>>721752177 As opposed to >we'll increase taxes on the wealthy (except for ourselves) and middle class (you peasants) but give all the excess to the poor and continue to encourage them not to work because of free handouts so we can get their vote Yes. Democrats are obviously so much better than Republicans. Both your parties are dysfunctional piles of shit supported by completely retarded sheepish morons who bleat in beat to whomever brainwashes them the best at the moment. Professional politics is killing America, and you assholes are supporting it. You all deserve what you get.
>>721752177 >Why are republicans so fucking retarded? That's not retarded. What is retarded is ignoring what they're saying. What they're telling you is if you simply do this what is projected. If you have no other changes in mind you're going to run into a road block. You have to reform other things as well and if you don't start with the other reforms first you're going to have those problems. This is why I wanted a different candidate to win the previous election because the U.S. would of been much better off if Obama had used his second term in another election after other reforms were carried out instead of trying to push a square peg through a round hole.
Obamacare was written by insurance companies. Americans are now legally obligated to buy private insurance at whatever cost the insurance companies feel like charging.
And instead of a single payer that is able to negotiate prices down (like in ALL OTHER socialized healthcare systems), we are still in a quasi-free market system where the consumer "negotiates" with the insurer (by way of getting to choose your insurer), who then negotiates prices.
But because healthcare through private insurance is now MANDATORY, consumers have lost all negotiation power. Insurance companies have a captive consumer base and no incentive to drive down prices. They are making record profits.
Stupid fucking Democrats are too stupid to read their own laws and understand how they affect our country. They were more worried about a victory over the Republicans than passing a good law.
>>721753220 I know they work already, and I know they do nothing to reform the problem of underpayment for employment - instead, they keep the ready flow of food stamps, housing assistance, etc going on. They're opting to treat the symptoms and not find a cure instead. Both parties are guilty of this because BOTH parties are too fucking stubborn to find middle ground and fix the nation's problems in an amicable matter to all parties.
>>721753492 This. Healthcare in my state for those using the PPACA Marketplace premiums rose across the board this year 174% - why? Because all but 1 company left the marketplace and the one who stayed jacked the prices skyhigh. And it's all legal, with no ramifications at all.
>>721753626 Yeah, it is, only because both sides have their heads so far up their own asses they refuse to see any reason anymore. And the public supports that. So fuck all you who are a registered democrat or republican - you all deserve this.
The middle class is paying for private insurers to cover poor people, at a cost per person higher than any other country in the world. And prices are only going to continue to skyrocket unless Emperor Trump kills the law.
Even then, a lot of the damage is done. Prices are not going to come back down.
>>721752177 It's not just republicans, man. It's the entire way government is set up in America. From the very foundations of this country it was always set up to make a few elites very rich and everyone one else relatively poor/stupid.
>>721752177 If you seized all of those company's assets, they'd no longer be in business creating a far bigger problem. This is what happens when anything gets nationalized, they gradually fleece the company until it cannot afford operating costs and goes out of business. Look at Venezuela. Now everyone's starving, eating roadkill rodents and bugs, wiping their ass with their hands (no toilet paper), and when people get sick there's no medicine. Nationalization (a fancy name for the government stealing a company's assets) doesn't work. And even if the government supposedly "keeps them in business" do you think some bureaucrat or soldiers with AK47 can better manage a business than people who know the field and have been trained for it?
You lefties need to learn how to have sensible plans.
Here's a sensible alternative plan. With what we've spent on warmongering (over 50% of the US taxes go to the military, more is spent on military than the next 8 nations combined), we could easily put back into American infrastructure and health care.
We pull out of the middle east entirely, stop propping up our puppets, which has never worked, all our middle eastern puppets are either quickly overthrown or live long enough to turn on us. Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden were put in power by US, and they turned against us when the time was right.
With what we've spent on Afghanistan and Iraq alone, since 2000 (and this does not include the 7 other middle eastern countries we're meddling in); we could have afforded every current Americans health care for life and all college tuition. THAT would be investing in America's future rather than investing in what will eventually be our own destruction. America is like the biggest kid in class that picks fights with everyone, and up until now, it has worked; but eventually we'll get what's coming. The biggest kid in class will still get beat down by a group of 30 smaller dudes that he's always fucking with.
And yes, society did start pressuring Millennials into going to college. Entry level jobs that required only a high school degree for previous generations now require a college degree. So no, nobody "made" me or any other Millennial go to college... but they made a high school degree worthless.
American universities have a guaranteed source of money (Federal student loans), so they can continue increasing costs by spending on luxuries and increasing faculty salaries.
tl;dr College is now essentially mandatory and costs >10x as much than it used to.
