Trump calls GOP health care plan "mean"

Page 3 of 6 [ 89 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,739
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

21 Jun 2017, 6:44 pm

friedmacguffins wrote:
friedmacguffins wrote:
Nice or mean, I think those pre-Enlightened societies worked, when a relative-few elitists put lightly upon many other people.

More people are reportedly sick or indisposed than healthy and well-off, so that few support the many. You have inverted that social pyramid, yet don't see it as an unstable arrangement.


Kraichgauer wrote:
Are you serious? In those pre-enlightened societies, the elite worked the many to the bone in times of peace, and would make them die for them in times of war. Slavery and serfdom was never "put lightly" upon anyone.

They reportedly had thousands of more calories a day, somewhat-potable water, shelter, and would know where that came from. We have a housing crisis, were it is mathematically impossible, for labor to provide shelter, at the prevailing wage. Management is no longer responsible for life support or the dignity of labor, or for productivity. We have food deserts, cannot explain the population of people, in terms of the carrying capacity of agricultural lands and urban infrastructure.

I am downwind of the Salton Sea, which is an improvement over dumping chamberpots out the window, but not over a cesspit. In case that level of sanitation causes disease, later on, they are rediscovering some Medieval cures, now.


Kraichgauer wrote:
And that inverted social pyramid of yours has more to do with taking care of old people than not. Are we supposed to just let our parents and grandparents die before their time?

My parents or your parents. Charity starts at home. Sorry, not sorry.

Also, you have disregarded my point about the few supporting the many. How are you reasonably supposed to care for many more people than just yourself. Are you strong enough, personally?

Is it materially possible, to pass the buck, enough times, where the work of 1 person feeds 100? In the Bible, this used to be called a miracle. (of fish and loaves)

Kraichgauer wrote:
As for those sick and indisposed who are still in the prime of life: if businesses were actually responsible and provided people with jobs with stability, good wages, and benefits, then society at large wouldn't have to look to taxation to give help to those in need.


You have borrowed against my future, as collateral, without sharing any of the benefit with me. There used to be something called primogeniture.


What source do you have to support the notion that people of old ate better than we do today? In fact, people back then were smaller and weaker in comparison to us moderns. That, and the availability of food was never a sure thing, as famine, and disruption of food sources such as war or natural disasters, were a constant threat.
The housing crisis has much more to do with the inequality so rampant in our culture. Regardless, I prefer my apartment to the drafty hillforts of long ago.
What does borrowing against your future have to do with business being responsible and ponying up with good wages, benefits, and job security?
The notion of "charity begins at home" is an excuse not to help those in need. We are our brother's (and sister's) keeper, if we are the Judeo-Christian society we claim to be. I'd rather follow the example of the carpenter's son who had fed the multitude than some heartless, soulless monster like Ayn Rand.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


friedmacguffins
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,539

21 Jun 2017, 7:26 pm

Here we go with my sources, again and again. No source was going to be credible enough. We both know it.

Think about how many plants of rice or beans it takes to make a single bag, and don't even ask about a hamburger. It would pretty much have to be all over the place, for miles and miles. It would look agrarian, if you weren't passing the buck. You don't know where it all comes from, just that someone is supposed to bring it to you.

Kraichgauer wrote:
The notion of "charity begins at home" is an excuse not to help those in need.

That was exactly what I meant, and you were studiously avoiding the intended outcome.

Most liberals will ruin their families and spend it somewhere else. Learn to deal with what is directly in front of you, before fixing the rest of the world. That's blunt. It's literal. And, it's what I imagine an autistic person would do.

What's with all the subjective language and guilt tactics, around here, of all places. I think, most of you consider it a social cause.

Kraichgauer wrote:
We are our brother's (and sister's) keeper, if we are the Judeo-Christian society we claim to be.

You don't believe in keeping Biblical mores, particularly, pertaining to family and work. You don't read the Bible, and don't know where to find pertinent verses. You just think it's a trigger word.

"A good man leaveth an inheritance to his children's children: and the wealth of the sinner is laid up for the just. Much food is in the tillage of the poor: but there is that is destroyed for want of judgment. He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes. The righteous eateth to the satisfying of his soul: but the belly of the wicked shall want."
-- from Proverbs 13

Charity was not expected to be confiscated, by the state, under duress. It was considered a function of the church. So, the Bible was specific, as with church rules, about who was deserving.

But, you weren't interested in that, except as a virtue signal, with no physical commitment; are you really going to do all that, now. :roll:



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,739
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

21 Jun 2017, 7:41 pm

friedmacguffins wrote:
Here we go with my sources, again and again. No source was going to be credible enough. We both know it.

Think about how many plants of rice or beans it takes to make a single bag, and don't even ask about a hamburger. It would pretty much have to be all over the place, for miles and miles. It would look agrarian, if you weren't passing the buck. You don't know where it all comes from, just that someone is supposed to bring it to you.

Kraichgauer wrote:
The notion of "charity begins at home" is an excuse not to help those in need.

That was exactly what I meant, and you were studiously avoiding the intended outcome.

Most liberals will ruin their families and spend it somewhere else. Learn to deal with what is directly in front of you, before fixing the rest of the world. That's blunt. It's literal. And, it's what I imagine an autistic person would do.

What's with all the subjective language and guilt tactics, around here, of all places. I think, most of you consider it a social cause.

Kraichgauer wrote:
We are our brother's (and sister's) keeper, if we are the Judeo-Christian society we claim to be.

You don't believe in keeping Biblical mores, particularly, pertaining to family and work. You don't read the Bible, and don't know where to find pertinent verses. You just think it's a trigger word.

"A good man leaveth an inheritance to his children's children: and the wealth of the sinner is laid up for the just. Much food is in the tillage of the poor: but there is that is destroyed for want of judgment. He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes. The righteous eateth to the satisfying of his soul: but the belly of the wicked shall want."
-- from Proverbs 13

Charity was not expected to be confiscated, by the state, under duress. It was considered a function of the church. So, the Bible was specific, as with church rules, about who was deserving.

But, you weren't interested in that, except as a virtue signal, with no physical commitment; are you really going to do all that, now. :roll:


I am a Christian. I do read the Bible. I attend bible study. As I recall, you're a Baptist or some sort of fundie, which means you know all the words, but aren't familiar with the spirit behind the word. When God put on a human body, and spoke directly to us, everything he said involved loving your brother, and in particular, the least among us. He never said anything about letting those who are poor or without work die, or shaming them. In fact, he had little good to say about those who had accumulated wealth.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


friedmacguffins
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,539

21 Jun 2017, 7:52 pm

Have you read the parable of the five talents, which Jesus told?

Fundies have a saying about spiritualizing the word --
ie. Here's what he said, but here's what he actually meant.

Did you expect to be held to any nameable rules or benchmarks, at all, or to sacrifice your personal wants, in obedience. I mean, what if you and God don't want the same thing. Who gets the priority.

Also, why do you need a Bible, if not for a fashion accessory. If you don't like it, why not be something else. Noone says you have to go, or to call yourself something you don't like to be.There's usually some sjw social function, or the Peace Corps? Some say the YMCA or navy?



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,739
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

21 Jun 2017, 8:55 pm

friedmacguffins wrote:
Have you read the parable of the five talents, which Jesus told?

Fundies have a saying about spiritualizing the word --
ie. Here's what he said, but here's what he actually meant.

Did you expect to be held to any nameable rules or benchmarks, at all, or to sacrifice your personal wants, in obedience. I mean, what if you and God don't want the same thing. Who gets the priority.

Also, why do you need a Bible, if not for a fashion accessory. If you don't like it, why not be something else. Noone says you have to go, or to call yourself something you don't like to be.There's usually some sjw social function, or the Peace Corps? Some say the YMCA or navy?


Yeah, I know that parable. Christ was actually talking about faith, and going out into the world and putting your faith into action, instead of just hiding it away.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


StinkyDog
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 28 May 2017
Age: 74
Gender: Female
Posts: 475
Location: In Your Mind

21 Jun 2017, 10:12 pm

Image



StinkyDog
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 28 May 2017
Age: 74
Gender: Female
Posts: 475
Location: In Your Mind

21 Jun 2017, 10:21 pm

friedmacguffins wrote:
Charity was not expected to be confiscated, by the state, under duress. It was considered a function of the church. So, the Bible was specific, as with church rules, about who was deserving.

But, you weren't interested in that, except as a virtue signal, with no physical commitment; are you really going to do all that, now. :roll:


"Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's..."

Churches really aren't very charitable, and are, in fact, failing. Hence, the government must step in.

Image



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,739
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

22 Jun 2017, 1:28 am

StinkyDog wrote:
friedmacguffins wrote:
Charity was not expected to be confiscated, by the state, under duress. It was considered a function of the church. So, the Bible was specific, as with church rules, about who was deserving.

But, you weren't interested in that, except as a virtue signal, with no physical commitment; are you really going to do all that, now. :roll:


"Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's..."

Churches really aren't very charitable, and are, in fact, failing. Hence, the government must step in.

Image


Decades ago, when Reagan had had the silly assed idea about ending medicare, social security, and the rest of the federal safety net, and allowing the churches to handle the load, Lutheran and Catholic charities took him aside, and informed him that there was no way they, or any other church body, would be able to handle the national load of needy people.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,739
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

22 Jun 2017, 1:29 am

StinkyDog wrote:
friedmacguffins wrote:
Charity was not expected to be confiscated, by the state, under duress. It was considered a function of the church. So, the Bible was specific, as with church rules, about who was deserving.

But, you weren't interested in that, except as a virtue signal, with no physical commitment; are you really going to do all that, now. :roll:


"Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's..."

Churches really aren't very charitable, and are, in fact, failing. Hence, the government must step in.

Image


Decades ago, when Reagan had had the silly assed idea about ending medicare, social security, and the rest of the federal safety net, and allowing the churches to handle the load, Lutheran and Catholic charities took him aside, and informed him that there was no way they, or any other church body, would be able to handle the national load of needy people.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


mr_bigmouth_502
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Dec 2013
Age: 30
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 7,028
Location: Alberta, Canada

22 Jun 2017, 3:15 am

If Trump really wants to impress me, he should be pushing for single payer healthcare, like what most civilized countries have. He's not gonna do it, because somehow America is allergic to the idea, but still.

I honestly feel like Trump doesn't really care about anyone but himself, and that for him, his ego comes before everything else. If what he's doing is unpopular with people, then that bruises his ego and he thinks "oh s**t I need to get people to like me again".


_________________
Every day is exactly the same...


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,146

22 Jun 2017, 4:16 am

mr_bigmouth_502 wrote:
I honestly feel like Trump doesn't really care about anyone but himself, and that for him, his ego comes before everything else. If what he's doing is unpopular with people, then that bruises his ego and he thinks "oh s**t I need to get people to like me again".

If you work with this premise then much of what will come next won't be a surprise



friedmacguffins
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,539

22 Jun 2017, 9:31 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
Churches really aren't very charitable, and are, in fact, failing. Hence, the government must step in.

Would that have anything to do with intentionally demoralizing, and impoverishing people, in order to create a secular welfare state?



How many can you rescue, before criticizing others. Do you practice what you preach, under voluntarism, or must you be coerced, by state interests, until every last person is successful. Also, are you under a vow of abject poverty, like an ascetic.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,739
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

22 Jun 2017, 12:13 pm

friedmacguffins wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Churches really aren't very charitable, and are, in fact, failing. Hence, the government must step in.

Would that have anything to do with intentionally demoralizing, and impoverishing people, in order to create a secular welfare state?



How many can you rescue, before criticizing others. Do you practice what you preach, under voluntarism, or must you be coerced, by state interests, until every last person is successful. Also, are you under a vow of abject poverty, like an ascetic.


I never once said there was anything wrong with volunteerism, as every little bit helps. And in fact, I didn't post that line that you had attributed to me, as it was part of a preexisting quote that my own post had piggybacked on. Just the same, there's only so much individuals and private institutions can do, whereas the government has a much wider scope and greater reach when it comes to helping those in need.
The charge that federal programs destroys incentive to volunteer is without basis, and is only used as a pretext to oppose said government programs.
Incidentally, I've found that people who want the feds to leave helping out the needy to stay out of the equation are the very same who want to deny those very same needy of help, and in fact rub salt into the wound by shaming them for needing help.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


GoonSquad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 May 2007
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,748
Location: International House of Paincakes...

22 Jun 2017, 1:21 pm

friedmacguffins wrote:
How many trees does it take, to produce 50,000lbs of pecans.

