healthcare benefits starting to kick in

[wellington1869]

I won't remark on the rest of your rant as it's nothing but fodder. I think my point has been made.

dude you havent made any point. You merely keep repeating that the poor and the sick are "whiners".  I'm asking you to please make a point and give us something concrete to respond to. Here is your opportunity to tell us how you'd like to approach these social issues.

Unless you dont have any other ideas, in which case, yea, you pretty much want to throw them under the bus, and thats indeed your answer?

As Obama keeps telling the republicans, its not enough to be obstructionist, lets hear some positive ideas.

[keyboardlover]

dude you havent made any point. You merely keep repeating that the poor and the sick are "whiners".  I'm asking you to please make a point and give us something concrete to respond to. Here is your opportunity to tell us how you'd like to approach these social issues.

Unless you dont have any other ideas, in which case, yea, you pretty much want to throw them under the bus, and thats indeed your answer?

As Obama keeps telling the republicans, its not enough to be obstructionist, lets hear some positive ideas.

The point is that anyone can do anything that they put their minds to, no matter that their upbringing or situation. Period. Our only obstacles, are the ones that WE put in front of us. No fear mongering there. How's that for positive?

Actually, someone else says it quite a bit more eloquently here.

[pikapika]

what's the use of living in society if there is no fraternity and help from others ?

keyboardlover : facing adversity is not the same if you're coming from lower or higher classes. many statistics, i don't know for the us but in france, show that if you're poor you'll stay poor because everything is done to let you down and your chances to level up are almost inexistant. if, this case, in our country, that have quite a social policy is true, i can't even imagine how it is in your country

[keyboardlover]

what's the use of living in society if there is no fraternity and help from others ?

keyboardlover : facing adversity is not the same if you're coming from lower or higher classes. many statistics, i don't know for the us but in france, show that if you're poor you'll stay poor because everything is done to let you down and your chances to level up are almost inexistant. if, this case, in our country, that have quite a social policy is true, i can't even imagine how it is in your country

I suspect it is much different in France. I haven't lived in another country so I don't know (although I have a lot of French friends, and friends elsewhere in Europe). I know it has a lot to do with how many opportunities are present, and opportunities are presented via capitalism. When socialist issues restrict capitalism, it restricts economic growth and opportunities. That's one of the many reasons why many Europeans I know have moved here.

[maclover]

Have none of you read Atlas Shrugged? Bootstrapping yourself out of poverty is possible and the only thing stopping people are themselves. The sole determining factor on whether someone can escape poverty through hard work is willpower. Not education, not culture, not segregation, not government policies but lack of willpower alone is what keeps poor people poor.

It's that simple.

[Superfluous Parentheses]

When socialist issues restrict capitalism, it restricts economic growth and opportunities. That's one of the many reasons why many Europeans I know have moved here.

You are aware of the restrictions to immigration in the US, right? It's not easy going to the US if you're not already pretty much guaranteed to get a decent job. I don't particularly have an issue with those policies, but it does mean that the Europeans you're talking about are the ones that probably were already pretty successful in their home countries, or would have been (if they were students or just starting work when they immigrated). And yes, they may stand to gain more in the US - if only because tax rates and the like in the US are generally more pleasing to the middle class and higher - but good for them for going for it.

[keyboardlover]

Have none of you read Atlas Shrugged? Bootstrapping yourself out of poverty is possible and the only thing stopping people are themselves. The sole determining factor on whether someone can escape poverty through hard work is willpower. Not education, not culture, not segregation, not government policies but lack of willpower alone is what keeps poor people poor.

It's that simple.

No its not that simple. But without the will the likelihood of the rest falling into place is slim to nill.

[Superfluous Parentheses]

Have none of you read Atlas Shrugged?

I tried. I think that should be enough.

[keyboardlover]

You are aware of the restrictions to immigration in the US, right? It's not easy going to the US if you're not already pretty much guaranteed to get a decent job. I don't particularly have an issue with those policies, but it does mean that the Europeans you're talking about are the ones that would probably were already pretty successful in their home countries, or would have been (if they were students or just starting work when they immigrated). And yes, they may stand to gain more in the US - if only because tax rates and the like in the US are generally more pleasing to the middle class and higher - but good for them for going for it.

If you consider 'having nothing' in their home country 'pretty successful' then you are correct about my friends.

[Superfluous Parentheses]

If you consider 'having nothing' in their home country 'pretty successful' then you are correct about my friends.

So they had no education, no money no nothing? If they really came from France, how on earth did they get a green card? Or did they come in illegally?

Edit: I'm serious, by the way. I've asked around a bit last year to see how hard it would be for me to get in the US. "Hard" was about the consensus.

[wellington1869]

what's the use of living in society if there is no fraternity and help from others ?

there's also the simple fact that other's health (economic and physical) affects us all. There's a reason why we mandate vaccinations for certain diseases. Cuz they're contagious. You cant leave those things up to the individual, or leave them as unfunded mandates where each locality has to come up with the funds on their own (some will be able to, some wont).

Situations like that require a national response, a national agency to ensure compliance, and national funds to fund these things.  The results benefit all of us by preventing plagues from breaking out.

Things like that, keyboard seems to have little or no interest in.  Neither does palin - hell, palin probably thinks we should just pray to god when a plague breaks out-- or that its punishment for sin. (ie, "their own damn fault").

Same with our economic interests. Its in all our interests to keep the unemployed from flooding the streets. First the practical benefits - imagine the rise in crime (if not outright class war) if the unemployed couldnt get food or food stamps or heat in the winter. Second if they lose those benefits then even those capable of retraining themselves for the job market wouldnt even have that chance. Its entirely in the national and economic interest to have federal standards and social policies to deal with these things in a standard way.

Of course palin (and probably keyboard) would like to simply throw them in the street and if they get out of line mow them down with machine guns in the name of security.

so its not just about a feeling of fraternity - tho i agree thats a civilized thing to feel. There are tangible, practical benefits that we ignore at our peril.

[Superfluous Parentheses]

Same with our economic interests. Its in all our interests to keep the unemployed from flooding the streets. First the practical benefits - imagine the rise in crime (if not outright class war) if the unemployed couldnt get food or food stamps or heat in the winter. Second if they lose those benefits then even those capable of retraining themselves for the job market wouldnt even have that chance. Its entirely in the national and economic interest to have federal standards and social policies to deal with these things in a standard way.

This is more or less the way I look at it, too. Plus I think having people starving in the street takes away a bit off the charm of those nice neon lights.

[keyboardlover]

So they had no education, no money no nothing? If they really came from France, how on earth did they get a green card? Or did they come in illegally?

Edit: I'm serious, by the way. I've asked around a bit last year to see how hard it would be for me to get in the US. "Hard" was about the consensus.

Well I'm not talking about France actually, regarding the folks I know who were originally quite poor. There are various ways to get a green card, depending on the country you come from. Some are harder than others. Some got it through difficult ways that I won't discuss. I have one friend that got it quite easily through the green card lottery.

Situations like that require a national response, a national agency to ensure compliance, and national funds to fund these things. The results benefit all of us by preventing plagues from breaking out.

Things like that, keyboard seems to have little or no interest in. Neither does palin - hell, palin probably thinks we should just pray to god when a plague breaks out-- or that its punishment for sin. (ie, "their own damn fault").

Of course palin (and probably keyboard) would like to simply throw them in the street and if they get out of line mow them down with machine guns in the name of security.

Dude, stop misquoting me. I never said that. The only fear mongering I see from anyone here, is from you.

Same with our economic interests. Its in all our interests to keep the unemployed from flooding the streets. First the practical benefits - imagine the rise in crime (if not outright class war) if the unemployed couldnt get food or food stamps or heat in the winter. Second if they lose those benefits then even those capable of retraining themselves for the job market wouldnt even have that chance. Its entirely in the national and economic interest to have federal standards and social policies to deal with these things in a standard way.

Yea...but creating jobs is 'bad bad capitalism', so we're better off taking the easy way out and giving them money from the taxes of hardworking people. Makes complete sense to me.

[wellington1869]

This is more or less the way I look at it, too. Plus I think having people starving in the street takes away a bit off the charm of those nice neon lights.

"Civilization is three meals and 24 hours away from barbarism."

[Shawn Stanford]

Well, the folks I know who share my same beliefs have always landed on their feet in hard times. I've found the same to be true in my life. I guess you would take that as luck, but I firmly believe it's due to our values.

The point is that anyone can do anything that they put their minds to, no matter that their upbringing or situation. Period. Our only obstacles, are the ones that WE put in front of us. No fear mongering there. How's that for positive?

Pardon my vulgarity, but you don't know ****. You've admittedly never even been out of the U.S. (or did I misunderstand you?). You have no f-ing clue what life is like for people in most of the world, yet you splash platitudes and absolutes without a thought or a care in the world.

I've seen **** that would - or should - bring you to tears. People trying to raise families and make better lives for their children in conditions that you've never seen in your worst nightmares.

Your inability to understand that not everyone's life can be gawdamn puppies and rainbows - like yours and mine are - means that you don't understand how f-ing fortunate you are to have won the Time-and-Space Lottery and to be born in the late 20th Century and to live in the U.S. of A. I could actually forgive you for looking down on the poor, everyone is entitled to be an *******. But I absolutely can not stand the pig-ignorance you're displaying about how f-ing lucky you are to be who and where you are. Not only is it ignorant, but it's ungrateful, because millions of good men and women have struggled and died - and continue to do so today - so that you can have all these things you have for as little effort as you have them, and - yes - so you can go on about how lazy the poor are.

Jeebus...

[keyboardlover]

Pardon my vulgarity, but you don't know ****. You've admittedly never even been out of the U.S. (or did I misunderstand you?). You have no f-ing clue what life is like for people in most of the world, yet you splash platitudes and absolutes without a thought or a care in the world.

You are incorrect that I've never been outside the country, or seen/experienced hardships outside the country. So in reality, you are the one without a clue.

I've seen **** that would - or should - bring you to tears. People trying to raise families and make better lives for their children in conditions that you've never seen in your worst nightmares.

Well I haven't been to the Middle East so you've probably seen worse than me. But granted, I've seen and experienced tough times outside this country.

Your inability to understand that not everyone's life can be gawdamn puppies and rainbows - like yours and mine are - means that you don't understand how f-ing fortunate you are to have won the Time-and-Space Lottery and to be born in the late 20th Century and to live in the U.S. of A. I could actually forgive you for looking down on the poor, everyone is entitled to be an *******. But I absolutely can not stand the pig-ignorance you're displaying about how f-ing lucky you are to be who and where you are. Not only is it ignorant, but it's ungrateful, because millions of good men and women have struggled and died - and continue to do so today - so that you can have all these things you have for as little effort as you have them, and - yes - so you can go on about how lazy the poor are.

I already said it's different in other countries - my point was about the United States. I never said I was ungrateful for anything - in reality I'm grateful for everything I have. I'm not 'looking down on anybody' ...seems you are the ignorant one. Did you actually read any of my recent posts?

[itlnstln]

how f-ing fortunate you are to have won the Time-and-Space Lottery

Among all the great things said in Shawn's post, I think this point gets lost on just about everyone.  This is poignant both in terms of where and when you were born but who your parents are and their plight.  Fortunately, I have parents that were able to take our family from a fairly poor (money-wise, anyway), military life to something better when my dad retired from the Air Force.  All things being equal, I got a much better education on the bases than I ever would have in civilian life at my parents' income.  I just happened to be lucky that worked out for me; it could have easily gone another direction.  

Even now, with a great job and living in a low-cost-of-living area, I still haven't been able to escape personal strife.  Decisions I have made over the past several years are still causing problems for me today.  I had a nasty break up with my ex-fiancé which left me with a house I cannot afford.  Some fortunate things occurred that allowed me to escape that situation without too many scars, but my credit is going to take a heavy hit regardless, and I know it's still going to haunt me over the next several years.  That said, I have prepared for this, and eliminated as much debt as possible, leaned up my expenses, and I am moving on prepared for future battles.  This would not have been possible if I were in a worse state financially.

[keyboardlover]

Overall I think his post was highly ignorant as I never said that I didn't think I was lucky to live here; in fact I believe just the opposite. But it's not just luck; I and my ancestors created our own success -- and the same goes for the folks I know who have decided to move here from others countries. We create our own success and it's up to our decisions what state we end up in. But, I already made that point before.

[Shawn Stanford]

Did you actually read any of my recent posts?

Sadly, I read all of them. I understand why you're desperately clinging to your viewpoints, but they don't mesh with reality.

[Shawn Stanford]

We create our own success and it's up to our decisions what state we end up in. But, I already made that point before.

It's an incorrect point, and an incorrect point of view.

Your decisions have have some effect on your situation, but they don't create it. Far too much is up to blind, stupid luck. All you have done so far in this world is beat the odds. Hopefully, you will continue to do so.

[keyboardlover]

Sadly, I read all of them. I understand why you're desperately clinging to your viewpoints, but they don't mesh with reality.

I'm not desperately clinging to anything - what I said is reality (for me). Of course, reality for anyone is nothing more than our perception of it. Yours is obviously different from mine. So, to call me ignorant means that you are the pot calling the kettle black =)

It's an incorrect point, and an incorrect point of view.

Your decisions have have some effect on your situation, but they don't create it. Far too much is up to blind, stupid luck. All you have done so far in this world is beat the odds. Hopefully, you will continue to do so.

I couldn't disagree more. Blind, stupid luck is not what creates success or failure. Do you think Bill Gates is as rich as he is solely because of blind, stupid luck? I think it has more to do with his intelligence and drive. But that just makes sense to me.

[Shawn Stanford]

I'm not desperately clinging to anything - what I said is reality (for me). Of course, reality for anyone is nothing more than our perception of it. Yours is obviously different from mine.

But you are. By refusing to understand that everyone's lot in life - including yours - is largely determined by luck, you don't have to admit that despite their best efforts and abilities, people end up in situations from which they are incapable of emerging without assistance.

[pikapika]

I know it has a lot to do with how many opportunities are present, and opportunities are presented via capitalism. When socialist issues restrict capitalism, it restricts economic growth and opportunities. That's one of the many reasons why many Europeans I know have moved here.

what kind of socialism are you talking about ? if it's about the countries of the warsaw pact, people could not simply immigrate.
if it's west european social capitalism, it did not throw much people out, just that some wanted to try something else

[keyboardlover]

And this, folks, is why capitalism is popular...not because it works, but because people actually believe it works.

Well done.

If it didn't work, the USA wouldn't have all the wonderful opportunities that both I and Shawn mentioned before. The proof is in the pudding, so to speak.

[Shawn Stanford]

I couldn't disagree more. Blind, stupid luck is not what creates success or failure. Do you think Bill Gates is as rich as he is solely because of blind, stupid luck? I think it has more to do with his intelligence and drive. But that just makes sense to me.

Bill Gates was unbelievably lucky! Change one tiny thing about his life and he's nothing.

Let's try:
1. Move his date of birth back 10 years.
2. Drop his I.Q. 15 points.
3. Move his childhood home to a trailer park in Alabama.
4. Make him black.
5. Etc., etc., etc.

Build Gates was unfathomably lucky to be have the background and abilities he had at the time and place he had them. Sure, he worked hard. But my Dad has been breaking his ass for sixty-five years and he's still lays carpet for a living...

[pikapika]

If it didn't work, the USA wouldn't have all the wonderful opportunities that both I and Shawn mentioned before. The proof is in the pudding, so to speak.

just guessing, you're white, middle class, and have parents that had quite good jobs

am i wrong ?

[itlnstln]

If it didn't work, the USA wouldn't have all the wonderful opportunities that both I and Shawn mentioned before. The proof is in the pudding, so to speak.

Looking at all the epic fail in the economy right now (financial markets, housing markets, unemployment, etc.), I'm not so sure.

[Shawn Stanford]

Looking at all the epic fail in the economy right now (financial markets, housing markets, unemployment, etc.), I'm not so sure.

Capitalism works if it is closely monitored and regulated. Unrestrained capitalism is a disaster.

[itlnstln]

Capitalism works if it is closely monitored and regulated. Unrestrained capitalism is a disaster.

Well said.

[wellington1869]

Capitalism works if it is closely monitored and regulated. Unrestrained capitalism is a disaster.

yea even adam smith said that.

nor should every aspect of society to be looked upon as a profit-making engine. Adam smith noted that too.

so never mind socialism, if the capitalists would just understand and follow capitalism we'd be a lot better off.

[keyboardlover]

Capitalism works if it is closely monitored and regulated. Unrestrained capitalism is a disaster.

I agree with that...but too many constraints limits growth. And I don't agree with you about Bill Gates - I think that what happens in life is meant to happen. But, I also think that Bill Gates could have easily made choices in life that didn't result in Microsoft becoming a reality. On the other hand, I believe that a poor black youth with the same drive could have become the next Bill Gates. It has happened, and it will continue to happen in the future. We all shape our destinies.

Looking at all the epic fail in the economy right now (financial markets, housing markets, unemployment, etc.), I'm not so sure.

Depends how you look at it...a lot of opportunites are popping up in some sectors at the same time they're disappearing from others. That's life.

[Shawn Stanford]

I agree with that...but too many constraints limits growth. And I don't agree with you about Bill Gates - But, I also think that Bill Gates could have easily made choices in life that didn't result in Microsoft becoming a reality.

Easily.

On the other hand, I believe that a poor black youth with the same drive could have become the next Bill Gates. It has happened, and it will continue to happen in the future.

You're smoking weed if you believe that. It's happened? Really? Name a single black computer entrepreneur without going to Google. Better yet, 'splain me this: There are 500 companies on the Fortune 500 list, and only 8 have black CEOs. Since 12% of the country is black, 60 CEOs should be black. What's the problem?

We all shape our destinies. ... I think that what happens in life is meant to happen.

So, which is it?

Insh'Allah, eh..?

Since we've drifted so far afield, let's keep in mind that we're trying to point out the fallacy of the concept that people who are disadvantage choose to be disadvantaged (i.e.: end up disadvantaged through their own choices and/or remain in that state due to their own choices) and, therefore, are not deserving of healthcare.

[keyboardlover]

You're smoking weed if you believe that. It's happened? Really? Name a single black computer entrepreneur without going to Google. Better yet, 'splain me this: There are 500 companies on the Fortune 500 list, and only 8 have black CEOs. Since 12% of the country is black, 60 CEOs should be black. What's the problem?

Um...what?? All I'm saying is that it COULD have have happened. If you seriously believe that's impossible, then you must be smoking the weed my friend. Are you forgetting all the minorities in this world who have already 'done the impossible' (including Barack Obama)?? What industry it is isn't relevant. Here's a list of famous black entrepreneurs...but do I really have to google this stuff for you?

Since we've drifted so far afield, let's keep in mind that we're trying to point out the fallacy of the concept that people who are disadvantage choose to be disadvantaged (i.e.: end up disadvantaged through their own choices and/or remain in that state due to their own choices) and, therefore, are not deserving of healthcare.

I don't think we've really drifted...it just seems like you're continuing to try to throw fodder because I tore your argument a new *******. It didn't have legs to stand on in the first place. I already made my point. I never said people who are disadvantaged choose to be disadvantaged (would love to see you try to quote me on that) - all I said is that everyone can get out of their situation if they have the will, drive, attitiude, etc. If you in fact have read my posts, you obviously haven't understood a single word.

[ch_123]

Um...what?? All I'm saying is that it COULD have have happened. If you seriously believe that's impossible, then you must be smoking the weed my friend. Are you forgetting all the minorities in this world who have already 'done the impossible' (including Barack Obama)?? What industry it is isn't relevant. Here's a list of famous black entrepreneurs...but do I really have to google this stuff for you?

The point he was making was that there a disproportionately small amount of wealthy/powerful black people. A list of a few proves absolutely nothing.

I never said people who are disadvantaged choose to be disadvantaged (would love to see you try to quote me on that) - all I said is that everyone can get out of their situation if they have the will, drive, attitiude, etc. If you in fact have read my posts, you obviously haven't understood a single word.

You've attempted to undermine the idea that poor people deserve free healthcare by a) saying that anyone can dig themselves out of the hole they are in (despite ignoring the fact that it simply isn't possible for every poor person to do so) and b) going on multiple, nonsensical rants about poor people being lazy. The insinuation you make is clear to just about everyone - if you are poor, it's because you didn't try to not be, so it's your own fault for being poor. No matter how hard you run around in circles and hurl names at everyone, that is the logical conclusion of what you are saying.

[keyboardlover]

The point he was making was that there a disproportionately small amount of wealthy/powerful black people. A list of a few proves absolutely nothing.

His original argument proves nothing as well. It's not impossible for minorities to make it to the top and many already have and continue to do so. That's what my point was.

You've attempted to undermine the idea that poor people deserve healthcare by a) saying that anyone can dig themselves out of the hole they are in (despite ignoring the fact that it simply isn't possible for every poor person to do so) and b) going on multiple, nonsensical rants about poor people being lazy. The insinuation you make is clear to just about everyone - if you are poor, it's because you didn't try to not be, so it's your own fault for being poor.

I never said poor people don't deserve healthcare (wow does anyone actually read my posts??) I said that they should work to get it like everyone else. I believe that it's possible for the majority of poor folks to do so (unless there are very debilitating circumstances that really make it the margin of success so thin that it's near impossible). But my point is that all the great people in the world who HAVE already risen up don't believe in words like 'can't' and 'impossible' - because they've already done it and will continue to do so.

I'm not insinuating anything; what I said is what I meant. Any insinuation you derive from it is your own concept and not a representation of mine. And the insinuations now just look like throwing fodder. The point was already made.

[ch_123]

I never said poor people don't deserve healthcare (wow does anyone actually read my posts??)

English 101

I said that they should work to get it like everyone else. I believe that it's possible for the majority of poor folks to do so (unless there are very debilitating circumstances that really make it the margin of success so thin that it's near impossible). But my point is that all the great people in the world who HAVE already risen up don't believe in words like 'can't' and 'impossible' - because they've already done it and will continue to do so.

I'm not insinuating anything; what I said is what I meant. Any insinuation you derive from it is your own concept and not a representation of mine. And the insinuations now just look like throwing fodder. The point was already made.

Well, I would argue that a large, large number of poor people are poor because of those "debilitating circumstances". You don't elaborate on what should happen if these 'debilitating circumstances' are the case, which is probably because the validity of what you're saying depends on almost all impoverished Americans (which counts for an amount of people greater than the population of many small-to-medium sized countries) are in that situation because they are too lazy to get proper work. A claim that I find somewhat unfathomable.

For the sake of argument, let us assume, a priori, that a large majority of impoverished Americans continue to remain impoverished because of "debilitating circumstances". Should the government then provide free healthcare to them?

On a different train of thought, what you are suggesting is that something like 15-20% of America's population undergo a 'rags to riches' conversion in order to pay their healthcare bills. Simple economics dictates that if it was really possible for the average person to become insanely rich irrespective of circumstances, then everyone would be, and then all these riches would have no value.

So, the reality is that some people have different talents. Sometimes they are certain skills, sometimes it's just raw drive. But all people aren't equal, and neither are their ability to make money. Furthermore the nature of wealth is that you tend to become richer at someone else's expense, so there are always going to be poor people, even in the most developed economies in the best of times, and a dream of a society where, even if all the poor people only just manage to push themselves into a situation where they can just about get by, is largely unrealistic.

[keyboardlover]

ch_123 -- Your insinuations do nothing to rattle my argument and you know it.

For the sake of argument, let us assume, a priori, that a large majority of impoverished Americans continue to remain impoverished because of "debilitating circumstances". Should the government then provide free healthcare to them?

We already do...ever heard of Medicaid and Disability Benefits? Oh that's right, probably not since you don't live here.

On a different train of thought, what you are suggesting is that something like 15-20% of America's population undergo a 'rags to riches' conversion in order to pay their healthcare bills. Simple economics dictates that if it was really possible for the average person to become insanely rich irrespective of circumstances, then everyone would be, and then all these riches would have no value.

Nope, I never suggested that. Your insinuations are getting pretty retarded at this point. And your last point just isn't true; the fact is that any one person in this country can be successful no matter what their background. There are a lot of ways to be successful and a lot of ways to do it. If they have the drive, will, ambition, etc., they can do it. And they have, and do, and will continue. Boy, I really don't like repeating myself

So, the reality is that some people have different talents. Sometimes they are certain skills, sometimes it's just raw drive. But all people aren't equal, and neither are their ability to make money. Furthermore the nature of wealth is that you tend to become richer at someone else's expense, so there are always going to be poor people, even in the most developed economies in the best of times, and a dream of a society where, even if all the poor people only just manage to push themselves into a situation where they can just about get by, is largely unrealistic.

What you just said here is conflicting - the fact that people have different talents only reinforces my argument that anyone can succeed IN THEIR OWN WAY! Not all people are equal, but anyone can attain success in their own way. And I know all about people getting rich at other's expenses, because I'm one of the many taxpayers who pays for Obama to have a $70k+ date night in new york city, and a $500k+ vacation in Martha's Vineyard, among other insane expenses. And this is the same guy who has the nerve to talk about 'spreading wealth'?? So yes, there will always be people making more or making less - but it's also true that anyone can make more here if they do the things I already said. Financial independence should be the goal of every American (I know it is for me). But statistics show that most Americans consistently make bad decisions and wind up in debt (i.e. not paying off credit cards, variable rate mortgages, etc.) What if they made smart decisions instead? Boy the country would be a lot different then wouldn't it? But they don't, and that's a big part of why poverty continues.

[Kraicheck]

I never said poor people don't deserve healthcare (wow does anyone actually read my posts??) I said that they should work to get it like everyone else.

So poor people deserve healthcare as long as they're not poor?

[keyboardlover]

So poor people deserve healthcare as long as they're not poor?

No...everyone deserves healthcare, but everyone should have to pay or work for it (unless covered by Medicaid, Medicare, Disability, etc.)

By the way, I'm not sure the point has been clearly made already that we already pay taxes for Medicaid which most poor folks have. I'm not a big fan of when these people use their Medicaid money to buy rediculous grills for their teeth instead of going to the dentist (yes there are cases of this) but for the most part, I think the program makes sense (at least in theory). Obviously, it needs to be better regulated. I don't believe that better regulation of current government programs is part of Obama's agenda.

[Superfluous Parentheses]

I never said poor people don't deserve healthcare (wow does anyone actually read my posts??) I said that they should work to get it like everyone else.

And if they don't earn enough money to pay for healthcare or insure themselves, then **** 'em, right? You can claim you don't mean that, but it is the logical conclusion from your arguments. Your refusal to take your own propositions seriously does not prevent anyone else from seeing that they're sociopathic*.

EDIT: * I'm not claiming YOU are. I am claiming your stated conclusions do not match your principles and in all likelihood you're just claiming whatever you find personally pleasing. If you want to convince anyone, be more consistent.

[Shawn Stanford]

By the way, I'm not sure the point has been clearly made already that we already pay taxes for Medicaid which most poor folks have.

Well, this could be the basic problem: You're wrong...

Medicaid takes care of indigent disabled, elderly and children. It doesn't provide benefits for the your run-of-the-mill poor person. 70% of Medicaid money goes to the elderly and the disabled, the remainder to poor children and pregnant women (poor children 'by proxy').

http://www.kff.org/medicaid/upload/Key%20Medicare%20and%20Medicaid%20Statistics.pdf

[Shawn Stanford]

On a different train of thought, what you are suggesting is that something like 15-20% of America's population undergo a 'rags to riches' conversion in order to pay their healthcare bills. Simple economics dictates that if it was really possible for the average person to become insanely rich irrespective of circumstances, then everyone would be, and then all these riches would have no value.

+1

Nope, I never suggested that. Your insinuations are getting pretty retarded at this point. And your last point just isn't true; the fact is that any one person in this country can be successful no matter what their background. There are a lot of ways to be successful and a lot of ways to do it. If they have the drive, will, ambition, etc., they can do it. And they have, and do, and will continue.

Are you familiar with the concept of a bell curve? It's a simple fact that some folks are going to be on the top, some are going to be on the bottom and most are going to be somewhere in the middle.

Are you maintaining that we can cut the tail off the economic bell curve and make it so that everyone can be in the fat part, or higher?

Boy, I really don't like repeating myself

You'll have to keep repeating yourself until you make sense. The last time I saw someone argue in circles like you, they were a hard core Randroid. Are you?

[ch_123]

ch_123 -- Your insinuations do nothing to rattle my argument and you know it.

Your powers of mind reading are as good as your powers of rational argument. I'll let you interpret that as you will.

What you just said here is conflicting - the fact that people have different talents only reinforces my argument that anyone can succeed IN THEIR OWN WAY! Not all people are equal, but anyone can attain success in their own way.

Some talents are obviously more useful than others. And even if people have talent, there are varying magnitudes of talent. So people's talents don't always translate into the ability to make money, and not everyone has the relevant critical mass of talent to go somewhere with it. Again, common sense, if it was so easy for everyone to be rich, we would all be.

But statistics show that most Americans consistently make bad decisions and wind up in debt (i.e. not paying off credit cards, variable rate mortgages, etc.) What if they made smart decisions instead? Boy the country would be a lot different then wouldn't it? But they don't, and that's a big part of why poverty continues.

I think a lot of people's problems are forced on them by external circumstances, particularly at the moment. While you were hiding under a rock for the past few years, a global banking collapse has unleashed a chain of events that has forced a ****load of people around the globe into debt who would otherwise be a-ok.

[patrickgeekhack]

I've been following this thread but without getting involved because I just don't have too much time to formulate arguments for the time being. Plus, I am try to avoid confrontation on the forums unless I really really have to.

Keybaordlover: I am not saying that you are not entitled to your opinions. Some people do believe that USA is the land of opportunities where everyone can succeed if they want. There's nothing wrong believing this.

I also avoided getting involved in this thread because I don't know how things work in USA. That said, I think you are influenced by availability heuristic.

[wellington1869]

keyboard you keep ignoring the main question that naturally comes up in the wake of your statements: what do you want to do with the bottom end of the economic and health bell curve?  Do you want to cut them off?  

You say you want them to pay for healthcare - there will always be a 5% unemployment (when economists say "full employment" they actually mean 95% employment, as you know. There is no such thing as full employment in a capitalist society). 5% unemployment is considered a huge success and thats at the best of times (which occur but rarely). Thats, um, 15-20 million people unemployed at the best of times.  Lets just start with them as an illustration of the point: are you saying those 15 million unemployed people, who will always be with us, should be cut off?

this is the question that you refuse to answer. What would you like to do with the bottom tail? They cant work not because they're lazy but because the capitalist system will not provide 100% jobs, by definition.  

You answer has been to keep repeating the american dream idea: if you work hard enough you can succeed. Great, we all believe in the american dream to some extent. That does not however answer this question.

[wellington1869]

I don't believe that better regulation of current government programs is part of Obama's agenda.

why? Cuz glenn beck told you so?
if you actually followed the health care summit on c-span (a considerably better source of information on the positions of the president and the two parties than glenn beck)  you'd have seen just how many resources obama put aside to ensure compliance.

you know, regulation and oversight that the repubs and glenn beck attack as "big govment! big govment! hurrrrrrr!"

when you make statements like the above its so clear that you havent a clue what "obama's agenda" is, that you're simply projecting various myths about the democrats ("tax and spend! hurrrrrr!") that idiots like beck and palin promote like donkeys.

[keyboardlover]

Well, this could be the basic problem: You're wrong...
Medicaid takes care of indigent disabled, elderly and children. It doesn't provide benefits for the your run-of-the-mill poor person. 70% of Medicaid money goes to the elderly and the disabled, the remainder to poor children and pregnant women (poor children 'by proxy').

Actually, you're wrong. Medicaid is only available to people with a limited income (i.e., poor).

Are you familiar with the concept of a bell curve? It's a simple fact that some folks are going to be on the top, some are going to be on the bottom and most are going to be somewhere in the middle.

Are you maintaining that we can cut the tail off the economic bell curve and make it so that everyone can be in the fat part, or higher?

My thoughts on that are quite clearly mentioned that in my last post.

You'll have to keep repeating yourself until you make sense. The last time I saw someone argue in circles like you, they were a hard core Randroid. Are you?

Unlike you, my arguments are well-formed and my main points have already been made. All you do is continue to throw meaningless fodder.

I think a lot of people's problems are forced on them by external circumstances, particularly at the moment. While you were hiding under a rock for the past few years, a global banking collapse has unleashed a chain of events that has forced a ****load of people around the globe into debt who would otherwise be a-ok.

I already touched on this, but many people weren't 'forced into debt' for various reasons. I believe it had more to do with individual financial situations than the economy, but that's just me.

keyboard you keep ignoring the main question that naturally comes up in the wake of your statements: what do you want to do with the bottom end of the economic and health bell curve? Do you want to cut them off?

I don't believe you already asked that but if you did, my apologies

If you read my posts you'd see that I already believe that the majority of the bottom half of the bell curve has the abilities to do better (those not already taken care of by current programs). And I gave reasons why. End of story.

why? Cuz glenn beck told you so?
if you actually followed the health care summit on c-span (a considerably better source of information on the positions of the president and the two parties than glenn beck) you'd have seen just how many resources obama put aside to ensure compliance.

No, I don't pay much attention to muckrakers on either side. I find this information via the news. Where are your sources?

[wellington1869]

If you read my posts you'd see that I already believe that the majority of the bottom half of the bell curve has the abilities to do better (those not already taken care of by current programs). And I gave reasons why. End of story.

ok, so you do believe they should be simply cut off.

wonderful, then I have my answer, and I'm glad you're not running for office

[ch_123]

I already touched on this, but many people weren't 'forced into debt' for various reasons. I believe it had more to do with individual financial situations than the economy, but that's just me.

Right, so are you implying that the huge increase of people with financial issues that happened after the banking collapse started was co-incidental to the banking collapse, or are you acknowledging that this was a serious issue, and are just stating the obvious (i.e. that some people made bad financial decisions) in a thinly-veiled attempt to imply that it isn't?

[keyboardlover]

Right, so are you implying that the huge increase of people with financial issues that happened after the banking collapse started was co-incidental to the banking collapse, or are you acknowledging that this was a serious issue, and are just stating the obvious (i.e. that some people made bad financial decisions) in a thinly-veiled attempt to imply that it isn't?

I think that it is and was a big issue and was partly caused by both bad financial decisions on the part of individuals and unethical corporate decisions. I mean, obviously they shouldn't give mortgages to people they know can't afford them but they did (and still do). But at the same time, I think it's up to individuals to be smart about decisions (especially home buying and credit cards) and do their research and try to make the right decisions.

A lot of Americans don't save money, don't invest or make bad investment decisions. Why? Because everyone is different.