• 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!

Lower 2014 income can net huge health care subsidy

Boo Radley said:
Nope. Factually you're just wrong on this.
Click to expand...

Its principle. Has nothing to do with brute facts and everything to do with a way of thinking. Sure, there is not socialist government that says "oh you can't work so someone else can," yet a simple examination of the ideology that leads to socialism, this line of thinking permeates it the entire way.
 
ReformCollege said:
What part of capitalism believes in forced equality through redistribution? I must have missed that part.
Click to expand...

You're changing your own words. Can't blame you for that. Your own words were stupid

But here's what you said:
Holding people back to let others succeed is a characteristic feature of socialism.
Click to expand...

Note how your words say nothing about forced equality
 
ReformCollege said:
What part of capitalism believes in forced equality through redistribution? I must have missed that part.
Click to expand...

Who said anything about forced equality or redistribution?

Oh wait, that was you.
 
ReformCollege said:
Its principle. Has nothing to do with brute facts and everything to do with a way of thinking. Sure, there is not socialist government that says "oh you can't work so someone else can," yet a simple examination of the ideology that leads to socialism, this line of thinking permeates it the entire way.
Click to expand...

That's not true either. Ever work with the Amish? Very socialistic, and full of hard workers. There are a lot of myths about all forms of government. But much depends on the who, the where, the why and how it was done. Such overarching statements as the one you made are simply not factually correct.
 
sangha said:
That would be the fault of stupidity not Obamacare. If someone chooses to make less money instead of maximizing their income while decreasing their taxes *and* qualifying themselves for a subsidy, then they got what they deserve for being morons.
Click to expand...

LOL. Now people are "morons" because Obamadon'tcare forced their employers to cut hours. The "stupidity" is in that law itself.
 
ItAin'tFree said:
LOL. Now people are "morons" because Obamadon'tcare forced their employers to cut hours. The "stupidity" is in that law itself.
Click to expand...

The article clearly states that it's the couple who can choose to work less hours, not the employer.

Try to address the point that was actually made instead of ranting
 
Boo Radley said:
That's not true either. Ever work with the Amish? Very socialistic, and full of hard workers. There are a lot of myths about all forms of government. But much depends on the who, the where, the why and how it was done. Such overarching statements as the one you made are simply not factually correct.
Click to expand...

You mean the group that still gets around like its Salem, 1692? Yeah, because that's the perfect example of not believing in holding society back. :roll:
 
sangha said:
You're changing your own words. Can't blame you for that. Your own words were stupid

But here's what you said:


Note how your words say nothing about forced equality
Click to expand...

Forced equality is socialism.
Forced inequality is fascism.
True capitalism is force-less.

Hope that clears things up for you.
 
ReformCollege said:
Forced equality is socialism.
Forced inequality is fascism.
True capitalism is force-less.

Hope that clears things up for you.
Click to expand...

You have generally two types of government....democratic/republican (citizens control their lives) based or totalitarian (govt controls your life). In order to facilitate the above types you must have a totalitarian regime. Show me where this hasn't happened. The Left wants to control every aspect of your life, and will have to take draconian measures eventually to get there. Even the current generation of liberals don't see it yet. It will take more time. They think that people will voluntarily give up their more fundamental freedoms. The piecemeal approach is occuring now, but I don't think it will be far down the road that increasingly draconian measure will ensue, unless people fight it. I doubt seriously that the Left will stop at the European model. Once achieved they will find a reason to go further. The fighting in Congress is an example of the fighting going on to stop the march of social justice based on guaranted equal outcome.

Equal opportunity has long been abandoned by the Left, who saw that it existed but was not pursued by enough to satisfy them. By eliminating personal responsibility for life, for guaranteed equal outcome, they think that they will achieve their concept of social justice. I believe they will ultimately fail because like communism (or any other equal outcome based approach), if fails due to human nature.
 
ReformCollege said:
You mean the group that still gets around like its Salem, 1692? Yeah, because that's the perfect example of not believing in holding society back. :roll:
Click to expand...

They are the purest practicing form of socialism. But don't skip the point just to make fun of a group. :coffeepap
 
Boo Radley said:
They are the purest practicing form of socialism. But don't skip the point just to make fun of a group. :coffeepap
Click to expand...

You're the one skipping the point. Pure socialism means holding society back, which they do practice. Your example proved my original point exactly.
 
American said:
You have generally two types of government....democratic/republican (citizens control their lives) based or totalitarian (govt controls your life). In order to facilitate the above types you must have a totalitarian regime. Show me where this hasn't happened. The Left wants to control every aspect of your life, and will have to take draconian measures eventually to get there. Even the current generation of liberals don't see it yet. It will take more time. They think that people will voluntarily give up their more fundamental freedoms. The piecemeal approach is occuring now, but I don't think it will be far down the road that increasingly draconian measure will ensue, unless people fight it. I doubt seriously that the Left will stop at the European model. Once achieved they will find a reason to go further. The fighting in Congress is an example of the fighting going on to stop the march of social justice based on guaranted equal outcome.

Equal opportunity has long been abandoned by the Left, who saw that it existed but was not pursued by enough to satisfy them. By eliminating personal responsibility for life, for guaranteed equal outcome, they think that they will achieve their concept of social justice. I believe they will ultimately fail because like communism (or any other equal outcome based approach), if fails due to human nature.
Click to expand...

You're preaching to the choir my friend.
 
sangha said:
The article clearly states that it's the couple who can choose to work less hours, not the employer.

Try to address the point that was actually made instead of ranting
Click to expand...

Reducing income by a few hundred dollars to get thousands more in subsidies isn't some stupid choice being made by individuals. Its the incentives laid out by the structure of the law.
 
ReformCollege said:
You're the one skipping the point. Pure socialism means holding society back, which they do practice. Your example proved my original point exactly.
Click to expand...

No, it really doesn't. They mix in a religious belief. Without that, their work ethic would move them forward just fine. You confuse different things.
 
ReformCollege said:
Reducing income by a few hundred dollars to get thousands more in subsidies isn't some stupid choice being made by individuals. Its the incentives laid out by the structure of the law.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is a stupid choice when one can *not* reduce one's income and still get the subsidies while protecting some of your income from taxes.
 
sangha said:
Yes, it is a stupid choice when one can *not* reduce one's income and still get the subsidies while protecting some of your income from taxes.
Click to expand...

I think you're missing the part where the subsidies are bracketed not scaled.
 
ReformCollege said:
Forced equality is socialism.
Forced inequality is fascism.
True capitalism is force-less.

Hope that clears things up for you.
Click to expand...

Not really.

First, no one said anything about holding anyone back that I know of. Second, people can work together for common goals and not hold anyone back. And capitalism is full of use of force. Remember, someone always wins.

I'm just saying less of the propaganda and more facts would be appreciated. I'd not advocating for socialism. I just think factual arguments are better than vague emotion driven generalities.
 
ReformCollege said:
You're the one skipping the point. Pure socialism means holding society back, which they do practice. Your example proved my original point exactly.
Click to expand...

Let it go. You've won the argument 15 times already. This is just what they do, twisting themselves into these verbally gymnastic word contortions with a host of preset Alinsky tactics, muddying up the debate by sending you on a rabbit trail. Then they return back to the home base for further orders.

Congratulations on your victory.
 
Samhain said:
Lower 2014 income can net huge health care subsidy - SFGate

If there ever was a clear cut benefit from working less to get more, right there is your poster child example.
Click to expand...


This OP and several comments that follow degrade less affluent (poor) folks for "potentially" doing what they can to take advantage of a tax credit. How is this any different, other then the obvious fact that the poor need it more, then the super rich using every imaginable tax credit available? (Romney comes to mind)
 
Samhain said:
Lower 2014 income can net huge health care subsidy - SFGate

If there ever was a clear cut benefit from working less to get more, right there is your poster child example.
Click to expand...

Well, maybe. But working less still means less money. I'm not at all sure how the subsidy works. It should be progressive, which would avoid much of the nonsense. If one is putting $50,000 into a SEP plan and spending down their cash in order to get a subsidy....well, that's just one more loophole that has to be fixed. Putting money into a tax-deferred savings account should not invoke subsidies. If it does? It needs fixing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom