Rule of Unintended Consequences

Dixie said:
MAYBE WE SHOULD START POSTING EVERYTHING LIKE THIS SINCE YOU SEEM TO LIKE HAVING TO SCROLL THROUGH HALF A PAGE OF NONSENSE TO READ ANY-FUCKING-THING YOU POST HERE B] MORON!
Click to expand...




Fixed that for ya. No need to thank me.


BTW, glad you apparently agree that Reagans' tax cuts were mainly for the wealthy.


Let me know next time you need help formatting your posts.
 
(\(\(\/)/)/) said:
Fixed that for ya. No need to thank me.


BTW, glad you apparently agree that Reagans' tax cuts were mainly for the wealthy.


Let me know next time you need help formatting your posts.
Click to expand...

I think I'm not the one having trouble formatting a post. You format yours like you don't have enough sense to form coherent sentences. (probably the case.)

I already said that Reagan tax cuts were mainly for the top income earners... those aren't "the wealthy" though, they are the people who create the jobs. You continue to ignorantly confuse the two. If you could manage to educate yourself beyond a third grade level, you would understand GDP growth and such, and you would realize Reagan was responsible for nearly 30 years of prosperity. Unfortunately, you are an uneducated illiterate goofball, who depends on Marxist Socialists to tell you what to think and believe, where you proudly trot off over here and regurgitate as if it's the truth. I don't have a problem with that, I just wish you'd learn how to form coherent sentences.
 
Dixie said:
I think I'm not the one having trouble formatting a post. You format yours like you don't have enough sense to form coherent sentences. (probably the case.) I already said that Reagan tax cuts were mainly for the top income earners... those aren't "the wealthy" though, they are the people who create the jobs. You continue to ignorantly confuse the two. If you could manage to educate yourself beyond a third grade level, you would understand GDP growth and such, and you would realize Reagan was responsible for nearly 30 years of prosperity. Unfortunately, you are an uneducated illiterate goofball, who depends on Marxist Socialists to tell you what to think and believe, where you proudly trot off over here and regurgitate as if it's the truth. I don't have a problem with that, I just wish you'd learn how to form coherent sentences.
Click to expand...



You wound me, Dixie.


Just for the record, I don't want you to change a thing.


Your posts are perfect for the purpose I put them to, just as they are.
 
Dixie said:
I didn't write it, this is posted at Wikipedia. Now you want to start moving the bar... instead of us merely taking care of those who can't afford it, you want to redefine who can't afford it! Now you opine for us to care for those who maybe CAN afford it, but it might make life a little difficult for them. Well, again, guess fucking what? Life is hard sometimes! We don't always get coddled and nurtured by government, because government can't afford to coddle and nurture everybody, and we live in Constitutional republic, where the Constitution plainly states, equal protection under the law! If the government is going to provide a service to one, they have to provide it to all. If government is going to coddle and nurture ONE group, they must coddle and nurture ALL groups, because that is the foundational basis of the Constitution. Perhaps in some Socialist European country where they don't HAVE a Constitution, they can pick and choose who they want to serve, and it works out fine for them, but we can't do that here.
Click to expand...

Exactly, the government can't pick and choose who they want to serve and that's precisely why a universal or single payer or government medical plan is urgently needed. As for coddling and nurturing surely you don't consider offering medical attention to be coddling.

Of all the "entitlements" a government may offer medical attention is the least likely to be abused. Sure, there are hypochondriacs but they're quickly found out as scientific/medical tests can be done to determine if, in fact, one is ill. Also, most government medical systems have patients follow a "chain of command" when seeking medical attention. Patients are referred to specialists after consulting with a family doctor/general practitioner so that a patient with heartburn is not scheduling appointments and using up the valuable time of a heart surgeon.

There's two things to keep in mind. The first thing is the politicians have made it clear everyone is in this together; the rich, the poor and everyone in between. The second thing is government medical plans save money. Taking both those things into consideration ObamaCare couldn't have come by at a better time. Those who fall on hard times (lose their job, deal with higher costs of living, etc) will at least know the government is going to help them maintain medical coverage and that's change we can all believe in.
 
As for coddling and nurturing surely you don't consider offering medical attention to be coddling....Of all the "entitlements" a government may offer medical attention is the least likely to be abused.
Click to expand...

The government can't "offer" anything, it doesn't produce anything!
 
apple0154 said:
Huh? Who would the government be picking when EVERYONE would receive the same coverage?

Why do you have such difficulty understanding straight-forward things?
Click to expand...

Everyone WOULDN'T receive the same coverage, they couldn't, it would bankrupt us in about a week. Why do you have such difficulty in understanding the government can't pay for everyone's health care because the government doesn't make money?
 
apple0154 said:
Of course the government can offer things. National Parks, Interstate Highways,....

What is wrong with you, Dix? Are you just being silly or do you really not know?
Click to expand...

The government didn't offer those things, the taxpayers bought the land and paid to have the highway built. The government doesn't earn income, the government doesn't produce a product or make a profit, therefore, it can't "give" us stuff, or "offer" us stuff, it's impossible.
 
Dixie said:
The government didn't offer those things, the taxpayers bought the land and paid to have the highway built. The government doesn't earn income, the government doesn't produce a product or make a profit, therefore, it can't "give" us stuff, or "offer" us stuff, it's impossible.
Click to expand...



Can the government give tax breaks to multimillionaires?
 
(\(\(\/)/)/) said:
Can the government give tax breaks to multimillionaires?
Click to expand...

Can the government take from a 20 yr olds income (let's say,,,, $20,000 total income for the year) of a single person that has no babies?

What % do they pay?

What write offs do they have?

Income tax is slavery.

Marxism is slavery.
 
Liberty said:
Can the government take from a 20 yr olds income (let's say,,,, $20,000 total income for the year) of a single person that has no babies?

What % do they pay?

What write offs do they have?

Income tax is slavery.

Marxism is slavery.
Click to expand...

I never got a reply on this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top