I found this ridiculous...

[modette99]

A High School chick I know posted this on FB, not her...but still trying to justify ObamaCare. She lives in Ireland, and has since High School...so maybe that is the whole mind set with Socialized medicine.

http://a4.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/401758_2967149019327_1279715113_3313290_923136249_ n.jpg

I think a business should have the RIGHT to turn you away. I also think you should PAY for your healthcare. So good on the girl having you and I pay for her surgery. It was NOT FREE lady, it cost all of us to cover YOU.

I would like to see medical reform.

For example I had a simple surgery in November. Doctor did not tell me he was going to send a sample to Pathology. So I get his bill $700, I get the Anesthesiologist Bill for $700 and here comes a Pathology bill for $700. Sorry I never signed anything take it up with the Doctor / Insurance. They did and they paid 100%. Then I get another Pathology bill for $144, I told them to shove it and to take it up with the insurance (not sure why the doctor did not let them know I had insurance)...plus I questioned why are they double dipping. Different Pathology company then the first.

How it should work, I go see the Doctor. He said it will cost you X amount here is the list of things we do but we then pay those OTHER people out of what you paid us. We contracted with the other 3rd parties (not you) so it should all be built into the Doctors cost which they then should handle.

For example like an Automotive mechanic: If a shop does not handle a certain aspect/repair a good one will send the part out to get the service done, but you pay the ONE shop not get a bill later for that 3rd party shop (drive shaft balancing). The example I have done is like a Performance shop, I took my vehicle they quoted the exhaust then he sent it to a muffler shop he uses but I paid the Performance shop not the exhaust shop.

ObamaCare just bothers me, its not FREE but people think it is. They are just passing the cost along.

[~Barn~]

I don't mind paying my fair share, nor do I have any delusion that anything worthwhile in life, is quote/unquote "free". Just for the record.

Oh yeah... I'm glad this girl was helped, by whatever network of services she pursued.

[Ghost]

In this supposed "civilized" and "modern" world, everyone (in this country) should have the medical care they need, period. This isn't the Third World, this isn't The Dark Ages.

We paid for 10 years of useless and pointless wars, we'll be paying for more when we invade whoever's next on the list, we're paying for the "War on Drugs", etc.

Paying for healthcare that actually generates benefits to citizens who need it should be part of our social and moral fabric.

[laspariahs]

Just let her die, jesus, what a waste of money it is.

[~Barn~]

And while we're on the topic of people who can relate to being cared for in some capacity, what exactly is it that your wife does while you're not currently working?

You mentioned having surgery in November, but also mention insurance. Are you retired with a pension or something, or just covered on her plan?

If the dichotomy of your personal life and your politics aren't for public consumption, I at least find what I know of them, fasicinating.

[asp_125]

If you subscribe to that train of thought, do you have kids? I don't have kids, but my taxes are paying for your kids public education.. maybe we ought to reform that too? Let's see how well that works when schools start closing.

[~Barn~]

Just let her die, jesus, what a waste of money it is.

:lol:
I can see the line forming to your Fund Raiser now....

[laspariahs]

:lol:
I can see the line forming to your Fund Raiser now....

I'm being obviously sarcastic. :eyebrows:

[~Barn~]

Thank goodness!

[DorJammer]

here's to living in a culture that trys to take care of the needy.

[Zanatos]

The reason military health care is so good is that TriCare (the military's HMO) has the power to dictate prices to doctors and hospitals.

So when the hospital takes two routine chest x-rays as part of my annual physical and decided to bill TriCare $800 - TriCare told the hospital they are only allowed to charge $60 max for the x-rays.

If doctors or hospitals refuse to participate in TriCare, then they are not allowed to participate in Medicaid or Medicare either. Since the majority of most doctors' income is from Medicaid and/or Medicare patients - this pretty much forces them to accept TriCare.

Now do you see why government health insurance can offer better coverage for less money?

In the meantime, private health insurance has been outpacing inflation for more than 10 years. Most employers are going broke trying to buy employee health insurance. Even Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney agree that America's health care system is effed up and not sustainable.

[dirkterrell]

Since the majority of most doctors' income is from Medicaid and/or Medicare patients - this pretty much forces them to accept TriCare.

Now do you see why government health insurance can offer better coverage for less money?

In the meantime, private health insurance has been outpacing inflation for more than 10 years.

Do you see how one is driving the other? Somebody has to pay for these things, and the "savings" for the government is cost-shifted onto others. Of course the government can do things cheaper when they force others to pay the bill. Yes, healthcare needs to be reformed, but the idea of having the government run everything is not the right approach.

[CaptGoodvibes]

In this supposed "civilized" and "modern" world, everyone (in this country) should have the medical care they need, period. This isn't the Third World, this isn't The Dark Ages.

We paid for 10 years of useless and pointless wars, we'll be paying for more when we invade whoever's next on the list, we're paying for the "War on Drugs", etc.

Paying for healthcare that actually generates benefits to citizens who need it should be part of our social and moral fabric.

+1

If we change to be more like Sweden, do the girls get hotter by an order of magnitude? :eyebrows:

[dirkterrell]

Paying for healthcare that actually generates benefits to citizens who need it should be part of our social and moral fabric.

I agree, but it's in the implementation that I disagree. Government is not the proper mechanism for achieving that end. Using government to enforce moral positions is a very slippery slope.

[modette99]

I agree, but it's in the implementation that I disagree. Government is not the proper mechanism for achieving that end. Using government to enforce moral positions is a very slippery slope.

I agree

[Sarge]

I agree, but it's in the implementation that I disagree. Government is not the proper mechanism for achieving that end. Using government to enforce moral positions is a very slippery slope.

You say this now, but it's been decades and decades since the healthcare industry was "created" if you will, and the system obviously isn't where anyone except those with money and power want it to be. The whole purpose of government in the first place is because it has become more than obvious that people can't govern themselves fairly when left to their own devices, they will always get greedy and take advantage of the weak. This is what has happened with healthcare, and this is at least part of what Obamacare is trying to fix. One important thing to consider is that once Obamacare goes into full effect, EVERYONE will be required to have health insurance, and if you don't you will be taxed. This way people won't just get health insurance when they need it, everyone will pay in, just like everyone pays taxes for their kids to go to school, regardless of whether or not they have kids.

[Dietrich_R1]

I work in the Medical Field... Yes, my salary is outrageous, so thank you! Yes, the "over-billing" is rampant.... I bill how I'm told, not what I agree with. I document everything!!

For me to put my 5 yo daughter on our companies policy is $600/month, for a crappy policy that I could pay $200/month, which would include the ex as well.

... Insurance/Medical Insurance is F.U.B.A.R!!!!!!

[dirkterrell]

The whole purpose of government in the first place is because it has become more than obvious that people can't govern themselves fairly when left to their own devices

I couldn't possibly disagree more with that statement. That is the thinking of tyrants.

[Drano]

I couldn't possibly disagree more with that statement. That is the thinking of tyrants.

That type of over-generalization does not encourage a civil, intelligent discourse. Secondly, it is not backed with any cited evidence that such a mindset is the mindset of a tyrant. However, a tyrant, as defined by dictionary.com is as follows: tyrant

[tahy-ruhhttp://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngnt] http://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/g/d/dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/Spell_pron_key.html)   Origin (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tyrant#wordorgtop)
ty·rant

noun 1. a sovereign or other ruler who uses power oppressively or unjustly.
2. any person in a position of authority who exercises power oppressively or despotically.
3. a tyrannical or compulsory influence.
4. an absolute ruler, especially one in ancient Greece or Sicily.


By stating that only a tyrant thinks the way Sarge posted, you have used an absolute statement which does not leave room for argument. It could be argued that you are a tyrant (see #4) by making such an absolute statement, but that would be an absolute in itself as I have no reference by which to claim that you are. To clarify, I am not saying that you are a tyrant, however, it should be easy enough to recognize that by using said means to make that point is to use a fallacious argument.

[Sarge]

I couldn't possibly disagree more with that statement. That is the thinking of tyrants.

Please, give me one example in which a group of people, an industry, a corporation, anything, has more often than not actually performed more selfless than selfish (greedy) acts.

The whole idea of American democracy in the first place is to let the people (majority, those not in power!) decide the fate and form of the government. The vast majority of the time, those in power seek only more power and more money. The current state of the medical, financial and even educational industries in America are more than enough evidence of this. None of these institutions currently serve "the people" but rather serve those special interests with money, and this is the problem. Like I said before, when left to their own devices, people can't (won't) govern themselves fairly.

Also, nowhere did I state that a "single person" or potential tyrant need to step in and take over. What I am suggesting is that the government protects the people from tyrants, especially those modern day tyrants that exist in the form of corporate CEO's. Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, the Federal Reserve? It would be extremely difficult to argue that additional regulation and government (government of the people!) would have been unable to prevent the financial disaster of this last decade. It was exactly de-regulation and less government that allowed this to happen.

[vort3xr6]

Forgot how many anti capitalist liberals were on this board. Good thing none of you pay bills to those evil corporations!!! God forbid somebody makes money to pay the majority of taxes in this terrible greedy nation!

[dirkterrell]

That type of over-generalization does not encourage a civil, intelligent discourse. Secondly, it is not backed with any cited evidence that such a mindset is the mindset of a tyrant.


Find me a tyrant in history who didn't think that he knew better how to decide the fate of a country than the people themselves.



By stating that only a tyrant thinks the way Sarge posted,


Where did I use the word "only"? I said that such was the thinking of tyrants, and history shows that it is.

[FZRguy]

Private insurance co's do negotiate, actually dictate IMO, medical care costs. As an example, my doc's bill for my recent knee surgery is $5082, ins paid $1019 and I paid $89. So who pays the diff of $3974...we all do thru our ins premiums. Who's making the profit here? Our insurance companies!

[dirkterrell]

Please, give me one example in which a group of people, an industry, a corporation, anything, has more often than not actually performed more selfless than selfish (greedy) acts.


People acting in their self interest in the one of the foundations of this country, the whole life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness thing. The government's primary role is to make sure that in doing so, they do not trample on the rights of others.



The whole idea of American democracy in the first place is to let the people (majority, those not in power!) decide the fate and form of the government.


Actually, no. The Founders knew all to well the dangers of a democracy. That is why we have a constitutional republic.



The vast majority of the time, those in power seek only more power and more money.


And there is nothing wrong with that as long as they do not violate the rights of others in doing so. Government's role is to ensure that but in many cases they have not, because of influence from those groups that does violate the rights of the people. The medical industry and the banking/financial industry are good examples. Government failed miserably to do its job. I don't see how putting it in charge of running medical care is the proper response to that.



The current state of the medical, financial and even educational industries in America are more than enough evidence of this. None of these institutions currently serve "the people" but rather serve those special interests with money, and this is the problem. Like I said before, when left to their own devices, people can't (won't) govern themselves fairly.


The problem is that the government itself hasn't served the people. Its job is to ensure that these institutions compete fairly for the business of the people, and it hasn't done that. It has, for example, forced these institutions to provide services to people. That costs money and someone has to pay it. The lobbyists have paid off the politicians to make it legal to shift those costs to other customers (and since most people don't pay directly, it's easier to hide these costs from people's attention). The politicians get to crow about being compassionate, the medical industry makes their money, and people who pay for insurance get to involuntarily pick up the tab for the care of others. I find that disgustingly unethical.



Also, nowhere did I state that a "single person" or potential tyrant need to step in and take over. What I am suggesting is that the government protects the people from tyrants, especially those modern day tyrants that exist in the form of corporate CEO's.


I agree. They have not done that. But putting them in charge of the actual business is not the way to accomplish it. The way to accomplish it is to break the financial connection between industry and government via campaign contributions, to end the revolving door between being in an industry and being an overseer of that industry.



Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, the Federal Reserve? It would be extremely difficult to argue that additional regulation and government (government of the people!) would have been unable to prevent the financial disaster of this last decade. It was exactly de-regulation and less government that allowed this to happen.

I agree. But handing the health care industry over to the government is not the answer. The government did not enforce the regulations in the financial industry because the regulators were people from the industry itself. We as voters have not held the politicians to account for these failures because we fall for their smoke and mirrors bullshit about things like whether and what god they pray to.

[TinkerinWstuff]

That type of over-generalization does not encourage a civil, intelligent discourse. Secondly, it is not backed with any cited evidence that such a mindset is the mindset of a tyrant......

This ought to be good.... Dirk doesn't have facts.... I just about pissed myself

[Drano]

You're right, I was the one to use the word only, which was my interpretation of your post.

I don't disagree either. Many a tyrant has used such rhetoric to justify their actions. For example:
"In relation to the political decontamination of our public life, the government will embark upon a systematic campaign to restore the nation’s moral and material health. The whole educational system, theater, film, literature, the press and broadcasting – all these will be used as a means to this end." Adolf Hitler.

The point I was trying to make, which was not meant to insult or inflame, but to encourage rational discussion by using appropriate examples. What may be common knowledge to you may not be inclusive of everyone reading or participating in this thread.

However, many presidents of our country have had their own reservations about The People's ability to govern themselves. This indicates that these types of statements are also contextual. For example:

"The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves -- in their separate, and individual capacities." Abraham Lincoln.

I highly doubt we would conclude that Lincoln was a tyrant. Another president came to mind as well:

"Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it." John Adams

[dirkterrell]

"The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves -- in their separate, and individual capacities." Abraham Lincoln.


But that is a very different thing from saying that the people cannot govern themselves. Government does things at the direction of the people, not the other way around.



"Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it." John Adams

I agree, but the problem is that government has not done these things. It has done quite a bit for the profit of certain groups because those groups fund the elections of the politicians. I think great strides could be made against that by eliminating the ability of said groups to influence government in that fashion.

[FZRguy]

Private insurance co's do negotiate, actually dictate IMO, medical care costs. As an example, my doc's bill for my recent knee surgery is $5082, ins paid $1019 and I paid $89. So who pays the diff of $3974...we all do thru our ins premiums. Who's making the profit here? Our insurance companies!

So if my doctor could actually get paid, his fee for my operation would be say $2500. My ins co would pay 90% and I would pay 10% per my contract. He ended up being paid $1108 on a bill of $5082. Seems hardly worth his time, while my ins co makes off like a bandit paying 20% of the billed amount, and collecting ever increasing premiums. All this drives up the cost of medical care as providers and hospitals get squeezed out by the ins companies, and we as premium payers pay for this bullshit.

[TinkerinWstuff]

So if my doctor could actually get paid, his fee for my operation would be say $2500. My ins co would pay 90% and I would pay 10% per my contract. He ended up being paid $1108 on a bill of $5082. Seems hardly worth his time, while my ins co makes off like a bandit paying 20% of the billed amount, and collecting ever increasing premiums. All this drives up the cost of medical care as providers and hospitals get squeezed out by the ins companies, and we as premium payers pay for this bullshit.

the doctor "rate" is more because they know they won't collect their asking price.

If they asked $1,100, your insurance company would tell him they are only going to pay $400

If the insurance company is just gouging and getting rich off everyone - explain how the industry is regulated to pay out between 80 and 85 percent of premiums collected on health care costs, and yet my premium went up by 30% this year? Guess we did a lot to address the root cause of health care cost inflation didn't we?

http://www.insure.com/articles/healthinsurance/health-care-reform/medical-loss-ratios.html

[Clovis]

And just think, soon health insurance will be compulsary! Somehow I don't seeing a requirement to buy a private product as an incentive to compete on prices (premiums).

In 2002 I got my first job with health insurance benefits, which was great because I had just turned 21.

The "basic" plan at the time was better then today's premium plans offered. Health insurance was 100% paid by my employer and $0 cost to me. To add a wife and kids? $50/mo

In 2003 they sent out a company wide email deeply apologizing that due to increased insurance cost, they would begin charging the next year. $5 a per period (or may have been $5 a month).

Fast forward to today and we pay around $500 a month for a health 27yo woman and a health 30yo man, no children.

That number can be adjusted for inflation however the problem is that while the CPI has increased at just under 3% a year for the last 8 years, wages have remained stagnet. The effective result is that on an averaged basis, every year for the last 8 years you've taken a pay cut in relation to what your dollars can buy.

I worked for a few companies that gave raises every year pending good performance. 3-5% which may sound like a great deal. In reality, with inflation you're staying where you were the year before.

I think our health care system is in dire need of reform but I do not want the government to handle it.

The government is King Midus but instead of turning to gold, everything they touch turns to shit.


So if my doctor could actually get paid, his fee for my operation would be say $2500. My ins co would pay 90% and I would pay 10% per my contract. He ended up being paid $1108 on a bill of $5082. Seems hardly worth his time, while my ins co makes off like a bandit paying 20% of the billed amount, and collecting ever increasing premiums. All this drives up the cost of medical care as providers and hospitals get squeezed out by the ins companies, and we as premium payers pay for this bullshit.

[Drano]

But that is a very different thing from saying that the people cannot govern themselves. Government does things at the direction of the people, not the other way around.

The entire quote, I apologize for the lengthiness.

"The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves in their separate, and individual capacities. In all that the people can individually do as well for themselves, government ought not to interfere. The desirable things which the individuals of a people can not do, or can not well do, for themselves, fall into two classes: those which have relation to wrongs, and those which have not. Each of these branch off into an infinite variety of subdivisions. The first that in relation to wrongs embraces all crimes, misdemeanors, and nonperformance of contracts. The other embraces all which, in its nature, and without wrong, requires combined action, as public roads and highways, public schools, charities, pauperism, orphanage, estates of the deceased, and the machinery of government itself. From this it appears that if all men were just, there still would be some, though not so much, need for government." Abraham Lincoln.

The last sentence is what I think Sarge is trying to say.

I am not implying that we cannot govern ourselves, but we have historical examples which indicate that we have not been able to do so justly, and has given cause for the expansion of governmental regulation in the affairs of the private sector. The monopolies of the early 1900s, child labor, poor wages, maltreatmentof workers, and industrial pollution are just a few examples of what have happened when people are allowed to govern themselves. These principles stem from greed, and greed has not disappeared, it has merely taken a new form.

I think you and I can agree that The People have only ourselves to blame for the current political environment. Our disinterest, complacency, and apathy have allowed our government to become a system that protects self-interests and the like over the common good of the people.

On another note, we only need look at the VA if we want to see how effectively the government would run healthcare. I'm a veteran and I wouldn't trust the government with something so important as my healthcare either.

[modette99]

You say this now, but it's been decades and decades since the healthcare industry was "created" if you will, and the system obviously isn't where anyone except those with money and power want it to be. The whole purpose of government in the first place is because it has become more than obvious that people can't govern themselves fairly when left to their own devices, they will always get greedy and take advantage of the weak. This is what has happened with healthcare, and this is at least part of what Obamacare is trying to fix. One important thing to consider is that once Obamacare goes into full effect, EVERYONE will be required to have health insurance, and if you don't you will be taxed. This way people won't just get health insurance when they need it, everyone will pay in, just like everyone pays taxes for their kids to go to school, regardless of whether or not they have kids.

