Social Conservatism = nanny state!

[DamnYankee]

1. The way conservatives have ground our economy into the ground, most people can't afford to save for retirement. Bush found out what happens when you start talking about profitizing SS. If you want to manage your own retirement more power to ya, but it's still the law that you pay into SS.

2. Without Medicare/medicaid people wouldn't be able to get hospital care. So much for compassionate conservatives. Society still means something to liberals. With SS and healthcare for the poor and old, conservatives show their real colors.

3. Flat/Fair. I dont want to have to write a check to the govt every month. I will adjust my withholding to a break even point if need be. Taxes are the price you pay for a civilized society, get over it.

1. Most folks can't afford to fund their retirement because they are paying so much into SS. I've already shown that most folks would do quite well in private accounts with the same contributions in a thread dedicated to that.

2. Again, since the government controls the market and liberals refuse to consider tort reform costs are simply too high. The free market with more reasonable regulations would control costs. Yet you liberals are against this.

3. The Fair/ Flat tax will ensure that all have to pay their fair share. Sorry, but the responsibility to write a check is the price you pay for a civilized society. Get over it.

 

[DamnYankee]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial-Birth_Abortion_Ban_Act

Lookie, lookie, from your link:

the statute includes the following provision:
“ A defendant accused of an offense under this section may seek a hearing before the State Medical Board on whether the physician's conduct was necessary to save the life of the mother whose life was endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.

Which disproves your point.

 

[Jarod]

Lookie, lookie, from your link:



Which disproves your point.

That proves my point.....

 

[DamnYankee]

That proves my point.....

How so?

 

[Jarod]

How so?

The government will tell the Doctor, after the fact, if it was necessary or not, and they dont say you wont be prosecuted if it was determined by them to have been necessary, in fact they say it is never necessary.

 

[DamnYankee]

The government will tell the Doctor, after the fact, if it was necessary or not, and they dont say you wont be prosecuted if it was determined by them to have been necessary, in fact they say it is never necessary.

That's about as clear as mud. No wonder you don't understand the law. Arguing with you is like banging my head against the wall. The law clearly states that a woman won't be prosecuted for a PBA if was necessary to save her life. Gawd you must be retarded.

 

[Jarod]

That's about as clear as mud. No wonder you don't understand the law. Arguing with you is like banging my head against the wall. The law clearly states that a woman won't be prosecuted for a PBA if was necessary to save her life. Gawd you must be retarded.

It DOES NOT SAY THAT!

 

[DamnYankee]

It DOES NOT SAY THAT!

Yes it does.

 

[apple0154]

1. In private retirement accounts, you can choose who manages your money or do so yourself. Only the government can "manage" your social security funds, and if you die young, they take what's left. Which plan has more freedom?

The problem is people do not save for their retirement. It was tried that way for thousands of years and many elderly died in poverty. SS came about because the other way(s) didn't work.

2. We don't have a free market with hospitals in the US, due to the huge influence of government dollars in Medicare and Medicaid. They control how many hospital beds can be built in all regions of the country. An actual free market would drive prices down. Which side promotes more freedom?

Just like the reason for SS. Other ways were tried since the beginning of time and didn't work. If an actual free market would drive prices down there would never have been a reason for Medicare and Medicaid.

3. Conservatives are for the Flat Tax or Fair Tax systems, which would eliminate "tax cuts for the rich", and everyone would have to pay their "fair share". Why are Liberals against this?

It has to do with what is considered "income". If ALL money was considered income, be it inheritance, capital gains, a pay check, if EVERY cent was included then a flat tax would be more agreeable.

In the immortal words of Obama, "Don't come to the table with old, tired, worn out ideas."

The so-called freedom ways have been tried and found to be severely lacking. Old people ran out of money and food and shelter resulting in the implementation of SS while other citizens couldn't afford basic medical care resulting in the Obama medical plan.

We've tried those old, tired, worn out ideas.

 

[Minister of Truth]

Post Medicare and Medicaid, prices for healthcare have gone through the roof.

 

[DamnYankee]

The problem is people do not save for their retirement. It was tried that way for thousands of years and many elderly died in poverty. SS came about because the other way(s) didn't work.



Just like the reason for SS. Other ways were tried since the beginning of time and didn't work. If an actual free market would drive prices down there would never have been a reason for Medicare and Medicaid.



It has to do with what is considered "income". If ALL money was considered income, be it inheritance, capital gains, a pay check, if EVERY cent was included then a flat tax would be more agreeable.

In the immortal words of Obama, "Don't come to the table with old, tired, worn out ideas."

The so-called freedom ways have been tried and found to be severely lacking. Old people ran out of money and food and shelter resulting in the implementation of SS while other citizens couldn't afford basic medical care resulting in the Obama medical plan.

We've tried those old, tired, worn out ideas.

1. Then force people to save at the current SS rates like now, the only difference being private accounts and private insurance.
2. Ditto with Medicaid/ Medicare contributions.
3. The government already taxed the money that the inheritance came from. You want to tax it again. Get your filthy hands off my money, Liberal.

 

[apple0154]

1. Then force people to save at the current SS rates like now, the only difference being private accounts and private insurance.

How do you propose to force people to save? Also, how many people know how to invest? And let's not forget those dudes who buy and sell stocks with your money get paid per trade, whether or not you make money, so their incentive is to trade. More than a few people have lost small fortunes giving their money to "financial advisers". Privatizing SS would be a disaster.

2. Ditto with Medicaid/ Medicare contributions.

Unfortunately, that wouldn't work either. Are we to expect a person to contribute to a savings plan or medical plan if, for example, they need a new roof on their home? Any sense that those plans are private or voluntary will result in people wanting that money for other reasons.

3. The government already taxed the money that the inheritance came from. You want to tax it again. Get your filthy hands off my money, Liberal.

That's a bogus argument. It's no different than giving the grocery store owner money. You already paid taxes on your money. Why should the grocery store owner pay taxes on the same money?

That's the problem, the way income is defined. Income should be any money received. It is, after all, money coming in.

 

[Jarod]

DING!! DING!!

Its a fucking miracle!!!

Okay, good... So whats the difference?

 

[Jarod]

Yes it does.

Where?

 

[augustino5150]

Reality Bites

Religious right and liberal left are same in terms of control. Its like a circle.

Liberals want to be your mommy and conservatives want to be your daddy?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

How do you propose to force people to save? Also, how many people know how to invest? And let's not forget those dudes who buy and sell stocks with your money get paid per trade, whether or not you make money, so their incentive is to trade. More than a few people have lost small fortunes giving their money to "financial advisers". Privatizing SS would be a disaster.

Don't you think that relieving people of the responsibility to manage their own finances is a recipe for disastrous dependence?

 

[Jarod]

Don't you think that relieving people of the responsibility to manage their own finances is a recipe for disastrous dependence?

I belive that because our society will not allow people to die on the streets, we need to require a certian level of financial security prior to allowing complete financial freedom. Once you have an amount put away, go hog wild with the rest, but be responsable so the rest of us dont end up paying for you.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

I belive that because our society will not allow people to die on the streets, we need to require a certian level of financial security prior to allowing complete financial freedom. Once you have an amount put away, go hog wild with the rest, but be responsable so the rest of us dont end up paying for you.

nobody is stating that people should be left to die on the streets, but what power or authority does the government have to force me to live at some certain standard? your own words 'be responsible', should be applied to every aspect, but with that responsibility also goes to being accountable for any of your bad decisions.

 

[Jarod]

nobody is stating that people should be left to die on the streets, but what power or authority does the government have to force me to live at some certain standard? your own words 'be responsible', should be applied to every aspect, but with that responsibility also goes to being accountable for any of your bad decisions.

No once you put a very base amount away.... do what you want with your money, then I dont have to support you when you are old.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

No once you put a very base amount away.... do what you want with your money, then I dont have to support you when you are old.

first, who's authority is telling me to put a certain amount away. please cite where that power resides...

second, why should you have to support me when i'm old?