Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
May 11, 2015 - 05:04pm PT
|
What we have now is one giant "safety net" in which the consequences of irresponsible lifestyle choices are then "distributed" among all of us. That was NEVER the design of this nation, and the Nanny-State has only gained in reach and power since Wilson and FDR.
Love this rant, please go on
So you are saying that taxes were never supposed to provide for the general welfare of the People, right?
Is this a Christian Principle?
Isn't the Government the last resort when it comes to making sure that it's citizens are able to survive when they can't do it themselves?
Is there a big pit to jump into when you become a burden upon society????
If there is, maybe you should advocate for more people to jump in.
It would save you lot in taxes.
|
|
wilbeer
Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
|
|
|
May 11, 2015 - 05:53pm PT
|
What we have now is one giant "safety net" in which the consequences of irresponsible lifestyle choices are then "distributed" among all of us. That was NEVER the design of this nation, and the Nanny-State has only gained in reach and power since Wilson and FDR.
You know ,you are Right.It totally just covers those with "Irresponsible lifestyle choices".
NOBODY reasonably reading what all I've posted could paint me as a right-wing neo-con!
You are correct again........lol.
That was NEVER the design of this nation.......WE THE PEOPLE.
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
May 11, 2015 - 05:58pm PT
|
I can also tell you none of them are spewing the hateful lunatic nonsense coming from your piehole Fry
This is exactly the type of posts that get threads frozen??
can't you debate the issues???\
piehole???
is that even decent as part of any debate??
is that a Christian Principle?
according to you, everyone has sold out.
How debating that.
There are many of us that say that not everyone has sold out, true liberals.
That is the definition of a Progressive liberal, not sold out.
There are some centrists that have sold out, we can say that they are not true liberals.
But, they are a 1000 times better than any Republican/libertarian/conservative in Congress that has sold out 100% in every possible way.
|
|
Skeptimistic
Mountain climber
La Mancha
|
|
|
May 11, 2015 - 06:00pm PT
|
What I find amazingly distorted is how corporate welfare and tax avoidance completely eclipses what our less fortunate citizens are given to live hand to mouth. The 1% should hide their faces in shame.
|
|
wilbeer
Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
|
|
|
May 11, 2015 - 06:04pm PT
|
You are correct sir and to have anyone defend that in their "Libertarian" platform/theocracy is just as shameful.
Hypocrhistain.
|
|
pyro
Big Wall climber
Calabasas
|
|
|
May 11, 2015 - 06:05pm PT
|
Craig you asked for it!
posted the one and only conversation that we had..
ur not a nice person..
Most people get back to me instead it's like ur superior..
Craig it's like ur jealous of chris mac's supertopo..
Edit: Craig how am I supposed to promote ur guidebook when the regular public gets snubbed..
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
May 11, 2015 - 06:15pm PT
|
You bashed my guidebook so incredibly harshly at least 50 times, and everything else, and called me a liar to boot.
And I could care less if you can ONLY TAKE my politics for so long, what kind of BS is that.
I can't take your politics for very long either,
Let's just make amends, Sorry for everything.
I never heard of Tick Rock when I was working on my guidebookssssssss.
So that question can be put to rest...................
|
|
rottingjohnny
Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
|
|
|
May 11, 2015 - 06:40pm PT
|
Fry....stick a tit in pyros mouth and write the guide book for him...Please...
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
May 11, 2015 - 06:46pm PT
|
I've got to stand up for Craig as a person and as someone I've come to know as a friend. Not a nice person? That doesn't describe who I know. We may bash each others' views, but not out of disrespect. TO a certain extent, both he and I have personae we maintain on ST that, at time, exaggerate what we really think.
John
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
May 11, 2015 - 06:57pm PT
|
Let's all do a good shish
Pyro has never met me
I'm just a troll to him
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
May 11, 2015 - 06:58pm PT
|
First, I have repeatedly stated that I want our government to DO one of the very few things it is actually supposed to be empowered to do: exercise its regulatory and anti-trust powers against big, corrupt corporations. So, don't bash on me as though I'm soft on corporations. ANY Libertarian is going to oppose corporate welfare and bailouts, and I'd like to see a LOT of major-company executives in prison, as, again, I've repeatedly said. So, stop straw-manning me.
So you are saying that taxes were never supposed to provide for the general welfare of the People, right?
The phrase "general welfare" is one of the most misunderstood phrases in all of the founding documents. Of course, it's by design that the liberals early adopted the term "welfare" to cast their ever-increasing wealth-redistribution program.
I've said it again and again: you guys perpetually conflate negative and positive rights. Our founders designed a negative rights government. It has only in our lifetimes fully flipped to a positive rights government.
Promoting the "general welfare" in the founders' minds meant ensuring that the negative rights of the people would be sustained against all enemies, foreign and domestic. That meant a strong military (although I would be all for cutting our military spending at least in half) for national DEFENSE (not acting as arbitrary "police force" of the world). It also meant empowering the feds to do the VERY thing they rarely do, enforce integrity in the marketplace, which in our era just means reining in big corporate corruption and ever-increasing monopolies.
If you imagine that they intended for a "welfare state" in ANY sense, then you have read neither the Federalist Papers nor the Anti-Federalist Papers. Fortunately, the vast raft of original texts surrounding the founding documents make it crystal clear that both sides of the federalism debate would have VEHEMENTLY opposed anything remotely resembling the present welfare-state. So, read some of that material before you keep passing around the vast confusion about what "general welfare" meant to the founders.
Is this a Christian Principle?
Which? The theft of private property by the feds? Is that what you are referring to?
Again, you don't know me, so don't act like you do. According to my latest tax summary, I am indeed a 1-percenter... when it comes to charitable giving. I mean it. 99% of Americans give to charity LESS than I do, and that's with me already pissed off about how much I "gave at the office," so to speak. That's in addition to the huge amount of "charity" I am FORCED to give by the feds.
If "you 'the people'" weren't FORCING me to give to state-supported charity (that is ridiculously mishandled and misspent), I would give even more on my own to charity. As it is, I am positive that not a one of you bleeding-heart liberals actually put YOUR money where YOUR mouth is to even close to the extent that I do. Look at your own tax summary (if you do more than file the 1040EZ). Then post up what percentile your charitable giving is.
Put up or shut up. I'll take your word for it. No need to scan and post the summary. But either (honestly) put up or shut up.
Isn't the Government the last resort when it comes to making sure that it's citizens are able to survive when they can't do it themselves?
There is NO such thing as "the government" when it comes to what you are asking. There is ONLY you and me. "The government" HAS no money of "its own". It HAS only what it extracts from you and me... well, at least certainly from me. I don't know about you.
So, EVERY program it funds denotes a governmentally-imposed value-system. This is why the constitution was SO explicit about the EXACT powers and sphere the feds were supposed to have and operate within.
Nation defense. Check, and this legitimate purpose was to be tax funded (although the founders never intended an income tax!). They imagined what would be closest to a national sales tax.
Interstate and international commerce. Check, and this legitimate purpose was to be funded by, again, something like a sales tax, along with tariffs on trade. And this purpose was to be regulatory to ensure trade with integrity. No "bailouts" of failed companies, and properly-enforced regulation would have ensured that we never got far enough down the road to ever hear the (sick!) phrase, "Too big to fail!"
You can find the complete list of enumerated powers in Article 1, Section 8 of the constitution. And two things are striking:
1) The feds were supposed to have NO other powers than that list, with every other imaginable power reserved to the states and the people. The interstate commerce clause has since been writ large, so large that now it encompasses EVERYTHING that the feds want to do. This clearly could not have been the founders' intention for that clause.
2) Every one of the feds' enumerated powers were either about national defense or about regulating commerce and borders. You see nothing (nor can any of the specified clauses be cast) about roads, education, and certainly not a welfare-state.
ANY way you try to cut it, the "safety net" you envision was NEVER a glimmer in the founders' minds, for one very simple reason. The feds were supposed to be value-agnostic! The minute you start stealing from ANY segment of people to ensure the value-system of another segment, you have necessarily put the feds in charge of DETERMINING values for all of us! And that is the very thing the anti-federalists most and justifiably feared.
The federalists' answer to that fear was that the people would NEVER submit to such theft, so it could never arise. Instead, by slow, tiny steps we have bit by bit slipped into the exact mindset that the founders' never imagined we would submit to.
We have become IGNORANT of the founding principles. And like a slow-cooked frog, we don't recognize the slow change in water temperature until we're too cooked to jump out. Now, SS and Medicare/Medicaid are GIVENS, and we can't even imagine life without them. And the libs just keep dreaming up more and more entitlements, and a couple of decades later, THOSE are the new GIVENS. And so it goes.
Is there a big pit to jump into when you become a burden upon society????
It's called: Planning for your own pits, so that you get them covered over for yourself.
No, instead, Obumblecare has done THIS for us:
Insurance companies now can no longer "rate" individuals. Pre-existing conditions can have no relevancy in determining insureability or premiums. So....
If you spend your life smoking, because (for God knows what reason!) you value that, and you "jump into the pit" of heart disease and/or cancer at a fairly young age as a result, NOW I get to help subsidize your lifestyle choice at MY expense.
If you spend your life eating yourself to obesity, and you enjoy that "value," I also get to subsidize that lifestyle choice.
You will say, "But the insurance companies 'distributed' risk prior to Obumblecare." And I will respond: They had risk groups, and they charged based upon your risk group. I know because my company paid 100% of our employees' health care coverage prior to Obumblecare. I was very "up" on how we were being rated. We were charged as being in a low-risk group without pre-existing conditions and with others in a group leading a healthy lifestyle. So, the "distribution" you would be talking about would be all high-risk people paying more to subsidize each other, with the insurance companies knowing that not all of those high-risk people would be getting cancer, etc.
Obumblecare raised our group policy premiums by 40.02% overnight, while doubling our deductible. Obumblecare "insured" that WE enjoyed no further benefits of being in a low-risk group. This is grand-scale "distribution" of risk, as now I truly AM subsidizing the poor lifestyle choices of the masses, even though I and my employees don't share those lifestyle choices.
Net effect: My company can no longer afford to pay 100% of health insurance. We all were forced out, onto the exchanges, and NONE of us have even close to the coverage we once had... and we ALL are paying much more for inferior coverage. My company subsidizes but can no longer cover all of it.
So, here you had a company that was "doing the right thing" rather than "what it could get away with" in terms of treating our employees ethically. That literally meant less money directly into my pocket, as I (and my two partners) was personally making less profit in order to purchase top-quality health insurance. (And you bash on me as being "unChristian," as though you have the foggiest clue what that even means.)
The point is that when government steps in to "level the playing field" in these sorts of ways, rather than to just regulate the health-care and insurance INDUSTRIES, it necessarily promotes certain values at the expense of others. And it was NEVER supposed to be in that business.
"Leveling the playing field" was supposed to involve regulation, to ensure that health-care, for example, was ITSELF being provided in an ethical way, and that insurance companies were profiting legitimately rather than as predators.
With Obumblecare, what we instead get is an ABSOLUTE "leveling" of "risk," which necessarily promotes poor lifestyle choices and yet does nothing toward the underlying reforms of the entire health-care and insurance industries. No wonder the insurance companies most strongly lobbied for its passage!
If there is, maybe you should advocate for more people to jump in. It would save you lot in taxes.
More lame straw-manning. At least you admit that it WOULD save a LOT in taxes!
The better alternative is for the feds to step out of all of the value-promotion it does, so that PEOPLE can choose for themselves what they value and pay accordingly.