>>721753734 Millenials have fought harder than previous generations to fix this shit. Don't blame us because we are too busy with student loans and a low minimum wage to take down the oversized government you niggers should've taken care of before we were born, when fixing our government was still ducking possible without revolution. Millenials are innocent. This shit is on the baby boomers and their parents. I wouldve personally shot the first tax collector coming by to get my income and property taxes had I been around then.
>>721755480 >You don't get to decide where your taxes go. Therefore we must push the government to put money in unsustainable, wasteful, and impractical "social programs" just because they do it in canada.
Yeah, I don't think you even realize you don't have an argument there.
>>721753734 True that. Special little snowflakes more worried about me under the guise of "but we're trying to make it safe for us" instead of actually fixing problems.
>>721755480 Apparently you don't understand how a representative government works. See, you elect a person who is supposed to represent their constituents and seeks to change things the way you want to see things changed - how your tax money is spent as one example. So in effect, by electing someone with your same outlooks, or by running yourself and getting people to support your ideaology and by getting laws passed (which you can do as a non-politician with your representative's support) you can in fact determine how your tax money is spent. How's that for a civic lesson, bitch.
>>721755555 https://www.kfor.com/2016/10/05/obamacare-premiums-in-oklahoma-skyrocketing/ Sorry, typo, on a phone and hit a 1 before the 74%. It was a huge rate increase, anywhere from 74-96% for individuals and families. Anyway, there's your source.
>>721756356 Most of the people on welfare in actual numbers, not percentages of population, is white. While more of the black population may be on welfare, overall more whites are using it because more whites in this country. Using the racist excuse for not fixing it is, in itself, racism.
>>721754261 Obamacare was designed to fail.("SEE? See? Greedy insurance companies and republicans aren't letting Obamacare work, we NEED single payer to fix this!) It was the stepping stone to single payer. Had Clinton won, we would be on fast track to single payer.
>>721752177 As long as I'm not being charged for not having healthcare I don't give a shit. I'm 22 and healthy what the fuck do I need health insurance for. Tired of my personal life being up for political debate. Why can't the government just collapse and get fucked.
>>721752177 >Lenin did this during the Russian Revolution. >All companies are nationalized. All profits goes to public programs. >Become corrupt as hell. >Take all the profits. >Today approximately 10% of total GDP goes towards corruption. >Utopia is impossible.
>>721759382 Because if you get hurt and don't have insurance and can't pay for it, you still have to get treated, and that money has to come from somewhere. You paying for healthcare is also to subsidize others that can't pay as much. In a government, all citizens must be healthy for a country to be successful. Having this country be survival of the fittest would cause more slums, a higher crime rate, more drug issues, etc. Its just what is expected in such a large country when fundamental rights of citizens aren't met. We saw it happen in the industrial revolution, and we will see it again before we work out a system that works for everyone and seems 'fair'
>>721760474 Not the same anon, but obviously he doesn't care about any one besides himself. He doesn't care about the country or its people. Presumably, if he's injured, we should just let him die as well.
>>721760474 When you get this kind of healthcare it tends to be overused. We have this shit in Ontario. People go to the emergency room because they have a runny nose. Our wait times are backed up 3 years. General practitioners are so booked they have don't even put people on their waiting lists anymore and specialists are just as fucked. On top of that they can't fucking pay the nurses and upkeep staff so they keep cutting them and our hospital infrastructure is going down the fucking shiter.
>>721760689 I care about individual rights and equal opportunity. The constitution and having a government that doesn't try to be the nanny for every citizen. Keep that silly delusion that your government cares about you and that you're morally superior for bending over to it.
>>721760689 Fair enough >>721760737 I'm engineering actually, although my wife was sociology so she might have rubbed off on me. For the most part I agree, but the free market does not just fix shit either. There has to be a balance. Treating healthcare as a business is not the right idea. >>721760948 I can definitely see that as a problem. I think there should be obvious limits on free healthcare, such as everyone has a yearly physical paid for by the state, and gets fined if the hospital thinks that you are wasting their time. Something like that. I'm not an economist however, so I'm not the best one to ask how to tackle this issue.
>>721760474 Subsidizing is just strong armed robbery. It's taking money from private citizens under threat of violence to give to other private citizens or corporations. You don't even necessarily receive a service for your money either so it isn't justified like taxation.
a) previous generations didn't go to college en masse
b) no one made you sign a contract where you agreed to pay back a loan, I know plenty who left college without $1 of debt because they worked and paid for it
c) i can agree that picking up the tab for the country's poor is not what America is about, but it applies to a healthy, no-problems-having 40 year old just as much as a 20 year old.
