Obamacare: Say goodnight, Gracie...

[actaeon277]

There is a difference between a "democracy" and a "representative democracy". You can see that I said "representative democracy".

Representative democracy (also indirect democracy, representative republic, or psephocracy) is a type of democracy founded on the principle of elected officials representing a group of people, as opposed to direct democracy.[2] Nearly all modern Western-style democracies are types of representative democracies; for example, the United Kingdom is a crowned republic, Ireland is a parliamentary republic, and the United States is a federal republic.

United States is a federal republic

from your own quote

 

[actaeon277]

The point was that we don't get to make direct choices on what the income stream is received from or how those funds are spent. We elect officials to act on our behalf. We may also influence those expenditures through lobbying, petitions, demonstrations and the courts. But I don't get to say: I don't want any of my tax dollars to be used for "x" program and expect that the government will follow my wishes.

So, if Steve donates $1,000 to a charity, instead of donating $1,000 to Uncle Sam, who gives $300 to a badly run charity that Steve disagrees with, then Steve is "not contributing"?

 

[KG1]

United States is a federal republic

from your own quote

I think the quote that lists 3 Western style democracies mentioned in the post are all forms of representative democracies.

Nearly all modern Western-style democracies are types of representative democracies; for example, the United Kingdom is a crowned republic, Ireland is a parliamentary republic, and the United States is a federal republic.

 

[Alpo]

United States is a federal republic

from your own quote

It is also a "representative democracy" or "psephocracy", from my own quote. The words today mean the same thing.

 

[KG1]

It's not often that I agree with Alpo but according to my understanding he is correct on this one.

 

[aaron580]

So, if Steve donates $1,000 to a charity, instead of donating $1,000 to Uncle Sam, who gives $300 to a badly run charity that Steve disagrees with, then Steve is "not contributing"?

 

[Alpo]

Thank you, KG.

 

[Alpo]

So, if Steve donates $1,000 to a charity, instead of donating $1,000 to Uncle Sam, who gives $300 to a badly run charity that Steve disagrees with, then Steve is "not contributing"?

I don't believe that we were discussing personal, charitable contributions. I based my response on Steve's post:

Stealing money from others is not.

That implies taxation and use thereof, rather than a charitable contribution. If I'm wrong, I apologize.

 

[steveh_131]

The point was that we don't get to make direct choices on what the government's income stream is received from or how those funds are spent. We elect officials to act on our behalf. We may also influence those expenditures through lobbying, petitions, demonstrations and the courts. But I don't get to say: I don't want any of my tax dollars to be used for "x" program and expect that the government will follow my wishes.

I don't believe that we were discussing personal, charitable contributions. I based my response on Steve's post:

That implies taxation and use thereof, rather than a charitable contribution. If I'm wrong, I apologize.

It is a simple matter of individual morality.

You argue that in a free market, certain people get left behind. Your solution for this is to forcibly take money from people and use it to help those other people.

I argue that you should take your own money and help those people yourself. And I intend to do the same.

One of these is moral. One is not.

 

[Trigger Time]

Fight the medical industry and reduce the costs of actual care and products. Also don't bombard the hospitals and care facilities with illegal aliens and visa holders who can't pay for their own way. Can't pay for your insurance or care? Then you go back to your country, visa revoked.

 

[actaeon277]

I don't believe that we were discussing personal, charitable contributions. I based my response on Steve's post:



That implies taxation and use thereof, rather than a charitable contribution. If I'm wrong, I apologize.

It is a simple matter of individual morality.

You argue that in a free market, certain people get left behind. Your solution for this is to forcibly take money from people and use it to help those other people.

I argue that you should take your own money and help those people yourself. And I intend to do the same.

One of these is moral. One is not.

This is what I was talking about

 

[hoosierdoc]

Fight the medical industry and reduce the costs of actual care and products. Also don't bombard the hospitals and care facilities with illegal aliens and visa holders who can't pay for their own way. Can't pay for your insurance or care? Then you go back to your country, visa revoked.

I would love to see grocery stores use a healthcare model to sell food. I bet it would more than quadruple prices.
show up, have a full Cart but no money? Well we can't legally stop you from taking those groceries, do you need help to your car?