I have only germinated about 6, so far.

Also, may I take legal credit for all the labor, which they have performed, for your intellectual property, the land, and the matériel.

Why or why or why not?

Does anti-social behavior, on my part, make me seem more agreeable.

Why, or why not.


Way to change the subject after I blew your nonsensical assertions out of the water! Good job. :roll:

The point is, there is no way to justify depriving needy people of basic resources like food or even healthcare. Thanks to technology the labor one person can feed thousands and produce vast amounts of excess wealth.

Even if you want to push some sort of twisted argument about fairness and who's entitled to the benefits of that operation I described, it still fails.

By not paying a living wage and or providing health insurance, my boss was creating a burden on society because society had to subsidize his employees with things like medicaid and SNAP. My employer directly benefited from this because he needs well fed, healthy employees to work for him.

Therefore, fairness demands that he should either compensate his employees adequately OR he should pay an adequate amount of taxes to compensate the state for their subsidies--not to mention other things such as schools, roads, police and fire protection, and court systems that allow him to run a successful business.

As Elizabeth Warren observed:

Quote:
There is nobody in this country who got rich on their own. Nobody. You built a factory out there - good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn't have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory... Now look. You built a factory and it turned into something terrific or a great idea - God bless! Keep a hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.



Capitalist parasites need to pay their employees, or pay their goddamn taxes.

As people on the right are so fond of pointing out, there's no free lunch.

:)

If people do not want to contribute to the common good of society, they need to pull a John Galt and GET THE f**k OUT. Then we'll see who actually suffers for it... :P


_________________
No man is free who is not master of himself.~Epictetus


friedmacguffins
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,539

22 Jun 2017, 1:38 pm

Thomas Powell wrote:
In politics, few talents are as richly rewarded as the ability to convince parasites that they are victims. Welfare states on both sides of the Atlantic have discovered that largesse to losers does not reduce their hostility to society, but only increases it. Far from producing gratitude, generosity is seen as an admission of guilt, and the reparations as inadequate compensations for injustices – leading to worsening behavior by the recipients.


I have just stepped away from the computer to help someone, literally, for real, in person, and received verbal abuse for that, on my end.

Neither of you wanted to give up anything, when you were put on the spot.

So, I guess that one disinterested person is lecturing another disinterested person, at this point in the discussion. I'm really not any better than you are, because I don't feel like helping, either.

If they've made themselves sufficiently clear, you can lock the thread, afaic.

I know that you don't like to remove profiles.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,739
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

22 Jun 2017, 1:54 pm

GoonSquad wrote:
friedmacguffins wrote:
How many trees does it take, to produce 50,000lbs of pecans.

I have only germinated about 6, so far.

Also, may I take legal credit for all the labor, which they have performed, for your intellectual property, the land, and the matériel.

Why or why or why not?

Does anti-social behavior, on my part, make me seem more agreeable.

Why, or why not.


Way to change the subject after I blew your nonsensical assertions out of the water! Good job. :roll:

The point is, there is no way to justify depriving needy people of basic resources like food or even healthcare. Thanks to technology the labor one person can feed thousands and produce vast amounts of excess wealth.

Even if you want to push some sort of twisted argument about fairness and who's entitled to the benefits of that operation I described, it still fails.

By not paying a living wage and or providing health insurance, my boss was creating a burden on society because society had to subsidize his employees with things like medicaid and SNAP. My employer directly benefited from this because he needs well fed, healthy employees to work for him.

Therefore, fairness demands that he should either compensate his employees adequately OR he should pay an adequate amount of taxes to compensate the state for their subsidies--not to mention other things such as schools, roads, police and fire protection, and court systems that allow him to run a successful business.

As Elizabeth Warren observed:

Quote:
There is nobody in this country who got rich on their own. Nobody. You built a factory out there - good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn't have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory... Now look. You built a factory and it turned into something terrific or a great idea - God bless! Keep a hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.



Capitalist parasites need to pay their employees, or pay their goddamn taxes.

As people on the right are so fond of pointing out, there's no free lunch.

:)

If people do not want to contribute to the common good of society, they need to pull a John Galt and GET THE f**k OUT. Then we'll see who actually suffers for it... :P


Sir, I salute you for that statement! :salut:


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer