Neither do tax cuts for the rich or spending 14 times more than your nearest competitor of weapons.
There's money there.
There's money there.
Buy on AliExpress.com
Global Financial Crisis (10 Viewers)
- Thread starter Dostoevsky
- Start date
Buy on AliExpress.com
That's not entirely true, but it is true when you consider how our central bank works. If nobody bought our bonds or paid taxes the Federal Reserve could simply buy US Treasuries themselves and print the money to do so, which... HEY! they've already done that in those stupid quantitative easing Ponzi Scheme programs that shot up commodity prices. So no, the US could technically not go bankrupt as long as the private Federal Reserve is there to print money. But what are the ramifications of printing money? Destroying the dollar. So there's no way out of this whatsoever and we are indeed essentially broke in the long run.
As a type 1 diabetic myself, my thoughts have changed about health care because it is a collective societal problem. For example, I could be cured of the disease by now if the collective public health policy of the nation decided to fund a successful cure rather than to let it linger as a profitable, chronic, manageable condition for a number of pharma companies. So the health implications of why I have type 1 diabetes or not are more than just my genetic background or my personal behavior -- it's also the result of social policy and decision-making.
To make individual people responsible for that social policy and decision-making is absurd.
Like it or not, despite the people who eat themselves to death by chowing down on potato chips and pizza until they are morbidly obese, our collective social policy plays a role (not the lone role, but a significant role) in that responsibility for how they got there and the resources and facilities for keeping them healthy and a non-burden to society. To think otherwise would be to think that community garbage collection and disease prevention is somehow solely a personal responsibility.
Say all you want about individual freedoms and the responsibility of personal choice, but health care is not solely a personal choice by a longshot. It is the product of a collective society, with implications that individual approaches fail to address properly.
It sucks for a lot of people, but you can't bury your head in the sand and act like you have eminent domain over your patch of the world and everyone else who happened to be born around you are merely interlopers. Nobody chooses to be part of a broader society -- it's something we inherit from our birth. But that doesn't mean we can simply choose as individuals to no longer be a part of it.
To make individual people responsible for that social policy and decision-making is absurd.
Like it or not, despite the people who eat themselves to death by chowing down on potato chips and pizza until they are morbidly obese, our collective social policy plays a role (not the lone role, but a significant role) in that responsibility for how they got there and the resources and facilities for keeping them healthy and a non-burden to society. To think otherwise would be to think that community garbage collection and disease prevention is somehow solely a personal responsibility.
Say all you want about individual freedoms and the responsibility of personal choice, but health care is not solely a personal choice by a longshot. It is the product of a collective society, with implications that individual approaches fail to address properly.
It sucks for a lot of people, but you can't bury your head in the sand and act like you have eminent domain over your patch of the world and everyone else who happened to be born around you are merely interlopers. Nobody chooses to be part of a broader society -- it's something we inherit from our birth. But that doesn't mean we can simply choose as individuals to no longer be a part of it.
tax cuts for the rich? You do know that in the US the top 10% pay 44% of the taxes while the rest of the population has 58% that doesn't pay a penny in taxes! if that 58% paid 10% we would have a serious influx of cash, besides the fact that the US doesn't have a revenue problem it has a spending problem. So if the spending is cut we make more than enough revenue to pay our bills. Its like the guy with the house and ferrari he cant afford , then complains he is loosing his home. Maybe if you drove a civic and lived in a house that suits your needs not desire he wouldnt be going broke
Here's a great discussion of the debt ceiling by Michael Pento and King World News. Disregard the gold bug stuff.
http://kingworldnews.com/kingworldn...chael_Pento_files/Michael Pento 7:30:2011.mp3
"The real credit downgrade is not going to come from Moody's or S&P, it's going to come from our international bond market investors... and would render us insolvent in a matter of days."
TRUE. Good shit.
http://kingworldnews.com/kingworldn...chael_Pento_files/Michael Pento 7:30:2011.mp3
"The real credit downgrade is not going to come from Moody's or S&P, it's going to come from our international bond market investors... and would render us insolvent in a matter of days."
TRUE. Good shit.
But if that 10% also owns 70.9% of all US assets, per this lovely Ron Paul site and 73% of its wealth, that 44% suddenly sounds a little like a bargain.
This is my problem with ideologues like yourself. You get so caught up in principles on a spreadsheet that you miss the practical realities of life. I know a lot of gun advocates, for example, who believe the tradeoff is worth it if you average shooting 11 innocent family members for the ratio of getting that one guy who might be a bad dude.
This is my problem with ideologues like yourself. You get so caught up in principles on a spreadsheet that you miss the practical realities of life. I know a lot of gun advocates, for example, who believe the tradeoff is worth it if you average shooting 11 innocent family members for the ratio of getting that one guy who might be a bad dude.
1,000,000 a year @ 5% = 50,000
50,000 a year @ 25%= 12,500
Who's lost more, relatively?
Healthcare should be free for everybody 
Those with health insurance should get nicer rooms better aftercare etc.
It's a human right, and leaving poor people to die because they can't afford medicine is disgusting and dare I say it Unchristian.
Those with health insurance should get nicer rooms better aftercare etc.
It's a human right, and leaving poor people to die because they can't afford medicine is disgusting and dare I say it Unchristian.
i know this, GE didnt pay taxes because emmelt was at the white house all the time with his buddy barry. Also I wasnt trying to point out that taxes can pay our debt you could tax everyone at 100% and that wouldnt help. I was just responding to the tax the rich save the poor attitude, while the majority pay none