Simply put America is about equal opportunity, not equal outcome. You sink or swim and forcing people into health care systems where they have to buy a product they neither want or need is indeed socialist and against US values.
>>721761266 The point of a government is to take care of its people. If we didn't have a government you could get raped to death with an AK tomorrow and nobody could say shit. Without a government there is no equal opportunity at all. Its survival of the fittest, and the fittest is generally born that way. The government exists to take care of the misfortunate. Maybe when you are older and have problems functioning, or your mother is dying from cancer with no way to treat it you will understand why the government should have a hand in healthcare.
>>721761490 Which is why I believe that corporations should not have a hand in healthcare. Welfare and its derivatives exist specifically so that you don't get strong arm robbed in the street just so Sharquisha can afford to eat tomorrow. I assure you, without social programs such as welfare life in America would be much more dangerous and fucked.
>>721761432 Economy wise, Ontario is fucked. Our stupid dyke premier pays our provincial natural gas energy companies NOT to provide power. The liberals here literally make money disappear into nowhere. Dalton McGuinty lost billions on some stupid fucking plant contract of some sort and the money just fucking up and gone. Our taxpayer money fucking went to nothing. That's all the liberals do here is figure out ways to take our money and make it disappear. They tax everything the eye can see and burn the fucking money up.
>>721761610 >Without a government there is no equal opportunity at all
Health insurance isn't a civil right or whatever you're trying to equate it to. It's a combination of products and services. Like a pizza. Or a pair of pants. You have the money to pay for it or you don't get it. Should the government start subsidizing free iPhones next by taking money from one group to give to another because somebody thinks it should be a "right" instead of the product that it very clearly is?
>>721761610 The federal governments original purpose was to protect people from foreign threats. Domestic policy is to be voted on at the state level. Government is only concerned about growing and maintaining power. You spent too much time in a community college if you think government's purpose is to "take care of people." They swore an oath to defend the constitutional rights of the people, not make sure your mommy doesn't die of cancer pleb.
>>721761573 A.) Because it was not necessary for any modicum of success, and because those generations grew up learning that you did not have to go to college to be successful. A bachelors degree is the new high school diploma. To get any high paying job outside of trades (which the jobs for are dwindling because of the new fad of 'everyone get into trades') you MUST either go to college or start a business. Both of these have high start up costs. I was extremely poor growing up, and even with my grants and scholarships being a 4.0 student, I have to work full time AND take out loans just to pay for my PUBLIC institution.
B. See A. It may be possible to get out of college debt free, but it is not realistic and causes unnecessary burden to be put on people in their early 20s who have begun to resent education as a gatekeeper. I'd expect to see college attendance dwindle significantly in 20 years when millenial's children are college age. This cannot be good for the country as a whole. We need an educated work force.
C. I don't think anything 'being what America is about' is a good argument for rejection or imposing any law or system. It should be what is good for the country, not what is good for our idea of what America should be.
>>721762059 >>721762116 Health insurance isn't currently a civil right. It is my opinion that it should be. It is basically right to life, which I believe in.
Yes, that was the original purpose of the government. However, a lot has changed in a couple thousand years. We need to make the government take care of its people, or phase it out completely as it will have no point other than subjugating us. And nice stab with the 'community college' bit, really shows how mature your thought process is that you would rather attack me than my argument.
>>721762227 a) A bachelor's degree is certainly not the new high school diploma, not even close. You admitted yourself that the trades have big money and there are plenty, PLENTY of positions where you can make more than a comfortable living without the prerequisite of a bachelor's degree.
b) See A. You can get out of college debt free, most of the younger generation just don't want to do what it takes. No one said you had to go through 4 straight years of classes. Take a semester to work, next semester go to class. Rinse and repeat until graduation.
If you're "beginning to resent education as a gatekeeper" then get out. Drop out of school and go do something else. What you don't do is bitch and complain while staying in that very same system. The rules are clear, the papers you sign are clear. Don't sign them and do something else.
c) It's a very good argument when the counter-point is to fundamentally change the fabric of the entire country simply because it suits the wants of a very small minority. Consider the fact that only 20 million out of 300 million+ even benefited substantially from obamacare. Less than 8% of citizens. While the rest saw more money being taken out of their pockets. Higher premiums. Less choices. America is not about placating the minority at the expense of the majority. Again, sink or swim. The opportunity is in front of you and that's all that's owed to you from any government. Nothing more.
