[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=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=NeetaT]No one wants to piss away an extra 5.4% of their income. The good news is people who pay it can justifiably say it is their charitable contribution to the broken health care reform. I can some it up in three words, “It’s a tragedy.”[/quote]

By definition it is not a charitable contribution.
It is a tax.
Nobody wants taxes or stoplights or cops but such is life.

I have seen a few tragedies in my life.

5.4 percent of my income for universal health care is not one of them.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=NeetaT]No one wants to piss away an extra 5.4% of their income. The good news is people who pay it can justifiably say it is their charitable contribution to the broken health care reform. I can some it up in three words, “It’s a tragedy.”[/quote]

By definition it is not a charitable contribution.
It is a tax.
Nobody wants taxes or stoplights or cops but such is life.

I have seen a few tragedies in my life.

5.4 percent of my income for universal health care is not one of them.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=NeetaT]No one wants to piss away an extra 5.4% of their income. The good news is people who pay it can justifiably say it is their charitable contribution to the broken health care reform. I can some it up in three words, “It’s a tragedy.”[/quote]

By definition it is not a charitable contribution.
It is a tax.
Nobody wants taxes or stoplights or cops but such is life.

I have seen a few tragedies in my life.

5.4 percent of my income for universal health care is not one of them.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=NeetaT]No one wants to piss away an extra 5.4% of their income. The good news is people who pay it can justifiably say it is their charitable contribution to the broken health care reform. I can some it up in three words, “It’s a tragedy.”[/quote]

By definition it is not a charitable contribution.
It is a tax.
Nobody wants taxes or stoplights or cops but such is life.

I have seen a few tragedies in my life.

5.4 percent of my income for universal health care is not one of them.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=NeetaT]No one wants to piss away an extra 5.4% of their income. The good news is people who pay it can justifiably say it is their charitable contribution to the broken health care reform. I can some it up in three words, “It’s a tragedy.”[/quote]

By definition it is not a charitable contribution.
It is a tax.
Nobody wants taxes or stoplights or cops but such is life.

I have seen a few tragedies in my life.

5.4 percent of my income for universal health care is not one of them.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=NeetaT]”Specifically, individuals with annual incomes more than $500,000 — as well as families earning more than $1 million — would face a 5.4 percent income tax surcharge.”

I can now commiserate with people who try to hide income. Let’s punish initiative. This is truly socialism in its most profound form.[/quote]
Yeah.
I because 5.4 percent will destroy American initiative.
I seem to remember it doing pretty well during the Clinton years at those levels.

Since socialism necessarily involves government ownership of the means of production (and because the things you cite do not), you comment is as inaccurate as it is vacuously retarded.

Perhaps next you will tell me you are suffering under taxation without representation?

Really.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=NeetaT]”Specifically, individuals with annual incomes more than $500,000 — as well as families earning more than $1 million — would face a 5.4 percent income tax surcharge.”

I can now commiserate with people who try to hide income. Let’s punish initiative. This is truly socialism in its most profound form.[/quote]
Yeah.
I because 5.4 percent will destroy American initiative.
I seem to remember it doing pretty well during the Clinton years at those levels.

Since socialism necessarily involves government ownership of the means of production (and because the things you cite do not), you comment is as inaccurate as it is vacuously retarded.

Perhaps next you will tell me you are suffering under taxation without representation?

Really.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=NeetaT]”Specifically, individuals with annual incomes more than $500,000 — as well as families earning more than $1 million — would face a 5.4 percent income tax surcharge.”

I can now commiserate with people who try to hide income. Let’s punish initiative. This is truly socialism in its most profound form.[/quote]
Yeah.
I because 5.4 percent will destroy American initiative.
I seem to remember it doing pretty well during the Clinton years at those levels.

Since socialism necessarily involves government ownership of the means of production (and because the things you cite do not), you comment is as inaccurate as it is vacuously retarded.

Perhaps next you will tell me you are suffering under taxation without representation?

Really.

[Author]

Posts