3rdnlng Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 ACA -- the most expansive, costly and ill-designed law in generations -- is 100% build on redistribution. But hey...you keep thinking it's some kind of half-assed idea that would be better if only it were single payer. Liberals like to throw good money after bad money, or in other words double down on an 8 high hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 my honest answer would be that they ease regulations on industry and lower the corporate tax rate to a more competitive level with the rest of the world, lowering the cost of doing business here. it would be a good start, anyway. Simple. By taxing the evil wealthy and handing out public assistance benefits to good, honest employmentally-challenged Americans, those intentionally disadvantaged citizens are given the opportunity to spend that redistributed money on things like cigarettes, booze, lottery tickets and fast food, thereby allowing private enterprise run by those greedy soulless 1% buttholes to exploit the poor working man by giving them meager jobs and forcing them to work for slave wages in order to meet the demand for consumer products. The wealthy are punished, the oppressed are rewarded and jobs are created! All because your government loves you. 1 part fuel 1 part fire 1 part ignorance ???? profit. And good times were had by all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 ACA -- the most expansive, costly and ill-designed law in generations -- is 100% build on redistribution. But hey...you keep thinking it's some kind of half-assed idea that would be better if only it were single payer. really? where's the evidence that the aca has redistributed wealth overall? the data i've seen shows an ever smaller portion of that wealth going to the bottom 20% and an ever larger one to the top .1. i 'm assuming that you are also equating health care with wealth. ponder that for a while. do you suppose the poor in the UK and canada are richer than the poor in the US, simply because they have national health insurance? there are many other factors involved in making that comparison but they generally live longer which certainly has value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 really? where's the evidence that the aca has redistributed wealth overall? the data i've seen shows an ever smaller portion of that wealth going to the bottom 20% and an ever larger one to the top .1. i 'm assuming that you are also equating health care with wealth. ponder that for a while. do you suppose the poor in the UK and canada are richer than the poor in the US, simply because they have national health insurance? there are many other factors involved in making that comparison but they generally live longer which certainly has value. No matter how badly you get smacked and your arguments ripped apart, you still return a day or two later as arrogant as ever. Its remarkable. Do I need to get out the vacuum again, dog? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 (edited) really? where's the evidence that the aca has redistributed wealth overall? the data i've seen shows an ever smaller portion of that wealth going to the bottom 20% and an ever larger one to the top .1. i 'm assuming that you are also equating health care with wealth. ponder that for a while. do you suppose the poor in the UK and canada are richer than the poor in the US, simply because they have national health insurance? there are many other factors involved in making that comparison but they generally live longer which certainly has value. The poor in the US have had Medicaid for decades and Medicare when they're older. Americans with high incomes have earned it. Those at the bottom to a great extent have earned their place there as well. If we took all the money from everyone and distributed it equally amongst all and then stood back and watched, the same people who are rich now would end up rich again and same for the poor. America is built on freedom and higher risk/reward. Edited April 17, 2014 by keepthefaith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 The poor in the US have had Medicaid for decades and Medicare when they're older. Americans with high incomes have earned it. Those at the bottom to a great extent have earned their place there as well. If we took all the money from everyone and distributed it equally amongst all and then stood back and watched, the same people who are rich now would end up rich again and same for the poor. America is built on freedom and higher risk/reward. my sentiments exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 really? where's the evidence that the aca has redistributed wealth overall? the data i've seen shows an ever smaller portion of that wealth going to the bottom 20% and an ever larger one to the top .1. i 'm assuming that you are also equating health care with wealth. ponder that for a while. do you suppose the poor in the UK and canada are richer than the poor in the US, simply because they have national health insurance? there are many other factors involved in making that comparison but they generally live longer which certainly has value. The entire point of ACA was for poor, young, healthy people to pay out the ass so poor, old, unhealthy people can get health care. The fact that it's a moronic, failed concept created by people who never think anything through does not take away from the fact that it is all based, pure and simple, of income redistribution. And whatever data you think you see is as butchered and manipulated as the law itself. I will stop believing this when you stop believing that after four years and trillions of dollars to set up a website for people to buy a product, it's perfectly understandable that no one can tell us who many people actually paid for the product. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 with Easter approaching, i find it interesting to reflect on the passage "whatsoever you do to the least of my brethren..." and the coincident fact that so many conservatives, especially far right conservatives, identify themselves as fundamentalist and evangelical Christians (i'd assume very few here do, but still...). it seems the meaning of "literal" regarding reading of religious documents is, in fact, open to interpretation. it's also interesting that the seemingly more secular american political party seems to take this idea to heart with actions promoting it as a core tenet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 with Easter approaching, i find it interesting to reflect on the passage "whatsoever you do to the least of my brethren..." and the coincident fact that so many conservatives, especially far right conservatives, identify themselves as fundamentalist and evangelical Christians (i'd assume very few here do, but still...). it seems the meaning of "literal" regarding reading of religious documents is, in fact, open to interpretation. it's also interesting that the seemingly more secular american political party seems to take this idea to heart with actions promoting it as a core tenet. actually the seemingly more secular american political party appears to only take the idea to heart with regard to doing so via government and other people's money. http://www.occasionalplanet.org/2013/12/26/republicans-are-more-charitable-than-democrats-and-europeans/ http://www.democraticunderground.com/1018414674 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 (edited) Clearly, I !@#$ing did. You conveniently omitted the part where these practices began under the Clinton admin and the people who really should have been hip to the game, staunch republicans Raines and Waters, were all in until the **** hit the fan. This wasn't a case of the Bush admin just looking the other way but a real bipartisan !@#$ up of the highest order. When you factor in stupid homebuyers, predatory lending practices, rating agency incompetence, the revival of the CDS, AIG deciding to take the same side of the bet 900 times over, and Wall St.'s game of musical toxic assets, you have the perfect cluster !@#$. Posting factoids about what happens in the advanced stage of an asset bubble is meaningless in assigning blame. Causality. Yet W did NOTHING to stop them. In fact, HE prompted them! Its never been a better time to buy a home!!!! watch for yourself - https://video.search...fp-t-203-s&tt=b funded with taxpayers money Edited April 17, 2014 by BillsFan-4-Ever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 actually the seemingly more secular american political party appears to only take the idea to heart with regard to doing so via government and other people's money. http://www.occasiona...-and-europeans/ http://www.democrati....com/1018414674 did you actually read that 1st article. it's not very supportive of your position. it is of mine. i'll check out the second link later...can't wait. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 Yet W did NOTHING to stop them. In fact, HE prompted them! Its never been a better time to buy a home!!!! watch for yourself - https://video.search...fp-t-203-s&tt=b funded with taxpayers money How does that contradict anything I've said? Both sides of the aisle were on board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 (edited) How does that contradict anything I've said? Both sides of the aisle were on board. You conveniently omitted the part where these practices began under the Clinton admin and the people ....his wasn't a case of the Bush admin just looking the other way but a real bipartisan !@#$ up of the highest order I don't believe I said it contradicted anything. my point was, and I believe I clearly stated it. Yet W did NOTHING to stop them. he did not do a lot to prevent it from getting worse. he promoted the ideal of buying a home at low or no $ down - paid for by the taxpayer. Edited April 17, 2014 by BillsFan-4-Ever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 (edited) did you actually read that 1st article. it's not very supportive of your position. it is of mine. i'll check out the second link later...can't wait. I said that democrats' methods of giving are by way of government and other people's money. that's exactly what the first linked article says. did YOU actually read the article? Edited April 17, 2014 by Azalin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 I said that democrats' methods of giving are by way of government and other people's money. that's exactly what the first linked article says. did YOU actually read the article? let me interpret it for you: for all the bluster about charity meeting peoples needs in the us, it doesn't. not even close. perhaps it makes the charitable givers feel better and is a talking point but it isn't materially, nearly enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 I don't believe I said it contradicted anything. my point was, and I believe I clearly stated it. he did not do a lot to prevent it from getting worse. he promoted the ideal of buying a home at low or no $ down - paid for by the taxpayer. Read post #81 of this thread and then read the link below that contradicts your premise that Bush didn't try to reign in Fannie & Freddie: http://elenaives.com/attempts-president-bush-reform-fannie-mae-freddie-mac/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 let me interpret it for you: for all the bluster about charity meeting peoples needs in the us, it doesn't. not even close. perhaps it makes the charitable givers feel better and is a talking point but it isn't materially, nearly enough. I would donate far more than I do already if I weren't having so much of my money confiscated. Also, can you speak to the % of money that actually reaches the needy from tax receipts vs. the charities a donate to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 perhaps it makes the charitable givers feel better and is a talking point but it isn't materially, nearly enough. Sad to imagine anyone could be so self-serving and shallow in their interpretation of what THEY think is the motive of charitable people. Of course, you're a die-hard member of the "You people are too stupid to think for yourself" brigade, so maybe I shouldn't be surprised. You're welcome to come to my church, and many of the churches in my community, to see first hand why people do serve and give. Though I'm sure you'll start spouting off about flying spaghetti monsters or some other mind-numbing progressive stupidity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 let me interpret it for you: for all the bluster about charity meeting peoples needs in the us, it doesn't. not even close. perhaps it makes the charitable givers feel better and is a talking point but it isn't materially, nearly enough. from your original post: 'it's also interesting that the seemingly more secular american political party seems to take this idea to heart with actions promoting it as a core tenet.' you seem to believe that when the left poromtes policy that supports assitance to the needy by way taking money away from others, it is somehow morally superior to the right's tendency to do the same thing voluntarily, and with their own money. the left's biggest problem is that they think with their hearts, not with their heads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 perhaps it makes the charitable givers feel better and is a talking point but it isn't materially, nearly enough. One could and should say the same about feel-good do-nothing programs like the ACA. Sad to imagine anyone could be so self-serving and shallow in their interpretation of what THEY think is the motive of charitable people. Of course, you're a die-hard member of the "You people are too stupid to think for yourself" brigade, so maybe I shouldn't be surprised. You're welcome to come to my church, and many of the churches in my community, to see first hand why people do serve and give. Though I'm sure you'll start spouting off about flying spaghetti monsters or some other mind-numbing progressive stupidity. Do not take the name of His Noodly Appendage in vain, heathen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts