Legislating Morality

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

They are playing by the rules. But typically they have a faulty strategy.

Agreed, so your claim that since you play by the rules and are therefore punnished is void.

Intelligence is most predominantly genetic, not that success is all based upon intelligence, but should a person be afforded medical attention based upon their genetic properties? I have 200 college credits and am back in college now in mid-life, so my strategy sucked as well based on goals that didn't come to fruitiuon, so due to those decisions, backed with LOTS of legitimate hard work should I be denied helathcare because I tried legitimate avenues that failed? What about people born without the genetic properties like to be intelligent, but no retarded so tehy qualify for SS or Medicare, etc? So much of these cases aren't about effort, they're about failed attempts or in some cases the innate innability to achieve success.

Quote

Seeing as how Medicare and Medicade are two of the three largest budgetary entitlements I'd say denial of tax treatment is nuts.

That's primarily for elderly, that's going to be there with or w/o uni-care or some variation of that. That's a whole different issue within healthcare, but that's not up for play here, we're talking about uni-care.

But even if you wanted to consider it, as an abstract, if Medicare goes broke they will still find a way to fund it without trippling taxes. Again, the gov collects what they can and spends what they want, taxes will increase under most Democratic presidents and fall with most Republicans. Social benefits will incr with Dems, decre with Repubs.

As I stated before, even if uni-care fails as with Clinton, taxes will rise, as with Clinton, so there is no connect between uni-care and Lawrocket's taxes; Medicare is not part of uni-care.

Quote

LUCKY: If you can then I can show you my tax bill and all the things the US spends on that I disagree with.

--------------------------------------

Yep. So you see my point.

No, point is my taxes and the 600B/yr military + 200B/yr in Iraq have no connection; the gov collects what they can and spends what they want. Iraq spending increased under Bush and my taxes fell; where's the connecct????

Quote

LUCKY: This is a huge society of at least 300M people, expenditures are going to be everywhere and it's likely that most we will disagree with.

----------------------------------

Especially those who entire purpose is to take from Peter to pay Paul. But hey, it's the "moral" thing.

There is no connection between your taxes and my potential benefits. There is no connection between my taxes and the 600B annual military cost. Clinton and GHWB cut the military and my taxes increased; where's the connect? Quit playing the victim, esp since a guy in your occupation in most other indust countries would pay much more.

Quote

Yep. Why not tax the poor? Or hammer the middle class?

Thought you would never ask.

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

The bottom 80% holds 7.5% of all cash wealth in the US. DO we have to keep going? And the numbers are falling since our lovely last president took office, these numbers are from 2004, so it could be 5 or 6% by now.

The bottom 80% holds 15.% of all wealth including assets, so even the number that benefits you the most doesn't really benefit you. A lot of these assets are real estate / pensions and you have to count it, but you can't liquidate it at will.

So to answer you: BECAUSE THE POOR AND MC DON'T HAVE THE MONEY. Remember, people aren't taxed, money is - want to quit being taxed, quit being a lawyer billing $300 hr.

Quote

Yep. Whereas most people spend money based upon what they make, the government has seen fit to ensure that it spends without regard to revenue.

Yep, with excepton like Eisenhower, Jackson and couple others. Of course to fault Hoover for pumping taxes his last year in office or to fault FDR for doing the same with the mess he inherited is ridiculous. You have to factor in the situation, but for a guy like GWB and his Republican Congress to SEVERELY cut taxes as he's going into war is pathetic. FDR raised taxes to heal the GD and for WWII expenditures and the GDP rose every year of his terms except 1937.

Quote

Or pass and my taxes increase even more.

Nope, the healthcare legislation has nothing to do with your taxes. Please, show me a connection. Clinton failed it and rasied taxes significantly, GWB spent more than virtually any president or any president and cut taxes. These are different agendas; taxes and spending. Quit playing the victim.

Quote

As does the income replacement insurance I purchased. It's nice to know I've got 30 years of income at 80% of what I make now. I'll same my own ass.

And because you're able to I say we use you as a baseline and anyone below that; fuck em.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

How did this thing digress so quickly to a discussion on morality? (I agree with Quade - morality can come from any personal source - just one tool of many used to train morality)

1 - normally, lefties argue against the concept of legislating morality - but they can't this time, so we digress quickly to the "morality is NOT a religious monopoly" argument - because Obama used the word to justify legislation, so the lefties cannot go down their normal arguments. Situational debating/ethics. expected here in SC.


anyway, I thought this was about Obama's hyposcrisy in trying to use tactics similar to religious institutions that the left normally decries - not just where morality comes


however, if one simply defines 'religion' as "blind faith without proof", then politics is full of 'religion' no matter which philosophies people follow

therefore, what the hell - let Obama use whatever technique he can to push the agenda - ditto for the opposition

It's called misdirecction from the right, to focus not on the millions of fellow countrymen/women, but to pick out a simple argument and make that the primary issue.

Go to court, watch the defense, they would take a rape victim and focus on her sexual promiscuity or the possibility of it as the main focus.

[livendive 8]

Quote

Intelligence is most predominantly genetic, not that success is all based upon intelligence, but should a person be afforded medical attention based upon their genetic properties? I have 200 college credits and am back in college now in mid-life, so my strategy sucked as well based on goals that didn't come to fruitiuon, so due to those decisions, backed with LOTS of legitimate hard work should I be denied helathcare because I tried legitimate avenues that failed? What about people born without the genetic properties like to be intelligent, but no retarded so tehy qualify for SS or Medicare, etc? So much of these cases aren't about effort, they're about failed attempts or in some cases the innate innability to achieve success.

Failed attempts are usually due to poor decisions, but sometimes due to simple bad luck.

If poor decisions don't have negative consequences, there's less motivation to make good decisions.

What I think is at the heart of your point is a contention that those negative consequences shouldn't include a loss of affordable healthcare.

I'm not sure whether I agree or disagree. On the one hand, I'd like to think a nation as prosperous as our's should have a demonstrably better healthcare system than others, and I do feel a "moral" compulsion to care for our weakest members. On the other hand, I don't think the people who have generally made good decisions should be forced to share their just rewards with those who haven't. It's a tricky issue, and one I'm glad I'm not in charge of resolving.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[wmw999 2,452]

Quote

On the other hand, I don't think the people who have generally made good decisions should be forced to share their just rewards with those who haven't.

If everyone is made equal regardless of decisions I agree it's appalling. On the other hand, how much should we decide that the less foresightful (yeah, that's a word -- I just made it up ) should suffer?

Because that's what we're really doing. We're making it clear that we could help, but we choose not to. It is to some degree for their own good, but while letting people suffer consequences is one thing, it can go too far. I'm not sure that people starving is good, because the downstream consequences is that starving people will do more desperate things.

And trying to stamp out every crime after it happens is not a really good plan; it's more expensive than preventing.

Breeding more responsible people is best. Unfortunately, more responsible people don't seem to breed most.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Failed attempts are usually due to poor decisions, but sometimes due to simple bad luck.

It could be for a myriad of reasons. We have innate capacity, hard work element, birth order, wealth of parents, economy shifts, vocation shifts of society, etc. If aperson has 200 credits in Art, they probably won't amount to much and that could be predicted. If a person has 200 credits in vocationally applied skills and there is a legitimate reason why they have not succeeded that is exempt from a lot of criticisms.

Quote

If poor decisions don't have negative consequences, there's less motivation to make good decisions.

Sounds like deterrence theory, which is not proven as relaible.

Quote

What I think is at the heart of your point is a contention that those negative consequences shouldn't include a loss of affordable healthcare.

Absolutley, and I think I've illustrated that well; I agree.

Quote

I'm not sure whether I agree or disagree. On the one hand, I'd like to think a nation as prosperous as our's should have a demonstrably better healthcare system than others, and I do feel a "moral" compulsion to care for our weakest members.

Yes, and as we see, the strongest are just a recession away from being weak, it's just that when tehy are strong they don't see that it could happen.

Quote

On the other hand, I don't think the people who have generally made good decisions should be forced to share their just rewards with those who haven't. It's a tricky issue, and one I'm glad I'm not in charge of resolving.

Again, there is no connect between uni-care and taxes; NONE. If uni-care fails, taxes will rise by as much as those who advocate tax increases can. If uni-care passes - read the above statement.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Because that's what we're really doing. We're making it clear that we could help, but we choose not to.

That's the whole central theme here, one one side of the fence we have people who want to provide basics regardless of a person's income or standing, on the other side we have people who want the US to be exclusive.

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

>You ought to consider a career teaching women's self defense courses.

You used to be one of the more thoughtful posters here; it's disappointing to see you substituting the usual argumentative crap for discussion.

My underlying point was:

The fact that an injustice is already being done to you does not mean you ought to roll over and let anyone do injustices to you at any time.


Do you have a response to my actual point?

Or are you unable to respond to the point I was making, so you'll just respond with an ad hominem attack, or a satirical gibe that is off point?

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

That's the whole central theme here, one one side of the fence we have people who want to provide basics regardless of a person's income or standing, on the other side we have people who want the US to be exclusive.

You're stereotyping. I'm hoping you just really don't understand, so I'm going to try to explain.

I do feel like we ought to help each other.

But I'm not so convinced of my moral superiority that I'm willing to force you to live by my moral code. If you don't want to help people, that's your right, and I have no right to force you.

The question isn't "should we help people?"

The question is "are we morally justified in forcing people to help others?"

My answer to the first questions is "yes." My answer to the second is "no."

Please don't confuse the issue by thinking that my answer to the first is something else.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

>You ought to consider a career teaching women's self defense courses.

You used to be one of the more thoughtful posters here; it's disappointing to see you substituting the usual argumentative crap for discussion.

My underlying point was:

The fact that an injustice is already being done to you does not mean you ought to roll over and let anyone do injustices to you at any time.


Do you have a response to my actual point?

Or are you unable to respond to the point I was making, so you'll just respond with an ad hominem attack, or a satirical gibe that is off point?

I'd just like to hear what your claim at an injustice is if uni-care of some sort is passed? Remember, you have to attach some kind of personal injustice and establish how your taxes will increase if uni-care is passed, whereas they won't increase if uni-care fails.

Remember, taxes increased significantly under GHWB and Clinton and no uni-care passed. Taxes significantly decreased under Reagan and GWB but spending DRASTICALLY was increased. So try to establish an argument correlating spending of any kind and the rate of taxation, then refine it describe how if uni-care is passed your personla taxes will increase.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

That's the whole central theme here, one one side of the fence we have people who want to provide basics regardless of a person's income or standing, on the other side we have people who want the US to be exclusive.

You're stereotyping. I'm hoping you just really don't understand, so I'm going to try to explain.

I do feel like we ought to help each other.

But I'm not so convinced of my moral superiority that I'm willing to force you to live by my moral code. If you don't want to help people, that's your right, and I have no right to force you.

The question isn't "should we help people?"

The question is "are we morally justified in forcing people to help others?"

My answer to the first questions is "yes." My answer to the second is "no."

Please don't confuse the issue by thinking that my answer to the first is something else.

But your point in a post right around this one is that taxation is an injustice, are you talking about a moral injustice? If so, pls explain.

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

Remember, you have to attach some kind of personal injustice and establish how your taxes will increase if uni-care is passed, whereas they won't increase if uni-care fails.

Why? I'm not following the "rules" you've just conjured up for this argument.

Quote

Remember, taxes increased significantly under GHWB and Clinton and no uni-care passed.

Right. And I thought that was a bad thing, too.


***...then refine it describe how if uni-care is passed your personla taxes will increase.

[billvon 2,998]

>The fact that an injustice is already being done to you does not mean you
>ought to roll over and let anyone do injustices to you at any time.

I agree.

>Do you have a response to my actual point?

Sure. You should not have to "just shut up and bend over to take some more." Advocate for reduced government involvement all you like. However, realize that you are part of the problem you are trying to solve.

Taking the attitude "I cannot BELIEVE I might be expected to pay for anyone else!" is somewhat disingenuous, given that in 99.9% of the cases, the person complaining is asking someone else to pay for them. It's like a skydiver condemning someone else for using any fossil fuels at all. Sure, advocate for reduced usage of fossil fuel; that's great. But to take the moral high horse in that debate would be somewhat hypocritical for someone who uses them on a regular basis.

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

But your point in a post right around this one is that taxation is an injustice, are you talking about a moral injustice?

I'm only permitted to object to one sort of injustice?

How's that work?

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

...the person complaining is asking someone else to pay for them.

I'm not. I'd prefer that everything operate on a user-fee basis. I don't want anyone else to pay for me--but I don't want to pay for them, either.

Your argument appears to boil down to "well, you use tax funded services, so get over it." The problem is that I don't have a choice to not pay taxes and not use those services. If I did have that choice, I'd take it.

I'm absolutely certain I didn't get my money's worth last year when I spent the bundle called "taxes" to purchase the bundle called "government." I'd like to stop buying it, but I'm being forced to do so, and the price is going up all the time.

I'd love to stop being part of the problem. In fact, I'd pay substantially for that privilege. Unfortunately, I am not allowed to make that choice. Implying that I've made some kind of choice in this matter is disingenuous, at best.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Why? I'm not following the "rules" you've just conjured up for this argument

No, but it was YOUR CLAIM that declared any form of uni-care an injustice, I'm just asking you to support your claim and I proposed an objective template by which to do so.

Quote

LUCKY: Remember, taxes increased significantly under GHWB and Clinton and no uni-care passed.

--------------------------------

Right. And I thought that was a bad thing, too.

Bad thing or not, correlate tax increases or decreases based upon any kind of spending, then describe how uni-care will cost you a penny. It's your claim of injustice, I'm just asking you to descibe your process to me.

Quote

LUCKY: ...then refine it describe how if uni-care is passed your personla taxes will increase.

-------------------------------

???

How's that relevant?

You're saying "oh, don't worry about it, they'll just tax someone else, and those people are rich anyway?"

What's that old saying about "and when they came for me, there was no one left to object" ?

You still haven't established how the rich, the MC or the poor will be taxed if uni-care passes. I'm not saying to tax the rich for it, I'm saying to implement some form of uni-care so we can be "normal" with industrialized nations.

Again, you have to draw a correlation between taxation and spending. WHat I illustrated was that there is no correaltion:

- Reagan cut taxes and raised spending enormously

- GHWB cut spending and raised taxes

- Clinton raised taxes and cut spending

- GWB cut taxes EXTREMELY and INSANELY increased spending

Actually, I could make the argument by using the last 28 years that if we can just increase spending then taxes will fall. Statistically and over a fair sample size that is evidenced. But I think taxes will raise, esp for the rich regardless of uni-care, but uni-care won't be the driver for it.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

But your point in a post right around this one is that taxation is an injustice, are you talking about a moral injustice?

I'm only permitted to object to one sort of injustice?

How's that work?

Why do you keep dancing around the horse? It was your word; INJUSTICE, I'm simply asking you to define what you mean. I don't think you find it to be a moral injustice that people w/o medical care may soon be getting it for the sake of their health. I think you are claiming an injustice because you think you will be paying for it, I just want to see how that works. Please explain in your own terms, but please connect the cost for uni-care, if passed, and how that will affect you to create this injustice.

[TomAiello 26]

***Again, you have to draw a correlation between taxation and spending. WHat I illustrated was that there is no correaltion:

- Reagan cut taxes and raised spending enormously

- GHWB cut spending and raised taxes

- Clinton raised taxes and cut spending

- GWB cut taxes EXTREMELY and INSANELY increased spending

[billvon 2,998]

>Your argument appears to boil down to "well, you use tax funded services, so get over it."

Nope. I do not have an argument against working to change the system in ways you like. Go for it.

But it would be pretty foolish for someone to mock a highway user for "demanding someone else pay for them" when they use the highways themselves. Even if they do have strong beliefs on the matter.

> Implying that I've made some kind of choice in this matter is disingenuous,
>at best.

You have, and you do every day. You use a car to get around on publicly funded streets, I assume because it's convenient. You often use a publicly funded bridge as an exit platform. That's great; no problem there. But it's also a choice that you have made that avails you of resources someone else was forced to pay for.

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

No, but it was YOUR CLAIM that declared any form of uni-care an injustice...

You're asking me to describe the injustices that will result from "uni-care"? Do I understand that properly?

Can you please define "uni-care"? I'm not really familiar with the term, but I bet that if I don't get it defined it's going to be the next thing that comes up in this discussion.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

You have, and you do every day. You use a car to get around on publicly funded streets, I assume because it's convenient. You often use a publicly funded bridge as an exit platform. That's great; no problem there. But it's also a choice that you have made that avails you of resources someone else was forced to pay for.

Ah, so my choice is either;

(a) pay exorbitant rates (taxes) to pay for services that are clearly not worth that much, or;

(b) pay the exorbitant rates and then not use the services I've (over-) paid for?


I'm being forced to (over-) pay for something, and you contend that by trying to squeeze any value I can out of it I've lost the moral ground to complain about being forced to buy it?

If I had a choice not to overpay for it then I wouldn't use it. As I am forced to overpay for it, my use of it hardly constitutes an acceptance of the underlying bargain.


