On February 03 2012 06:40 Focuspants wrote: Health care should not be a business. It should be an essntial service. Period. Corporations cut corners to maximize profits, they artificially inflate prices, they try to deny expensive services in an effort to make moe money. The Canadian system isnt perfect, but it is very very good. I just had to rush my grandma to the hospital after she had a blood test, which was processed within hours, and the lab doctor called our house at 11:30pm (the lab is open 24 hours) to let us know her hemoglobin level was critically low and to rush her to emergency (she had 4 hours before her heart would have seized). We rushed to the hospital, she was in the ER with 2 doctors and a team of nurses within 1 minute of arriving, she got a blood transfusion (5 bags). She got a stomach scope, they found she was bleeding from her stomach, they fixed it immediately. She stayed in the hospital for 4 nights, and it cost us 0 dollars. Shes at home happy and healthy.
Anyone that thinks you should have to pay out the ass for that, or deal with corporations and insurance companies is out of their mind. Ive had many experiences with many family friends and relatives and the health care system, and I cant understand how a free market system is even remotely considered to be an option.
I dont understand how Santorum could look a woman in the eye and say that to her. Its really sad. When did being conservative become being bat shit crazy. None of the remaining candidates have realistic positions that benefit normal people, and they have even less to show for the poor.
It cost you 0 dollars, but it cost me $6000. Why should my family and I have to suffer because your grandma is dying? The problem with health care in general is people like you that think that because you don't pay the hospitals directly that it all occurs for free. It is not free, we pay taxes out the ass to support central medical care. People who are healthy and live healthy lives are punished by government through taxation to pay for your grandma's stomach. What incentive is there to live properly to extend your own life when you can just suckle off the government tit to cure what ails you?
~20% of all taxation goes to healthcare, which is very high.
My grandma worked and paid taxes since the 50s in this country. I know the money comes from paying taxes. The point is its a non-for profit system which is run by an organization whos main focus is keeping its citizens alive, not earning money. The belief that you should only pay for what you need is extremely selfish and misguided. The fact is that someone that was bron with a health issue, or acquired one (yes people that lead healthy lives do get sick believe it or not), should not mean they should be forced to pay tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, or millions of dollars to a corporation for medication.
Also, It didnt cost me 0 and you 6k. I had to pay taxes, as did my sister, as did my mom, as did my dad, etc... You arent this unfortunate person being ripped off by the government paying for everyones shit. We all pitch in. You give yourself too much worth. Without others, you would be nothing. I would much rather pay for the care of 6 ppl per year, knowing full well that I dont have to worry about myself being taken care of when I need it, than make myself a shed. If someone walked up to you and said you can either pay your taxes and help these people live, or make yourself a shed, you would actually pick the shed? Taxes dont burden you to a point of not being able to live comfortably. Youre just a selfish prick.
Apparently there is enough motivation in Canada to have much lower poverty rates, a higher standard of living, lower crime rates, a larger middle class, etc... than the US. Youre going to pay for healthcare one way or another, and the fact is, it costs many times more in the US per capita. The amount of work and money my grandma has put into the system far outweighs the amount shes used. Shes almost surely put more into it than you have, and shes DEFINITELY faced more adversity, and had to work harder to build a life here than you or I have. Stop being an arrogant dick, and look at the facts. The system that more closely resembles your desires, is significantly worse.
Shouldn't one be able to choose if another's problems become their own? I don't feel the need to replace my friends car when he gets into an accident. If my brother's lawn mower breaks down, he doesn't come to me for money for a new one. Why is health any different? I would help my friend pay for a new car and my brother a lawn mower but it is my choice to do so.
If all your family pay taxes, then in a system not controlled by the government you all would have pitched in and helped your grandma out because you would all have a lot more money to do so. I am sorry if you think I'm a prick but honestly I don't give a shit about your grandma or her stomach troubles. If you went up to the average person and said "my grandma is sick and needs money for a nurse to live with her, give me money to pay for it now!" what do you think the response would be? People are greedy and selfish, it is one of our guiding instincts that make us a successful species and I won't feel shame for having it.
The next logical step would be to look at what kind of society you would want to create, one that combats your greedy and selfish nature or one that allows it to triumph. Noone is asking you to be ashamed of being human, but they are asking you if building a society based on what you percieve that nature to be (and a view which I share to some extent) is a good idea. It's evident to me that's not the case, but then I have insight both into political science and societal history. Theorycrafting is great and all but don't forget that we can learn a lot from history. There have been many, many ways to organize and run societies through the ages.
If you want to live under a rock and ignore the facts, that's fine by me.
Most people have tens of thousands of 9th cousins. What a ridiculously stupid point to make. Obviously because they are so minisculely related it means they are the exact same politician /rollseye
Your stupid propaganda posts just make me want to vote for RP less and less, and a few months ago he was my 2nd choice behind Hunstman
Say all you want but, get angry at the news report in CBS not me. Anyways, Huntsman was a dick towards Paul when he was running in NH. Also, the Huntsman Campaign may have been behind that racist video that was supposedly posted under the Paul campaign. They basically false flagged it and used a Karl Rove strategy to make them look bad:
On February 03 2012 14:34 Rabbet wrote: But what I am arguing against is the theft of my hard earned dollars, through taxation, to support a mandate that government has no business being in(healthcare).
such short sightedness, such selfishness, such ingratitude.
your "hard earned dollars"? what a joke. even if you went to private school, rode through the woods on a bicycle you made your damn self and killed/grew all of your own food the people you work with who make your income possible use the public infrastructure, public safety and public health.
you are NOTHING without society and if you want to see how fast your little fantasy evaporates take it to a country where the government really doesnt do anything, including taking your money. I hear Etheopia is nice. Somalia, too.
whoever taught you about government and/or history failed miserably to instill in you an appreciation for the social contract and what it means to be a good citizen.
you speak of theft? someone seems to have robbed you of your common sense.
Social contract? Ok, so if I have to hold up my end of this contract why doesn't the government have to hold up its end? It comes down to who has the power and as it stands the government has the power. If I take someones money, I go to jail. Yet the government takes my money unwillingly ever tax year, and so what? The government was never created by the people for the people to intrude on our lives and force us into doing things we do not want to do(giving away my own money). I don't disregard the social contract, I don't steal from people and I don't use violence against people, but it is quite hypocritical that government abuses the powers that we have given them and people like you try to contort the view that keeping what is rightfully ours into a negative thing like shortsightedness, selfishness and ingratitude.
Taxes are not theft. They are your dues for enjoying the benefits of society. If you don't like it, move. That's how a social contract works.
Robin hood stole from the rich and gave to the poor. Whether there are benefits to this, and whether this creates a better world is another discussion. Nevertheless taxes are theft. You could however argue that its a nessacary theft for the greater good.
The ability to earn money is predicated on the government establishing a stable society. Without that, you cannot earn a single dime. Taxes are part of that operating cost, not theft.
On February 03 2012 06:40 Focuspants wrote: Health care should not be a business. It should be an essntial service. Period. Corporations cut corners to maximize profits, they artificially inflate prices, they try to deny expensive services in an effort to make moe money. The Canadian system isnt perfect, but it is very very good. I just had to rush my grandma to the hospital after she had a blood test, which was processed within hours, and the lab doctor called our house at 11:30pm (the lab is open 24 hours) to let us know her hemoglobin level was critically low and to rush her to emergency (she had 4 hours before her heart would have seized). We rushed to the hospital, she was in the ER with 2 doctors and a team of nurses within 1 minute of arriving, she got a blood transfusion (5 bags). She got a stomach scope, they found she was bleeding from her stomach, they fixed it immediately. She stayed in the hospital for 4 nights, and it cost us 0 dollars. Shes at home happy and healthy.
Anyone that thinks you should have to pay out the ass for that, or deal with corporations and insurance companies is out of their mind. Ive had many experiences with many family friends and relatives and the health care system, and I cant understand how a free market system is even remotely considered to be an option.
I dont understand how Santorum could look a woman in the eye and say that to her. Its really sad. When did being conservative become being bat shit crazy. None of the remaining candidates have realistic positions that benefit normal people, and they have even less to show for the poor.
It cost you 0 dollars, but it cost me $6000. Why should my family and I have to suffer because your grandma is dying? The problem with health care in general is people like you that think that because you don't pay the hospitals directly that it all occurs for free. It is not free, we pay taxes out the ass to support central medical care. People who are healthy and live healthy lives are punished by government through taxation to pay for your grandma's stomach. What incentive is there to live properly to extend your own life when you can just suckle off the government tit to cure what ails you?
~20% of all taxation goes to healthcare, which is very high.
My grandma worked and paid taxes since the 50s in this country. I know the money comes from paying taxes. The point is its a non-for profit system which is run by an organization whos main focus is keeping its citizens alive, not earning money. The belief that you should only pay for what you need is extremely selfish and misguided. The fact is that someone that was bron with a health issue, or acquired one (yes people that lead healthy lives do get sick believe it or not), should not mean they should be forced to pay tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, or millions of dollars to a corporation for medication.
Also, It didnt cost me 0 and you 6k. I had to pay taxes, as did my sister, as did my mom, as did my dad, etc... You arent this unfortunate person being ripped off by the government paying for everyones shit. We all pitch in. You give yourself too much worth. Without others, you would be nothing. I would much rather pay for the care of 6 ppl per year, knowing full well that I dont have to worry about myself being taken care of when I need it, than make myself a shed. If someone walked up to you and said you can either pay your taxes and help these people live, or make yourself a shed, you would actually pick the shed? Taxes dont burden you to a point of not being able to live comfortably. Youre just a selfish prick.
Apparently there is enough motivation in Canada to have much lower poverty rates, a higher standard of living, lower crime rates, a larger middle class, etc... than the US. Youre going to pay for healthcare one way or another, and the fact is, it costs many times more in the US per capita. The amount of work and money my grandma has put into the system far outweighs the amount shes used. Shes almost surely put more into it than you have, and shes DEFINITELY faced more adversity, and had to work harder to build a life here than you or I have. Stop being an arrogant dick, and look at the facts. The system that more closely resembles your desires, is significantly worse.
Shouldn't one be able to choose if another's problems become their own? I don't feel the need to replace my friends car when he gets into an accident. If my brother's lawn mower breaks down, he doesn't come to me for money for a new one. Why is health any different? I would help my friend pay for a new car and my brother a lawn mower but it is my choice to do so.
If all your family pay taxes, then in a system not controlled by the government you all would have pitched in and helped your grandma out because you would all have a lot more money to do so. I am sorry if you think I'm a prick but honestly I don't give a shit about your grandma or her stomach troubles. If you went up to the average person and said "my grandma is sick and needs money for a nurse to live with her, give me money to pay for it now!" what do you think the response would be? People are greedy and selfish, it is one of our guiding instincts that make us a successful species and I won't feel shame for having it.
The next logical step would be to look at what kind of society you would want to create, one that combats your greedy and selfish nature or one that allows it to triumph. Noone is asking you to be ashamed of being human, but they are asking you if building a society based on what you percieve that nature to be (and a view which I share to some extent) is a good idea. It's evident to me that's not the case, but then I have insight both into political science and societal history. Theorycrafting is great and all but don't forget that we can learn a lot from history. There have been many, many ways to organize and run societies through the ages.
It is pretty clear that I would prefer a society that triumphs greed. One lesson from history that proves true through every incarnation of governments is that greed remains a constant driving force and although governments fail the human species has remained successful. Government has little to do with our growth and in most cases becomes a road block in our development.
The EU and US governments will fail, the people will embrace the freedom, prosper and move on....likely to create another government that could fall into the same pattern again.
If you would be so kind as to bring forth the your insight, instead of just talking about it, that suggests greed is not a good guiding instinct that would be great.
On February 03 2012 14:34 Rabbet wrote: But what I am arguing against is the theft of my hard earned dollars, through taxation, to support a mandate that government has no business being in(healthcare).
such short sightedness, such selfishness, such ingratitude.
your "hard earned dollars"? what a joke. even if you went to private school, rode through the woods on a bicycle you made your damn self and killed/grew all of your own food the people you work with who make your income possible use the public infrastructure, public safety and public health.
you are NOTHING without society and if you want to see how fast your little fantasy evaporates take it to a country where the government really doesnt do anything, including taking your money. I hear Etheopia is nice. Somalia, too.
whoever taught you about government and/or history failed miserably to instill in you an appreciation for the social contract and what it means to be a good citizen.
you speak of theft? someone seems to have robbed you of your common sense.
Social contract? Ok, so if I have to hold up my end of this contract why doesn't the government have to hold up its end? It comes down to who has the power and as it stands the government has the power. If I take someones money, I go to jail. Yet the government takes my money unwillingly ever tax year, and so what? The government was never created by the people for the people to intrude on our lives and force us into doing things we do not want to do(giving away my own money). I don't disregard the social contract, I don't steal from people and I don't use violence against people, but it is quite hypocritical that government abuses the powers that we have given them and people like you try to contort the view that keeping what is rightfully ours into a negative thing like shortsightedness, selfishness and ingratitude.
Taxes are not theft. They are your dues for enjoying the benefits of society. If you don't like it, move. That's how a social contract works.
Robin hood stole from the rich and gave to the poor. Whether there are benefits to this, and whether this creates a better world is another discussion. Nevertheless taxes are theft. You could however argue that its a nessacary theft for the greater good.
The ability to earn money is predicated on the government establishing a stable society. Without that, you cannot earn a single dime. Taxes are part of that operating cost, not theft.
But even if you needed a little govenrment to secure property rights, then the taxes would still be theft. But of course the theft would be nessarcary in this scenario to secure individual rights.
The U.S. economy added 243,000 jobs in January and the unemployment rate has fallen to 8.3 percent, according to the latest jobs report from the Labor Department. The numbers mark the fifth straight month that unemployment has dropped.
Analyst expectations ranged from high 100,000s to low 200,000s, so the numbers exceed expectations.
White House Council of Economic Advisers Chairman Alan Krueger said the January jobs report provides further evidence that "the economy is continuing to heal from the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression."
Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's, told MSNBC's Chuck Todd that the report is "unambiguously positive." Hourly earnings are increasing and it shows the economy is "definitively gaining traction," he said.
The unemployment rate for adult men and also adult women is 7.7 percent, according to the report. For blacks, it is 13.6 percent. For Hispanics, it is 10.5 percent. And for teenagers, it is 23.2 percent. House Speaker John Boehner weighed in on the jobs number, welcoming the news, but saying "we must do better." House Majority Leader Eric Cantor echoed Boehner's statement, saying "we should aim even higher."
Also does anyone here think that Romney should probably steer clear of mentioning Donald Trump? The man who becamse famous for declaring Bankruptcy on a Casino etc.
On February 04 2012 02:32 allecto wrote: C'mon guys, what is this? Pay your taxes, it's the price for getting the great opportunity to live in this country. As much as I think the government needs to downsized, I will never complain about taxation for that fact.
As for this, I find this slightly misleading. I mean, obviously the US has higher health care expenditures. We do have a less healthy/more obese lifestyle in general, right?
Well you can prob. find a lot of things that are misleading if your goal is to compare quality/price (which is obv. an impossible task as quality is subjective). But nevertheless, the US system costs way too much, and government need to get out of the way completely. Somehow people think that libertarians are supposed to approve of a market based system which is being interfered by government. No we don't. Its a terrible approach. One can even go back like 50 pages or so, and see that I wrote that the regulation of the current financial system might actually be benefical for the stability of the system, because the system is already so insanely manipulated by government, that it doesn't work very well. But to have a real sound and sustainable market, government needs to get completely out of the way. Not just 10% less, 20%, less, 100% out, or the market doesn't work. Some times 10% less is actually worse than status quo.
On February 03 2012 14:34 Rabbet wrote: But what I am arguing against is the theft of my hard earned dollars, through taxation, to support a mandate that government has no business being in(healthcare).
such short sightedness, such selfishness, such ingratitude.
your "hard earned dollars"? what a joke. even if you went to private school, rode through the woods on a bicycle you made your damn self and killed/grew all of your own food the people you work with who make your income possible use the public infrastructure, public safety and public health.
you are NOTHING without society and if you want to see how fast your little fantasy evaporates take it to a country where the government really doesnt do anything, including taking your money. I hear Etheopia is nice. Somalia, too.
whoever taught you about government and/or history failed miserably to instill in you an appreciation for the social contract and what it means to be a good citizen.
you speak of theft? someone seems to have robbed you of your common sense.
Social contract? Ok, so if I have to hold up my end of this contract why doesn't the government have to hold up its end? It comes down to who has the power and as it stands the government has the power. If I take someones money, I go to jail. Yet the government takes my money unwillingly ever tax year, and so what? The government was never created by the people for the people to intrude on our lives and force us into doing things we do not want to do(giving away my own money). I don't disregard the social contract, I don't steal from people and I don't use violence against people, but it is quite hypocritical that government abuses the powers that we have given them and people like you try to contort the view that keeping what is rightfully ours into a negative thing like shortsightedness, selfishness and ingratitude.
Taxes are not theft. They are your dues for enjoying the benefits of society. If you don't like it, move. That's how a social contract works.
Robin hood stole from the rich and gave to the poor. Whether there are benefits to this, and whether this creates a better world is another discussion. Nevertheless taxes are theft. You could however argue that its a nessacary theft for the greater good.
The ability to earn money is predicated on the government establishing a stable society. Without that, you cannot earn a single dime. Taxes are part of that operating cost, not theft.
But even if you needed a little govenrment to secure property rights, then the taxes would still be theft. But of course the theft would be nessarcary in this scenario to secure individual rights.
The libertarian principle is that government's job is to protect people's liberty, freedom and property from others. That has a cost, however many countries (such as mine) can afford this easily by taxing the usage of common property, aka natural resources explotation by private enterprises.
That said, while I agree that this job is necessary and taxes should be collected FOR THIS PURPOSE in case its needed, just because it works, I'm not sure what's the moral principle that allows it other than "it works", and that makes it different from other taxes to increase government expenditure even further, which I do consider theft.
On February 03 2012 14:34 Rabbet wrote: But what I am arguing against is the theft of my hard earned dollars, through taxation, to support a mandate that government has no business being in(healthcare).
such short sightedness, such selfishness, such ingratitude.
your "hard earned dollars"? what a joke. even if you went to private school, rode through the woods on a bicycle you made your damn self and killed/grew all of your own food the people you work with who make your income possible use the public infrastructure, public safety and public health.
you are NOTHING without society and if you want to see how fast your little fantasy evaporates take it to a country where the government really doesnt do anything, including taking your money. I hear Etheopia is nice. Somalia, too.
whoever taught you about government and/or history failed miserably to instill in you an appreciation for the social contract and what it means to be a good citizen.
you speak of theft? someone seems to have robbed you of your common sense.
Social contract? Ok, so if I have to hold up my end of this contract why doesn't the government have to hold up its end? It comes down to who has the power and as it stands the government has the power. If I take someones money, I go to jail. Yet the government takes my money unwillingly ever tax year, and so what? The government was never created by the people for the people to intrude on our lives and force us into doing things we do not want to do(giving away my own money). I don't disregard the social contract, I don't steal from people and I don't use violence against people, but it is quite hypocritical that government abuses the powers that we have given them and people like you try to contort the view that keeping what is rightfully ours into a negative thing like shortsightedness, selfishness and ingratitude.
Taxes are not theft. They are your dues for enjoying the benefits of society. If you don't like it, move. That's how a social contract works.
Robin hood stole from the rich and gave to the poor. Whether there are benefits to this, and whether this creates a better world is another discussion. Nevertheless taxes are theft. You could however argue that its a nessacary theft for the greater good.
The ability to earn money is predicated on the government establishing a stable society. Without that, you cannot earn a single dime. Taxes are part of that operating cost, not theft.
But even if you needed a little govenrment to secure property rights, then the taxes would still be theft. But of course the theft would be nessarcary in this scenario to secure individual rights.
Taxes = Theft? Sigh, stating this horrid talking point on proves you're complete ignorance on the evolution of taxation from origins in the city state through European state governance where we (the united states) borrow the concept from.
On February 03 2012 14:34 Rabbet wrote: But what I am arguing against is the theft of my hard earned dollars, through taxation, to support a mandate that government has no business being in(healthcare).
such short sightedness, such selfishness, such ingratitude.
your "hard earned dollars"? what a joke. even if you went to private school, rode through the woods on a bicycle you made your damn self and killed/grew all of your own food the people you work with who make your income possible use the public infrastructure, public safety and public health.
you are NOTHING without society and if you want to see how fast your little fantasy evaporates take it to a country where the government really doesnt do anything, including taking your money. I hear Etheopia is nice. Somalia, too.
whoever taught you about government and/or history failed miserably to instill in you an appreciation for the social contract and what it means to be a good citizen.
you speak of theft? someone seems to have robbed you of your common sense.
Social contract? Ok, so if I have to hold up my end of this contract why doesn't the government have to hold up its end? It comes down to who has the power and as it stands the government has the power. If I take someones money, I go to jail. Yet the government takes my money unwillingly ever tax year, and so what? The government was never created by the people for the people to intrude on our lives and force us into doing things we do not want to do(giving away my own money). I don't disregard the social contract, I don't steal from people and I don't use violence against people, but it is quite hypocritical that government abuses the powers that we have given them and people like you try to contort the view that keeping what is rightfully ours into a negative thing like shortsightedness, selfishness and ingratitude.
Taxes are not theft. They are your dues for enjoying the benefits of society. If you don't like it, move. That's how a social contract works.
Robin hood stole from the rich and gave to the poor. Whether there are benefits to this, and whether this creates a better world is another discussion. Nevertheless taxes are theft. You could however argue that its a nessacary theft for the greater good.
The ability to earn money is predicated on the government establishing a stable society. Without that, you cannot earn a single dime. Taxes are part of that operating cost, not theft.
But even if you needed a little govenrment to secure property rights, then the taxes would still be theft. But of course the theft would be nessarcary in this scenario to secure individual rights.
That statement that it is theft assumes that property rights actually exist without existence of government-like organization in place.
On February 03 2012 14:34 Rabbet wrote: But what I am arguing against is the theft of my hard earned dollars, through taxation, to support a mandate that government has no business being in(healthcare).
such short sightedness, such selfishness, such ingratitude.
your "hard earned dollars"? what a joke. even if you went to private school, rode through the woods on a bicycle you made your damn self and killed/grew all of your own food the people you work with who make your income possible use the public infrastructure, public safety and public health.
you are NOTHING without society and if you want to see how fast your little fantasy evaporates take it to a country where the government really doesnt do anything, including taking your money. I hear Etheopia is nice. Somalia, too.
whoever taught you about government and/or history failed miserably to instill in you an appreciation for the social contract and what it means to be a good citizen.
you speak of theft? someone seems to have robbed you of your common sense.
Social contract? Ok, so if I have to hold up my end of this contract why doesn't the government have to hold up its end? It comes down to who has the power and as it stands the government has the power. If I take someones money, I go to jail. Yet the government takes my money unwillingly ever tax year, and so what? The government was never created by the people for the people to intrude on our lives and force us into doing things we do not want to do(giving away my own money). I don't disregard the social contract, I don't steal from people and I don't use violence against people, but it is quite hypocritical that government abuses the powers that we have given them and people like you try to contort the view that keeping what is rightfully ours into a negative thing like shortsightedness, selfishness and ingratitude.
Taxes are not theft. They are your dues for enjoying the benefits of society. If you don't like it, move. That's how a social contract works.
Robin hood stole from the rich and gave to the poor. Whether there are benefits to this, and whether this creates a better world is another discussion. Nevertheless taxes are theft. You could however argue that its a nessacary theft for the greater good.
The ability to earn money is predicated on the government establishing a stable society. Without that, you cannot earn a single dime. Taxes are part of that operating cost, not theft.
But even if you needed a little govenrment to secure property rights, then the taxes would still be theft. But of course the theft would be nessarcary in this scenario to secure individual rights.
The libertarian principle is that government's job is to protect people's liberty, freedom and property from others. That has a cost, however many countries (such as mine) can afford this easily by taxing the usage of common property, aka natural resources explotation by private enterprises.
That said, while I agree that this job is necessary and taxes should be collected FOR THIS PURPOSE in case its needed, just because it works, I'm not sure what's the moral principle that allows it other than "it works", and that makes it different from other taxes to increase government expenditure even further, which I do consider theft.
Well the minimalistic state approach vs anarchy(capitalistic) debate is an endless discussion. In anarchy your rights doesn't get guaranteed (you have to pay for them). But there is no "legalized" theft. Anyway from a pragmatic approach I favor the anarchy, as I am not sure whether the minimalistic approach can work long term (government tends to expand unfortunately). Maybe a non democracy/non dictatorship minimalistic approach could work. Don't really know.
The U.S. economy added 243,000 jobs in January and the unemployment rate has fallen to 8.3 percent, according to the latest jobs report from the Labor Department. The numbers mark the fifth straight month that unemployment has dropped.
Analyst expectations ranged from high 100,000s to low 200,000s, so the numbers exceed expectations.
White House Council of Economic Advisers Chairman Alan Krueger said the January jobs report provides further evidence that "the economy is continuing to heal from the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression."
Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's, told MSNBC's Chuck Todd that the report is "unambiguously positive." Hourly earnings are increasing and it shows the economy is "definitively gaining traction," he said.
The unemployment rate for adult men and also adult women is 7.7 percent, according to the report. For blacks, it is 13.6 percent. For Hispanics, it is 10.5 percent. And for teenagers, it is 23.2 percent. House Speaker John Boehner weighed in on the jobs number, welcoming the news, but saying "we must do better." House Majority Leader Eric Cantor echoed Boehner's statement, saying "we should aim even higher."
Also does anyone here think that Romney should probably steer clear of mentioning Donald Trump? The man who becamse famous for declaring Bankruptcy on a Casino etc.
He should probably steer clear of mentioning him due to the fact that the votes Trump would add are the ones he already has.
On February 03 2012 14:34 Rabbet wrote: But what I am arguing against is the theft of my hard earned dollars, through taxation, to support a mandate that government has no business being in(healthcare).
such short sightedness, such selfishness, such ingratitude.
your "hard earned dollars"? what a joke. even if you went to private school, rode through the woods on a bicycle you made your damn self and killed/grew all of your own food the people you work with who make your income possible use the public infrastructure, public safety and public health.
you are NOTHING without society and if you want to see how fast your little fantasy evaporates take it to a country where the government really doesnt do anything, including taking your money. I hear Etheopia is nice. Somalia, too.
whoever taught you about government and/or history failed miserably to instill in you an appreciation for the social contract and what it means to be a good citizen.
you speak of theft? someone seems to have robbed you of your common sense.
Social contract? Ok, so if I have to hold up my end of this contract why doesn't the government have to hold up its end? It comes down to who has the power and as it stands the government has the power. If I take someones money, I go to jail. Yet the government takes my money unwillingly ever tax year, and so what? The government was never created by the people for the people to intrude on our lives and force us into doing things we do not want to do(giving away my own money). I don't disregard the social contract, I don't steal from people and I don't use violence against people, but it is quite hypocritical that government abuses the powers that we have given them and people like you try to contort the view that keeping what is rightfully ours into a negative thing like shortsightedness, selfishness and ingratitude.
Taxes are not theft. They are your dues for enjoying the benefits of society. If you don't like it, move. That's how a social contract works.
Robin hood stole from the rich and gave to the poor. Whether there are benefits to this, and whether this creates a better world is another discussion. Nevertheless taxes are theft. You could however argue that its a nessacary theft for the greater good.
The ability to earn money is predicated on the government establishing a stable society. Without that, you cannot earn a single dime. Taxes are part of that operating cost, not theft.
But even if you needed a little govenrment to secure property rights, then the taxes would still be theft. But of course the theft would be nessarcary in this scenario to secure individual rights.
The libertarian principle is that government's job is to protect people's liberty, freedom and property from others. That has a cost, however many countries (such as mine) can afford this easily by taxing the usage of common property, aka natural resources explotation by private enterprises.
That said, while I agree that this job is necessary and taxes should be collected FOR THIS PURPOSE in case its needed, just because it works, I'm not sure what's the moral principle that allows it other than "it works", and that makes it different from other taxes to increase government expenditure even further, which I do consider theft.
Well the minimalistic state approach vs anarchy(capitalistic) debate is an endless discussion. In anarchy your rights doesn't get guaranteed (you have to pay for them). But there is no "legalized" theft. Anyway from a pragmatic approach I favor the anarchy, as I am not sure whether the minimalistic approach can work long term (government tends to expand unfortunately). Maybe a non democracy/non dictatorship minimalistic approach could work. Don't really know.
I think government needs to keep force monopoly. Any political science study done in the last 30 years will tell you when this doesn't happen, there will always be a bully with guns and not the free market required for wealth creation. The bully can come from somewhere else aswell.
On February 03 2012 14:34 Rabbet wrote: But what I am arguing against is the theft of my hard earned dollars, through taxation, to support a mandate that government has no business being in(healthcare).
such short sightedness, such selfishness, such ingratitude.
your "hard earned dollars"? what a joke. even if you went to private school, rode through the woods on a bicycle you made your damn self and killed/grew all of your own food the people you work with who make your income possible use the public infrastructure, public safety and public health.
you are NOTHING without society and if you want to see how fast your little fantasy evaporates take it to a country where the government really doesnt do anything, including taking your money. I hear Etheopia is nice. Somalia, too.
whoever taught you about government and/or history failed miserably to instill in you an appreciation for the social contract and what it means to be a good citizen.
you speak of theft? someone seems to have robbed you of your common sense.
Social contract? Ok, so if I have to hold up my end of this contract why doesn't the government have to hold up its end? It comes down to who has the power and as it stands the government has the power. If I take someones money, I go to jail. Yet the government takes my money unwillingly ever tax year, and so what? The government was never created by the people for the people to intrude on our lives and force us into doing things we do not want to do(giving away my own money). I don't disregard the social contract, I don't steal from people and I don't use violence against people, but it is quite hypocritical that government abuses the powers that we have given them and people like you try to contort the view that keeping what is rightfully ours into a negative thing like shortsightedness, selfishness and ingratitude.
Taxes are not theft. They are your dues for enjoying the benefits of society. If you don't like it, move. That's how a social contract works.
Robin hood stole from the rich and gave to the poor. Whether there are benefits to this, and whether this creates a better world is another discussion. Nevertheless taxes are theft. You could however argue that its a nessacary theft for the greater good.
The ability to earn money is predicated on the government establishing a stable society. Without that, you cannot earn a single dime. Taxes are part of that operating cost, not theft.
But even if you needed a little govenrment to secure property rights, then the taxes would still be theft. But of course the theft would be nessarcary in this scenario to secure individual rights.
That statement that it is theft assumes that property rights actually exist without existence of government-like organization in place.
There is written a lot of litterature about this. I haven't had time to study anarchy that much, but there are a lot of different approaches to anarchy (capitalistic). David Friedman had one that was kinda utility based, and Murray Rothbard is more rightbased.
On February 03 2012 14:34 Rabbet wrote: But what I am arguing against is the theft of my hard earned dollars, through taxation, to support a mandate that government has no business being in(healthcare).
such short sightedness, such selfishness, such ingratitude.
your "hard earned dollars"? what a joke. even if you went to private school, rode through the woods on a bicycle you made your damn self and killed/grew all of your own food the people you work with who make your income possible use the public infrastructure, public safety and public health.
you are NOTHING without society and if you want to see how fast your little fantasy evaporates take it to a country where the government really doesnt do anything, including taking your money. I hear Etheopia is nice. Somalia, too.
whoever taught you about government and/or history failed miserably to instill in you an appreciation for the social contract and what it means to be a good citizen.
you speak of theft? someone seems to have robbed you of your common sense.
Social contract? Ok, so if I have to hold up my end of this contract why doesn't the government have to hold up its end? It comes down to who has the power and as it stands the government has the power. If I take someones money, I go to jail. Yet the government takes my money unwillingly ever tax year, and so what? The government was never created by the people for the people to intrude on our lives and force us into doing things we do not want to do(giving away my own money). I don't disregard the social contract, I don't steal from people and I don't use violence against people, but it is quite hypocritical that government abuses the powers that we have given them and people like you try to contort the view that keeping what is rightfully ours into a negative thing like shortsightedness, selfishness and ingratitude.
Taxes are not theft. They are your dues for enjoying the benefits of society. If you don't like it, move. That's how a social contract works.
Robin hood stole from the rich and gave to the poor. Whether there are benefits to this, and whether this creates a better world is another discussion. Nevertheless taxes are theft. You could however argue that its a nessacary theft for the greater good.
The ability to earn money is predicated on the government establishing a stable society. Without that, you cannot earn a single dime. Taxes are part of that operating cost, not theft.
But even if you needed a little govenrment to secure property rights, then the taxes would still be theft. But of course the theft would be nessarcary in this scenario to secure individual rights.
The libertarian principle is that government's job is to protect people's liberty, freedom and property from others. That has a cost, however many countries (such as mine) can afford this easily by taxing the usage of common property, aka natural resources explotation by private enterprises.
That said, while I agree that this job is necessary and taxes should be collected FOR THIS PURPOSE in case its needed, just because it works, I'm not sure what's the moral principle that allows it other than "it works", and that makes it different from other taxes to increase government expenditure even further, which I do consider theft.
Well within libertarian assumptions/principles you cannot find such a moral principle. But it is easily "allowed" under ethical systems where property rights are granted for practical reasons and are not some basic right. That is why libertarians call it theft and others do not.
Really someone should just make a thread for discussing libertarian ideology instead of jamming all the discussion into a thread dedicated to the republican nominees. While it's true Ron Paul is a nominee, his campaign doesn't actually represent the true extent of libertarian ideology. Right now he's campaigning for minimal federal government interference based on his interpretation of the constitution. He accepts that individual states should have the right to make many of the decisions that the federal government is making for them. He's also running for the Republican party, NOT the libertarian party, so the extent to which he could actually impose a truly minimal federal government, even if elected, is far less than any libertarian would want, which is not to say he would be unpalatable to libertarians, just that the current ideological discussion that keeps popping up has nothing to do with the republican nomination in general, and only partially represents Ron Paul (if Ron Paul were elected, you'd still be paying taxes, so why discuss the notion of taxes as theft when the notion itself could sustain it's own thread?).
On February 03 2012 14:34 Rabbet wrote: But what I am arguing against is the theft of my hard earned dollars, through taxation, to support a mandate that government has no business being in(healthcare).
such short sightedness, such selfishness, such ingratitude.
your "hard earned dollars"? what a joke. even if you went to private school, rode through the woods on a bicycle you made your damn self and killed/grew all of your own food the people you work with who make your income possible use the public infrastructure, public safety and public health.
you are NOTHING without society and if you want to see how fast your little fantasy evaporates take it to a country where the government really doesnt do anything, including taking your money. I hear Etheopia is nice. Somalia, too.
whoever taught you about government and/or history failed miserably to instill in you an appreciation for the social contract and what it means to be a good citizen.
you speak of theft? someone seems to have robbed you of your common sense.
Social contract? Ok, so if I have to hold up my end of this contract why doesn't the government have to hold up its end? It comes down to who has the power and as it stands the government has the power. If I take someones money, I go to jail. Yet the government takes my money unwillingly ever tax year, and so what? The government was never created by the people for the people to intrude on our lives and force us into doing things we do not want to do(giving away my own money). I don't disregard the social contract, I don't steal from people and I don't use violence against people, but it is quite hypocritical that government abuses the powers that we have given them and people like you try to contort the view that keeping what is rightfully ours into a negative thing like shortsightedness, selfishness and ingratitude.
Taxes are not theft. They are your dues for enjoying the benefits of society. If you don't like it, move. That's how a social contract works.
Robin hood stole from the rich and gave to the poor. Whether there are benefits to this, and whether this creates a better world is another discussion. Nevertheless taxes are theft. You could however argue that its a nessacary theft for the greater good.
The ability to earn money is predicated on the government establishing a stable society. Without that, you cannot earn a single dime. Taxes are part of that operating cost, not theft.
But even if you needed a little govenrment to secure property rights, then the taxes would still be theft. But of course the theft would be nessarcary in this scenario to secure individual rights.
The libertarian principle is that government's job is to protect people's liberty, freedom and property from others. That has a cost, however many countries (such as mine) can afford this easily by taxing the usage of common property, aka natural resources explotation by private enterprises.
That said, while I agree that this job is necessary and taxes should be collected FOR THIS PURPOSE in case its needed, just because it works, I'm not sure what's the moral principle that allows it other than "it works", and that makes it different from other taxes to increase government expenditure even further, which I do consider theft.
Well the minimalistic state approach vs anarchy(capitalistic) debate is an endless discussion. In anarchy your rights doesn't get guaranteed (you have to pay for them). But there is no "legalized" theft. Anyway from a pragmatic approach I favor the anarchy, as I am not sure whether the minimalistic approach can work long term (government tends to expand unfortunately). Maybe a non democracy/non dictatorship minimalistic approach could work. Don't really know.
I think government needs to keep force monopoly. Any political science study done in the last 30 years will tell you when this doesn't happen, there will always be a bully with guns and not the free market required for wealth creation. The bully can come from somewhere else aswell.
I don't think your right, but I haven't read enough about this subject to have a serious debate. But my last point is that there hasn't really been anarcho-capitalism in the last 30 years.
On February 03 2012 14:34 Rabbet wrote: But what I am arguing against is the theft of my hard earned dollars, through taxation, to support a mandate that government has no business being in(healthcare).
such short sightedness, such selfishness, such ingratitude.
your "hard earned dollars"? what a joke. even if you went to private school, rode through the woods on a bicycle you made your damn self and killed/grew all of your own food the people you work with who make your income possible use the public infrastructure, public safety and public health.
you are NOTHING without society and if you want to see how fast your little fantasy evaporates take it to a country where the government really doesnt do anything, including taking your money. I hear Etheopia is nice. Somalia, too.
whoever taught you about government and/or history failed miserably to instill in you an appreciation for the social contract and what it means to be a good citizen.
you speak of theft? someone seems to have robbed you of your common sense.
Social contract? Ok, so if I have to hold up my end of this contract why doesn't the government have to hold up its end? It comes down to who has the power and as it stands the government has the power. If I take someones money, I go to jail. Yet the government takes my money unwillingly ever tax year, and so what? The government was never created by the people for the people to intrude on our lives and force us into doing things we do not want to do(giving away my own money). I don't disregard the social contract, I don't steal from people and I don't use violence against people, but it is quite hypocritical that government abuses the powers that we have given them and people like you try to contort the view that keeping what is rightfully ours into a negative thing like shortsightedness, selfishness and ingratitude.
Taxes are not theft. They are your dues for enjoying the benefits of society. If you don't like it, move. That's how a social contract works.
Robin hood stole from the rich and gave to the poor. Whether there are benefits to this, and whether this creates a better world is another discussion. Nevertheless taxes are theft. You could however argue that its a nessacary theft for the greater good.
The ability to earn money is predicated on the government establishing a stable society. Without that, you cannot earn a single dime. Taxes are part of that operating cost, not theft.
But even if you needed a little govenrment to secure property rights, then the taxes would still be theft. But of course the theft would be nessarcary in this scenario to secure individual rights.
That statement that it is theft assumes that property rights actually exist without existence of government-like organization in place.
There is written a lot of litterature about this. I haven't had time to study anarchy that much, but there are a lot of different approaches to anarchy (capitalistic). David Friedman had one that was kinda utility based, and Murray Rothbard is more rightbased.
I am not familiar which exact approach Friedman has taken, but if he did use utilitarian-like approach then he also probably would not call taxes theft in general, he would just call them unnecessary/wasteful based on his opinion about government inefficiency.
On February 03 2012 14:34 Rabbet wrote: But what I am arguing against is the theft of my hard earned dollars, through taxation, to support a mandate that government has no business being in(healthcare).
such short sightedness, such selfishness, such ingratitude.
your "hard earned dollars"? what a joke. even if you went to private school, rode through the woods on a bicycle you made your damn self and killed/grew all of your own food the people you work with who make your income possible use the public infrastructure, public safety and public health.
you are NOTHING without society and if you want to see how fast your little fantasy evaporates take it to a country where the government really doesnt do anything, including taking your money. I hear Etheopia is nice. Somalia, too.
whoever taught you about government and/or history failed miserably to instill in you an appreciation for the social contract and what it means to be a good citizen.
you speak of theft? someone seems to have robbed you of your common sense.
Social contract? Ok, so if I have to hold up my end of this contract why doesn't the government have to hold up its end? It comes down to who has the power and as it stands the government has the power. If I take someones money, I go to jail. Yet the government takes my money unwillingly ever tax year, and so what? The government was never created by the people for the people to intrude on our lives and force us into doing things we do not want to do(giving away my own money). I don't disregard the social contract, I don't steal from people and I don't use violence against people, but it is quite hypocritical that government abuses the powers that we have given them and people like you try to contort the view that keeping what is rightfully ours into a negative thing like shortsightedness, selfishness and ingratitude.
Taxes are not theft. They are your dues for enjoying the benefits of society. If you don't like it, move. That's how a social contract works.
Robin hood stole from the rich and gave to the poor. Whether there are benefits to this, and whether this creates a better world is another discussion. Nevertheless taxes are theft. You could however argue that its a nessacary theft for the greater good.
The ability to earn money is predicated on the government establishing a stable society. Without that, you cannot earn a single dime. Taxes are part of that operating cost, not theft.
But even if you needed a little govenrment to secure property rights, then the taxes would still be theft. But of course the theft would be nessarcary in this scenario to secure individual rights.
That statement that it is theft assumes that property rights actually exist without existence of government-like organization in place.
There is written a lot of litterature about this. I haven't had time to study anarchy that much, but there are a lot of different approaches to anarchy (capitalistic). David Friedman had one that was kinda utility based, and Murray Rothbard is more rightbased.
I am not familiar which exact approach Friedman has taken, but if he did use utilitarian-like approach then he also probably would not call taxes theft in general, he would just call them unnecessary/wasteful based on his opinion about government inefficiency.
Pretty sure he called them theft. But just because you think something is theft, doesn't mean you can't justify it according to your own ideology (Hi Robin Hood).
such short sightedness, such selfishness, such ingratitude.
your "hard earned dollars"? what a joke. even if you went to private school, rode through the woods on a bicycle you made your damn self and killed/grew all of your own food the people you work with who make your income possible use the public infrastructure, public safety and public health.
you are NOTHING without society and if you want to see how fast your little fantasy evaporates take it to a country where the government really doesnt do anything, including taking your money. I hear Etheopia is nice. Somalia, too.
whoever taught you about government and/or history failed miserably to instill in you an appreciation for the social contract and what it means to be a good citizen.
you speak of theft? someone seems to have robbed you of your common sense.
Social contract? Ok, so if I have to hold up my end of this contract why doesn't the government have to hold up its end? It comes down to who has the power and as it stands the government has the power. If I take someones money, I go to jail. Yet the government takes my money unwillingly ever tax year, and so what? The government was never created by the people for the people to intrude on our lives and force us into doing things we do not want to do(giving away my own money). I don't disregard the social contract, I don't steal from people and I don't use violence against people, but it is quite hypocritical that government abuses the powers that we have given them and people like you try to contort the view that keeping what is rightfully ours into a negative thing like shortsightedness, selfishness and ingratitude.
Taxes are not theft. They are your dues for enjoying the benefits of society. If you don't like it, move. That's how a social contract works.
Robin hood stole from the rich and gave to the poor. Whether there are benefits to this, and whether this creates a better world is another discussion. Nevertheless taxes are theft. You could however argue that its a nessacary theft for the greater good.
The ability to earn money is predicated on the government establishing a stable society. Without that, you cannot earn a single dime. Taxes are part of that operating cost, not theft.
But even if you needed a little govenrment to secure property rights, then the taxes would still be theft. But of course the theft would be nessarcary in this scenario to secure individual rights.
That statement that it is theft assumes that property rights actually exist without existence of government-like organization in place.
There is written a lot of litterature about this. I haven't had time to study anarchy that much, but there are a lot of different approaches to anarchy (capitalistic). David Friedman had one that was kinda utility based, and Murray Rothbard is more rightbased.
I am not familiar which exact approach Friedman has taken, but if he did use utilitarian-like approach then he also probably would not call taxes theft in general, he would just call them unnecessary/wasteful based on his opinion about government inefficiency.
Pretty sure he called them theft. But just because you think something is theft, doesn't mean you can't justify it according to your own ideology (Hi Robin Hood).
Right, the whole point to defining taxation as theft is to ensure that taxes are procured in the most moral way possible and to ensure that the government has a sufficient justification for the things which it taxes the citizens for. It isn't to simply state that all taxes are unjustified and therefore should be completely eliminated, as a lot of people assume regarding libertarian ideology. It's simply a way of saying "is the forceful taking of this citizens property justified for this purpose?" In many cases the answer is a clear no, but people lump all taxes together and simply assume that libertarians want people to starve to death or something.
I'll admit that many libertarians come off as naive or plain crazy, but the important thing to note is that most of the philosophy is based upon a very simple morality which the majority of people, including liberals, agree with. To simply throw the whole issue of morality out the window because you can't figure out how to solve some economic problems is a terrible mindset to have.
"Do your best to not cause harm to other people." It's a pretty basic moral principle, right? Try to start with this foundation instead of just jumping into "omg libertarian philosophy is stupid and crazy."
EPT![[image loading]](http://geke.us/GS.001.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://soc101.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/health-care-per-capita-total-current-health-care-expenditures-us-and-selected-countries-2006.jpg)