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
|
May 11, 2015 - 07:09pm PT
|
"In a FREE nation, people get to decide FOR THEMSELVES what lifestyle they want to pursue."
Then why do you (presumably) keep voting for a Party that wishes to impose their lifestyle & beliefs on everybody else?
"With Obumblecare, what we instead get is an ABSOLUTE "leveling" of "risk," "
Ummmm....that's actually the basic principle behind insurance. Obama didn't invent that.
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
May 11, 2015 - 07:19pm PT
|
It is apparent that you advocate for single payer health care insurance
it costs way less, way way less
and if you want more freedom, you can pay more for private healthcare insurance
too bad Obama had the Republicans write the Heritage Inst. RomneyCare, he thought they would support it, and then revise it with cost controls,
who would have thought the Republicans would use politics and make every American pay way more than they should, it's despicable. Can't they do anything good??
We pay more because of Republicans, Not ObamaCare, they fought to make sure there were no cost controls, or a public option.
Why are these Republicans such hypocritical bastards??
The libertarians are in bed with big money, so I can guess they don't care about you paying too much either.
and to go on....
Why shouldn't I be able to buy crappy Medicare coverage if I want it???
Why?
There is only one reason, it's because Republicans will not allow it, because everyone would want it and they would lose their millions of dollars in bribes by the private insurance Companies
ObamaCare is not the problem, it could be fixed, the problem is Republicans in Congress and their lobbyist money, they want it to fail for political reasons alone. It's their goal to make it look like Obama failed, they pay millions daily in this demonstration of pathology.
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
|
May 11, 2015 - 07:21pm PT
|
I went to the doctor last week for a sinus infection. Know how much it cost me this time for the office visit?
Zilch. Nada. Zero. Zip.
That's due the provision in the ACA requiring a minimum level of 'healthcare' coverage in FOR PROFIT INSURANCE POLICIES
Thanks, President Obama!
|
|
John M
climber
|
|
|
May 11, 2015 - 07:37pm PT
|
According to my latest tax summary, I am indeed a 1-percenter... when it comes to charitable giving. I mean it. 99% of Americans give to charity LESS than I do,
Mark 12:41-44English Standard Version (ESV)
The Widow's Offering
41 And he sat down opposite the treasury and watched the people putting money into the offering box. Many rich people put in large sums. 42 And a poor widow came and put in two small copper coins, which make a penny.[a] 43 And he called his disciples to him and said to them, “Truly, I say to you, this poor widow has put in more than all those who are contributing to the offering box. 44 For they all contributed out of their abundance, but she out of her poverty has put in everything she had, all she had to live on.”
As it is, I am positive that not a one of you bleeding-heart liberals actually put YOUR money where YOUR mouth is to even close to the extent that I do
I'm sure that you have given more then me monetarily, considering that I'm sure that you made much more then me. But I gave all that I had by spending 2 years in Mexico building an orphanage. Every single penny and every single effort.
So therefore..you owe me and all liberals an apology. As here is one "bleeding heart liberal" who has given all that he had. I have more examples if you need them. I even gave to people on this forum when I had to do without.
Sign me a currently homeless bleeding heart liberal who by the grace of friends has a roof over his head tonight.
That said..
I do agree that the government has gone too far in many areas. But I have also watched people go without healthcare while churches sat on their hands. So to me there has to be balance. But as long as people are greedy and self important, then balance won't likely happen.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
May 11, 2015 - 07:39pm PT
|
Then why do you (presumably) keep voting for a Party that wishes to impose their lifestyle & beliefs on everybody else?
I guess that you don't actually read before you respond. I could NOT be more clear that I don't vote for either of the major parties anymore.
Ummmm....that's actually the basic principle behind insurance. Obama didn't invent that.
I guess that you don't actually read before you respond. Oh, wait, I already said that. I guess you didn't read the part where I differentiated between risk groups and "absolute risk leveling". Obumblecare DID invent (in this country) absolute risk leveling.
And I SO happy for you that now you get healthcare for free, even when you clearly weren't willing to PAY for your present level of coverage before. Yup, it just makes me all warm and fuzzy inside to think that I'M directly subsidizing YOUR health care costs now. You a smoker? Drinker? Overweight? I'm just curious to get a sense of how much I'll be paying.
Rob Peter to pay Paul, and you will ALWAYS have the support (and vote) of Paul.
Later, "Paul".
|
|
pyro
Big Wall climber
Calabasas
|
|
|
May 11, 2015 - 07:47pm PT
|
Craig can't wait to meet you maybe someday at Stoney Point Bbq..
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
May 11, 2015 - 07:51pm PT
|
sounds good Pyro, hopefully my bros Levi, Katz, Jeff J., Demitri, and Guyman can be there too, just to make sure there isn't any funny business
Bring your guidebook, I will sign it for you.
|
|
rottingjohnny
Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
|
|
|
May 11, 2015 - 07:54pm PT
|
Romney Care didn't level risk taking....You can still lose the farm under Romney Care...Madbolter...You sound like a conservative...? Who did you vote for....?
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
May 11, 2015 - 07:54pm PT
|
I'm sure that you have given more then me monetarily, considering that I'm sure that you made much more then me. But I gave all that I had by spending 2 years in Mexico building an orphanage. Every single penny and every single effort.
Good on ya. I've also done that earlier in my life. Repeatedly. As well as devoted weeks to LA downtown feed-the-hungry missions. And on and on.
So therefore..you owe me and all liberals an apology.
The sad part is that you've clearly drunk enough of the liberal kool-aid that you honestly believe that!
YOU are one liberal. I asked for liberals in general to post up. And my obvious point was responding to Fry who was painting me as some selfish bastard that has no heart for the genuinely poor here and around the world. MY point was that I have put my money (and like you, much time and effort) into the genuinely poor and needy.
So, rather than apologize, I'll issue my challenge again. Percentage of income... Craig Fry, spit it out: What percentile are you in as a charity-to-income ratio? You've called me out. I've answered. Now I call you out.
That said..
I do agree that the government has gone too far in many areas. But I have also watched people go without healthcare while churches sat on their hands. So to me there has to be balance. But as long as people are greedy and self important, then balance won't likely happen.
You have fallen into the classic liberal trap: You THINK at core in terms of entitlements. The GOVERNMENT was never supposed to be in the business of FORCING people to be charitable! Nobody OWES anybody else this or that "necessity" in life.
Christians can justifiably rebuke EACH OTHER for failing to live by their own stated values, and I highly encourage us to hold EACH OTHER accountable within the Christian community. But GOVERNMENT was never supposed to promote or enforce CHRISTIAN values either!
Government was supposed to be VALUE-agnostic!
People like you, however, like to say things like "gone too far in many areas," and you think that this sort of vague phrase has you "sort of on my side," while you are also "sort of on the liberal side." In reality, you are just another liberal, because deep inside you believe that GOVERNMENT is supposed to enforce YOUR values!
By STARK contrast, I don't want government enforcing ANY values! I want it doing STRICTLY what it was put in place to do: Protect NEGATIVE rights. Period. Nothing more and nothing less.
You want people to be charitable? Then EDUCATE them and try to convert more people to genuine Christianity.
Do you want there to be NO abortions, because you "value the sanctity of life"? Well, MOST of us don't agree and don't want the government enforcing that Christian value (and interpretation of what a "life" is).
The point is that you have a whole spectrum of values YOU want the government to enforce, and others will not agree with YOUR values in a whole host of ways. So, you'll say that the "government goes too far" in ways you don't like. But you miss the overarching point, which is that the government should NOT be in the business of enforcing ANY positive rights or value-systems; it was designed to be value-agnostic, which is the necessary basis of freedom.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!