TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Workers of the world, wake up!
Pages (4): « 1 2 3 [4]

quote:

Originally posted by denny_shibby (Wolverine)What do I suspect? Keep on plugging away because you have yet to understand WHY I made the comment regarding a segment of the poor of this society. Either you don't want to understand or your not that bright. (Opus) Your fucking arguments are so fucking piss poor that you actually recite facts that don't pertain. You give me shit from quoting conservative radio, fox news, liberals on fox news, etc., but what do you quote, The New York Times. The New York Times repeatedly lies when paraphrasing what other people say, and spins great news for this country to be the worst ever. "Less people are dying on the Battlefield in Iraq because of medicine, thats horrible they shouldn't live, why they have bad injuries." I read the NYTs several times a month and I can tell you that they are the biggest example of back ass backwards reporting I have ever heard. You don't understand arguments. Colmes was proclaimed King of Liberal Media by liberals when they saw that he was getting better ratings on liberal talk radio then all the other bastards. You don't think I can lump democrats, labour, socialists, and marxists as command economy parties. I ask you one question. Are you in support of nationalizing 1/8th of our economy, i.e. healthcare. Anybody want to take bets on his answer? I rest my case. You want to take a look at who thinks Condi is dumb, just take one look at the Rice bashing political cartoons, and you will get the idea pretty damn fast. "Anyday now" shit, you demanded sources so I opened with that statement to tell you my sources. But you are just a retard how would you understand something like that? I don't think you understand my argument about the specific segments of poverty either because if you did you wouldn't make a stupid statement like the one you did. No I haven't lived in poverty before, but I have to say all your liberal programs have done so much for them. Gee "Great Society" end poverty as we know it, huh? Yeah sure it increased the number of people in poverty. Medicare increased the amount of money going into healthcare, but decreased the number of beds and such at a faster rate. Since you demand fucking sources for everything here enjoy.http://hspm.sph.sc.edu/Courses/ECON...S/Friedman.html this is an article written again by the Einstein of economics. I listen to the pros when it comes to this shit unlike some people who wont even fucking pick up a econ book. Here I'll give you the site of all his articles, you then tell me who is fucking wrong here http://www.ideachannel.com/Friedman.htm There so you can eat shit. Now on to Woverine. Just because something comes from a source like conservative talk radio doesn't make it fallacious. You guys quote from NYTs, liberal wackos on the net, and other organizations that try to maintain the idea that they are unbiased when they are anything but. Gee everybody thought oh we could always count on network news. Hah, Rathergate people. FORGED DOCUMENTS ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME, FORGED DOCUMENTS. Gee the last time I checked I didn't see a bunch of people looking into my sources for lying and coming up with anything. Our tract record is better than yours. Go head and spend a month prying over Fox News transcripts, Drudge Reports , and Conservative Talk Radio. You try to find facts or evidence that doesn't exist. Until then leave my fucking sources alone. And as I said in other threads maybe this one, I watch, listen, and read many many different sources. Go and look at the few other top threads right now and you'll see my list. Then you accuse me of being a simpleton, when you can't even attempt to understand the nuance in something like less government programs to foster more economic growth to help the poor. You are stuck in a frame of mind that will never allow you to appreciate other peoples arguments. And none of you have even attempted to undue my argument that less government programs would help the poor, you just dismiss it because of your warped fucked up brain that can't allow yourselves to comprehend that anything besides government programs can help the poor. I haven't stereotyped the poor at all that's why you most certainly couldn't have understood the argument. I have described a certain standard of living that would constitute below the poverty line. This is an example not a stereotype. Then using that you know that peoples arguments saying so many people live in poverty are off base. Why? Because the mental picture that goes into so many peoples heads is that these people are living on the street or projects and barely eat, etc. When that is far from the truth. Some of them do. Some of them don't. My argument is that you guys spin the idea of x amount of people living below poverty line when a huge amount of them wouldn't be living in bad conditions by many peoples standards. I use an example of a certain standard of living to show what can constitute poverty. Instead of saying x amount of people live in poverty you should be going around saying y amount of people are homeless, a much smaller number. Its a small argument, but simpletons like wolverine can't understand them so they take it out on me. If I don't understand something you guys are saying I'll ask you guys to elaborate. I don't misrepresent you and bastardize your arguments. I don't use the example of a particular standard of living as a reason for ending social programs. I use economics as my reason for ending social programs. Go fucking read the pros yourself

Here's what you said before:

quote:

I was pointing out that the most destatute make up only a small, small percentage of the people below the poverty line. I was then pointing out that a certain lifestyle that isn't bad by many peoples standards, is considered below poverty line, so what you get out of it is that people say that poverty is all bad and shit in this country by pointing out that all these people live below the poverty line, when just below the poverty line is actually not a bad living.

Well can you provide some figures that show that basically almost all people considered poor live right at the poverty line and it's just a minute portion that should actually be considered poor? That is what I'm assuming you were stating, because the way you worded it, yes, obviously the MOST destitute would be a small percentage, but it says nothing about where the rest of everyone is at. Everything you say comes from that premise, that most people are really doing ok and would do better without such services. Does this include, for example, the 25% of people the states are still allowed to waive from the time limits set by TANF when it replaced AFDC, since there is a sizeable portion of welfare recipients who have severe disabilities? Those people will do better without such services in the free market? My answer is no and it was even that of the Republican congress who approved that stipulation in their reforms. Please post something that shows they would do better.



You still haven't addressed how the poor and middle class Americans going to do better with the current HMO system's costs increasing faster than their budgets. How about administrative costs?

quote:

Administrative costs for health care in the United States significantly exceeded those in Canada in 1999. Researchers at the Cambridge Medical Care Foundation found that administrative costs per capita were $1,059 in the U.S. and $307 in Canada; these costs accounted for 31 percent of health care spending in the U.S. versus 16.7 percent in Canada.

Source

What about the same with higher education as well?

As far as inner city poverty, what's going to get investments to be made there independently if investors have more capital? If you were to read the results of studies done in the book by Blank I cited earlier, you would see that neither government nor private programs did well independently from each other.

You are the one stuck in a mind frame, because I'd like to see what you have that says that supports your hypothesis. Why should I believe you when you just say "I heard this on Fox News a couple weeks ago" or "the experts say this"? We have private healthcare right now and I see the costs going up and more bankruptcies being filed in my office everyday due directly to medical bills, so tell me why it will get better if I go your route. Keep in mind that when you do actually try to provide some evidence, that you have to take into account that working people that are above the poverty line due in part to programs like the Earned Income Tax Credit will no longer be supported by that.

Also your statement about the Great Society making more people poor: what are you talking about? Please provide some proof of that! You just completely conflicted the premise of "Losing Ground" which I mentioned earlier as well, one of the most influential conversative books ever written on welfare. Murray stated there that after poverty declined from the heights it was at during the 1950s, it eventually leveled off and has not changed in recent decades.

All I can say about where your information from is it's quite frightening if you rely on mostly partisan sources for all your spin...err knowledge. That would go for someone on either side.

quote:

Originally posted by ogvh5150 I've never said you're a Marxist. Just that you echo marxist/communist/socialist views. The quotes are not used as a way to link two different ideologies from different people but rather just the statements themselves speak volumes about many things. Thinking being one of the points I was trying to make rather than link Marx and Hitler. The Canadian article is trying to state that Canadians would rather pay for their health care if it would be an improvement over their socialized medicine, which has them either waiting for doctors much longer or being turned away. This of course does not have me pretend it is nationwide, but just the tip of the iceberg to coin an old clich�.

Go back and look, you highlighted 2 of my statements. One of which was me stating that I agreed with scaling back certain government programs through reforms championed by a conservative congress. That's hardly an endorsement that I echo Marxist/communist/socialist views. If you can explain to me specifically how or what big lie that is that I'm supporting with a statement like that, I'd like to know. The other statement I made is right in line with someone like Tip O'Neill, whom I'd hardly consider someone who used Marx as a source of his ideology. I could highlight certain sentences from Bush's speeches and say he echoes fascism if I really wanted to, but I don't see what the point would be.

The Canadian article is NOT stating that they want totally privatized healthcare or that people who can't afford it should be without healthcare access. I stated last time that I addressed this that I would be in favor of reforms that would reduce problems of long lines, including if it included user fees, which is what they're discussing there. Hardly a ringing endorsement to switch to the HMO system or the latter part that I'm echoing communists.

Maybe you should go back and see what I wrote. Other than that I'm just preaching to the choir.

OK, I will go back:

quote:

Originally posted by ogvh5150 Yellow highlights: Introducing Karl Marx, the father of communism: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need". This is where your rhetoric comes from.

And here's what you were quoting of mine:

quote:

I agreed with aspects of that reform and don't think people should be rewarded for not wanting to work....That I think it is suitable for society to ensure that all productive members reach the poverty line and earn at least a minimal amount to live on.

Again, the reform was a CONVSERVATIVE idea. I was taking Capitalizt's side to some degree! I think you are misunderstanding that the context was about the belief that people who did not work who got money under the AFDC program were not inspired to find work since they received government funding. I was taking the side opposite of what a communist or socialist would take. The latter idea was around a lot earlier than Marx and has as much to do with him as someone saying the government should not be allowed to tax to the degree it does is associated with anarchist ideology, since it is favoring a general idea of less government. I'm simply advocating something like the minimum wage there. It has nothing to do with "each according to his need" considering I'm talking about a context within a CAPITALIST economy, where people should earn different amounts for their labor. Regardless, this is really pointless to continue.

quote:

White highlights: Numbers. Show numbers from any sources you are referencing to. Just saying what you're saying is not a basis for fact.

I posted links & sources, so if you'd like to address the number of bankruptcies result from illness, the rising costs of healthcare premiums & administrative costs that are higher than other industrialized countries, the increasing costs of college while it becomes more necessary everyday, the rising costs of housing costs, etc., I'd be more than happy to debate these, because through pages & pages of Shebby arguments it doesn't seem like these issues have been resolved for lower and middle class Americans by the private sector and there hasn't been any evidence shown that they will be much better off in the future because of a flat tax system.

quote:

(I) don't think people should be rewarded for not wanting to work

Equals:

quote:

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need

He who doesn't work, doesn't eat.

I know someone who has been to Cuba lately and can say that the aforementioned statement is true.

Re: Numbers
Drop some links like those from the Labor Department or Gov't agency.

quote:

Originally posted by ogvh5150 Equals: He who doesn't work, doesn't eat. I know someone who has been to Cuba lately and can say that the aforementioned statement is true.

Well I guess you're a socialist then since you would rather have people have the government give them all their needs even in the case that they simply do not want to work despite being readily able to at times when good paying jobs are available that they have the capabilities to perform. I don't think in that case people should be getting significant government benefits. My view is not "each according to his need" since I don't think that a CEO should get paid the same rate as a mail clerk in the same company, it's that if someone is working full time and can't afford the basic needs of their family, something like the Earned Income Tax credit is a good way to help them out.

quote:

Re: Numbers Drop some links like those from the Labor Department or Gov't agency.

Alright, this is really insane, considering you have another thread where you're using www.whatreallyhappened.com as your primary source. The thread I linked is regarding a very recent well respected Harvard study reported on in a newspaper. Are you saying that's not a credible source?

As far as the numbers on what % of people on welfare have children, why do you suppose they titled the result of welfare reform TANF (Temporary Relief for Needy Families)? These aren't controversial figures that require the confirmation of what Elaine Chow says, especially when I referenced a book by a woman who was on the President's Council of Economic Advisers under Clinton (when this took place) and is a current professor of economics at the University of Michigan.

All you've done is say your opinion is right, tried to say (out of the entire context) my values echo Marxist beliefs, half based on a conservative statement I made, and ignored any of the questions raised that are concerns for both the lower and middle classes. Please show some proof from your viewpoint that these problems would be addressed by the free market or else there's no point in addressing this anymore since that's what is being debated. The burden of proof does not just fall on one side.

He who doesn't work, doesn't eat is not my motto but rather an observation of the communist/socialist system of such that is in Cuba. I know someone that has been to Cuba and told me pretty much what makes that system true. I don't want it to be true but it is. I do not share that view at all.

What you fail to realise is that I couldn't care less what John Q. Public is doing on welfare. What you're concentrating is on what the guy on your block is doing rather than what black budgets are being spent on. "Let the poor work for their benefits" rather than "Why should country x get x billion dollars". See how it works?

Besides if you pay taxes and wound up poor, wouldn't you want your taxes to help you? Just be glad you're not down on your luck. Everyone is for the workfare until they have to go on it.

WRH uses mainstream as well as non-mainstream articles. The articles' credibility is based on what is written from outside sources. There are articles that don't make page one in any paper.

Maybe I'm just a confused Political Science major here... but "he who doesn't work, doesn't eat"... isn't that capitalism?

Opus and Wolverine, I commend your patience and time you put into research. You've done well in my opinion.

good luck on that...

considering tax change comes from govt officials...

govt officials and their contributors are largely of the higher income bracket...

good like trying to get them to F themselves in the A

TCrew

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.