• 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!

Republicans mount shock comeback, erase Democrats’ edge in eyes of Americans

haymarket said:
And that is what the managed health care plan is doing.
Click to expand...

Right, and that isn't the role of the govt. How can the part of choice which you always promote now ignore the individuals right to choose their own policy or in some cases prove NOT to purchase insurance.
 
haymarket said:
The very nature of taxation is to take from one and provide some government program or service to another. What you describe as the peter and paul situation.

The very essence of taxation is to take money from one person, and the government then redistributes it in some fashion.
Click to expand...

Not really. Establishing a policy in which the federal government doesn't rob Peter to pay Paul doesn't require the elimination of taxes. It simply requires the government to stop paying Paul.
 
Conservative said:
Right, and that isn't the role of the govt. How can the part of choice which you always promote now ignore the individuals right to choose their own policy or in some cases prove NOT to purchase insurance.
Click to expand...

I know of no standard of common decency where it is ethical to tell another person what sort of insurance he may or may not buy. As such, the law is unethical and ought to be eliminated, as it violates each person's moral right to make such decisions for himself.
 
Green Man said:
I know of no standard of common decency where it is ethical to tell another person what sort of insurance he may or may not buy. As such, the law is unethical and ought to be eliminated, as it violates each person's moral right to make such decisions for himself.
Click to expand...

We always have a President who is violating the law by changing it, choosing which part to implement an which part not, giving exemptions in a clear violation of the Constitution that haymarket claims to support. Like far too many haymarket supports only the parts he agrees with and ignores the rest.
 
Conservative said:
Right, and that isn't the role of the govt. How can the part of choice which you always promote now ignore the individuals right to choose their own policy or in some cases prove NOT to purchase insurance.
Click to expand...

As you know, the so called right of an individual NOT to have health insurance is often a cost passed on to the larger citizenry.
 
haymarket said:
As you know, the so called right of an individual NOT to have health insurance is often a cost passed on to the larger citizenry.
Click to expand...

And why is that? Could it be that people like you have eliminated the consequences for poor choices? The cost of the uninsured is paid for by the people of the state not the national taxpayers thus making it a state problem. Personal responsibility is a lost trait in today's liberal world.
 
Green Man said:
Not really. Establishing a policy in which the federal government doesn't rob Peter to pay Paul doesn't require the elimination of taxes. It simply requires the government to stop paying Paul.
Click to expand...

To follow your idea, the government would then not spend any money which does not benefit every citizen equally.
How would you even begin to attempt to achieve such an impossibility?
 
Conservative said:
And why is that? Could it be that people like you have eliminated the consequences for poor choices? The cost of the uninsured is paid for by the people of the state not the national taxpayers thus making it a state problem. Personal responsibility is a lost trait in today's liberal world.
Click to expand...

We are a Christian based nation which will not allow people to be hit with the consequences of their own actions. It matters not if you or I do not approve of it. It is simply the way it is.
 
Conservative said:
We always have a President who is violating the law by changing it, choosing which part to implement an which part not, giving exemptions in a clear violation of the Constitution that haymarket claims to support. Like far too many haymarket supports only the parts he agrees with and ignores the rest.
Click to expand...

Besides, even if it were allowed under the constitution (which, in my opinion, it isn't), that doesn't mean it MUST be done.

It's a vicious and unethical policy, and ought not be law, whether or not it is allowed.
 
haymarket said:
To follow your idea, the government would then not spend any money which does not benefit every citizen equally.
How would you even begin to attempt to achieve such an impossibility?
Click to expand...

No, that's not what I said. What I said was for the federal government to not write checks to Paul.
 
haymarket said:
We are a Christian based nation which will not allow people to be hit with the consequences of their own actions. It matters not if you or I do not approve of it. It is simply the way it is.
Click to expand...

Exactly and that is why this country was built on neighbor helping neighbor with that neighbor not being the massive federal bureaucracy. What liberalism has done is create people like you who believe more in spending in the NAME of compassion vs. getting actual compassionate results. A 17 plus trillion dollar debt isn't compassionate results especially when the number of people dependent on the govt. continues to grow.
 