>>721762467 Yes because I only attacked you and not your dumb ass opinion that healthcare is a right. Be honest, you're a Bernie supporter too am I right? Sociology class we need government to take care of us. >Nanny state education taught me to love the nanny state big surprise jackass
>>721762467 >Health insurance should be a civil right because it's basically a right to life
Wrong. You're trying to launch an argument that anyone (the government being composed of other actual citizens at the end of the day) owes you shit for simply being born. A right to life is being able to go out and breathe air. A right to life is being able to walk to the store without being hacked to death by a band of militant muslims with machetes for having a different religion.
A right to life is NOT other citizens fitting the bill from their paycheck because YOU decided to eat pizza 4 times a week or drink beer until your liver falls out your ass and now have health problems because of your own poor choices. Choices have consequences and no one is obligated to pay for the consequences of someone else's good or bad choices.
>>721752177 Shut up faggot. Take 2% or income and youll.civer healthcare.
It works. If you can't afford 2 cents from each dollar you earn then you're beyond poor... Which raises the follow-up issue of why American minimum wage hasn't increased along with inflation for the last few decades.
>>721762730 >America is not about placating the minority at the expense of the majority. Yeah it is, numbnuts. Remember Occupy? 99.9% of Americans get fucked up the ass every day by their government and the private corporations that support it so that 0.1% get to keep getting richer. Sorry you like it so much.
It's funny how those "only 2%" bullshit arguments have amounted to people paying ~40% of their actual income into a nanny state to make up for the rest of the citizens who (a good number of which) choose not to provide for themselves because it's just easier to depend on someone else's labor. This is where all the nu-socialist, nu-commie retards fail to see logic. There's a reason the shit's never worked before, because it gives even more people incentive to not work hard (which in turn leads to less money in the community pool) when they can just depend on the other joe down the road to pay for your shit. When joe gets tired of dragging around dead weight he does the same and pretty soon everyone's taking but no one's contributing. Every. Single. Time.
>>721762873 >Being this triggered over someone's opinion
I bet you think the red scare was justified. See, I can do it too.
>>721762973 Its not wrong, its a different opinion. I see your side, and I disagree. I don't think people who have made incredibly unhealthy decisions should be taken care of. Kids that were born with debilitating illnesses? Yeah, I believe they should be cared for. Darwinism isn't reality anymore.
>>721763499 >making over 500k >getting taxed more than people in literal unlivable poverty >discrimination Boo fucking hoo. They should be discriminated against. It's not like they play fair or do what's right.
Oh right. The band of jobless hippies and homeless who decided to sit around wearing anonymous masks and pissing on the ground? The group of idiots who were crying their "voices weren't being heard" but then when a congressman actually came down, made an open forum for them and asked them to have a discussion, they elected a fucking dog to speak for them?
Yeah. No one takes you seriously because your arguments don't hold water 90% of the time and the 10% you might have something of substance to say you're smoking too much weed or generally loafing around while other people are working. Get real. Look out the window at the kids protesting right now, today. Jobless. Skipping classes. Generally shooting themselves in the foot then blaming someone else for their "not having" something that someone else has. Wtf.
>>721763734 And this is where liberal logic falls apart. You demonize ANYONE making $300k+ or $400k+ or whatever arbitrary number you come up with in your head that day. You're trying to start from a position that anyone who makes "x" dollars is inherently evil and breaks all sorts of rules to get there which is factually untrue.
It's funny though because you don't even see the hypocrisy in it when you're chanting for "less discrimination" but you literally discriminate against someone based solely on the amount of numbers in their bank account. Fuck outta here with that nonsense.
>>721763870 >too mad to even type My god I love this. It's amazing how if you talk shit about one person a bunch of retards always assume you support someone else. You stupid fucking mongoloid, please gimme more
>>721762730 A. Look man, I don't know how you missed it when I said that the trade jobs are dwindling. My buddy is a welder and is struggling to find work because of so many people his age getting into the trades now because of the cost of college. In addition, the bachelors degree is a requirement to get your foot in the door at most businesses. 50 years ago, that was not the case. My father got in at a fortune 500 company simply because he walked in in a suit and tie and told them he needed a job. A story he still loves to tell to this day. Nowadays you'll get laughed out of the reception.
B. Oh so I'm expected to go to college with ridiculous stress levels and working for 8 years instead of just 4? Not to mention that it would ultimately actually cost me much more than it already does? No thanks. Its more economically feasible for me to get it done in 4 and then pay off the loans with the extra revenue from my higher paying career.
Fuck no. You think I would waste all this time just to drop out and resent myself later in life for not having the best life I could? Quitting now would be me putting a bullet in my brain. This shit is doable, but should not be as difficult. Thats all I'm saying. Its silly that your argument boils down to 'try harder or quit'
C. America has ALWAYS been about minorities. Are you dense? The vast majority of our legal system is set up to prevent tyranny of the majority.
>>721763923 Great rebuttal. Answering with extreme exaggeration and alarmist bullshit when I state simple facts. Way to really get your point across, kid. Keep pretending like everyone else are the stupid sheep when you're 30, homeless, jobless and still whining about some imaginary oppression or something.
>>721763893 I actually agree with you about the arbitrary numbers nonsense. I don't know what you're on about regarding discrimination though. When did I chant "less discrimination"? The rich should be discriminated against. Literally every aspect of the country favors them. If they want a runaway system with no checks and balances then that's too bed.
>>721764300 No, that's too radical. Plus, it doesn't explain how you'll get your utilities if people aren't forced to pay for the wages of the people who's job it is to give you clean water, electricity, and heating. Also, some people live on loans on loans. They're so far in debt, it isn't even their money anymore. >>721764425 What is the penal system.
>>721764416 It doesn't fucking matter if they have more than they need. No one wants just as much as they need. Everyone wants and people who earn what they want don't deserve to have it taken away from them.
>>721764135 A) Your anecdotal evidence of "my buddy" does not prove at all that trade jobs are dwindling. In fact, it's the exact opposite. You're choosing to keep lying to yourself to justify your irrational narrative.
Who is probably more versed on the subject? Forbes or "your buddy the welder" kek. So, you can't walk into an interview in a suit and tie and expect to get hired on the spot, big deal? You actually have to show you can be valuable to a company and you're worth the salary they're going to pay you? Oh god. That's, like, so oppressive.
B) Expected to go with ridiculous stress levels and working 8 hours instead of 4. Uh, yeah. That's called life, you little twit. A college degree is an investment just like a 401k where you put in the time, effort, and cash for a payoff later. I don't know where you got off thinking that life wasn't stressful or that you deserved to work 4 hours instead of 8 but your head is not in reality with that bullshit. "ridiculous levels of stress" you mean reading a fucking book? Writing an essay? Taking a test?! Holy shit, SO stressful. Fuck outta here.
College being difficult is par for the course. It's to weed out lazy, weak, entitled dipshits from the people who have the actual drive and determination to see something through to the end.
C. "America has always been about minorities." Only it hasn't. Again, just factually wrong.
>>721764504 The penal system is a system put in place to punish criminals? What the fuck do you expect me to say? Do you think I'm gonna say "the blacks are discriminated against by prisons"? No. Blacks commit 50% of violent offences. If they're in jail, they were found guilty and sentenced.
>>721764425 Same guy you're arguing with. Do you actually, REALLY think anyone in power gives a shit about values or freedom? Absolutely every single time, no matter the party, religion, gender, age, it ALWAYS comes down to money. Money is ALL that matters.
>>721764752 Hey fuckface. When did I say it should be fair? Your post implied that everything was balanced to begin with, as though everyone's effort amounted to the same outcome. Life's a little more complicated than that.
>>721764541 So, it doesn't matter if one has more than they need, because no one wants as much as they need. But, everyone wants (more than they need), and thus everyone takes more than they should. So, people who earn what they want, as in, people who earn more than they should, don't deserve to have it taken away from them, because... ?
If it doesn't matter if one has more than they need, why would you need to mention whether they earned it or not? How do you earn more than you need, if you don't deserve what you earn? How do you earn what you don't deserve? How do you get something through the process of doing work/exchanging energy, if you don't exchange work/energy?
>>721764795 I expected you to say that the penal system is a system put in place to punish criminals, and then to go on to dissect what the word "criminal" means, how it relates to the average citizen, and how the penal system has operated since its inception, and alongside the statutes that govern the country.
I would hope you would have realized the irony in the notion that a criminal does not have the same rights and freedoms as a citizen, and as such, is effectually discriminated against for their missteps or actions.
Nobody said anything about blacks. Only you brought it there. Not to mention that the percentage you pulled from nowhere is woefully low to what the usual argument is for that nature of discussion. You also immediately assumed that every citizen that gets sentenced to jail, or gets a sentence regardless, is guilty. Mistrials do exist.
>>721764737 Holy shit its almost as if you are completely rejecting my argument without giving it any actual thought besides 'this is wrong'
I'm only gonna reply to B, because it seems you think I'm going to college for business or some bullshit
I am a chemical engineering major in the top program in the country. I am expected to spend approximately 30 hours exclusively on class and school work, including programming, math, projects, and systems. I go to work 40 hours a week at a highly demanding and unforgiving construction job, and am currently working on getting an internship so I can leave this hell behind. I have no social life, no close friends, no time even if I did, and I scrape by paycheck to paycheck.
Fuck off. Its clear we won't come to any new conclusions. I believe that education needs to be more accessible for this country to thrive. Look at how well certain European countries and Asian countries are doing. Automation is soon, which means unskilled labor is gone, which means that if you aren't educated, youre worthless.
>>721764321 a) I'm glad we can find some common ground on a least one point (even if it's arbitrary numbers)
b) I'm speaking in general. The only people arguing pro-socialist positions are also the majority screaming for "don't discriminate against my sexuality" or "don't discriminate for my skin color" while at the very same time you're turning around and discriminating against anyone you deem "rich" by assuming they all broke laws or cheated to get there.
Now, replace "rich" in that sentence with "black." and you'll see how fucked up that way of thinking is.
That rich guy only got where he is because he cheated, stole, robbed and did unsavory things to be successful.
That black guy only got where he is because he cheated, stole, robbed, and did unsavory things to be successful.
And you're saying that's not discrimination? Or it's ok to discriminate when YOU want it to be ok? This is why I, personally, can't take most of these positions seriously. It's hypocritical as fuck.
>>721764948 Oh, actually I do care, Captain America. I'm just aware that what I said is absolutely true. Don't believe me? Do some research and watch the money. Social change comes from profit, not sympathy or principals. The idea that American values make the country "great" or strong is incredibly naive. Eevn Trump would agree with me on that.
>>721765013 I told you how you were wrong and even cited, with a valid source, how you were wrong.
Your claim was falling along the lines of "Well, trades are drying up because my buddy the welder said they were so it's near impossible to get a great position without college." Which, again, I showed was factually untrue. The trades aren't drying up. You're just assuming some false narrative not based on any facts, to support your idea that "everybody needs to go to college." It's just not true. If you refuse to see that, then that's your problem.
Again, nobody told you you had to work AND go to school at the same time. You're trying to shift the blame for you "undue stress" or whatever the fuck off on the way your uni program is set up and not on the fact that YOU chose to work and school at the same time instead of just working construction 6 months, then taking 6 months off for school. Your CHOICES are what's causing you stress not some "unfair" system or whatever you're trying to argue.
>>721764988 Because? Because it's unjust. Simple as that. Criminals are treated as they are because they have forfeited their freedom by committing injustices towards other people. I brought up the black prison population because it is disproportionate but many people think that means it's discriminatory. It isn't. I didn't pull that statistic out of my ass. It's a commonly known stat that'll take you seconds to find. And mistrials are extremely rare and on the decline.
>>721765034 I'm also happy to find common ground. In fact, I actually agree with your entire post. The problem is that the entire system is slanted to advantage the rich. Citizens United and such. If the government is too far gone to undo that imbalance and the people unwilling to elect anyone who will dismantle the bipartisan corruption, then the only solution is to indiscriminately tax the rich. In my opinion, I'd prefer a flat tax, but that simply can't happen.
>>721765300 Calm down. Did I give a bunch of biased sources? No. You go and do your own research and see for yourself. I believe you'll see in the end both parties are correct and their meeting ground is cash. Also, what would I even label you as? I mean "faggot" and "retard" since this is /b/. But what else?
>>721765034 Random anon here. Per me, it's just that I don't see the labels "rich" and "black" being of equal merit.
Try it this way.
The rich man is required to pay the legal fine for violating the law.
The black man is required to pay the legal fine for violating the law.
At face value, you would assume that since the man in the first sentence is being described as "rich", that paying said legal fine will be no problem. They are assumed to definitely have the means to deal with the situation. This doesn't change if you invoke the bias or influence of (insert region/demographic here). A rich man, at the end of the day, is still a man who is allegedly more wealthy than the average value of a given (insert region/demographic here), and rather, wealthy enough to most likely transcend said (insert regions/demographics here)'s standard.
But the word "black", in of itself, doesn't necessarily imply anything about the financial status of the man in the second sentence. We only know of his ethnicity/race/culture/etc, we know nothing about his financial or economic standing unless we use our bias and influences from (insert region/demograpic here).
So, when it comes to the discrimination deal, I imagine that it makes more sense to discriminate against individuals based upon a quality that they have moderate to excessive control over (i.e. money), than something they most likely don't have control over (i.e. being "black").
>>721765118 You're a moron. An empty hollow husk of a human being turned into nothing but a ideological mouthpiece repeating all the points your ideologues tell you to. You've probably never had an original thought in your life. Everything you say has been said countless times by occupy protesters and Marxist politicians.
>>721752848 You strung together complete sentences and didn't make any spelling errors so it just CANNOT BE that you're one of those spergs who not only believes that people can live on welfare without working, but also is threatened by that. It can't be. You're like an ape who learns sign language.
>>721765013 >I'm a pornstar in the top company in the country. I am expected to spend approximately 30 hours exclusively sucking dicks including ball sucking, taint tickling, and ass play. I go to work 40 hours a week at a highly demanding and unforgiving homo job and am currently working on getting an internship so I can get fucked from behind. I have no social life, no close friends, no time even if I did, and I scrape by fuck check to fuck check.
>>721765649 Haha if you say so. What, do you want to to jump and clap my hands about the American Dream while I gargle goldman sachs's nuts? If you think I'm repeating someone else, at least say who, I honestly can't think of anyone. And besides, it doesn't matter at all if it's true.
Unrelated, I'm enjoying the shit out of this thread.
>>721765635 Now you're trying to split hairs. Discrimination on any level is wrong and assuming someone is inherently evil or broke some laws because they have more numbers in their bank account than you is just as bad as assuming someone is inherently evil or broke some laws based upon their skin being darker than yours. It's wrong.
Do blacks commit a shit load of crime? Absolutely. Does that mean most, or even a majority, of black people are criminals? Of course not.
Do "rich" people commit a shit load of crime? Absolutely. Does that mean the majority of "rich" people are criminals or inherently dishonest people? Of course not.
>>721752177 > Cuba does bad leninst communism > Emargoed for decades by nearby hyperpower > Still better living conditions than the US > Also US assasinates political opponents and manufactures consent for mass incarceration of millions of poor people. So equally as bad as Castro (also remember that time US sheltered terrorists who attacked a Cuban commercial jet)
>>721766117 >literally no substance It is interesting how since I don't accept at face value politicians who say they care about the people, others think I have no values of my own. It doesn't really bother me, but it does illuminate how silly it is that you think I'm indoctrinated while being separate from both corrupt parties and their fake values.
>>721765387 There's something wrong about 50%. Specifically that you won't go out of your way to provide me with something to accept that percentage with, if it is in fact something that will take me seconds to find. I shouldn't have to prove your claims for you. You should be proving your claims. Doing otherwise is disingenuous. https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_race.jsp 37.9%, not 50%.
And, even, then, if mistrials are extremely rare and on the decline, does that then mean that mistrials have never occurred, or that they are not worth noting? I don't think that such is the case. Nor would it be fair to insist that since the black prison population is disproportionate, that it is solely because it is discriminatory.
>>721766041 I would agree that assuming someone is inherently evil or broke some laws because of the numbers in their bank account, is wrong. I would agree that assuming someone is inherently evil or broke some laws based upon their skin color, any skin color, is wrong. I have yet to say otherwise.
I think what you think I would be asking for, is an arbitrary system of black and white dichotomy. Clearly, the world is grey. So, when I suggest that I would be for the discrimination against people who's total value is worth more than almost half of the population of the country they live in, I suppose it has nothing to do with crime, but instead with the imbalance in regards to something as abstract as numbers in your bank account, which in turns seem to decide almost anything about the way you can be made to live in a society.
There's something wrong about suggesting that those with incredulous amounts of wealth should preside over those who cannot afford to have such wealth, while simultaneously arguing that no group is homogenous and thus must all be held to the same level of scrutiny, as well as held to the same level of decency, regardless of whether they are rich or black. It's almost... discriminatory in a way.
Which is what exactly? That I I should care about freedom? I already said that I do. That discrimination is wrong? I agreed to that as well. That I am a husk? Meaningless.
You seem to be reacting to the fact that I believe that both sets of party leaders are disingenuous in their values and that money is their one true loyalty. You then conflate it with a belief of your own that I either have no values or have values you find to be evil, which has not happened. And so.
>>721766696 The world is full of imbalance. Why focus on the amount of money in some other person's wallet?
Our system is based on paying for what you want with the "points" you have in your account. Don't have enough points? Then you don't get to buy that product/service. The problem is when people start telling others that they're "too wealthy" like that's a bad thing. Capitalism is the best system we've come up with yet and if people don't want to play by the rules or feel they're unfair, why stay? I don't show up to a basketball game with a football in my hand and tell the teams playing they should bend to my whim. It's ridiculous at best and it's incredibly amusing that the majority of people arguing for a more socialist/communist system in the US would never pick up their things and actually go to live in an overtly socialist nation because the only purely socialist countries have been, and always will be, failures.
It's ironic though that "greed" seems to be the main talking point of those reaching their hands into the "rich" people's pocket when we've seen time and time again that same greed is what causes socialist/communist collectives to crash and burn every time. In short, Capitalism is pretty great and efficient and still the best option in a free world.
>>721767737 I'd rather focus on the amount of money in some other person's wallet, because that can either directly or indirectly affect me as a member of society. Instead of, well, how someone looks, which doesn't exactly affect me as a member of society.
Where I live, someone pays a percentage of my healthcare, so that if either of us reap some misfortune, we benefit from the prepaid tax, and are not bankrupt by a world full of imbalance and entropy. Someone pays a tax that ensures that all of us, who have purchased the utility at an initially flat rate, get running water every so and so months.
That is significant enough. If no one payed their taxes, the government, nor the privatized entities, could or would be able to provide their services to the collective group. That's bad. If someone has more "points", and they pay for more, they should have the right to do that, sure. But, if this is a society where we're going to pretend that we hold eachother to equal measures, it should follow that those with more "points" should, or could, split with a percentage of those points so that just about everyone benefits- especially those who we either say or pretend are of equal measure to those with more "points".
If you're going to argue the realism of the world, you should be observant of why one can't simply leave a system like Capitalism. The first thing to come to mind, is the debtor morality. You owe someone. That someone can go to great lengths to get you to, repay them. They can use the law. The law, in fact, enabling the majority of actions that can be taken to ensure that one is given what they are allegedly owed.
>>721752177 Communism/Socialism/progressivism and religion have a lot in common.
Both have undeniable evidence of shittiness throughout history. But, still thousands of people flock to it, extol its virtues, indoctrinate others to it, and will deny any counter evidence that shows what they value is wrong.
>>721767737 Football is competitive, no one is arguing otherwise. Football is not a government, however, so it's almost a false equivocation. Suggesting that all current overtly socialist nations are failures, and thus will always be failures, doesn't sound rational, either. It only sounds empirical, and it sounds like it isn't entirely forthcoming as to why the conclusion is such. Systems can be ratified, this isn't a new concept. Capitalism is the only known option that most are willing to adopt, if not stay within- changing a paradigm like that requires a lot of resources, including time. And, since it is a world of imbalance, I'm sure there can be things that go wrong. And, furthermore... why is it that you are now arguing against the concept of an overtly socialist nation... when I haven't explicitly, nor do I currently, argue or mention this as a talking point?
Why do you keep doing that? Why aren't you referring to the more moderate model of dynamic exchange that you seem to have preached earlier, what with the dissection of the No True Scotsman fallacy that most people hold? In fact... are you going back on that? Should we not focus on the amount of money in some other person's wallet, if the world is full of imbalance, and thus apparently must be held to some measure in which we can keep "order", as some must be more equal than others- and then, bar none, be entitled to that in-equal value? What is Capitalism? Does it have rules? I think it has rules.
Why are you essentially forcing me to argue other points that I have yet to explicitly, clearly, support or play devil's advocate for? It's as if you are caricaturing me so that it is easier to argue against me, by constructing my points for me.
>>721752177 They're not. Canada's healthcare fucking sucks man. My mom had to wait in extreme pain for a full year before she got her hip replaced. Now she needs the other replaced and I have to stay home from work to help her with everything. Canada's healthcare is only good for people who don't need it.
>>721769189 I don't imagine that there is an overflowing amount of doctors, medical staff, and hospitals in any one region of Canada, though. Especially not the hospitals and medical centers near the big cities, which become overburdened by those who don't need to be in the ER, on top of the fact that most people don't, or are not referred to, other hospitals that could at the very least handle them without an absurd waiting period.
It's either everyone tries to go to the few hospitals we can reach, and get seen by 14 people, or some who can afford to go to the hospital without aid of emergency services go to the hospital, and those who can afford to pay out of pocket can come back out- while the rest stay at home and suffer anyways.
We just need better infrastructure to deal with the absurdity that comes with our current healthcare system, if it doesn't change.
Please support this website by donating Bitcoins to 16mKtbZiwW52BLkibtCr8jUg2KVUMTxVQ5 If a post contains copyrighted or illegal content, please click on that post's [Report] button and fill out a post removal request
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows an archive of their content. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.