Except I am voting for the guy that will toss out ObamaCare first day in office.

[modette99]

Other issue with ObamaCare is why should a company offer any policies??? They will stop even bothering offering coverage and tell you to get ObamaCare (I'm sure the Wal-Mart's of the world will love that). In the end it will SAVE companies big BUCKS, and cost all of us MORE.

Maybe its cruel but the world is not fair. Oh no only the rich will have good coverage. Even under OBAMACARE they still will. Like when I lived in Austria, only the poor go to the State Hospital, the rich pay extra out of pocket and go to the first class private place. How do I know, saw a 90+ year old at a state run Hospital...people left naked in the halls....my father had carpal tunnel surgery at a private place, private rooms, the Doctor was some US trained famous guy that worked on tennis pro's in Europe. It is night and day. But somehow people here think everyone will be playing on the same level...NOPE not at all.

Believe me I will pay out of pocket, health is health...people have no problem dropping $40,000 on a new vehicle, but heaven forbid they are asked to drop that on a life changing condition they have. I remember a lady at work complaining about her tooth, and how it was going to cost her $200-$300 to get it fixed.....as I looked her in the eyes I said, "that is all to have a tooth fixed and taken care of"? Sorry she got NO sympathy from me. I'll drop thousands on my teeth out of pocket if it means not having pain...can always sacrifice other things in life.

[Ghost]

Forgot how many anti capitalist liberals were on this board. Good thing none of you pay bills to those evil corporations!!! God forbid somebody makes money to pay the majority of taxes in this terrible greedy nation!

Um...yeah...about paying their taxes...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/03/us-usa-tax-corporate-idUSTRE7A261C20111103

[TinkerinWstuff]

Um...yeah...about paying their taxes...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/03/us-usa-tax-corporate-idUSTRE7A261C20111103

just an FYI - corporations don't pay taxes. Consumers pay taxes.

hike taxes on a company and they pass the hike on to the consumer. Do you really think they are going to hand over their profit margin to the government in the name of taxes?

What the poster meant was, the principals of the business, who make the profit and take dividends, pay the majority of the taxes in the nation.

[rforsythe]

I remember a lady at work complaining about her tooth, and how it was going to cost her $200-$300 to get it fixed.....as I looked her in the eyes I said, "that is all to have a tooth fixed and taken care of"? Sorry she got NO sympathy from me. I'll drop thousands on my teeth out of pocket if it means not having pain...can always sacrifice other things in life.

:lol: Did she go and post on FB about it from her $300 smartphone?

[sloridr]

FAIR TAX ACT!
(http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer)

[dirkterrell]

From this it appears that if all men were just, there still would be some, though not so much, need for government." Abraham Lincoln.

The last sentence is what I think Sarge is trying to say.


I read what he said as being that since private companies and the free market obviously can't provide healthcare properly, we need government to do it, i.e. Obamacare. I have argued why government is part of the very problem because they have not done their job: to ensure a free market and prosecute illegal activities. What they have done is allow corporate money to influence laws so that clearly predatory behavior (e.g. cost-shifting) is legal. If the government would do its job, "the people" would be able to govern healthcare just fine.

Great improvements would be made if we got employers out of the insurance business. Allow people to shop among fairly competing providers and a lot of the cost increases go away. Why should my employer have anything to do with my health insurance? There are many other things that need to change, but that would be a start.

[vort3xr6]

just an FYI - corporations don't pay taxes. Consumers pay taxes.

hike taxes on a company and they pass the hike on to the consumer. Do you really think they are going to hand over their profit margin to the government in the name of taxes?

What the poster meant was, the principals of the business, who make the profit and take dividends, pay the majority of the taxes in the nation.

Bingo. Top 10% of individuals in this country pay 70% of taxes. Top 50% of individuals pay 97% in taxes. The bottom 50% suck more resources and cost more money than the top 50%. Not everyone can or needs to be equal, but they all have the same opportunity to succeed.

I agree with Dirk that the government needs to stay the hell away. And these industries need to quit getting into bed with the government via lobbying/campaign contributions.

[salsashark]

Who is John Galt?

[TinkerinWstuff]

speaking of gov't

I'm listening to a book by Bob Lutz - car guys vs. bean counters - battle for the soul of american business.

http://www.amazon.com/Car-Guys-vs-Bean-Counters/dp/1591844002

available on iTunes in audio or digital book as well.

There's a chapter where he talks about unintended consequences of gov't regulation on private industry (fuel efficiency standards and allowing Japan to manipulate the value of the yen). Also some interesting insider insight into the unions (healthcare, pensions, etc..).

If you're a dork like me, you could find it an interesting book.

[sloridr]

Who is John Galt?

"I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." -- John Galt ...

http://images7.cpcache.com/product/325708737v6_460x460_Front_Color-Black.jpg

[modette99]

:lol: Did she go and post on FB about it from her $300 smartphone?

This was back before smartphones, probably 1999 I think...so yeah that is why she said a few hundred to fix, now the tooth would be like $800+...LOL

She was a smoker too, I have no issues with smoking but if you pick smoking daily over a health issue again I don't feel sorry for you.

[DorJammer]

we are now qouting fictional charecters from books written by a delusional bimbo from the 50's

from wiki
John Galt is a fictional character (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Characters_in_Atlas_Shrugged) in Ayn Rand (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand)'s novel Atlas Shrugged (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_Shrugged) (1957). Although he is not identified by name until the last third of the novel, he is the object of its often-repeated question "Who is John Galt?" and of the quest to discover the answer.

[TinkerinWstuff]

we are now qouting fictional charecters from books written by a delusional bimbo from the 50's



why not? people quote books and movies all the time.

I like how you try to sling a link around to support the fact that the character is fictional but nothing to support your conjecture that Ayn was delusional and a bimbo.

[salsashark]

we are now qouting fictional charecters from books written by a delusional bimbo from the 50's

from wiki
John Galt is a fictional character (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Characters_in_Atlas_Shrugged) in Ayn Rand (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand)'s novel Atlas Shrugged (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_Shrugged) (1957). Although he is not identified by name until the last third of the novel, he is the object of its often-repeated question "Who is John Galt?" and of the quest to discover the answer.


...and the reason I posted this is because all I see is another bullshit political thread that will degrade to name calling and trolling. Nothing will change. Not in this thread just like countless ones before it. Everyone wants to climb on their soap box and claim theirs is the only opinion that should be considered as accurate. Everyone's shouting, no one is listening.

S.S.D.D.

[Captain Obvious]

The reason military health care is so good is that TriCare (the military's HMO) has the power to dictate prices to doctors and hospitals.


Actually military health care is not that good, nor is it all that free.

My buddy was hit while riding by a woman one night which resulted in a shattered wrist and 2 fractured ankles. All work done on military bases by military personnel. She was at fault, her insurance ending up paying him a settlement of @ $100k. Before he saw a dime, the Navy swooped in and took @ $20k off the top. Directly from her insurance company citing to cover the costs of his medical treatments.

Oh, and his fractured ankles were not correctly diagnosed for 4 months after 5 trips by him complaining about the pain.

And every one of my dentists goes "OH!" when they see and ask about all my dental work done while I was on active duty.

[Captain Obvious]

In general, the govt is running social security out of business. And the correct fix for health care is to let the govt run that? Hmmm.

[rforsythe]

...and the reason I posted this is because all I see is another bullshit political thread that will degrade to name calling and trolling. Nothing will change. Not in this thread just like countless ones before it. Everyone wants to climb on their soap box and claim theirs is the only opinion that should be considered as accurate. Everyone's shouting, no one is listening.

S.S.D.D.

You've just accurately described politics as a whole. I see no reason an opinionated, open thread about politics would go any differently.

There is a reason the debates you see on TV are moderated. Were they not, they'd end up like politics on CSC.

[TinkerinWstuff]

...and the reason I posted this is because all I see is another bullshit political thread that will degrade to name calling and trolling. Nothing will change. Not in this thread just like countless ones before it. Everyone wants to climb on their soap box and claim theirs is the only opinion that should be considered as accurate. Everyone's shouting, no one is listening.

S.S.D.D.

"What we've got here...is failure to communicate."
- CAPTAIN (Strother Martin) in Cool Hand Luke (1967) (http://www.filmsite.org/cool.html)

Fictional Character BTW - hope that's ok

[salsashark]

You've just accurately described politics as a whole. I see no reason an opinionated, open thread about politics would go any differently.

There is a reason the debates you see on TV are moderated. Were they not, they'd end up like politics on CSC.

The mental picture of Townie going up against Romney is awesome!

[Ghost]

...and the reason I posted this is because all I see is another bullshit political thread that will degrade to name calling and trolling. Nothing will change. Not in this thread just like countless ones before it. Everyone wants to climb on their soap box and claim theirs is the only opinion that should be considered as accurate. Everyone's shouting, no one is listening.

S.S.D.D.

And this is just a microcosm of America, where the same lack of actual discourse occurs--it's all who shouts the loudest (despite being a minority) and who pays the largest contribution, period.

[rforsythe]

The mental picture of Townie going up against Romney is awesome!

Big Dick vs Giant Cunt. Oh wait, I think that's on PPV.

[Ghost]

Bingo. Top 10% of individuals in this country pay 70% of taxes. Top 50% of individuals pay 97% in taxes. The bottom 50% suck more resources and cost more money than the top 50%. Not everyone can or needs to be equal, but they all have the same opportunity to succeed.

I agree with Dirk that the government needs to stay the hell away. And these industries need to quit getting into bed with the government via lobbying/campaign contributions.


Who Pays Income Taxes?

Who Pays Income Taxes and How Much?


Tax Year 2009
Percentiles Ranked by AGI
AGI Threshold on Percentiles

Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid


Top 1%
$343,927
36.73


Top 5%

$154,643

58.66


Top 10%

$112,124

70.47


Top 25%

$66,193

87.30


Top 50%

$32,396

97.75


Bottom 50%

<$32,396

2.25
Note: AGI is Adjusted Gross Income
Source: Internal Revenue Service

http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html?print=t
http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html



There's is no such thing as an "equal" chance to succeed. You think someone born to an inner-city ghetto, with one crack-addicted mother and no father *really* has the same chance to succeed as a kid from the Suburbs whose father makes $750,000/yr and is an alumni from an Ivy League school?

[TinkerinWstuff]

There's is no such thing as an "equal" chance to succeed. You think someone born to an inner-city ghetto, with one crack-addicted mother and no father *really* has the same chance to succeed as a kid from the Suburbs whose father makes $750,000/yr and is an alumni from an Ivy League school?

Obama did it

immigrants do it all the time.

quit making excuses

doers choose not to accept and they make things happen - then they create jobs and become producers in society

victims make excuses and cry about their situation and mooch off others

[Ghost]

doers choose not to accept and they make things happen - then they create jobs and become producers in society


Outliers will always exist, and it's what some people love to point to in order to "justify" the inequality. There is, at last count, 1 Obama, and 1 Bill Gates and Millions of US Citizens in poverty--all living there, of course, because they "choose" to be there. Right? That has to be it--let's not consider that there are actual barriers and that "equality" is a myth.


WASHINGTON — Another 2.6 million people slipped into poverty in the United States last year, the Census Bureau (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/c/census_bureau/index.html?inline=nyt-org) reported Tuesday, and the number of Americans living below the official poverty line, 46.2 million people, was the highest number in the 52 years the bureau has been publishing figures on it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/14/us/14census.html?pagewanted=all


46.2 Million people--US Citizens, all just...lazy, I suppose. They don't really want to eat tonight, or pay for their daughter's medical problem, or send her to a better school to get a better education than the 8th grade one they have...Nah...they're just Whiners. All 46 MILLION of them. Each and every one. There's 1 Obama and 1 Bill Gates, but 46 Million who like being poor since they're not trying hard enough.


January 8, 2012
America’s Unlevel Field

By PAUL KRUGMAN (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/columnists/paulkrugman/index.html?inline=nyt-per)

Last month President Obama gave a speech invoking the spirit of Teddy Roosevelt on behalf of progressive ideals — and Republicans were not happy. Mitt Romney, in particular, insisted that where Roosevelt believed that “government should level the playing field to create equal opportunities,” Mr. Obama believes that “government should create equal outcomes,” that we should have a society where “everyone receives the same or similar rewards, regardless of education, effort and willingness to take risk.”

As many people were quick to point out, this portrait of the president as radical redistributionist was pure fiction. What hasn’t been as widely noted, however, is that Mr. Romney’s picture of himself as a believer in a level playing field is just as fictional. Where is the evidence that he or his party cares at all about equality of opportunity?

Let’s talk for a minute about the actual state of the playing field.

Americans are much more likely than citizens of other nations to believe that they live in a meritocracy. But this self-image is a fantasy: as a report (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/us/harder-for-americans-to-rise-from-lower-rungs.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all) in The Times last week pointed out, America actually stands out as the advanced country in which it matters most who your parents were, the country in which those born on one of society’s lower rungs have the least chance of climbing to the top or even to the middle.

And if you ask why America is more class-bound in practice than the rest of the Western world, a large part of the reason is that our government falls down on the job of creating equal opportunity.

The failure starts early: in America, the holes in the social safety net mean that both low-income mothers and their children are all too likely to suffer from poor nutrition and receive inadequate health care. It continues once children reach school age, where they encounter a system in which the affluent send their kids to good, well-financed public schools or, if they choose, to private schools, while less-advantaged children get a far worse education.

Once they reach college age, those who come from disadvantaged backgrounds are far less likely to go to college — and vastly less likely to go to a top-tier school — than those luckier in their parentage. At the most selective, “Tier 1” schools, 74 percent of the entering class comes from the quarter of households that have the highest “socioeconomic status”; only 3 percent comes from the bottom quarter.

And if children from our society’s lower rungs do manage to make it into a good college, the lack of financial support makes them far more likely to drop out than the children of the affluent, even if they have as much or more native ability. One long-term study by the Department of Education found that students with high test scores but low-income parents were less likely to complete college than students with low scores but affluent parents — loosely speaking, that smart poor kids are less likely than dumb rich kids to get a degree.

It’s no wonder, then, that Horatio Alger stories, tales of poor kids who make good, are much less common in reality than they are in legend — and much less common in America than they are in Canada or Europe. Which brings me back to those, like Mr. Romney, who claim to believe in equality of opportunity. Where is the evidence for that claim?

Think about it: someone who really wanted equal opportunity would be very concerned about the inequality of our current system. He would support more nutritional aid for low-income mothers-to-be and young children. He would try to improve the quality of public schools. He would support aid to low-income college students. And he would support what every other advanced country has, a universal health care system, so that nobody need worry about untreated illness or crushing medical bills.
If Mr. Romney has come out for any of these things, I’ve missed it. And the Congressional wing of his party seems determined to make upward mobility even harder. For example, Republicans have tried to slash funds for the Women, Infants and Children program, which helps provide adequate nutrition to low-income mothers and their children; they have demanded cuts in Pell grants, which are designed to help lower-income students afford college.

And they have, of course, pledged to repeal a health reform that, for all its imperfections, would finally give Americans the guaranteed care that everyone else in the advanced world takes for granted.

So where is the evidence that Mr. Romney or his party actually believes in equal opportunity? Judging by their actions, they seem to prefer a society in which your station in life is largely determined by that of your parents — and in which the children of the very rich get to inherit their estates tax-free. Teddy Roosevelt would not have approved. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/09/opinion/krugman-americas-unlevel-field.html?src=me&ref=general

But, no, it's the victim's fault, as ever...:roll:

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

I agree, but it's in the implementation that I disagree. Government is not the proper mechanism for achieving that end. Using government to enforce moral positions is a very slippery slope.
So, there's this picture running around the i-net, and, because of that, it's a real occurance???

[TinkerinWstuff]

Outliers will always exist, and it's what some people love to point to in order to "justify" the inequality. There is, at last count, 1 Obama, and 1 Bill Gates and Millions of US Citizens in poverty--all living there, of course, because they "choose" to be there. Right? That has to be it--let's not consider that there are actual barriers and that "equality" is a myth.

But, no, it's the victim's fault, as ever...:roll:

Many a business owner of what became large corporations were down to their last dollar or filed for bankruptcy before realizing their dream - Disney and Marriott to name just two. Men who were willing to put everything on the line to build a dream.

The victim doesn't try - they whine about circumstance and expect other people to create opportunity for them rather than build their own. They sit on the reservation and whine about there being no jobs rather than moving to another location or starting a business.

Read The Millionaire Next Door. It's proven fact that people, even the children of Millionaires, don't do as well with money and opportunity handed to them as compared to those who built wealth from nothing.

[Ghost]

Read The Millionaire Next Door. It's proven fact that people, even the children of Millionaires, don't do as well with money and opportunity handed to them as compared to those who built wealth from nothing.

I agree!

We should definitely tax estates more heavily, so heavily that there's nothing left.

That would reset everyone to 0 so that they can all climb up from your "equal" starting position and into greatness!

Surely, as you believe in this myth, then you must think that there's no reason to even have an estate--or The Rich for that matter.

Since everyone who begins as poor (except those 46 Million) can become rich, then we ought to tax the Rich into poverty so that they can have the joy of climbing up again!

Brilliant! We actually agree!

[salsashark]

Many a business owner of what became large corporations were down to their last dollar or filed for bankruptcy before realizing their dream - Disney and Marriott to name just two. Men who were willing to put everything on the line to build a dream.

The victim doesn't try - they whine about circumstance and expect other people to create opportunity for them rather than build their own. They sit on the reservation and whine about there being no jobs rather than moving to another location or starting a business.


wow... it's like the plot from a book some delusional bimbo wrote in the 50s! :lol:

[TinkerinWstuff]

wow ghost. you scare me and you are no longer worth my time

I don't know why you wait around and try to change the USA into the country you want when there are countries out there that already operate as you wish.

[Clovis]

You can't give money to the lower income segment for better education, nutrition, health care, ect because they'll just spend it on crack.

[dirkterrell]

So, there's this picture running around the i-net, and, because of that, it's a real occurance???

:confused:

[Clovis]

Citing the NY Times is like citing The National Enquirer about the existence of big foot and bat boy.

But none the less. The left often cites how other "modern" countries have free universal health care and free higher education but fail the mention that these social entitlement programs are precisely what has bankrupted those countries.

Free stuff sounds all fine and dandy as long as "someone else" (aka "the rich") is paying for it.

[Ghost]

wow ghost. you scare me and you are no longer worth my time

I don't know why you wait around and try to change the USA into the country you want when there are countries out there that already operate as you wish.

What? But, but this is your dream, not mine, you think it's the best of the best who struggle up from the mire--so why not mire everyone?

Surely this would separate the wheat from the chaff, and you'd have the best possible country possible?!

Ayn Rand would be gushing like Niagara Falls over this--it's the ultimate challenge of the Individual over The System.

How can you now backpedal and pander to needing to have the wealthy?

Where's the challenge, the glory of pushing everyone aside to feed your innate greed?

Seriously, isn't this what you/she would want?

...I'm confused...John Galt, you're the Hero, come save me! Don't you, John Galt, want the challenge of overcoming your poor roots? Isn't that why we have poor people? Aren't they just there to support the argument that they--alone and against the system--can rise up to be Obama? Or Bill Gates?

Tinker--you're crapping on John Galt! (maybe he likes it, does Ayn talk about fecal-fetishism?) I'm sure HE'd be up to the challenge!

You Sir, are a coward. You blather on and on about how this Great System of ours forges nothing but Obamas from Poverty, and yet, when I give you the opportunity to fill the country with poverty in order to grow a legion of them, you shirk away and cower behind the wealth that many have inherited and not earned be struggling up from the bottom.

Oh, sad day...I weep for Ayn's moistened crotch, for sure she was on the edge of a tidal orgasm, and then you snatched it away from her...

I weep for you both.

[Ghost]

So, there's this picture running around the i-net, and, because of that, it's a real occurance???


:confused:

(He's off his meds again)

[TinkerinWstuff]

http://cache.blippitt.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Popcorn-02-Stephen-Colbert.gif

Good show! Good show!

Do give us an encore!

http://goinglikesixty.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Jokerclapping.gif

[Clovis]

A wise man (Jesus) once said: "The road to hell is paved with Democrats."

True story.

[TinkerinWstuff]

I'll tell you this; I speak to small business owners daily. No less than once a day one of them will tell me that they would hire someone today if they could find good people. These are $15-$30/hr jobs with benefits and OT.

How many of those 46million packed up their shit and moved to Wyoming, or Sterling, or North Dakota?

When the economy took a shit in the 80's, my dad packed us up and went to work at the power plant in North Dakota. How many of those 46million turned off the cell phone and the directv? Sold the 4wheeler in the garage and the hunting guns?

So yea, I say the only barriers to a person's ability to achieve, less some mental disability, is their own excuses.

Unless you are willing to admit that Obama or Bill Gates are somehow more gifted than you or anyone else, then the only difference between them and the 46million is the fact that they had an idea and were willing to put forth the effort and take the risk to make it happen.


Outliers will always exist, and it's what some people love to point to in order to "justify" the inequality. There is, at last count, 1 Obama, and 1 Bill Gates and Millions of US Citizens in poverty--all living there, of course, because they "choose" to be there. Right? That has to be it--let's not consider that there are actual barriers and that "equality" is a myth.




46.2 Million people--US Citizens, all just...lazy, I suppose. They don't really want to eat tonight, or pay for their daughter's medical problem, or send her to a better school to get a better education than the 8th grade one they have...Nah...they're just Whiners. All 46 MILLION of them. Each and every one. There's 1 Obama and 1 Bill Gates, but 46 Million who like being poor since they're not trying hard enough.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/09/opinion/krugman-americas-unlevel-field.html?src=me&ref=general

But, no, it's the victim's fault, as ever...:roll:

[Ghost]

Good show! Good show!

Do give us an encore!



My hyperbole aside, you're the one pushing the notion that anyone and everyone can become Obama--so let's put it to the test.

Surely, if we reset the playing field then your Ayn Randian Ubermensch army will still rise up, right?

I don't see why you put this myth out there, but then won't back it up...

You're telling me that any ghetto kid can win the 400m dash when he's starting in the parking lot outside the field (if he just wants it bad enough), and I'm just trying to show that if that's the case, and that's what you truly believe, then why not start everyone out in the parking lot?

Surely the rich will still rise up, right? Won't their Will to Power overcome any obstacle? Isn't that how a poor Kenyan kid like Obama, with his community college education got to be President?

Or, is this theory just a lot of bullshit and nonsense to assuage the distasteful idea that not everyone does, in fact, have "equal opportunity"?

[TinkerinWstuff]

when the guy wins the MotoGP championship, we don't take his trophy and money away and say, "well that was nice but it doesn't count until you do it again."

[Ghost]

How many of those 46million turned off the cell phone and the directv? Sold the 4wheeler in the garage and the hunting guns?



Considering they're below the poverty line

http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/11poverty.shtml


2011 HHS Poverty Guidelines
48 Contiguous/Alaska/ Hawaii
1 $10,890 $13,600 $12,540
2 14,710 18,380 16,930
3 18,530 23,160 21,320
4 22,350 27,940 25,710
5 26,170 32,720 30,100
6 29,990 37,500 34,490
7 33,810 42,280 38,880
8 37,630 47,060 43,270
I'm betting not many had cell phones, directTV or 4-wheelers.

But, yeah, maybe at $10,890/year they're just rolling in ATVs and cell phones...I mean, that's like...almost $1,000 per month.

Those Rich Fucking Bastards! Going to work in their private jets!

[CraigB]

I wish I had time to participate in this interesting discussion. Unfortunately, I don't but I thought I'd offer something up regarding one of the examples being used because it's probably not the best examples for anyone's argument:

Bill Gates isn't exactly 'everyman'. His father was a prominent lawyer and his mother was a member of the board of directors of a bank. His grandfather was the president of a bank. He scored a 1590 on his SAT and went to Harvard before dropping out of college.

I don't know if he went to Harvard on scholarship but given his upbringing, it's unlikely that he would've needed it. And, clearly, he's a bit more gifted intellectually than the majority of the population and possibly could have gone on scholarship. So, his success isn't exactly a hardworking rags to riches story.

[Clovis]

I've heard the same thing from oil men (that they are having a hell of a time finding employees despite paying very, very well).

In 2007 I wrote a mortgage for a 19 year old kid that lived in Firestone, CO and worked in the oil fields of Wyoming. He worked 2 weeks on, 2 weeks off and made $90,000 a year. Basically every two weeks he would carpool up in a company van and then come back home. He was just a hand (or whatever the grunts are called). $90k a year to be a grunt.

My grandfather was an engineer. In his mid 50s he got laid off (late 1980s). What did he do? He found jobs in Diego Garcia and Antarctica. Fucking Antarctica.

Besides Snowman, how many of you would be willing to Antarctica for 6 months at a time and be away from your family, to support your family? He did this for 4 or 5 years. I remember being a kid talking to him over the phone and having a delay in everything we said... like when they talked to the astronauts on the moon.

[TinkerinWstuff]

Considering they're below the poverty line

http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/11poverty.shtml

I'm betting not many had cell phones, directTV or 4-wheelers.

But, yeah, maybe at $10,890/year they're just rolling in ATVs and cell phones...I mean, that's like...almost $1,000 per month.

Those Rich Fucking Bastards! Going to work in their private jets!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkebmhTQN-4&list=LL-KGvWiyELPUxn6GBlSjNwQ&index=4&feature=plpp_video

charts from the heritage foundation studies on poverty, right at the beginning of the video. 76.3% of all Americans have a cell phone

[TinkerinWstuff]

sorry to bother you with charts and other facts instead of just assumptions

http://catmacros.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/alphabet_soup_cat2.jpg?w=720

[vort3xr6]

Doesn't matter the person. The theory behind it that Ghost is grossly over exaggerating is that in America you can CHOOSE! In Poland every 18 year old has to serve in the military. Even that crack mother born baby in LA can choose what he wants to be. The path to get there may be a little harder than others, but he is given the right and opportunity to choose.

I could have easily chosen to be a drug addict loser in jail like some of the people I hung out with in high school. I made the choice to do better.

The key difference is that wealthy people believe they create their lives while poor people believe life happens to them.

[Ghost]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkebmhTQN-4&list=LL-KGvWiyELPUxn6GBlSjNwQ&index=4&feature=plpp_video

charts from the heritage foundation studies on poverty, right at the beginning of the video. 76.3% of all Americans have a cell phone

Which by your reasoning they should not have? So they cannot get calls or make calls about getting jobs?

76% still leaves a whopping 24% without cell phones--and I'm not thinking it's the 1% who are lacking.

[TinkerinWstuff]

I'm sure you couldn't be bothered to watch the video

[Ghost]

Doesn't matter the person. The theory behind it that Ghost is grossly over exaggerating is that in America you can CHOOSE! In Poland every 18 year old has to serve in the military. Even that crack mother born baby in LA can choose what he wants to be. The path to get there may be a little harder than others, but he is given the right and opportunity to choose.

I could have easily chosen to be a drug addict loser in jail like some of the people I hung out with in high school. I made the choice to do better.

The key difference is that wealthy people believe they create their lives while poor people believe life happens to them.

The point that's over-exaggerated is how much "choice" anyone has, and how much is based on factors outside of their control.

The playing field is not, and will never be, "level".

Anecdotal blather about "My Uncle sucked cows for a living in 18-aught-diggity-three and now he's the most successful cow-sucker in the world with net bovine portfolio of $3.8M" does not have relevance in a country--supposedly "The Best Country in The World"--where we have 46 Million people below the poverty line and indications are that the number is only going to grow.

The "argument" that this is solely by/because of their choice is blatantly absurd.

[TinkerinWstuff]

they can chose to suck cows too if they like

watch the video and stop whining

[Ghost]

I'm sure you couldn't be bothered to watch the video

You told me the gist, why watch?

Poor don't deserve cell phones, they should give them up so no one can contact them about a potential job--that's how they're going to get ahead in this world.

Again, 24% don't even have phones, so maybe that's better?

[TinkerinWstuff]

didn't give you the gist only a blurb. and it's clear you can't handle facts that don't support your "perceptions" or you would watch the video.

scared whiner - the video might burst your bubble

[rforsythe]

There is also a considerable difference between having a choice, and understanding the sheer amount of mental fortitude and work it takes to get yourself out of poverty and into a better life (or being willing to put that effort out). It's not like "get a job" or "start a business" and shit will just magically happen, hell most middle class people who start a business will fail at it multiple times before even arriving at a financially sustainable entity, let alone a multi-million-dollar corporation.

[Ghost]

didn't give you the gist only a blurb. and it's clear you can't handle facts that don't support your "perceptions" or you would watch the video.

scared whiner - the video might burst your bubble

Lol, ad hominems are the resort of the coward, and labeling me a 'scared whiner' for disagreeing with your pipe dream rags-to-riches/Lazy Poor "argument" doesn't change anything--there are 46 MILLION poor people in this Country.

You think poor people need to give up their cell phones--the modern day lifeline to everything--in order to do, what, exactly? Jump out of poverty because now that they're free of their $25 Boost Mobile pre-paid phone Opportunity will just rise up and meet them?

Your video was already skewered by Jon Stewart months ago, and the Heritage Foundation is a conservative "think tank" that, like you, thinks that having a cell phone means the poor somehow aren't really "poor", or that they shouldn't have cell phones in the first place.

Seriously, you think the 24% without phones are the ideal? You think no one should have a phone? You think that just because someone isn't homeless and in a cardboard box that they're not Poor Enough?

[Ghost]

There is also a considerable difference between having a choice, and understanding the sheer amount of mental fortitude and work it takes to get yourself out of poverty and into a better life (or being willing to put that effort out). It's not like "get a job" or "start a business" and shit will just magically happen, hell most middle class people who start a business will fail at it multiple times before even arriving at a financially sustainable entity, let alone a multi-million-dollar corporation.

It will if you only click your heels and believe hard enough.

Auntie Emm! Auntie Emm, I want to be RICH!

[Clovis]

The point behind 76% of Americans having a cell phone is that having a cell phone is a luxury.

[TinkerinWstuff]

look dude - I grew up in gov't housing with powdered milk and gov't cheese. Parents didn't have money to buy toilet paper. I carried golf bags at 15 to buy jeans and pay for haircuts.

your life is a product of the choices you make and some circumstance. when circumstance happens, you make choices and make opportunity elsewhere.

otherwise, you can sit there with your cell phone and no bread while blaming others for your situation. Personally, I'll go make my life better and teach my children the same rather than blaming the 1%.

[Ghost]

your life is a product of the choices and some circumstance. when circumstance happens, you make choices and make opportunity elsewhere.
.

So 46 Million people are just making bad choices? Constantly? And it has nothing to do beyond that?



There is also a considerable difference between having a choice, and understanding the sheer amount of mental fortitude and work it takes to get yourself out of poverty and into a better life (or being willing to put that effort out). It's not like "get a job" or "start a business" and shit will just magically happen, hell most middle class people who start a business will fail at it multiple times before even arriving at a financially sustainable entity, let alone a multi-million-dollar corporation.

[TinkerinWstuff]

So 46 Million people are just making bad choices? Constantly? And it has nothing to do beyond that?

your basement is available right? Spare bedroom, couch?

[TinkerinWstuff]

How many has your church helped out?

[Clovis]

If you go to work every day in a jump suit and you're not climbing into a rocket or a jet, I would say that you've made some bad choices in your life.

[vort3xr6]

The point that's over-exaggerated is how much "choice" anyone has, and how much is based on factors outside of their control.

The playing field is not, and will never be, "level".

Anecdotal blather about "My Uncle sucked cows for a living in 18-aught-diggity-three and now he's the most successful cow-sucker in the world with net bovine portfolio of $3.8M" does not have relevance in a country--supposedly "The Best Country in The World"--where we have 46 Million people below the poverty line and indications are that the number is only going to grow.

The "argument" that this is solely by/because of their choice is blatantly absurd.

And have you made any choices that affected your career path or are you just a victim of life? Can you honestly say that you had no determination as to how you would end up?

There are hundreds, thousands, millions of people in this country who made a good living solely by working hard and taking risks. My dad is one of them. He grew up with nothing. His parents would take their paychecks and drive to Vegas leaving him and his 2 brothers to find food in whatever crap town they were in that week. Guess what he worked his ass off and started a business. It went bankrupt. Did he cry and whine and go on food stamps? No. He worked 2 jobs in the ditches to feed a family of 5. Then he started another business and moved up to that top 5%. I guess he was just born into it huh?

Seriously though. Why do you live in America?

[Ghost]

If you go to work every day in a jump suit and you're not climbing into a rocket or a jet, I would say that you've made some bad choices in your life.

True.


Seriously though. Why do you live in America?

So, questioning the failure of our system is now Un-American?

I thought it was what defined America, and, in theory (though often not in practice) made it "great". Aren't we supposed to try to improve this place, or is it so perfect that any who poke holes in the Emperor's New Clothes should be branded traitors?

Hav you set up ze kamps yet Mein Fuhrer?

(Stalin was actually more of the purge-your-own type, but since he's a communist/socialist I assumed the Nazi tyranny was more of what you're going for).

[rforsythe]

So 46 Million people are just making bad choices? Constantly? And it has nothing to do beyond that?

Well, some of them absolutely are. Lots of people with more money make stupid choices too, they just have a larger cushion to contain the stupidity. But even making the right choice in and of itself isn't enough. You have to set yourself apart somehow, do something extraordinary to get yourself out of that position. What I'm saying is it's absolutely possible for these people, but requires more than most will be willing to do. Hence why it's called the American Dream, and not the American Promise of a Better Way of Life.



Seriously though. Why do you live in America?

Dunno about you, but I was born here...

[Ghost]

Well, some of them absolutely are. Lots of people with more money make stupid choices too, they just have a larger cushion to contain the stupidity. But even making the right choice in and of itself isn't enough. You have to set yourself apart somehow, do something extraordinary to get yourself out of that position. What I'm saying is it's absolutely possible for these people, but requires more than most will be willing to do. Hence why it's called the American Dream, and not the American Promise of a Better Way of Life.


I don't disagree that a few exceptions will always exceed expectations, but when we have a systemic failure--and I'd call 46 Million a failure--then we need to address the root causes.

There's a Catch22 of poor education, poor skills/life training, poor/no role models, poor medical care, etc., that all leads into a decision process prone to more failure--and, without the cushion of being born above the line, the poor are going to flounder about and not be able to recover and thus the cycle will continue with each successive generation...

[TinkerinWstuff]

True.

So, questioning the failure of our system is now Un-American?


in order to have failed, wouldn't there have had to be a goal?

As I recall, the Constitution says the people, "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

people are free to pursue happiness all they want. If they enjoy living below the poverty level then they can stay where they are. Some people are fine with that. Some people actually choose to live on the streets believe it or not. People could choose not to have children out of wedlock and raise children with two parents.

For those who are not happy with that situation, and believe that more money and opportunity are their key to happiness, they are FREE to move to North Dakota where the unemployment rate is somewhere around 3% if I'm not mistaken.

[TinkerinWstuff]

I don't disagree that a few exceptions will always exceed expectations, but when we have a systemic failure--and I'd call 46 Million a failure--then we need to address the root causes.

There's a Catch22 of poor education, poor skills/life training, poor/no role models, poor medical care, etc., that all leads into a decision process prone to more failure--and, without the cushion of being born above the line, the poor are going to flounder about and not be able to recover and thus the cycle will continue with each successive generation...

so how many have you taken in? :bow:

how many families has your church sponsored?

[Ghost]

in order to have failed, wouldn't there have had to be a goal?

As I recall, the Constitution says the people, "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

people are free to pursue happiness all they want. If they enjoy living below the poverty level then they can stay where they are. Some people are fine with that. Some people actually choose to live on the streets believe it or not.

For those who are not happy with that situation, and believe that more money and opportunity are their key to happiness, they are FREE to move to North Dakota where the unemployment rate is somewhere around 3% if I'm not mistaken.

Again, how are 46 Million people supposed to move to ND and get jobs?

Being "Free" to move doesn't imply being able to do so.

And, this false notion that every one of 46 Million people wants to be poor, and that they're living out their dream working 3 part-time shit jobs because they lack the skills, training, education, or opportunity to do anything better is just a way to ignore the roots of the issue.

Go poll all 46 Million, I'm sure there's a majority who are trying to improve, but still failing. This idea that they're all happy in poverty is fiction.

[rforsythe]

I don't disagree that a few exceptions will always exceed expectations, but when we have a systemic failure--and I'd call 46 Million a failure--then we need to address the root causes.

They're called expectations for a reason, unfortunately.


There's a Catch22 of poor education, poor skills/life training, poor/no role models, poor medical care, etc., that all leads into a decision process prone to more failure--and, without the cushion of being born above the line, the poor are going to flounder about and not be able to recover and thus the cycle will continue with each successive generation...

So what's the answer? You can't just give them money and expect it to work, so how do you create a sustainable, long term path to reverse the trend *without* increasing entitlement or redistributing what higher classes have? Poverty will always exist in a class-wealth system, so at best you can reduce it, never eliminate it completely.

Is it really as simple as improving education and life skills and giving them someone positive to latch onto?

[TinkerinWstuff]

Again, how are 46 Million people supposed to move to ND and get jobs?



no, but some can



Being "Free" to move doesn't imply being able to do so.

What's stopping them? What makes them "un-able"? Where there's a will, there's a way.


And, this false notion that every one of 46 Million people wants to be poor, and that they're living out their dream working 3 part-time shit jobs because they lack the skills, training, education, or opportunity to do anything better is just a way to ignore the roots of the issue.

Go poll all 46 Million, I'm sure there's a majority who are trying to improve, but still failing. This idea that they're all happy in poverty is fiction.


no where did I say "every" and you further marginalize yourself with this statement

[Ghost]

Is it really as simple as improving education and life skills and giving them someone positive to latch onto?

Maybe? I'm not sure there's a "magic bullet" to fix it, but I do think that these methods are better spends of our money than pointless wars.

I'm a firm believer in "America First", and I think we should fix our house and try help as many Americans as we can.

Even if we cut the number in half--isn't that an improvement in our country that we as Americans could be proud of?

Something like a new New Deal/WPA would strengthen our infrastructure, educate our public, improve the quality of life for any American who wants it.

I don't think that you can get ahead without effort, but I do think there's a lot of people trying and putting out the effort without any possibility of success.

Give them the education, give them the support, spend the money on our citizens instead of misc bullshit around the world, and let's see what happens--what's wrong with that? Too "Un-American"?

[vort3xr6]

Your 46 million in poverty is absurd.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/07/what-is-poverty


More than 46 million Americans are now living below the poverty threshold (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/14/us/14census.html?_r=1&hp), according to numbers released by the Census Bureau on Tuesday. That's the highest number since the Bureau started keeping track of the statistic in 1959. Are poor people better off now than they were 52 years ago?


Much better, in absolute material terms. Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation recently published an analysis of the lifestyle of people below the poverty line (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/07/what-is-poverty) in 21st-century America. He found that many poor people have amenities that were available only to the wealthy (if they existed at all) in 1959. The typical household at the poverty line includes air conditioning, two color televisions with a cable or satellite feed, a DVD player, and a microwave. Poor children usually have a video game system. More than 38 percent of poor people have a personal computer.

In the late 1950s, annual per capita caloric consumption reached a low point (http://www.usda.gov/factbook/chapter2.pdf) (PDF) for the 20th century. While food choices and the availability of fresh food in certain areas are major concerns (http://www.cdc.gov/features/fooddeserts/), u (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004/01/understanding-poverty-in-america) ndernourishment is (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004/01/understanding-poverty-in-america) rare (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004/01/understanding-poverty-in-america) in the United States today. More than 92 percent of poor households always have enough food to eat, and poor children get about the same quantity of nutrients as middle-class children. Rector points out that poor children now "grow up to be, on average, one inch taller and 10 pounds heavier than the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II."


Much of the improvement in the quality of life among the poor comes down to increased government assistance. The Census Bureau's poverty threshold—based on the cost of a bare minimum diet multiplied by three—is adjusted for yearly inflation, but it doesn't account for the expansion of noncash income sources (http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/about/overview/measure.html) like Medicaid or Medicare, which didn't exist until 1965. It also ignores tax credits that can increase a poor family's income. Nor are food stamps, which have expanded significantly since 1959, taken into account. Public housing is more widely available today than 50 years ago. There are also a range of less obvious government programs that bolster the lives of people living at or below the poverty line like Head Start, subsidized school lunches, energy assistance, and Pell Grants for college tuition. All of these free up money for other uses. A general decline in the relative price of food (http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2010/11/economist_food-price_index) has also helped the poor, although costs have drifted upward over the last four years.


Despite the many luxuries now enjoyed by many below the poverty line, Rector's argument that the Census Bureau overstates the number of poor in America is controversial. Many economists believe that poverty should be measured relative to the wealth of a society (http://www.brookings.edu/%7E/media/Files/rc/papers/2008/12_poverty_measurement_blank/12_poverty_measurement_blank.pdf) (PDF), not in terms of absolute deprivation, as Rector suggests. This isn't some bleeding-heart liberal view. Adam Smith made the same point in The Wealth of Nations: "A linen shirt, for example, is, strictly speaking, not a necessary of life. The Greeks and Romans lived, I suppose, very comfortably, though they had no linen. But in the present times, through the greater part of Europe, a creditable day-labourer would be ashamed to appear in public without a linen shirt, the want of which would be supposed to denote that disgraceful degree of poverty which, it is presumed, nobody can well fall into without extreme bad conduct."


Some economists argue that the Internet, mobile phones, and air conditioning are the linen shirts of the 21st century. Even manual labor jobs now sometimes require a candidate to access the Internet to either find a listing or apply. Less than 30 percent of families living in poverty have Internet service in the home.

[vort3xr6]

Looks like our tax dollars do PLENTY to your poor 46 million people. Such a bummer they get to collect welfare, eat with food stamps, receive free school lunch, and play video games on one of their 2 TV's. I mean, what would a kid DO WITHOUT VIDEO GAMES!!! DEAR GOD WHY! :lol

[vort3xr6]

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/07/%7E/media/Images/Reports/2011/07/b2575/b2575_chart2600px.ashx?w=600&h=581&as=1

[Ghost]

Your 46 million in poverty is absurd.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/07/what-is-poverty

No, your idea that having the basics of life means they're somehow "not" poor on $10k/year is asinine.

Your 1800s-era idea that "The Poor" all live on the street and beg "please sir, can I have some more" for their porridge is an antiquated idea that doesn't reflect the times.

You think the poor should not have the basics? That they need to be out on the street, living in boxes? That we need to have 3rd World style poverty with emaciated children covered in flies and lines of starving people queuing up for bread? Is that your working definition of what "poor" is?

[Ghost]

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/07/%7E/media/Images/Reports/2011/07/b2575/b2575_chart2600px.ashx?w=600&h=581&as=1


Omg, a refrigerator!! To store their food in! Those greedy fucking bastards! How dare they not store their government rations in a hole in the ground!

Seriously?

[vort3xr6]

$10,000 per year NOT INCLUDING:

-Welfare
-Food Stamps
-Unemployment
-Medicare
-Medicaid
-Pell Grants

And the list goes on.

They will never leave the nipple ghost. That milk from the rest of the country's wallets tastes ohhhh so good. Shit, I could work 2 days a week at King Soopers bagging groceries and make $10k per year. Then live off all the social welfare programs people like you love to hand out. Is it easy to spend other peoples money Ghost?

My definition of poor is not being able to use basic life amenities required to survive. (Water, food, Shower, Warmth)

Looks like 92% of the "poor" eat very well, and most of them have more than enough warmth to go around. They probably sew themselves blankets with my tax dollars.

[TinkerinWstuff]

I'm a firm believer in "America First", and I think we should fix our house and try help as many Americans as we can.


I was scrolling back and trying to find where you might have posted it...

how many did you say you've taken in and how many families has your church sponsored?

Or is it that you only firmly believe that when it's Bill Gates' money we're talking about?

[Ghost]

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-august-18-2011/world-of-class-warfare---the-poor-s-free-ride-is-over

[Ghost]

Or is it that you only firmly believe that when it's Bill Gates' money we're talking about?


Bill Gates seems happy to spend his money helping others:


The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (B&MGF or the Gates Foundation) is the largest transparently (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transparency_%28behavior%29) operated[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_%26_Melinda_Gates_Foundation#cite_note-econ-3) private foundation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_foundation) in the world, founded by Bill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Gates) and Melinda Gates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melinda_Gates). It is "driven by the interests and passions of the Gates family".[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_%26_Melinda_Gates_Foundation#cite_note-GuidingPrinciples-4) The primary aims of the foundation are, globally, to enhance healthcare and reduce extreme poverty, and in America, to expand educational opportunities and access to information technology. The foundation, based in Seattle, Washington (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle), is controlled by its three trustees: Bill Gates, Melinda Gates and Warren Buffett (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Buffett). Other principal officers include Co-Chair William H. Gates, Sr. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_H._Gates,_Sr.) and Chief Executive Officer Jeff Raikes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Raikes). It had an endowment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_endowment) of US$ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_dollar)33.5 billion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100000000_%28number%29) as of December 31, 2009.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_%26_Melinda_Gates_Foundation#cite_note-FactSheet-2) The scale of the foundation and the way it seeks to apply business techniques to giving makes it one of the leaders in the philanthrocapitalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venture_philanthropy) revolution in global philanthropy,[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_%26_Melinda_Gates_Foundation#cite_note-5) though the foundation itself notes that the philanthropic role has limitations.[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_%26_Melinda_Gates_Foundation#cite_note-GuidingPrinciples-4) In 2007, its founders were ranked as the second most generous philanthropists in America.[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_%26_Melinda_Gates_Foundation#cite_note-6) In 2010, its founders had started The Commission on Education of Health Professionals for the 21st Century titled as "Transforming education to strengthen health systems in an interdependent world".[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_%26_Melinda_Gates_Foundation#cite_note-7)


So...Hmm...guess he wasn't your best choice, eh?

[vort3xr6]

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-august-18-2011/world-of-class-warfare---the-poor-s-free-ride-is-over


Backed into a corner so you respond with satirical comedy? Solid.


Forty-three percent of all poor households own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.[22]

Looks like the poor are better off than most of the CSC. Better off than me at least.

[Ghost]

They will never leave the nipple ghost.

I don't buy it. We're a country of driven, self-motivated people, or, at least we used to be. I think we still could be, but sometimes you have to point people in the right direction.

As a Boy Scout my troop once helped out in a soup kitchen, we did it for just three weekends, but no one there was proud to be poor, no one brings their 4yr old daughter into a place like that and doesn't want something better for them.

Some might be lazy, but not 46 Million, there's more who would leave the nipple if given the opportunity and education/skills/resources to break out.

Saying that they all want it is just a cop-out to ignore the real problems facing this country and its future.

[vort3xr6]

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/07/%7E/media/Images/Reports/2011/07/b2575/b2575_chart7.ashx?w=500&h=591&as=1

I want filet mignon all the time but don't get it. Am I classified as poor Ghost?

[Ghost]

Backed into a corner so you respond with satirical comedy? Solid.

Looks like the poor are better off than most of the CSC. Better off than me at least.


No, satirical comedy is what this is--it's a farce to think that the poor want to be there, and claiming that their refrigerators and tvs make them not-poor is a joke. A bad one, but a joke nonetheless.

[Ghost]

I want filet mignon all the time but don't get it. Am I classified as poor Ghost?

Are you supporting a family of FOUR on $22k per year?

How far does that go towards filet mignon?

Or...I dunno...braces? Better schools?

But, you're absolutely correct, since the poor clearly have food then they're not really poor.

Damn eating bastards. You need to be starving to claim you're poor!!

Starve the Poor!

[vort3xr6]

I don't buy it. We're a country of driven, self-motivated people, or, at least we used to be. I think we still could be, but sometimes you have to point people in the right direction.

As a Boy Scout my troop once helped out in a soup kitchen, we did it for just three weekends, but no one there was proud to be poor, no one brings their 4yr old daughter into a place like that and doesn't want something better for them.

Some might be lazy, but not 46 Million, there's more who would leave the nipple if given the opportunity and education/skills/resources to break out.

Saying that they all want it is just a cop-out to ignore the real problems facing this country and its future.


http://thesinglefilez.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/bullshit.jpg

BULLSHIT. We are a country of lazy assholes who don't want to work for anything. The more silver platters of money we can get, the better off we are. ESPECIALLY, the people in poverty. Entitlement is the name of the game.

You ever hear the term "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink"?

Poor people are lazy. Generalization, but true.

[vort3xr6]

My estimated guess would be that 2% of those 46 million, IF given the "opportunity" and "education" would actually take it. So 920,000. Out of those, I would say only 20% would see it through because who knew, success takes hard work!

[TinkerinWstuff]

Bill Gates seems happy to spend his money helping others:




So...Hmm...guess he wasn't your best choice, eh?

Can't answer eh? Easy to sit there and fling poo at others from behind your computer eh monkey?

[Ghost]

BULLSHIT. We are a country of lazy assholes who don't want to work for anything. The more silver platters of money we can get, the better off we are. ESPECIALLY, the people in poverty. Entitlement is the name of the game.

You ever hear the term "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink"?

Poor people are lazy. Generalization, but true.

Lol, and I'm the Un-American? You've just written off 46 Million of your fellow citizens--people I think have worth, and could actually contribute to this country if given the chance--and certainly people more deserving of a shot than all the Chinese we've outsourced everything to.


Can't answer eh? Easy to sit there and fling poo at others from behind your computer eh monkey?

What are you on about now? More personal attacks that have nothing to do with anything?

You think calling me "monkey" is earning you Intellect Points?

Am I supposed to single-handedly rescue all 46 Million people? You tell me how and I'll do it...

[TinkerinWstuff]

One person isn't worth your time to help? Only when it's 46million and you can hide behind the impossible?

[Clovis]

Being a natural born American citizen is all the advantage they need. Name one place on Earth that provides more opportunity then America.

I'm sorry but if the immigrants of the world can come to America with a couple hundred of bucks in their pocket and make it, then why can't natural born Americans?

The answer is entitlement. Immigrants come here and expect nothing and through their hard work see gains within a generation.

Multi-generational Americans that are 'poor' have become dependent on the government and feel entitled.

Did you see the Occupy video where the protestors were demanding jobs while simultaneously turning down work? "Oh, that doesn't pay enough..."


Lol, and I'm the Un-American? You've just written off 46 Million of your fellow citizens--people I think have worth, and could actually contribute to this country if given the chance--and certainly people more deserving of a shot than all the Chinese we've outsourced everything to.



What are you on about now? More personal attacks that have nothing to do with anything?

You think calling me "monkey" is earning you Intellect Points?

Am I supposed to single-handedly rescue all 46 Million people? You tell me how and I'll do it...

[CraigB]

I thought this was a good read:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/13/opinion/granderson-poor-families/index.html?iref=allsearch

[TinkerinWstuff]

typical liberal hypocrite. Stand on the hill and yell about how "America needs to do better" but only as long as the sacrifice is borne by someone else.

When's the last time you brought a meal to a retired person on a fixed income or drove them to a doctors appointment? Your grandma doesn't count.

Donated some school supplies to an underachieving school?

Served a meal at the soup kitchen?

Helped your church sponsor a needy family?

Have you volunteered your time in your profession or using some other skill you have to help the poor better themselves? "Teach a man to fish..."

It all starts with one and leaders make it happen showing by example. It sounds to me like you beat this drum, this cause that makes you feel better about yourself, but aren't willing to make the sacrifices of putting your money where your mouth is.

So I ask again, if you so strongly believe about how America needs to do better, what have YOU done about it other than sit there and fling poo at the "rich?"

[TinkerinWstuff]

I thought this was a good read:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/13/opinion/granderson-poor-families/index.html?iref=allsearch

yes, good read :applause:

the only problem we seem to have is agreeing on how to lend a hand to those who have fallen on hard times and just want a hand getting on their feet.

[Ghost]

So I ask again, if you so strongly believe about how America needs to do better, what have YOU done about it other than sit there and fling poo at the "rich?"

Lol, ahh, fire up the hate machine. Go Tinker, go! You amaze me with your capacity to not argue your position without diverting it into personal areas.

I do contribute, I don't have to tell you how, or when, or where, but it is fairly significant in time, and money and personal commitment. Do I need to go into details of my personal life on the internet just to satisfy a rabid-terrier-forum troll? Nope.

So, back on topic, what's your oh-so-amazing solution for the 46 Million?

Or do you just have more personal attacks to lob?

[Ghost]

yes, good read :applause:

the only problem we seem to have is agreeing on how to lend a hand to those who have fallen on hard times and just want a hand getting on their feet.

I thought you don't want to "lend a hand" to help anyone?

Aren't they only supposed to bootstrap themselves up?

[TinkerinWstuff]

sure you do - that's why you couldn't address it until now.

[TinkerinWstuff]

I thought you don't want to "lend a hand" to help anyone?

Aren't they only supposed to bootstrap themselves up?

you're a loser :bs:

/unsubscribe

[Ghost]

sure you do - that's why you couldn't address it until now.

Tink, you're a troll, period.

Again, where's YOUR solution?

[Ghost]

you're a loser :bs:

/unsubscribe

I win!

[Sarge]

*edit*

Nevermind, this thread has spun completely out of control in the last 24 hours.

[Ghost]

*edit*

Nevermind, this thread has spun completely out of control in the last 24 hours.

SOP for CSC

[Zanatos]

Actually military health care is not that good, nor is it all that free.

My buddy was hit while riding by a woman one night which resulted in a shattered wrist and 2 fractured ankles. All work done on military bases by military personnel. She was at fault, her insurance ending up paying him a settlement of @ $100k. Before he saw a dime, the Navy swooped in and took @ $20k off the top. Directly from her insurance company citing to cover the costs of his medical treatments.

Oh, and his fractured ankles were not correctly diagnosed for 4 months after 5 trips by him complaining about the pain.

And every one of my dentists goes "OH!" when they see and ask about all my dental work done while I was on active duty.


You can't judge the military health care system by one person's crappy experiences or one person's great experiences.

But you probably agree it's better than having no health insurance. And it is better than paying $600 per month for minimal coverage.

If the majority of people in our country hate Obamacare, then I hope they get rid of it. However, we can't just go back to business as usual. The American health care system is broken and unsustainable.

I give Obama kudos for having the balls to actually take action and attempt to reform the system.

[Sarge]

My first and only child was born while I was deployed. My wife went to stay with family. All said and done I got a statement for more than $45,000 in what was paid to the hospital. For one kid. Most people barely make that in a year.

[dirkterrell]

I have argued why government is part of the very problem because they have not done their job: to ensure a free market and prosecute illegal activities. What they have done is allow corporate money to influence laws so that clearly predatory behavior (e.g. cost-shifting) is legal. If the government would do its job, "the people" would be able to govern healthcare just fine.


Here you go:

http://www.market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=200388

[Captain Obvious]

You can't judge the military health care system by one person's crappy experiences or one person's great experiences.

But you probably agree it's better than having no health insurance. And it is better than paying $600 per month for minimal coverage.


Well, that is 3 separate cases of less than stellar service all delivered in < 1 day with a pretty small sampling of readers.

Better than nothing? Sure.
Care that justifies a parade for the "free service" they offer? Definitely not.

I was simply stating that you are wrong, the medical care is not free when you are in or a dependent of the military. Not only is it not free as it is advertised, the care is not as good as what one gets in the private sector. Sarge apparently had a similar experience.

My medical care was FAR superior when I was covered by the State of FL. Better care, no smoke and mirrors about costs and the ROI was much better.