 

[Trigger Time]

I would love to see grocery stores use a healthcare model to sell food. I bet it would more than quadruple prices.
show up, have a full Cart but no money? Well we can't legally stop you from taking those groceries, do you need help to your car?

True
they kinda do though already.
food stamps
medicaid or Medicare whatever it's called.
im not against legal citizens that actualy need help getting it temporarily but if you are on it for years and you are still popping out babies then you get kicked off in my opinion. Because the tax payer has paid your rent, your food and your med bills for your litter. And probably your drugs too. That's a ****ed system.

 

[churchmouse]

It is a simple matter of individual morality.

You argue that in a free market, certain people get left behind. Your solution for this is to forcibly take money from people and use it to help those other people.

I argue that you should take your own money and help those people yourself. And I intend to do the same.

One of these is moral. One is not.

Bingo

This is the argument of the left leaning people I know. They are heart felt to help...."EVERYBODY"
All that does is generate a large group of freeloading ass hats that cause issues for the people who really need to be helped.
I have a few relatives who are part of the free loaders. The are screaming like smashed cats right now as they are about to loose the free ride.

If you are disabled, indigent (for real) poor health from birth etc (this is a grey area) then yes, we need to help but if you are a lazy couch warming free loader........find another train to ride.

Yes, if you feel this way start cutting checks and "Help"

 

[Alpo]

It is a simple matter of individual morality.

You argue that in a free market, certain people get left behind. Your solution for this is to forcibly take money from people and use it to help those other people.

I argue that you should take your own money and help those people yourself. And I intend to do the same.

One of these is moral. One is not.

Please show me an example of this where it has worked in the past for a complex society. You've got the entire history of man and the whole world to select from.

One example, and then lets discuss.

 

[Alpo]

This is what I was talking about

I argue that in a free market you get monopolies and oligarchies. My example starts with John D. Rockefeller and Standard Oil. Even though some of the vertical integration and consolidation was good for the country (and John D, of course), he caused tremendous harm as well, along with price fixing, railroad drawbacks and trade restraints.

See, the thing is, you haven't eliminated collectivism. You've just decided which collective is more beneficial to you at the expense of other groups. That isn't "moral" and you don't get credit for believing that it is.

 

[jamil]

Please don't contribute at all to our society, Steve. I'd be glad to write a letter to Trump or whoever asking that you be exempt from all responsibilities as a citizen yet retain all the benefits incumbent thereto.

He just believes that people should pay for their own charity instead of voting for candidates who will take it from other people. Making other people pay for your social responsibility isn't taking responsibility.

 

[actaeon277]

I argue that in a free market you get monopolies and oligarchies. My example starts with John D. Rockefeller and Standard Oil. Even though some of the vertical integration and consolidation was good for the country (and John D, of course), he caused tremendous harm as well, along with price fixing, railroad drawbacks and trade restraints.

See, the thing is, you haven't eliminated collectivism. You've just decided which collective is more beneficial to you at the expense of other groups. That isn't "moral" and you don't get credit for believing that it is.

Please show me an example of this where it has worked in the past for a complex society. You've got the entire history of man and the whole world to select from.

One example, and then lets discuss.

Well, collectivism worked so well in Venezuela. Or not.
And Denmark, which everyone loves to use as an example.. The more their economy went collectivism, the worse it got. It only rebounded as it is now, as they moved away from collectivism. There's two examples.

 

[jamil]

Please show me an example of this where it has worked in the past for a complex society. You've got the entire history of man and the whole world to select from.

One example, and then lets discuss.

No one ever uses gofundme. It's just a waste of time. You want people to give to the poor you have to just take it. ****ing selfish ass people.

 

[Alpo]

Well, collectivism worked so well in Venezuela. Or not.
And Denmark, which everyone loves to use as an example.. The more their economy went collectivism, the worse it got. It only rebounded as it is now, as they moved away from collectivism. There's two examples.

So you think that Venezuela distributed resources as if it was a collective? That's interesting. Wrong, but interesting.

Denmark's population is less than 6 million. You'll have to cite examples of collectivism and the reasons for change. No Cato references, please.