Sorry, I don't know you, but from what I can infer from your post you live in the States? You don't "subsidize" anything in Canada. Certainly not the health care system. Who's this 'we' you're talking about?

>> ^chilaxe:

@longde
Yeah, above a certain income level, they contribute more than they consume, but there are a lot of externalized costs.
We subsidize their exorbitant 21st century medical care and use of the education system, penal system, and everything else.
Many resources are becoming much more expensive. Diminishing oil supplies will probably skyrocket in price again once industry and consumers pull out of the current recession. Increases in the cost of oil increase the price of everything, and oil is only one out of endless diminishing resources. The trillions of dollars of costs for green tech and pollution mitigation only have to spent because we have so many people who contribute so little but pollute at the same rate.
L.A., for example, wouldn't be an environmental and pollution catastrophe if the amount of people living there was the same as it was in 1970, and that's the same basic story around the world. The total number of high contribution people doesn't increase and most people don't actually improve over time.

@longde

Yeah, above a certain income level, they contribute more than they consume, but there are a lot of externalized costs.

We subsidize their exorbitant 21st century medical care and use of the education system, penal system, and everything else.

Many resources are becoming much more expensive. Diminishing oil supplies will probably skyrocket in price again once industry and consumers pull out of the current recession. Increases in the cost of oil increase the price of everything, and oil is only one out of endless diminishing resources. The trillions of dollars of costs for green tech and pollution mitigation only have to spent because we have so many people who contribute so little but consume & pollute at the same rate.

L.A., for example, wouldn't be an environmental and pollution catastrophe if the amount of people living there was the same as it was in 1970, and that's the same basic story around the world. The total number of high contribution people doesn't increase and most people don't actually improve over time.

1. Why are we paying for exorbitant 21st century medical care for him? He's already a net drain on sociey.

2. How'd the nurse get her car stolen by a guy dazed from just crashing his car? When you live in a permanently incompetent society, people and especially women need to always be aware of their surroundings.

True but,
the F35 is a Joint Strike Fighter. The JSF program is supposed to replace a wide variety of aging plane models (F-16, F-18, A-10, F117, etc.) It is one program that has two types of engines fitting in one plane. I think this is a better approach than updating one fighter/bomber/strike fighter at a time. Military programs like the JSF or UAV are used as a deterrent and we should always invest in them because they serve as a great political tool for Foreign policy, and as a great research tool for the our economy and the advancement of human achievement. It is because of programs like these that we have not used a Nuke or Dirty bomb in the last 50 years. Conventional warfare is still critical, whether you agree with it or not. If you want to blame our bullying around the world, then blame the politicians for that. That's a strategic failure, not an operational failure.

As for the space program. The U.S. is still spending tremendously into the space program through the U.S. Air Force. NASA has taken the passenger seat for all things critical when it comes to space, and I agree with that decision completely.

I support research programs like the JSF or the Air Force's GPS program among many other de-classified projects; however, I do not support the DOJ/DEA/ATF and 90% of the TSA. I think those departments are worthless and their funds could be used for education and healthcare.

>> ^spoco2:

>> ^Jinx:
The Harrier is to the F35 as the Sopwith Camel is to the Eurofighter.
Ok, thats hyperbole, but the Harrier was pretty limited. I wasn't supersonic for a start, no stealth capabilities, fairly limited air to air/manoeuverability etc. No gun for ground attack either.
Personally I think its a pretty incredible feat of engineering. On the flip side its going to cost the US taxpayer $320billion.

It's a cool plane and all, but that number is absolutely insane.
$320 BILLION dollars.
Yeah, cut medical care, cut schooling, cut spending on space exploration, but don't touch the spending on making a fucking aeroplane for killing people.
And we wonder if countries have their priorities right when it comes to spending money.

>> ^spoco2:

>> ^Jinx:
The Harrier is to the F35 as the Sopwith Camel is to the Eurofighter.
Ok, thats hyperbole, but the Harrier was pretty limited. I wasn't supersonic for a start, no stealth capabilities, fairly limited air to air/manoeuverability etc. No gun for ground attack either.
Personally I think its a pretty incredible feat of engineering. On the flip side its going to cost the US taxpayer $320billion.

It's a cool plane and all, but that number is absolutely insane.
$320 BILLION dollars.
Yeah, cut medical care, cut schooling, cut spending on space exploration, but don't touch the spending on making a fucking aeroplane for killing people.
And we wonder if countries have their priorities right when it comes to spending money.

But but but it creates jobs! But then so do oil spills.


Nasa's annual budget is what, about 18billion USD? Somebody smart and probably equally evil once discovered how to tap the limitless resource of fear. They got pretty rich.

>> ^Jinx:

The Harrier is to the F35 as the Sopwith Camel is to the Eurofighter.
Ok, thats hyperbole, but the Harrier was pretty limited. I wasn't supersonic for a start, no stealth capabilities, fairly limited air to air/manoeuverability etc. No gun for ground attack either.
Personally I think its a pretty incredible feat of engineering. On the flip side its going to cost the US taxpayer $320billion.


It's a cool plane and all, but that number is absolutely insane.

$320 BILLION dollars.

Yeah, cut medical care, cut schooling, cut spending on space exploration, but don't touch the spending on making a fucking aeroplane for killing people.

And we wonder if countries have their priorities right when it comes to spending money.

FDA really does a poor job anymore. We're a decade behind on most medications and medical procedures, and medical equipment is outrageously expensive due in part to their long and costly procedures to get verified in the US when they've been using it in other countries for years. Plus we get to eat contaminated food that obviously should have been detected and banned from import.

And as bad as the FDA is, politicians keep wanting to cut their funding so they can't even maintain the testing procedures they have in place now. It's like the government is actively trying to kill us while making us homeless, plus cutting out medical care for when our food supply is tainted.

You are truly a moron. I've tried not to say so, but you are. Your conspiracy theory videos and this retarded attack on immunisation just prove it.

Widespread vaccination has the potential to reduce cervical cancer deaths around the world by as much as two-thirds, if all women were to take the vaccine and if protection turns out to be long-term. In addition, the vaccines can reduce the need for medical care, biopsies, and invasive procedures associated with the follow-up from abnormal Pap tests, thus helping to reduce health care costs and anxieties related to abnormal Pap tests and follow-up procedures.
—American National Cancer Institute, [22]
(source)

If you're all fine with NOT trying to prevent two thirds of cervical cancer deaths based on a misguided fear of immunisations, then have at it sir, and then don't bitch when any woman you knows dies of it.

Go and look up what immunisation has done for the world, go on...

Children DIED because of the hysteria created around the MMR vaccine by the slime ball Andrew Wakefield. Children who would NOT have died did so because idiots like you made parents incorrectly fear a vaccine, so their children were not immunised, infection rates sky-rocketed, and children DIED.

I mock the fucking shit out of you because you are wrong, and your decisions put the lives of other people at risk too, not just your own. There's no two ways about it, vaccinations are a HUGE benefit to society, a HUGE life saver, a HUGE preventer of pain and suffering.

Do you use homoeopathic remedies to ward off evil do you?


>> ^marbles:

>> ^spoco2:
>> ^marinara:
mercury causes mental retardation, vaccines contain mercury, therefore vaccines=retardation.

A 6-ounce can of tuna fish contains an average of 17 micrograms of mercury, vaccines that contain mercury contain roughly 25 micrograms.
You think you're going to become mentally retarded by eating two cans of tuna?
No?
Then what you're saying is retarded.
That sort of knee-jerk, mindless shit is what causes people to stop getting their kids immunised and starts getting kids killed.

There's a big difference between ingesting mercury and injecting it straight into the vein.
Do junkies eat heroin? Why the fuck do you think they go to the trouble of injecting smack, why don't they just eat it?
Hardly any mercury is absorbed through ingesting, like around .01%. So that would be 1/1000 of 17 micrograms actually absorbed or .0017 micrograms / 6oz can of tuna.
And what do we actually know about mercury? Well, we know it's HIGHLY toxic. Let's go to the wikipedia page for Mercury poisoning:
Mercury is such a highly reactive toxic agent that it is difficult to identify its specific mechanism of damage, and much remains unknown about the mechanism. It damages the central nervous system, endocrine system, kidneys, and other organs, and adversely affects the mouth, gums, and teeth. Exposure over long periods of time or heavy exposure to mercury vapor can result in brain damage and ultimately death. Mercury and its compounds are particularly toxic to fetuses and infants. Women who have been exposed to mercury in pregnancy have sometimes given birth to children with serious birth defects (see Minamata disease).
Mercury exposure in young children can have severe neurological consequences, preventing nerve sheaths from forming properly. Mercury inhibits the formation of myelin.
/source

And since we're at it, let's have a peak at Thiomersal's wikipedia page:
Thiomersal is very toxic by inhalation, ingestion, and in contact with skin, with a danger of cumulative effects. ...
Few studies of the toxicity of thiomersal in humans have been performed. Cases have been reported of severe poisoning by accidental exposure or attempted suicide, with some fatalities. Animal experiments suggest that thiomersal rapidly dissociates to release ethylmercury after injection; that the disposition patterns of mercury are similar to those after exposure to equivalent doses of ethylmercury chloride; and that the central nervous system and the kidneys are targets, with lack of motor coordination being a common sign. Similar signs and symptoms have been observed in accidental human poisonings. The mechanisms of toxic action are unknown.
/source
But you can keep talking out of your ass like you actually have a fucking clue. And keep shooting up your children with neurotoxins too, while mocking those that oppose forced inoculations.
BTW statist idiot, the video is referring to the HPV vaccine. Why do fucking 10 year olds need to be vaccinated for STDs?

The example of "fair share" could just as easily been about receiving medical care, or any other service that the government provided. So, I think the logic holds. A "fair share" of the funding of Medicare would be everyone paying the same amount, assuming everyone gets an equal share of the benefit, which they currently do when they qualify. I'm not sure that an individual "benefits more from society" if they are rich. Maybe I missed the logic in that. Maybe you mean that they benefit more from society wanting the products/services they provide, the circumstance that makes most of the rich, rich, or just that they can purchase or consume more of what society has to offer?
The place to start with increasing government revenues is reforming the IRS and its complexity. And yes, doing away with some ridiculous deductions allowed, say the deduction on the mortgage of a second home. Increasing taxes does little to make businesses more honest, and we all know major deception occurred in the sub-prime mortgage debacle. Enough greed to go around the table there though, from home buyers/mortgage companies/banks/insurers/.....
It's a simple fact, already pointed out in this thread, that increased tax revenue will only put a dent in the deficit crisis and only serious spending cuts can get us out. Since entitlement programs represent the bulk of Federal spending, they have to be on the table to make meaningful budget improvement.

A. He's a moderate. He believes in the free market most of the time, and seeks gov't intervention when the market fails. That's truly what the US has been since the 1920s. And no, his answer to everything isn't higher taxes.

B. You mean pure gov't control of all economic resources tends to fail?! EUREKA! Hey, you know what other economic system tends to fail due to human nature? CAPITALISM! Eventually, everyone does what's in their own best interests regardless of others, which destroys the common good, which hurts everyone. You know, like businesses polluting the environment because it's cheaper for them, but hurts everyone. Or ratings agencies, paid by the banks, to rate their crappy derivates as AAA. Or businesses having working conditions so poor that it threatens people's lives because it's cheaper. Or businesses producing crappy goods because it's cheaper to do it that way, to the point they threaten lives. Or...

Guess what that means?

*GASP* Neither ideology is right 100% of the time! Which is EXACTLY why I've slammed you and other ideologues repeatedly.

C. That's not what it ends up being. Most of Western Europe has been fairly socialist for decades. They've never come close to Communism in all that time. It's plain historical fact.

The reality is no major communist country has ever come about gradually. Russia, China, Vietnam, North Korea, East Germany, Poland, other eastern countries, not a single one was a gradual move from
Socialism to Communism. Not a single one. You're full of crap.

D. It's not semantics. There's a distinction between Socialism and Communism. Period. The two mean different things. And no, just because the state makes decisions about medical care, they don't "own" you. Why medical care? Why is that the determination between communism and capitalism? Ridiculous. And even with the Health Care Reform Bill, the gov't doesn't even have even a majority of the control for what medical care you receive.

E. Russia was also not a truly communist state. It was a communist dictatorship, with a corrupt gov't, which had nothing to do with the fact they were communist. Plenty of "capitalist" gov'ts failed too because of corruption.

I will agree that Communism doesn't tend to work either, but we also learned after 1929 neither does almost complete capitalism. Most Americans did anyway, save a select few like you. And this still isn't an argument against a mixed economy anyway.

F. Oh, hell no. You're not gonna change the subject to Social Security. You keep making Obama wanting to raise taxes a few percent on the rich as if it's a move to pure socialism, and of course, as you so hilariously put it, that might as well be Communism. That doesn't make the US socialist, communist, or any of the sort. Saying that crap is ridiculous. That's my point. You're not gonna dodge this by bringing up Social Security.

I have no faith in my answers because a cursory look at history proves every single one of them. I have facts instead. I don't vehemently argue and insist someone is dead wrong unless what they're saying is utterly absurd.

Article 1.
* All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2.
* Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 3.
* Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 4.
* No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

Article 5.
* No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 6.
* Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Article 7.
* All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 8.
* Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

Article 9.
* No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 10.
* Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Article 11.
* (1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
* (2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

Article 12.
* No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Article 13.
* (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
* (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Article 14.
* (1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
* (2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 15.
* (1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
* (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

Article 16.
* (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
* (2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
* (3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Article 17.
* (1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
* (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

Article 18.
* Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 19.
* Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Article 20.
* (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
* (2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

Article 21.
* (1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
* (2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
* (3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

Article 22.
* Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

Article 23.
* (1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
* (2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
* (3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
* (4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

Article 24.
* Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

Article 25.
* (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
* (2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

Article 26.
* (1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
* (2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
* (3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

Article 27.
* (1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
* (2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

Article 28.
* Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

Article 29.
* (1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
* (2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
* (3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 30.
* Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

- http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

>> ^ChaosEngine:
Gee, I dunno. Call me a socialist, but I think if you pay taxes your entire working life, you're entitled to some fucking medical care in your old age. Nah, you're right. What we need are death panels for old people!! Hang on, don't liberals want them too? Those sneaky liberals. They want to kill granny and pay for her medical expenses at the same time!!



Define "some" medical care. As we speak, there are thousands of elderly people who could live 3 months longer by getting a million dollar artificial heart. Are you a heartless monster for not giving every red cent you make past your bare necessities to financing these kinds of procedures? You could voluntarily contribute right now by selling all your luxuries and not bearing costly children. Why don't you? His cost is fatal and yours isn't. You'd live in squalor, but you'd live. Why I ask you? Why must you be so heartless?

This is why "forced transfer" programs can't work, because the demand is unlimited, but the resources to finance it are not. You have bankrupted yourself in the name of military adventurism and life prolongation.

>> ^VoodooV:

>> ^ChaosEngine:
>> ^BansheeX:
What I find weird about liberals is that... Medicare and Medicaid is about life prolongation. How much are you willing to transfer from the young to the old? That is the question because that is how these programs are paid for, not by the recipients, but by immediate transfers.

Gee, I dunno. Call me a socialist, but I think if you pay taxes your entire working life, you're entitled to some fucking medical care in your old age. Nah, you're right. What we need are death panels for old people!! Hang on, don't liberals want them too? Those sneaky liberals. They want to kill granny and pay for her medical expenses at the same time!!

Standard Schizophrenic Christian Conservative mentality: protect a person at all cost when they're in the womb, tell them to go to hell once they're out.


"If you're pre-born, you're fine. If you're pre-school... you're fucked!"

>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^BansheeX:
What I find weird about liberals is that... Medicare and Medicaid is about life prolongation. How much are you willing to transfer from the young to the old? That is the question because that is how these programs are paid for, not by the recipients, but by immediate transfers.

Gee, I dunno. Call me a socialist, but I think if you pay taxes your entire working life, you're entitled to some fucking medical care in your old age. Nah, you're right. What we need are death panels for old people!! Hang on, don't liberals want them too? Those sneaky liberals. They want to kill granny and pay for her medical expenses at the same time!!


Standard Schizophrenic Christian Conservative mentality: protect a person at all cost when they're in the womb, tell them to go to hell once they're out.