• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Supreme Court health care arguments under way

There is reasonable and there is unreasonable.

Do you believe someone should retire at the taxpayers expense after 30 years of working and then live off someone elses work for another 30 years?

What makes the taxpayers being the employer any different than anyone else? Perhaps you can explain that to me.
 
I admit that this was difficult to unravel. Are you actually as ignorant as you sound?


So the 80,000 plus rules and regulations at the federal level plus the thousands more at the state level are having no impact on businesses and therefore the market? Is that your argument? Are you actually as ignorant as you sound?


Okay. You are as ignorant as you sound. I get it.

How do corporations legislate?
What are loopholes and speculation? What is on the come gambling?


Is it your intention to force me (and those like me who actually pay the federal income taxes) to pay for the things you want? If that isn't socialsim then what would you call it? I am willing to accept that you call it theft and the person doing it a thief. But the broader term is socialist.


Let's see:
"mix freedom with health care and the government"
"exploits something very dear and intimate"
"to every US citizen and those trying to achieve citizenship"
...and on and on and on.

What?

You should not be on drugs when your post on this board. While using drugs I suggest that you read. Do not post while toasted.


I shall mark you down as undecided.

Okay, you make it very obvious that you haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about and know even less about American history.

Anybody who doesn't agree with you is a socialist or some other type of drain on your 'merica. And since you have no idea what America is or how we came about - then you of course know nothing about this country.

(chuckle)
 
That explains it all. Union thug. Communist sympathizer. Got it. Happy you.

Good luck with your education. I suggest that you try the Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx followed by practically anything written by Hayek and Mises.
Then follow up with Adam Smith's Inquiry into the Wealth of Nations. Then more by Hayek. If you fail to reach enlightenment reach for anything written by Mark Levin. I suggest you start with something light, Liberty and Tyranny, for example. Then top it off with Ameritopia.

Then come back and let's converse. If it does not change your mind you are lost.

(chuckle)

Jealouse; trapped in your own unhappy world.

And that's it.
 
LOL. I really don't object when a union destroys its host company. The union dies along with the company. But I absolutely object to public sector unions whose members are making deals with democratic politicians. Those unions must be outlawed for the good of the taxpayer.

No matter. You have your good deal. Go for it and prosper. Perhaps you will be the death of the idea that was America.

Profound ignorance: good luck.
 
I'm surprised. Few people are rich enough or are willing to die younger than usual.
Maybe I misunderstood you. I would love to get out from under the socialist state run healthcare system. Let me keep my money to buy what I choose to buy. If I make bad choices they are my problem not your problem. The last statement is what I took away from your post.
 
Employers, state, federal, or private all sit at the table and negotiate. They are part of the equation and this is true whether the programs go insolvent or not. You do see this, right?
In the case of public sector unions the only people left our are the ones who pay the bills, the taxpayers.
 
What makes the taxpayers being the employer any different than anyone else? Perhaps you can explain that to me.
Taxpayers are not a party to the agreement but they are responsible for paying the bills. That is the difference. Politicians do not represent the taxpayers. So who gets screwed?
 
Employers, state, federal, or private all sit at the table and negotiate. They are part of the equation and this is true whether the programs go insolvent or not. You do see this, right?

There is a huge difference between private unions and public unions. In a public union the "leaders" negotiate with the people that they help get elected via donations. A private sector union does nothing of the kind. That can make a HUGE difference.
 
There is a huge difference between private unions and public unions. In a public union the "leaders" negotiate with the people that they help get elected via donations. A private sector union does nothing of the kind. That can make a HUGE difference.

Those who negotiate are responsible to a large number of groups and tax payers. It would not be wise on their part to throw any group down the toliet, so they have a responsibility to be good stewards. So, I think the difference is over played as both groups answer to others. It helps no one, least of all the elected offical, to be too fiscally irresponsible.
 
Those who negotiate are responsible to a large number of groups and tax payers. It would not be wise on their part to throw any group down the toliet, so they have a responsibility to be good stewards. So, I think the difference is over played as both groups answer to others. It helps no one, least of all the elected offical, to be too fiscally irresponsible.
Except that is not the way it works in the real world. Union thugs make deals with democrat politicians. The politician gets elected with the help of union "volunteers". The union gets big pay and/or benefit increases. The politicians get kickbacks called donations to their campaigns. The cycle repeats until we become Greece.
 
Except that is not the way it works in the real world. Union thugs make deals with democrat politicians. The politician gets elected with the help of union "volunteers". The union gets big pay and/or benefit increases. The politicians get kickbacks called donations to their campaigns. The cycle repeats until we become Greece.

Yeah, I know that is how you approach it. But the fact, and it is a fact, is that leaders answer to everyone. Business, worker, retired folks, poor folks, rich folks, and so on. It does no one any good to be fiscally irresponsibile. And we can all reward or kick out anyone who doesn't behave in the best interests of all. If we don't, blame us.
 
Yeah, I know that is how you approach it. But the fact, and it is a fact, is that leaders answer to everyone. Business, worker, retired folks, poor folks, rich folks, and so on. It does no one any good to be fiscally irresponsibile. And we can all reward or kick out anyone who doesn't behave in the best interests of all. If we don't, blame us.

And yet the US went into a recession not too long ago because of why? Politicians helping out their buddies who helped them get elected. The negative aspects of legislation often don't present themselves until years have gone by, when things are allowed to build up. In the mean time both sides are gaining while the third loses. And when it all collapses they do their best to shift the blame. Be the blame gets shifted to an opposing party or some patsy.
 
Yeah, I know that is how you approach it. But the fact, and it is a fact, is that leaders answer to everyone. Business, worker, retired folks, poor folks, rich folks, and so on. It does no one any good to be fiscally irresponsibile. And we can all reward or kick out anyone who doesn't behave in the best interests of all. If we don't, blame us.

Uh-huh. Right.
 
Except that is not the way it works in the real world. Union thugs make deals with democrat politicians. The politician gets elected with the help of union "volunteers". The union gets big pay and/or benefit increases. The politicians get kickbacks called donations to their campaigns. The cycle repeats until we become Greece.
But if indeed that kind of action takes place it's just as likely to happen on the business side as well - and this ...

And yet the US went into a recession not too long ago because of why? Politicians helping out their buddies who helped them get elected. The negative aspects of legislation often don't present themselves until years have gone by, when things are allowed to build up. In the mean time both sides are gaining while the third loses. And when it all collapses they do their best to shift the blame. Be the blame gets shifted to an opposing party or some patsy.
... is sometimes the result. Unions didn't put us in this hellhole.

I have yet to see any good reason why unions should be treated differently than corporations when it comes to political power. Limiting one while giving the other even more free reign (corporate free speech, really?) does not keep the system balanced.
 
... is sometimes the result. Unions didn't put us in this hellhole.

I have yet to see any good reason why unions should be treated differently than corporations when it comes to political power. Limiting one while giving the other even more free reign (corporate free speech, really?) does not keep the system balanced.

I think you missed my point. My point is that public unions can hold more sway over politicians than normal joe blow down the street.

But I do agree with you about corporations. They have just as much power as does a public union. As such I believe that they need to be brought down a peg or two also. The solution to get rid of public unions is simple, just don't allow them. The solution for corporations however...not so simple.

Note that I didn't say that it would be easy for either one......
 
I think you missed my point. My point is that public unions can hold more sway over politicians than normal joe blow down the street.

But I do agree with you about corporations. They have just as much power as does a public union. As such I believe that they need to be brought down a peg or two also. The solution to get rid of public unions is simple, just don't allow them. The solution for corporations however...not so simple.

Note that I didn't say that it would be easy for either one......

The solution in both cases is bog-obvious: don't allow them to make political contributions to campaigns or PACs.
 
But if indeed that kind of action takes place it's just as likely to happen on the business side as well - and this ...

... is sometimes the result. Unions didn't put us in this hellhole.

I have yet to see any good reason why unions should be treated differently than corporations when it comes to political power. Limiting one while giving the other even more free reign (corporate free speech, really?) does not keep the system balanced.
There are two kinds of unions. One is parasitic and feeds on private companies. If it devours its host company the parasite dies. The union problem is immediately solved. The other is like a ravening lion. It feeds on taxpayers. It had no real boundaries as the government can always use more force to take real property away from taxpayers. Once their greed destroys the tax base, as people vote with their feet and move from the public-sector-union ravaged counties and cities, then and only then are the public sector unions in danger.

Of course the socialists like it. Unionization is one way to keep the masses of unwashed in their places so their betters, the union bosses and democratic party leaders, can live as royalty.
 
The solution in both cases is bog-obvious: don't allow them to make political contributions to campaigns or PACs.
It is even simpler. Allow everybody to. We have this new-fangled thang called the Innernet. With it anyone can look up anythang. Let's just make it a requirement that there be full disclosure of who is buying whom.
 
I'm not sure what you didn't understand. What happens is they go insolvent. No one wants that, but that is what happens. It happens with business without unions as well. And even though I have entertained this diversion from my point, the fact is things like this happen for all kinds of reasons regardless of unions or no unions.

You either clearly do not know what happens, or you are not going to answer it because you know that they are then pushed off on the taxpayer through the Federal pension guarantee program.

Welcome to PBGC

The questions I ask are: 1) what makes union or state employees not deserving of pensions? And 2) Why do you and others here only focus on one half of the equation? Employers, state, federal, or private all sit at the table and negotiate. They are part of the equation and this is true whether the programs go insolvent or not. You do see this, right?

1) What makes them special? Most people who work in this country contribute to a 401K for their retirement, along with employer contribution match if you're lucky.

2) Unions destroy job opportunities. Tell me, If I want to work for a company that has union employment, then why must I join their union?

j-mac
 
You either clearly do not know what happens, or you are not going to answer it because you know that they are then pushed off on the taxpayer through the Federal pension guarantee program.

Welcome to PBGC



1) What makes them special? Most people who work in this country contribute to a 401K for their retirement,

Right there i think that is incorrect. I think most people use their 401 ks as a hedge against their unemployment. Basically they spend that money when they are unemployed.
 
There are two kinds of unions. One is parasitic and feeds on private companies. If it devours its host company the parasite dies. The union problem is immediately solved. The other is like a ravening lion. It feeds on taxpayers. It had no real boundaries as the government can always use more force to take real property away from taxpayers. Once their greed destroys the tax base, as people vote with their feet and move from the public-sector-union ravaged counties and cities, then and only then are the public sector unions in danger.

Of course the socialists like it. Unionization is one way to keep the masses of unwashed in their places so their betters, the union bosses and democratic party leaders, can live as royalty.
It's amazing.
If companies join forces to make more money they're called good capitalists.
If people join forces to make more money they're called socialists and parasites.

Funny how that works, isn't it? :lamo
 
Last edited:
Right there i think that is incorrect. I think most people use their 401 ks as a hedge against their unemployment. Basically they spend that money when they are unemployed.


What kind of fool would part with upwards of 30% to 40% of that money they toiled to save, unless of course it was to save their house from foreclosure or something like that? And if that were the case, what does that say about Obama's policies that we are in such a hole that people are decimating their retirements just to tread water?

The fact is, and it isn't debatable, that when a Unionized business goes under, or their pension plan goes bankrupt they shift that cost of benefit to the taxpayer via the PBGC. All you have to do is study the sale of Bethlehem Steel in Baltimore MD. and see what happened to those union pensions.

You have the right to disagree, but you don't have the right to your own facts.

j-mac
 
The solution in both cases is bog-obvious: don't allow them to make political contributions to campaigns or PACs.

:shrug: then they'll pour it into in-kind donations, and "public education" instead.

the only way to stop the influx of money by interest groups is to make it non-profitable for the interest groups to play.
 
What kind of fool would part with upwards of 30% to 40% of that money they toiled to save, unless of course it was to save their house from foreclosure or something like that? And if that were the case, what does that say about Obama's policies that we are in such a hole that people are decimating their retirements just to tread water?

You have the right to disagree, but you don't have the right to your own facts.
Still throwing the blame for Bushonomics onto Obama? :crazy3: I thought we were past all that nonsense.

Your last sentence applies all the way around. Big Business put us into this hellhole, though the lack of oversight didn't help.
 
Last edited:
It's amazing.
If companies join forces to make more money they're called good capitalists.
If people join forces to make more money they're called socialists and parasites.

close.

When people join together to sell to others, they are capitalists.
When people join together to take from others, they are socialists.

:) glad I could help you with that.
 
Back
Top Bottom