Green Man said:
No, that's not what I said. What I said was for the federal government to not write checks to Paul.
Click to expand...

Checks... cash ... services ... food cards ...... contracts ..... entitlements ..... its all money collected from people and going to people. To pretend otherwise is simply denial of reality.
 
Conservative said:
Exactly and that is why this country was built on neighbor helping neighbor with that neighbor not being the massive federal bureaucracy. What liberalism has done is create people like you who believe more in spending in the NAME of compassion vs. getting actual compassionate results. A 17 plus trillion dollar debt isn't compassionate results especially when the number of people dependent on the govt. continues to grow.
Click to expand...

A Christian nation will not allow what you claim we should do.

And - as you know from our discussion in the past - I DO NOT approve of the deficit and the debt and want us to stop digging and start climbing out of the hole.
 
haymarket said:
We are a Christian based nation which will not allow people to be hit with the consequences of their own actions. It matters not if you or I do not approve of it. It is simply the way it is.
Click to expand...


When as a liberal did you come to have this epiphany?
 
haymarket said:
Checks... cash ... services ... food cards ...... contracts ..... entitlements ..... its all money collected from people and going to people. To pretend otherwise is simply denial of reality.
Click to expand...

I don't pretend otherwise.

I'm saying specifically that the federal government should not be handing out charity checks to people or funding or running charitable services.

That's what I mean by robbing Peter to pay Paul.
 
reinoe said:
Republicans have always been much better than Dems in the game of politics.
Click to expand...

Right, that's why they lost the last two Presidential elections because they're so good...:roll:
 
j-mac said:
When as a liberal did you come to have this epiphany?
Click to expand...

I have held this opinion for well over forty years.

That is one reason I will not declare a lean on this site as my positions cross ideological lines but are mostly based on pragmatics.
 
Conservative said:
Exactly and that is why this country was built on neighbor helping neighbor with that neighbor not being the massive federal bureaucracy. What liberalism has done is create people like you who believe more in spending in the NAME of compassion vs. getting actual compassionate results. A 17 plus trillion dollar debt isn't compassionate results especially when the number of people dependent on the govt. continues to grow.
Click to expand...

From the man who uses as an avatar the "compassionate conservative" whose VP famously said that "deficits don't matter."
 
Green Man said:
I don't pretend otherwise.

I'm saying specifically that the federal government should not be handing out charity checks to people or funding or running charitable services.

That's what I mean by robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Click to expand...

Thank you for clarifying that.

I am not against the government making it possible for people with special needs to live in dignity. That would include the seriously handicapped and disabled. Again, I think that is simply part of living in a Christian based society which will not allow people to simply die.
 
haymarket said:
That is one reason I will not declare a lean on this site as my positions cross ideological lines but are mostly based on pragmatics.
Click to expand...

I'm calling BS.
 
haymarket said:
Thank you for clarifying that.

I am not against the government making it possible for people with special needs to live in dignity. That would include the seriously handicapped and disabled. Again, I think that is simply part of living in a Christian based society which will not allow people to simply die.
Click to expand...

Nor am I. I'm simply against the federal government doing so.
 
haymarket said:
I have held this opinion for well over forty years.

That is one reason I will not declare a lean on this site as my positions cross ideological lines but are mostly based on pragmatics.
Click to expand...

hmmm...I could have swore that some time back you declared your lean as liberal on this site...Regardless, your posting has certainly revealed you in that camp whether of not you 'declare' it...So maybe when you guys are PMing back and forth on strategy on how to go after us conservatives, you should clue the rest of the collective hive in on our being a Christian based nation is a fact.

Thanks.
 
American said:
If that were true we wouldn't have a welfare state. Don't fool yourself.
Click to expand...

We will always have a welfare state. Desperate people do desperate things. Imagine telling the nation that all welfare, SS, Medicare, and unemployment insurance payments will cease as of Nov. 30th. The Police would be so busy that they would just give up and go home to protect their families.

While we're at it, the stock market might as well crash. It would be much more devastating than in 1929 due to today's population.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom