Listening to Hannity - Page 4

ballz2wallz · 11-09-2006, 10:23 AM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

Because you are reading "I will come in and take money out of rich peoples pockets to give it to the poor".

When what she is saying is 'The system currently in place makes the rich richer and keeps the poor, poor. We need to eliminate that framework".

Taking from the rich and giving to the poor is her way of 'eliminating that framework'

Why do you think libs support taxing the rich at higher percentages?

Scrum · 11-09-2006, 10:23 AM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

It's a very liberal and socialist policy, whether people agree with it or not. Because people like it doesn't change it's 'leftist-ness'

Not really.

People already recieve medical care for free by not paying their bills. It drives up costs. This will just put a system in place that will hopefully bring down costs.

Scrum · 11-09-2006, 10:25 AM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Taking from the rich and giving to the poor is her way of 'eliminating that framework'

Why do you think libs support taxing the rich at higher percentages?

She says nothing about taking money away from people. She was talking about the system that is in place.

And why do they support higher taxes for the rich? Because they benifit much more from the things citizens pay taxes for.

ballz2wallz · 11-09-2006, 10:25 AM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

This will just put a system in place that will hopefully bring down costs.

Do you base all your economic policies on 'hopefully' this or that will happen, when basic economics suggests otherwise?

Scrum · 11-09-2006, 10:30 AM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Do you base all your economic policies on 'hopefully' this or that will happen, when basic economics suggests otherwise?

Me? I don't have any economic policies.

I'm a drink and spend liberal nutjob!

lew · 11-09-2006, 10:36 AM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

As I have already pointed out, national healthcare has support from the majority of people in this country.

I guess they are all liberal nutjobs though!

That doesn't mean it's not socialist.

People "want" it because people are idiots. Just like with minimum wage, they think the government has magical trees that grow money and can take care of everyone.

lew · 11-09-2006, 10:37 AM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

I agree.

And i'm surprised you like Nader.

I don't like him on everything. But some of the things, yeah.

ballz2wallz · 11-09-2006, 10:38 AM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

I'm a drink and spend liberal nutjob!

That's the only thing I'll agree with you on.

Scrum · 11-09-2006, 10:42 AM

Originally Posted by lew

That doesn't mean it's not socialist.

People "want" it because people are idiots. Just like with minimum wage, they think the government has magical trees that grow money and can take care of everyone.

I think people "want" it because they think that the greatest country in the world shouldn't let the poor who get sick just fade away.

A society is judged by how it treats it's lowest members.

Nobody is saying everyone should be getting the exact same care ot that electives should be paid for by the public. This needs to be used as a saftey net. I would like to see this just be passed for people under 18.

Scrum · 11-09-2006, 10:44 AM

Originally Posted by lew

I don't like him on everything. But some of the things, yeah.

I like him on some things too and he can be really entertaining sometimes.

He just has enough anti-business stances that I figured you wouldn't even pay much attention to him.

lew · 11-09-2006, 10:48 AM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

I think people "want" it because they think that the greatest country in the world shouldn't let the poor who get sick just fade away.

A society is judged by how it treats it's lowest members.

Nobody is saying everyone should be getting the exact same care ot that electives should be paid for by the public. This needs to be used as a saftey net. I would like to see this just be passed for people under 18.

I don't think the poor and sick should fade away either. I'm all for "private socialism", but not for government mandated forms of it.

Scrum · 11-09-2006, 10:49 AM

Originally Posted by lew

I don't think the poor and sick should fade away either. I'm all for "private socialism", but not for government mandated forms of it.

Nothing has stopped "private socialism" from happening, but it's not taking care of the problem.

lew · 11-09-2006, 10:50 AM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

I like him on some things too and he can be really entertaining sometimes.

He just has enough anti-business stances that I figured you wouldn't even pay much attention to him.

Most of his anti-business stances are based against multi-national conglomerate corporations. Those corporations exist on the back of the state and thus are as evil as the state.

lew · 11-09-2006, 10:51 AM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

Nothing has stopped "private socialism" from happening, but it's not taking care of the problem.

Because the government forces out it's competition.

JaJae · 11-09-2006, 11:55 AM

Originally Posted by lew

I don't like him on everything. But some of the things, yeah.

I like Nader too

He's a bit left and green on some issues to me. But he's an honest politician who genuinely cares. And has done a lot for this country just through his races and bringing up issues the Left and Right wouldn't have brought up otherwise. He has a unique perspective I find welcoming and fresh.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot · 11-09-2006, 12:00 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Taking from the rich and giving to the poor is her way of 'eliminating that framework'

Why do you think libs support taxing the rich at higher percentages?

Taking from the rich and giving to the poor looks good in principle but fails in reality.
The common sense reason is for most people money must be earned not given. (You no work ,you no eat)
Our government has given vast sums of money in the war on poverty. One estimate was well over a trillion dollars in the last forty plus years.
What were the results ?
IMO the results was a decline in the standard of living for those that were intended to be helped.
The policy created a huge group of people that existed only to live off the system. Those people lost the will to succeed and this passed on to the next generation.
The war on poverty caused more harm than good.
Robbing Peter to simply give to Paul is still robbing.
I do however feel that gvernment aid for those truly in need is justified.
Keeping it to that level is the hard part...

Thorgrim · 11-09-2006, 02:22 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

It's interesting how there's a code of conduct for the extreme left, yet for people who were once the vice president nominee and who has done more from the Democrats than most other senators there's nothing.

Yeah we didn't get to the part of the code where once Al Gore picks someone for a campaign position and Al Gore loses, they are entitled office for life