3 ms·

I'm not confusing anything, pdk. As ONE example, what do you think Obama's goals of a single-payer healthcare system are if not state ownership of healthcare?

I'm not confusing anything, pdk. As ONE example, what do you think Obama's goals of a single-payer healthcare system are if not state ownership of healthcare? What do you think the IRS's control over your healthcare is if not state ownership. If you think that is regulation, you have a very different definition of the word than I do. Your second point is an appeal to probability fallacy. You conclude that Obama blocked development of energy in America because companies wouldn't develop energy responsibly, when there is no logical reason to make that assumption given that plenty of companies produce energy in non-destructive ways. Your understanding of tax systems seems flawed. There are many, many countries in the world, especially in the Soviet block region, that have implemented flat tax systems, have have enjoyed economic growth, and have not had the social unrest you claim comes with the territory. Even in countries where the flat tax system hasn't gone as well as hoped, other factors, such as government corruption, wasteful spending, high tax rates, etc. have been destructive elements that cannot be ignored. This is all irrelevant, however, and simply a smokescreen to hide the fact that Obama's is obsessed with taxing the rich (and the middle class) using Marx's envy-based tax system. I'm not sure what your point is on estate taxes. Are you saying that if a bad policy only affects a small number of people then it is OK? Or, do you mean to suggest if I don't have $5.43 million in my estate I shouldn't have an opinion on said bad policy? I have better things to do that argue the obvious with someone who is obviously playing team sports. I'm surprised you didn't find a way to fit Fox News or Rush Limbaugh into your argument. I am not a member nor a supporter of the GOP. I am well aware that Obama has done nothing more than double down on Bush's worst policies, while sprinkling his own brand of Marxist idealism on them in order to really polish the giant turd that is the federal government today. How is this relevant? I don't support either of the big parties and suggest you and others consider doing the same. Your civic duty isn't a basketball game. It doesn't matter if you win or lose, as long as you vote for what is right. Currently, I don't believe correct governing principles exist in either of the major parties. They are both corrupt.

pdkl95 11y ago
Let's see... you don't understand the difference between the government managing healthcare payments/insurance (money) and managing healthcare itself (there are a many differen ways to run a single payer systems than just the NHS model). Your tax-law ideas are half right-wing standard propaganda, half nonsense. "obsessed with taxing the rich"? The rich enjoy the lowest taxes in living memory. They need to be taxed more to counteract the income disparity. Failure to do so will lead to revolution. "wasteful spending" - yet another GOP talking point. $5M is plenty of inheritance. I would personally tax anything above that at 100% - large amounts of inherited wealth is high damaging. The current law in this area is an acceptable compromise. (Also, as most people don't even care, just bringing this up suggests you follow right wing politics and propaganda. > Obama has done nothing more than double down on Bush's worst policies This is the most accurate thing you've said in this entire thread. You have just said yourself that Obama isn't a Marxist. > How is this relevant? Well, paid shill for the GOP was one possibility, as you use so much of their rhetoric. Especially considering: > /user?id=innocentoldguy > created: 22 days ago However, there is a better explanation, given this nonsense: > I don't support either of the big parties > I believe God created > Of course people choose to be gay. > I'm approaching 50 So you're a teahadist. Aka, "useful idiot for the Koch bros". I'm sure you like to use the term "independent", due to the bad PR association. You have several decades of catching up to do - not just on the political situation of the last few decades, but also modern economic theory and social theory. Instead, I suspect you'll continue to support the rich, who have proven very successful at getting what they want by manipulating fears of the "other", while dangling dreams of future riches. Maybe one day you'll notice.
- innocentoldguy 11y ago
  Bwahahahahah! OK, let me tackle each of these, uh, mountains. 1. So, you can't see how controlling the purse strings of medicine is controlling health care? Really? Even if it were completely irrelevant, which it's not, Marxism is about the state taking control of industry, so wouldn't you say Obama has made great strides in allowing the state to take over the health insurance industry? Either way, my point has been made, right? 2. You keep throwing the word "propaganda" and "talking points" around at me, but those two items make up the entirety of your argument. The Democrats always want to point to the extremely high taxes of the 1960, and the economic growth during that era, as proof that the progressive tax system and extremely high taxes (90%+) on the rich work. They point to the Clinton era to show that progressive idealism works. What the Democrats fail to mention is that many of the rich left the country to avoid those taxes in the 1960s, that the economy began to collapse during Clinton's second term, and that Japan's economy collapsed in the 1990s under almost the exact same tax system (I lived there at the time and know). The truth is that high/low taxes always come in cycles and so do economic growths and downturns. Taxes are only one line item in a very complex economic calculation. If you want to argue tax theory, we can do that in another post. My point was, and remans to be, that Obama is a Marxist, and he has made many comments himself to back up that assertion, such as, "I do think at a certain point, you've made enough money." Why not go to YouTube and look and see all the videos showing Obama talking about raising taxes on the rich. Whether he has been able to do so or not is irrelevant. Those are his ideals and they are straight out of The Communist Manifesto. Not that it is relevant to my point, but to address your "wasteful spending" comment, in 2014 alone, the federal government spent money to study the effects of Swedish massages or rabbits, to watch grass grow, to discover how and why Wikipedia is sexist, to see if mothers love dogs as much as they do kids, a smart-phone game to encourage kids to eat peas and other healthy foods, and to teach mountain lions how to walk on treadmills. Do we really need any of that? Really? This list doesn't even address the various departments offering redundant services, the mismanagement, the fraud, etc. When you get a letter from your bank saying you're overdrawn, or when you see you've been double-charged for something on your credit card statement, do you consider that a "talking point?" At what point do facts and reality become something more than a "talking point" for you? 3. No, what I said is that Obama is a Marxist and so was Bush, to some degree. 4. And now we get to the liberal classics. The absolutely irrelevant, ad hominem attacks against me personally because you have nothing else to say. I've been caught! OK, let's follow your logic here for all the other boys and girls. I might as well, since I've been outed, right? Like the closing monologue of a Scooby Do cartoon. OK, here's what I did... I saw this thread yesterday, got in my Koch-brothers Brand™ time machine, traveled back in time 22 days, set up an account, and made comments on technical articles so that nobody would know I'm a GOP shill. Then, when this article popped up 22 days later, according to my new timeline, I sprung my trap against Obama's political dogma. You're logic is absolutely flawless, and I would have gotten away with it too, if it wasn't for you meddling kids! 5. Again, the ad hominem arguments... I think the term you're looking for is "Tea Party supporter." I also think it is humorous, and a bit sad, that you feel the need to group, label, and classify me. You have to have me be on a team that you oppose and are unable to discuss the facts outside of that paradigm. Your hope seems to be to discredit the facts I'm presenting by discrediting me as a person. Don't you think your argument is probably quite weak if you have to resort to such tactics? Another funny thing is, I had never heard of the Koch brothers until Harry Reid gathered up his slip and curls, and started crying into his pillow over them. Who exactly is the talking-point-parroting, propagandist shill in this conversation? 6. I have more than enough money for my needs. I am self-reliant and I do for myself, and don't need to suckle at the teat of government, looking for a handout. I'm happy to keep what I earn and let others do the same. I'm also happy to share with those less fortunate than me. I feel sorry for you, that you feel you have some right to the rewards of other people's labor, and are looking for that payday from the government, which in my fifty years under Democrat and Republican rule, has simply never come. Now, you haven't said one thing to suggest that Obama isn't a Marxist. You've just attacked me. Can we please stick to the Obama/Marxist topic, since that is, after all, what you supposedly wish to argue about?

pdkl95 11y ago

Let's see... you don't understand the difference between the government managing healthcare payments/insurance (money) and managing healthcare itself (there are a many differen ways to run a single payer systems than just the NHS model). Your tax-law ideas are half right-wing standard propaganda, half nonsense. "obsessed with taxing the rich"? The rich enjoy the lowest taxes in living memory. They need to be taxed more to counteract the income disparity. Failure to do so will lead to revolution. "wasteful spending" - yet another GOP talking point. $5M is plenty of inheritance. I would personally tax anything above that at 100% - large amounts of inherited wealth is high damaging. The current law in this area is an acceptable compromise. (Also, as most people don't even care, just bringing this up suggests you follow right wing politics and propaganda. > Obama has done nothing more than double down on Bush's worst policies This is the most accurate thing you've said in this entire thread. You have just said yourself that Obama isn't a Marxist. > How is this relevant? Well, paid shill for the GOP was one possibility, as you use so much of their rhetoric. Especially considering: > /user?id=innocentoldguy > created: 22 days ago However, there is a better explanation, given this nonsense: > I don't support either of the big parties > I believe God created > Of course people choose to be gay. > I'm approaching 50 So you're a teahadist. Aka, "useful idiot for the Koch bros". I'm sure you like to use the term "independent", due to the bad PR association. You have several decades of catching up to do - not just on the political situation of the last few decades, but also modern economic theory and social theory. Instead, I suspect you'll continue to support the rich, who have proven very successful at getting what they want by manipulating fears of the "other", while dangling dreams of future riches. Maybe one day you'll notice.

innocentoldguy 11y ago
Bwahahahahah! OK, let me tackle each of these, uh, mountains. 1. So, you can't see how controlling the purse strings of medicine is controlling health care? Really? Even if it were completely irrelevant, which it's not, Marxism is about the state taking control of industry, so wouldn't you say Obama has made great strides in allowing the state to take over the health insurance industry? Either way, my point has been made, right? 2. You keep throwing the word "propaganda" and "talking points" around at me, but those two items make up the entirety of your argument. The Democrats always want to point to the extremely high taxes of the 1960, and the economic growth during that era, as proof that the progressive tax system and extremely high taxes (90%+) on the rich work. They point to the Clinton era to show that progressive idealism works. What the Democrats fail to mention is that many of the rich left the country to avoid those taxes in the 1960s, that the economy began to collapse during Clinton's second term, and that Japan's economy collapsed in the 1990s under almost the exact same tax system (I lived there at the time and know). The truth is that high/low taxes always come in cycles and so do economic growths and downturns. Taxes are only one line item in a very complex economic calculation. If you want to argue tax theory, we can do that in another post. My point was, and remans to be, that Obama is a Marxist, and he has made many comments himself to back up that assertion, such as, "I do think at a certain point, you've made enough money." Why not go to YouTube and look and see all the videos showing Obama talking about raising taxes on the rich. Whether he has been able to do so or not is irrelevant. Those are his ideals and they are straight out of The Communist Manifesto. Not that it is relevant to my point, but to address your "wasteful spending" comment, in 2014 alone, the federal government spent money to study the effects of Swedish massages or rabbits, to watch grass grow, to discover how and why Wikipedia is sexist, to see if mothers love dogs as much as they do kids, a smart-phone game to encourage kids to eat peas and other healthy foods, and to teach mountain lions how to walk on treadmills. Do we really need any of that? Really? This list doesn't even address the various departments offering redundant services, the mismanagement, the fraud, etc. When you get a letter from your bank saying you're overdrawn, or when you see you've been double-charged for something on your credit card statement, do you consider that a "talking point?" At what point do facts and reality become something more than a "talking point" for you? 3. No, what I said is that Obama is a Marxist and so was Bush, to some degree. 4. And now we get to the liberal classics. The absolutely irrelevant, ad hominem attacks against me personally because you have nothing else to say. I've been caught! OK, let's follow your logic here for all the other boys and girls. I might as well, since I've been outed, right? Like the closing monologue of a Scooby Do cartoon. OK, here's what I did... I saw this thread yesterday, got in my Koch-brothers Brand™ time machine, traveled back in time 22 days, set up an account, and made comments on technical articles so that nobody would know I'm a GOP shill. Then, when this article popped up 22 days later, according to my new timeline, I sprung my trap against Obama's political dogma. You're logic is absolutely flawless, and I would have gotten away with it too, if it wasn't for you meddling kids! 5. Again, the ad hominem arguments... I think the term you're looking for is "Tea Party supporter." I also think it is humorous, and a bit sad, that you feel the need to group, label, and classify me. You have to have me be on a team that you oppose and are unable to discuss the facts outside of that paradigm. Your hope seems to be to discredit the facts I'm presenting by discrediting me as a person. Don't you think your argument is probably quite weak if you have to resort to such tactics? Another funny thing is, I had never heard of the Koch brothers until Harry Reid gathered up his slip and curls, and started crying into his pillow over them. Who exactly is the talking-point-parroting, propagandist shill in this conversation? 6. I have more than enough money for my needs. I am self-reliant and I do for myself, and don't need to suckle at the teat of government, looking for a handout. I'm happy to keep what I earn and let others do the same. I'm also happy to share with those less fortunate than me. I feel sorry for you, that you feel you have some right to the rewards of other people's labor, and are looking for that payday from the government, which in my fifty years under Democrat and Republican rule, has simply never come. Now, you haven't said one thing to suggest that Obama isn't a Marxist. You've just attacked me. Can we please stick to the Obama/Marxist topic, since that is, after all, what you supposedly wish to argue about?