• 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!

Reid says Obamacare just a step toward eventual single-payer system[W:1539]

It would help if you answered the question. What sources do you want me to post that you would accept since actual data from the Treasury doesn't seem to fit the bill?

I don't have a list. But surely when you use something inaccurate, you can't expect people to accept it. And when you misread what numbers mean, you can't expect not to be called on it.
 
It seems like you are only going to believe the sources you want to believe and ignore anything that contradicts your point of view. In addition logic and common sense apparently have no place in the liberal mind. Continuing to reward bad behavior is what you and others always support. It makes no sense with a 17 trillion dollar debt to add more to it by creating another entitlement program that simply gives the govt. more money to waste.

No, I accept accurate information. I give you accurate information.
 
I don't have a list. But surely when you use something inaccurate, you can't expect people to accept it. And when you misread what numbers mean, you can't expect not to be called on it.

How would you know if it is inaccurate as you refuse to even research anything that goes against what you believe. Still waiting for the sources that you would believe? Do you believe the Treasury Dept data? How about CBO numbers? Have you bothered to see what the CBO is now scoring Obamacare? Any idea where the doctors are going to come from to service Obamacare? Why are doctors dropping out of Medicare? Why is it you believe the rosy picture painted by liberals regarding a single payer system? Can you not see this is nothing more than a funding program for other liberal programs? 17 trillion in debt, trillions in unfunded liabilities and that isn't enough for you?
 
No, I accept accurate information. I give you accurate information.

You give me partisan opinion pieces and pass them off as fact. Please tell me how you expect the govt. that has run up a 17 trillion dollar debt, never implemented any social program at the projected costs is going to administer efficiently a program for 312 million Americans?
 
Pennies on the dollar.

Seems those pennies have added up to 17 trillion dollars. All this spending in the name of compassion only brainwashes good people. Tell me why you would give them more money to waste or use for programs other than healthcare? how much of your SS contribution has been wasted on other programs?
 
How would you know if it is inaccurate as you refuse to even research anything that goes against what you believe. Still waiting for the sources that you would believe? Do you believe the Treasury Dept data? How about CBO numbers? Have you bothered to see what the CBO is now scoring Obamacare? Any idea where the doctors are going to come from to service Obamacare? Why are doctors dropping out of Medicare? Why is it you believe the rosy picture painted by liberals regarding a single payer system? Can you not see this is nothing more than a funding program for other liberal programs? 17 trillion in debt, trillions in unfunded liabilities and that isn't enough for you?

Wo says I don't research? I've given you many links over the years, each more accurate than you give and with them being properly interpreted. ;)
 
You give me partisan opinion pieces and pass them off as fact. Please tell me how you expect the govt. that has run up a 17 trillion dollar debt, never implemented any social program at the projected costs is going to administer efficiently a program for 312 million Americans?

No, I haven't. If and when I use an opinion piece, I note it as opinion. But even within the opinion, any facts used have to be accurate before I'll use the opinion.
 
Libertarian. Never heard of a social contract?

Of course. We have no such contract in the US which contains the idea of govt existing to take peoples money to invest for them. Now if you would like to offer me one, then bring up an amendment.
 
Of course. We have no such contract in the US which contains the idea of govt existing to take peoples money to invest for them. Now if you would like to offer me one, then bring up an amendment.

The Social Contract and Government

The fundamental basis for government and law in this system is the concept of the social contract, according to which human beings begin as individuals in a state of nature, and create a society by establishing a contract whereby they agree to live together in harmony for their mutual benefit, after which they are said to live in a state of society. This contract involves the retaining of certain natural rights, an acceptance of restrictions of certain liberties, the assumption of certain duties, and the pooling of certain powers to be exercised collectively.

The social contract is very simple. It has only two basic terms: (1) mutual defense of rights; and (2) mutual decision by deliberative assembly. There are no agents, no officials, that persist from one deliberative assembly to another. The duties of the social contract are militia. There may be customs that persist from assembly to assembly, such as customs for due notice, parliamentary procedure, judicial due process, and enforcement of court orders by militia. This second term could be called the constitution of society, but it precedes a constitution of government and should not be confused with it.

(Snip)

Governmental Powers and Duties

Some critics of social contract theory argue that there are some powers of government that are not derived from powers of the people or delegated to the government by them. However, a careful analysis will show that all powers exercised by government derive either from the people as a whole, or from some subset of the people, or from one person, and that only the first are legitimate. The power to tax? Persons in the state of nature have the power to tax themselves, although they would not ordinarily think of it that way.

Most written constitutions prescribe the powers delegated to government, but are not always explicit about the duties. It is implied that the government has the duty to exercise its powers wisely and pursuant to the purposes of the social contract. But some persons argue that the power to act is also the power not to act. Could the government choose not to exercise its power to conduct elections, or to defend the country, or to maintain a sound currency, or to organize and train the militias of each state? No. Except in case of emergency, and only for the duration of the emergency, government must exercise the powers delegated to it according to their purposes to the best of its ability. That is its duty. Just as it is the duty of every member of society to exercise his or her powers in service of the community.

The Social Contract and Constitutional Republics
 
Of course. We have no such contract in the US which contains the idea of govt existing to take peoples money to invest for them. Now if you would like to offer me one, then bring up an amendment.

Federal taxation is in violation of the Fourth Amendment. People just "accept" taxation and judges just keep enforcing taxation because it's how they put food on the table..

Of course states have taxation legislated into their constitutions.. Apparently our federal government believes they're too "fresh" to legislate tax laws into our constitution...
 
Wo says I don't research? I've given you many links over the years, each more accurate than you give and with them being properly interpreted. ;)

The problem is the taxpayers don't pay debt service on your links, they do on the Treasury data, something you don't understand. What do you think the taxpayers will pay in debt service on a single payer system debt? Think the money for that system grows on trees?
 
No, I haven't. If and when I use an opinion piece, I note it as opinion. But even within the opinion, any facts used have to be accurate before I'll use the opinion.

Then provide me the costs of a single payer system and how it will be implemented so it won't add to the debt and will provide better service and care?
 
Federal taxation is in violation of the Fourth Amendment. People just "accept" taxation and judges just keep enforcing taxation because it's how they put food on the table..

Of course states have taxation legislated into their constitutions.. Apparently our federal government believes they're too "fresh" to legislate tax laws into our constitution...

What makes you think this? I can find anything but nutter groups saying this. I mean, Alex Jones?
 
The problem is the taxpayers don't pay debt service on your links, they do on the Treasury data, something you don't understand. What do you think the taxpayers will pay in debt service on a single payer system debt? Think the money for that system grows on trees?

I have done that for you and others already. You would get back you premiums, not taken out of your check, as well as your employers, in return for a 6% tax increase. For most that would mean more money in their pockets. Employers could even afford to pay more, compete better globally, and over all, we'd have better access. And if you choose to buy more, nothing will stop you.
 
The problem is the taxpayers don't pay debt service on your links, they do on the Treasury data, something you don't understand. What do you think the taxpayers will pay in debt service on a single payer system debt? Think the money for that system grows on trees?

No one thinks money grows on trees. Y should investigate more.
 
What makes you think this? I can find anything but nutter groups saying this. I mean, Alex Jones?

Really? then prove it...

Show me anywhere in our constitution where taxes are even mentioned.

Why you think our government sold war bonds for? or bonds in general?

I didn't know that it was nutty to be educated.
 
I have done that for you and others already. You would get back you premiums, not taken out of your check, as well as your employers, in return for a 6% tax increase. For most that would mean more money in their pockets. Employers could even afford to pay more, compete better globally, and over all, we'd have better access. And if you choose to buy more, nothing will stop you.

Really? And you believe that? Premiums have gone up, not down and nothing the govt. has ever done has come in on budget and been efficient. How you can believe your premiums will go down and you get more in your pay check is beyond comprehension based upon history. Where are you going to get the doctors to service all these new people? Why are doctors dropping out of Medicare? Hospitals not accepting Medicare? Higher taxes? Great, more money for the govt. to spend, a true liberal dream. I cannot believe how naive and gullible you are.
 
Really? then prove it...

Show me anywhere in our constitution where taxes are even mentioned.

Why you think our government sold war bonds for? or bonds in general?

I didn't know that it was nutty to be educated.

The word can in my quote should read can't, and I don't no how to prove I can't. That's why I asked you where you came to this from. But as the courts have ruled concerning taxes, your question doesn't really answer my question (and I asked first), what leads you to the forth amendment?
 
Really? And you believe that? Premiums have gone up, not down and nothing the govt. has ever done has come in on budget and been efficient. How you can believe your premiums will go down and you get more in your pay check is beyond comprehension based upon history. Where are you going to get the doctors to service all these new people? Why are doctors dropping out of Medicare? Hospitals not accepting Medicare? Higher taxes? Great, more money for the govt. to spend, a true liberal dream. I cannot believe how naive and gullible you are.

Government doesn't set the premiums you're paying. So, they have little to do with what I said.

But yes, if you get a net profit, paying less in one place, you have not been harmed. It's math. If you being home $1000 month . You no longer have to pay your $200 premium. You get say 160 of that on your take home pay. Your boos no longer has to pay the other $400 dollars of it. So he can give another $100 a month (if he wants). You could have an additional 260 in take home pay. Your taxes increase by 6%. I'll say that's $120. You still make more than $140 more than you were making.

Yep, that's bad. :coffeepap
 
Government doesn't set the premiums you're paying. So, they have little to do with what I said.

But yes, if you get a net profit, paying less in one place, you have not been harmed. It's math. If you being home $1000 month . You no longer have to pay your $200 premium. You get say 160 of that on your take home pay. Your boos no longer has to pay the other $400 dollars of it. So he can give another $100 a month (if he wants). You could have an additional 260 in take home pay. Your taxes increase by 6%. I'll say that's $120. You still make more than $140 more than you were making.

Yep, that's bad. :coffeepap

Boo, sorry but you are absolutely hopeless, all theory and nothing factual. NO Govt program has ever cost what it was supposed to cost, EVER. Here is a program that hasn't even been implemented yet and already is projected to cost trillions and yet you think it is a good deal? You are a liberal bureaucrats dream
 
Spending on infrastructure creates jobs; spending on education leads to more people who can then compete in the ever changing world. Both help build a sound nation.

Last I looked, we were in desperate need of an upgraded electrical grid and highways system, high speed trains which compare to those in Asia and Europe, and many more people educated in math and science. You don't think it behooves us as a nation to invest in those things and encourage more kids to learn math and science?

LOL. I'm sure the left is going to rally around the cause and agree not to file BS environmental lawsuits to stop any and all proposed updated highway system. And an "upgraded electrical grid"? Are you aware of how many lawsuits have to be won just to start a new power plant that has already been approved?

Spending on infrastructure doesn't create jobs. Taxpayers create jobs.

For what purpose a high speed train other than political corruption? It doesn't make economic sense. Once again getting the wacko left not to file lawsuits to halt all those projects except in the smallest of scale would prove next to impossible. Complete waste of time, that idea.

We already spend billions on education. Why aren't they meeting the needs now in math and science? They have plenty of money, that's not the problem.

Everything you have listed has had government build road block after road block up in opposition to. Bigger government is the problem, not the answer.
 
The word can in my quote should read can't, and I don't no how to prove I can't. That's why I asked you where you came to this from. But as the courts have ruled concerning taxes, your question doesn't really answer my question (and I asked first), what leads you to the forth amendment?

The simple fact you can't prove the government can is telling - because the federal government is not only stealing from people but violating the Fourth Amendment.

Judges are tyrannical - they get paid via taxes - they wouldn't have a job if it wasn't for taxes, just like the alleged "climate change" quacks wouldn't have a job if not for the myth "of global warming."

We call this job security...

Putting food on the table trumps truth any day... There are few people in this world that would choose truth over money...

What is a lawyer without a job? a man/woman living in their parents basement that doesn't even know how to mow a lawn.
 
Boo, sorry but you are absolutely hopeless, all theory and nothing factual. NO Govt program has ever cost what it was supposed to cost, EVER. Here is a program that hasn't even been implemented yet and already is projected to cost trillions and yet you think it is a good deal? You are a liberal bureaucrats dream

None is too absolute, but much of the problems have been asking programs to do more than planned for. The 6% number is a plan, spelled out, and it includes everyone. So, not as much room to move away from.

But take the numbers and tell me why you object to keeping more money?
 
The simple fact you can't prove the government can is telling - because the federal government is not only stealing from people but violating the Fourth Amendment.

Judges are tyrannical - they get paid via taxes - they wouldn't have a job if it wasn't for taxes, just like the alleged "climate change" quacks wouldn't have a job if not for the myth "of global warming."

We call this job security...

Putting food on the table trumps truth any day... There are few people in this world that would choose truth over money...

What is a lawyer without a job? a man/woman living in their parents basement that doesn't even know how to mow a lawn.

I can't follow the rant. Take a deep breath. Count to ten. Exhale. Repeat a few more times. Now relax.

ready.

Answer my question please.
 
Back
Top Bottom