If I held a gun to your head and forced you to pay $100k for a 1984 datsun pickup, could I then claim that I was justified in doing so based on your driving it? No, you were still forced to overpay for the vehicle. The fact that you are trying to get something out of it does not impair your complaint about nature of the original transaction.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

***Again, you have to draw a correlation between taxation and spending. WHat I illustrated was that there is no correaltion:

- Reagan cut taxes and raised spending enormously

- GHWB cut spending and raised taxes

- Clinton raised taxes and cut spending

- GWB cut taxes EXTREMELY and INSANELY increased spending

So, you're saying "don't worry about it--we'll just borrow the money like everyone has done for the last 30 years, and let our kids pay it off?"

Let me guess, I'm not allowed to object to the injustice of that because it's my children who foot the bill, rather than me, personally?

[Darius11 12]

I think the argument is that humane life should be worth more then the right to profit. When they are working inversely then there is a problem.

I think the thing that has become like a religion is the idea that capitalism is the solution to all problems.
It fails where what is sacrificed can not me measured by simple measurements of money. Like life.


The argument against health care reform is idiotic at best and down right misleading at best.

All insurance companies do is take your money take a cut and then give it to the people who provide health care. They are the middleman. All the arguments that I have heard is based on faith in capitalism which on this issue has failed. All you have to do is look at the facts which is probably why the right has refuse to have an intelligent discussion about the subject. Simple answer they have no good argument.

The only people who could have a reason for fighting for the insurance companies are people who are shareholders in those companies. Even in that case they are valuing their profit more then the lives and safety of there own fellow citizens. Not something I would be proud of.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

So am I to assume that you retract your claim that uni-care of any sort is an injustice?

No. If you want to discuss the injustices of "uni-care" I'd like you to define the term before we start.

Quote

This, 'let our kids pay it off' is tired. It's not like a temporary loan, we have been a debtor nation BEFORE we became a nation, as with virtually every nation. It's really tired to think a logical process of we borrow - they pay exists. I mean, it's been a revolving credit card for 233+ years, do you think the lenders see getting paid back, ever?

And that makes it ok? Once a problem has gone on long enough, it's no longer a problem?

Heck, we had slavery for hundreds of years. I can't imagine why anyone thought it was a problem.

Quote

BTW, again, you posted borrowed for the last 30 years, you may have missed the "2" before the "30", as we have been a debtor nation before our inception as a nation.

The scope of our borrowing to pay for regular spending in the last 30 years is unprecedented in American history. Probably in world history, actually.

Quote

Civil War and WWII borrowing was huge...

Yep. And guess what, we actually paid it back, after the wars were over.

Quote

then Reagan came along and dwarfed that borrowing not in a time of war, GWB came along and fabricated a war and then decided cutting taxes would be a good idea, these 2 fools account for vitually all of the debt, but we have borrowed fo 233+ years.

Exactly my point. The magnitude of the debt before 1980 is tiny compared with where we are now. These levels of debt are unsustainable. Pointing to 200 years of much smaller debt as evidence that we can sustain this is misleading at best.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[billvon 2,998]

Your choice is to:

1) use something that you (and others) pay for or

2) not use something that you (and others) pay for.

Choose whichever you want. You can even choose 1) while working to remove that option for others. But it's your choice.

>If I held a gun to your head and forced you to pay $100k for a 1984 datsun
>pickup, could I then claim that I was justified in doing so based on your driving
>it?

?? In that case, I would have a choice as to whether to pay you or die. I would then have a further choice as to whether to drive it or not after you had left.

I assume no one is holding a gun to your head, so your choice is much easier than mine would be.

BTW my first car was a 1973 Datsun station wagon with 280,000 miles on it. I could claim that I didn't have a choice in the matter; it was the only car available to me (a family hand me down.) But I still made the choice to use it, and to not spend the money on some other car that was in better shape.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

m not. I'd prefer that everything operate on a user-fee basis. I don't want anyone else to pay for me--but I don't want to pay for them, either.

As an analogy, I used to ride GSXR's back in the 80's and I would conflict with Harley guys who would make this, "Buy American" argument, then drive off in their $20k Landcruiser.

Tom, it's tired, it's old, there is no connect between taxes and expenditures other than they are both estblished by congress and signed by the president. Your taxes were raised on Jan 20, 1989, Jan 20, 1993, Jan 20, 2008....the rest is just accademic. Uni-care pass or fail, your taxes are going to be raised.