National debt
- Thread starter medicineman
- Start date
ViRedd
New Member
I agree that the Greens are communistic ... but before you make any judgments as to which party leans toward communism (both do), please go to this site and compare platforms:
CPUSA Online -
While you're at it, check this site out ... a party of patriots:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution_Party
Vi
medicineman
New Member
here is an excerpt from their platform:They view most current regular federal expenditures (such as those for healthcare, education, welfare, etc.) as unconstitutional under the intended strict interpretation of Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution and the Tenth Amendment. There you go again, trying to fuck the poor and downtrodden
medicineman
New Member
I think it's a matter of national conscience, not the constitution that mandates we take care of the less fortunate. National health care should not be a priveledge. It should be a right. Do you suppose we only should pay taxes to fund wars and greedy corporations. Taxes are imposed to make the country a better place to live (hopefully) not to make the politicians and fat cats wealthier. Would you agree to taxes if they were used in a "charitable" manner instead of helping the people whom did not need help? Lets get real about your "charity" theory. The rich are way too greedy to fund health care for the people on their own, If the government did not provide the little amount of health care it already does, the elderly would be dropping like flies. The average life span would drop faster than Bushs' hopes of S.S. reform! I'm afraid you're off base on this one. To oppose national health care, would make you the scrooge of this forum, which I suppose you actually are anyway. The working familys with no health care or piss poor health care (30-150 million) are one paycheck away from bankruptcy and Bush takes away most of their bankruptcy protection. We need a single payer National Health care program, Period!
ViRedd
New Member
The only legitimate role of government, in a truely free society, is to protect the rights of the citizens. Now then, if you want to live in a country that forces the people to be charitble then that's another matter. On the "carrying out the will of the people" argument, you are talking about a pure democracy here ... and that is the MOST evil form of government that ever came down the pike. We have a constitutional republic and not a democracy for a very important reason. The first promotes liberty and the second promotes tyranny of the majority.
Med sez ...
"National health care should not be a priveledge. It should be a right."
There is no such "right" as health care paid for by your fellow citizen. By giving that "right" to one, one must also infringe upon the Natural Rights of another ... the Creator endowed rights of Life, Liberty and Property. To accomplish this through the government, the government must use force and the threat of violence. Why don't we just make up a whole bunch of other rights to make the "do gooders" feel better? How about the right to a three bedroom house, the right to a good car, the right to a "living wage" and the right to a T-Bone steak once a week, all being "donated" by one's fellow citizens through the threat of government force and violence?
You see Med, folks who think like you (not dissing you here) really have no confidence in their fellow man. Its not true that Americans are not charitable. We are the MOST charitable people on earth. Government should be the last resort in time of need, not the first resort. The first resort should be the immediate family. The second, the church. The third, private charity. Then, when all else fails ... MAYBE the local government, then county government, then state government and NEVER the federal government.
You disagree with the Patriot act, right? But, at the same time, you want to turn over our entire health care industry, representing 7% of our gross national product, to the federal government. That's a lot of power over the people that you are handing over to them ... and with that kind of power, they will assume other, more odious powers over us ... many of which, will be like the Patriot Act that you don't agree with.
Forced charity is not charity at all ... except in the minds of those who don't recognize their slave-holder mentality for what it is. And by the way ... that's exactly why you and Dank cannot find a health care "right" enumerated in the Constitution.
Vi
heckler73
Well-Known Member
And here we have another thread where one can cover the avatars, alter a few names in the subject matter, and feel like it is RIU 2013.
And look at that number in post #3... $17Tn+
Except, the discussion here is broader in addressing using SS surpluses (which Canada mucked around with, too!)
However, it's just the same old stuff, replayed once again. No resolution, no common understanding... no conclusion.
Perhaps some topics in Politics are like energy wells, where a particle can be in literal oscillation unto infinity.
And look at that number in post #3... $17Tn+
Except, the discussion here is broader in addressing using SS surpluses (which Canada mucked around with, too!)
However, it's just the same old stuff, replayed once again. No resolution, no common understanding... no conclusion.
Perhaps some topics in Politics are like energy wells, where a particle can be in literal oscillation unto infinity.
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
and Bush takes away most of their bankruptcy protection.
Anyone remember that piece of shit move by the Republicans?
heckler73
Well-Known Member
I actually don't... what exactly happened?
I saw something earlier (or elsewhere) about giving credit card companies more power to prosecute or something along those lines... is it related to that?
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
used to be you could have almost everything discharged in a bankruptcy. They changed the law made it harder and exempted more debt from bankruptcy
Read more here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bankruptcy_Abuse_Prevention_and_Consumer_Protection_Act
heckler73
Well-Known Member
Thanks for that. It was quite informative.
I especially found this peculiar:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The law makes Chapter 12 bankruptcy (farm reorganization) permanent while adding family fishermen, overhauls the treatment of complex financial contracts including many derivative contracts used by hedge funds, and overhauls the treatment of ancillary foreign bankruptcy proceedings.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now how did they manage to sneak that in with the farmers and fishermen?
http://www.law.upenn.edu//journals/jbl/articles/volume12/issue1/Lubben12U.Pa.J.Bus.L.61(2009).pdf