tends to hate guarding against moral hazards. Those who behave the worst will be rewarded the most and those who are most responsible will suffer the greatest punitive taxation and fees.
You’re whole way of thinking about it is absurd in a way: if those who behaved foolishly could afford to suffer punitive taxes and fees it is unlikely they would need the benefits of a public welfare system to begin with.
On the other hand, I suspect that what you’re really talking about is simply prohibiting the behaviour of individuals. No smoking. No riding without a helmet. No eating transfats. Okay, we’re already there in places aren’t we? Maybe we’ll need cars that are controlled by a computer rather than a person. Okay, already working on it. How about no downhill skiing? No surfing? No skateboarding? No crossing the street while listening to an iPod or texting? Oops, working on that too. Obviously I could go on and on. Isn’t the answer to simply not pay for the things the majority disagrees with? And, after we’ve trashed our health care system, that’s where we’ll be; joining the UK in denying treatment to overweight people and smokers for issues related to their smoking and eating.
History is on my side. There is, and has been, no system that provides the utopia of the nanny state and the concomitant restrictions on individual freedoms that has not resulted in deprivation, tyranny, and ultimate failure. People need to pay their own way. People who cannot need to resort to the charity of others. Threatening to imprison someone, or shoot them if they resist, is not liberal, nor is it charity. The reintroduction of SHAME to those looking for a handout would go a long way to discouraging abuse.
Anyway, the only debate should be what happens along the way and what goes along with it (e.g., stagflation), and when. As I’ve posted previously, a ton of money has been pumped into institutions. When if finally gets into circulation you have more dollars competing for the same pool of goods and services = inflation. I can see the government doubling down on stimulus and this time having strings attached so it actually gets lent out and spent. I think this will only compound the problem long term.
Finally, I encourage you and others to join me in recognizing that it is immoral to enjoy the benefits of spending today that will have to be paid for by the taxpayers — or denizens of a shattered economy — tomorrow. We have caused our own problems as well as foisted the problems on future generations. Shameful.
Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=faterikcartman] I’m sure we could save a fortune by embracing the health care system of 1890’s African Bushmen — but is that what we want?[/quote]
faterikcartman, I’m all for rationing the level of health care the government and insurance companies should be required to pay for. But everyone should have a basic minimum standard of care.
Ideally, national health care would reward people who take care of their health and punish (charge more) those who are health slobs.
A high, punitive tax on junk food would raise a lot of money and go a long way in improving national health.[/quote]
Doh! We’re back to disagreeing. If health care is a right, shelter is a right. If shelter is a right, food is a right. If food is a right, clothing is a right. Since many in government, both here and abroad, see internet access as a right, clearly, there is no end to it.
As for your carrot and stick ideas. By the same token then shouldn’t those who produce more and use fewer government services pay less in taxes, whilst net users be punished with higher taxes? The reality is our government tends to hate guarding against moral hazards. Those who behave the worst will be rewarded the most and those who are most responsible will suffer the greatest punitive taxation and fees.
You’re whole way of thinking about it is absurd in a way: if those who behaved foolishly could afford to suffer punitive taxes and fees it is unlikely they would need the benefits of a public welfare system to begin with.
On the other hand, I suspect that what you’re really talking about is simply prohibiting the behaviour of individuals. No smoking. No riding without a helmet. No eating transfats. Okay, we’re already there in places aren’t we? Maybe we’ll need cars that are controlled by a computer rather than a person. Okay, already working on it. How about no downhill skiing? No surfing? No skateboarding? No crossing the street while listening to an iPod or texting? Oops, working on that too. Obviously I could go on and on. Isn’t the answer to simply not pay for the things the majority disagrees with? And, after we’ve trashed our health care system, that’s where we’ll be; joining the UK in denying treatment to overweight people and smokers for issues related to their smoking and eating.
History is on my side. There is, and has been, no system that provides the utopia of the nanny state and the concomitant restrictions on individual freedoms that has not resulted in deprivation, tyranny, and ultimate failure. People need to pay their own way. People who cannot need to resort to the charity of others. Threatening to imprison someone, or shoot them if they resist, is not liberal, nor is it charity. The reintroduction of SHAME to those looking for a handout would go a long way to discouraging abuse.
Anyway, the only debate should be what happens along the way and what goes along with it (e.g., stagflation), and when. As I’ve posted previously, a ton of money has been pumped into institutions. When if finally gets into circulation you have more dollars competing for the same pool of goods and services = inflation. I can see the government doubling down on stimulus and this time having strings attached so it actually gets lent out and spent. I think this will only compound the problem long term.
Finally, I encourage you and others to join me in recognizing that it is immoral to enjoy the benefits of spending today that will have to be paid for by the taxpayers — or denizens of a shattered economy — tomorrow. We have caused our own problems as well as foisted the problems on future generations. Shameful.
Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=faterikcartman] I’m sure we could save a fortune by embracing the health care system of 1890’s African Bushmen — but is that what we want?[/quote]
faterikcartman, I’m all for rationing the level of health care the government and insurance companies should be required to pay for. But everyone should have a basic minimum standard of care.
Ideally, national health care would reward people who take care of their health and punish (charge more) those who are health slobs.
A high, punitive tax on junk food would raise a lot of money and go a long way in improving national health.[/quote]
Doh! We’re back to disagreeing. If health care is a right, shelter is a right. If shelter is a right, food is a right. If food is a right, clothing is a right. Since many in government, both here and abroad, see internet access as a right, clearly, there is no end to it.
As for your carrot and stick ideas. By the same token then shouldn’t those who produce more and use fewer government services pay less in taxes, whilst net users be punished with higher taxes? The reality is our government tends to hate guarding against moral hazards. Those who behave the worst will be rewarded the most and those who are most responsible will suffer the greatest punitive taxation and fees.
You’re whole way of thinking about it is absurd in a way: if those who behaved foolishly could afford to suffer punitive taxes and fees it is unlikely they would need the benefits of a public welfare system to begin with.
On the other hand, I suspect that what you’re really talking about is simply prohibiting the behaviour of individuals. No smoking. No riding without a helmet. No eating transfats. Okay, we’re already there in places aren’t we? Maybe we’ll need cars that are controlled by a computer rather than a person. Okay, already working on it. How about no downhill skiing? No surfing? No skateboarding? No crossing the street while listening to an iPod or texting? Oops, working on that too. Obviously I could go on and on. Isn’t the answer to simply not pay for the things the majority disagrees with? And, after we’ve trashed our health care system, that’s where we’ll be; joining the UK in denying treatment to overweight people and smokers for issues related to their smoking and eating.
History is on my side. There is, and has been, no system that provides the utopia of the nanny state and the concomitant restrictions on individual freedoms that has not resulted in deprivation, tyranny, and ultimate failure. People need to pay their own way. People who cannot need to resort to the charity of others. Threatening to imprison someone, or shoot them if they resist, is not liberal, nor is it charity. The reintroduction of SHAME to those looking for a handout would go a long way to discouraging abuse.
Anyway, the only debate should be what happens along the way and what goes along with it (e.g., stagflation), and when. As I’ve posted previously, a ton of money has been pumped into institutions. When if finally gets into circulation you have more dollars competing for the same pool of goods and services = inflation. I can see the government doubling down on stimulus and this time having strings attached so it actually gets lent out and spent. I think this will only compound the problem long term.
Finally, I encourage you and others to join me in recognizing that it is immoral to enjoy the benefits of spending today that will have to be paid for by the taxpayers — or denizens of a shattered economy — tomorrow. We have caused our own problems as well as foisted the problems on future generations. Shameful.
Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=faterikcartman] I’m sure we could save a fortune by embracing the health care system of 1890’s African Bushmen — but is that what we want?[/quote]
faterikcartman, I’m all for rationing the level of health care the government and insurance companies should be required to pay for. But everyone should have a basic minimum standard of care.
Ideally, national health care would reward people who take care of their health and punish (charge more) those who are health slobs.
A high, punitive tax on junk food would raise a lot of money and go a long way in improving national health.[/quote]
Doh! We’re back to disagreeing. If health care is a right, shelter is a right. If shelter is a right, food is a right. If food is a right, clothing is a right. Since many in government, both here and abroad, see internet access as a right, clearly, there is no end to it.
As for your carrot and stick ideas. By the same token then shouldn’t those who produce more and use fewer government services pay less in taxes, whilst net users be punished with higher taxes? The reality is our government tends to hate guarding against moral hazards. Those who behave the worst will be rewarded the most and those who are most responsible will suffer the greatest punitive taxation and fees.
You’re whole way of thinking about it is absurd in a way: if those who behaved foolishly could afford to suffer punitive taxes and fees it is unlikely they would need the benefits of a public welfare system to begin with.
On the other hand, I suspect that what you’re really talking about is simply prohibiting the behaviour of individuals. No smoking. No riding without a helmet. No eating transfats. Okay, we’re already there in places aren’t we? Maybe we’ll need cars that are controlled by a computer rather than a person. Okay, already working on it. How about no downhill skiing? No surfing? No skateboarding? No crossing the street while listening to an iPod or texting? Oops, working on that too. Obviously I could go on and on. Isn’t the answer to simply not pay for the things the majority disagrees with? And, after we’ve trashed our health care system, that’s where we’ll be; joining the UK in denying treatment to overweight people and smokers for issues related to their smoking and eating.
History is on my side. There is, and has been, no system that provides the utopia of the nanny state and the concomitant restrictions on individual freedoms that has not resulted in deprivation, tyranny, and ultimate failure. People need to pay their own way. People who cannot need to resort to the charity of others. Threatening to imprison someone, or shoot them if they resist, is not liberal, nor is it charity. The reintroduction of SHAME to those looking for a handout would go a long way to discouraging abuse.
Anyway, the only debate should be what happens along the way and what goes along with it (e.g., stagflation), and when. As I’ve posted previously, a ton of money has been pumped into institutions. When if finally gets into circulation you have more dollars competing for the same pool of goods and services = inflation. I can see the government doubling down on stimulus and this time having strings attached so it actually gets lent out and spent. I think this will only compound the problem long term.
Finally, I encourage you and others to join me in recognizing that it is immoral to enjoy the benefits of spending today that will have to be paid for by the taxpayers — or denizens of a shattered economy — tomorrow. We have caused our own problems as well as foisted the problems on future generations. Shameful.
Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=faterikcartman] I’m sure we could save a fortune by embracing the health care system of 1890’s African Bushmen — but is that what we want?[/quote]
faterikcartman, I’m all for rationing the level of health care the government and insurance companies should be required to pay for. But everyone should have a basic minimum standard of care.
Ideally, national health care would reward people who take care of their health and punish (charge more) those who are health slobs.
A high, punitive tax on junk food would raise a lot of money and go a long way in improving national health.[/quote]
Doh! We’re back to disagreeing. If health care is a right, shelter is a right. If shelter is a right, food is a right. If food is a right, clothing is a right. Since many in government, both here and abroad, see internet access as a right, clearly, there is no end to it.
As for your carrot and stick ideas. By the same token then shouldn’t those who produce more and use fewer government services pay less in taxes, whilst net users be punished with higher taxes? The reality is our government tends to hate guarding against moral hazards. Those who behave the worst will be rewarded the most and those who are most responsible will suffer the greatest punitive taxation and fees.
You’re whole way of thinking about it is absurd in a way: if those who behaved foolishly could afford to suffer punitive taxes and fees it is unlikely they would need the benefits of a public welfare system to begin with.
On the other hand, I suspect that what you’re really talking about is simply prohibiting the behaviour of individuals. No smoking. No riding without a helmet. No eating transfats. Okay, we’re already there in places aren’t we? Maybe we’ll need cars that are controlled by a computer rather than a person. Okay, already working on it. How about no downhill skiing? No surfing? No skateboarding? No crossing the street while listening to an iPod or texting? Oops, working on that too. Obviously I could go on and on. Isn’t the answer to simply not pay for the things the majority disagrees with? And, after we’ve trashed our health care system, that’s where we’ll be; joining the UK in denying treatment to overweight people and smokers for issues related to their smoking and eating.
History is on my side. There is, and has been, no system that provides the utopia of the nanny state and the concomitant restrictions on individual freedoms that has not resulted in deprivation, tyranny, and ultimate failure. People need to pay their own way. People who cannot need to resort to the charity of others. Threatening to imprison someone, or shoot them if they resist, is not liberal, nor is it charity. The reintroduction of SHAME to those looking for a handout would go a long way to discouraging abuse.
Anyway, the only debate should be what happens along the way and what goes along with it (e.g., stagflation), and when. As I’ve posted previously, a ton of money has been pumped into institutions. When if finally gets into circulation you have more dollars competing for the same pool of goods and services = inflation. I can see the government doubling down on stimulus and this time having strings attached so it actually gets lent out and spent. I think this will only compound the problem long term.
Finally, I encourage you and others to join me in recognizing that it is immoral to enjoy the benefits of spending today that will have to be paid for by the taxpayers — or denizens of a shattered economy — tomorrow. We have caused our own problems as well as foisted the problems on future generations. Shameful.
-
AuthorPosts
