Quote:
Originally Posted by sgtdmski  It is not about yesteryears propoganda, but rather yesteryear's history. How many people died in the name of the so-called workers paradise??? Stalin and Lenin have some 100,000,000 lives on their hands, and they were not just the rich, but many were the very workers that communism itself tends to glorify. Marx wrote that history is revolution and that capitalism was just another stage in history that following revolution would lead to communism. Marx believed not in the power of the individual but rather the power of the group. Marx believed that the workers would unite and overthrow the owner.
dmk |
Well you are correct in stating that Marx was what sociologists call a "conflict theorist". Basically he believed that change comes only through revolution. That particular contention has become more or less redundant. A revolution can take many forms, but the defining quality is actually the major shift in common values that change brings.
Anyhow no socialist will ever defend Lenin, Stalin or the USSR. As a confirmed socialist myself i will wholeheartedly agree that the world must never experience that sort of corruption ever again. Yet as i have said MANY times, the USSR was not the ultimate socialist state ( and it doesn't matter how much they SAID they were ) and Lenin and Stalin were not socialists. They were dictators using an ideology to suppress their people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sgtdmski First let me say this, I work in the healthcare field, which means my life is surrounded by death, disease, pain, sickness, and grief. To deal with this I have for the most part turned off the majority of my emotions, meaning I do not empathize nor do I sympathize. Basically I am a cold-blood, sonofabitch.
dmk |
Sucks for you dude. Though i would still think that at least part of your reason for sticking to your field is fuelled by humanity. If being detached is what you need to keep doing it, well then so be it. I have several doctors and surgeons in my closest family and i know that it is a requirement of the job.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sgtdmski So why in the hell would I want to give 50% of my money to the government so that not only I have a place to live, healthcare, and my basic needs but so would someone who is not as willing to work as hard as me. I work my ass off and I take pride in the work that I do. And I willing pay my insurance premiums so that I can have my healthcare coverage, I willing pay myself first so that I can have a retirement. I work an second job in the summer so that I can have extra money to vacation, and buy big toys (big screen TV, pick-up truck). And I am taking a risk in starting my own business. I don't ask anybody for help, I do it on my own, taking chances, making decisions, making choices, and risking what I own. I do it because I have the balls to grab myself by the bootlaces and put myself in the best position possible. None of it is hard to do, except for making the right choices and that is what kills some many others. I am 30 something years old, I have no children, I don't spend my time running around fucking every woman I can to please myself and then complain because I have kids. Sometimes personal responsiblity can be a bitch. But you know what, thanks to the so-called safety nets in place it has severely reduced the consequences of not have self-restraint. If you do not wish to be and act responsibly, why in the fuck should I make up for your misgivings.
dmk |
Now i think you should take pride in your hard work. But you are assuming certain things:
1) you assume that most people who can't afford healthcare are lazy good for nothing criminal druggies etc etc. That is a false assumption
2) You assume that America is such an ideal state that failure is ALWAYS self-inflicted.
Both of the above assumptions are wrong. Free healthcare is not for the druggies. it is there for those who genuinely can't afford it. I have no statistics to prove it i admit, but think about it. Would you say that the majority of people who can't afford proper medical care are lazy,do-nothing, criminal druggies? I would challenge that very much. i mean you really would have to be a nation of good-for-nothing criminal, welfare gobbling crooks, to out strip the number of people who genuinely can't afford healthcare.
Likewise to assume that insolvency is INVARIABLY one's own fault is also a wrong assumption. Again i quote those who get laid off due to outsourcing, those that lose their business, those that simply can't cover the costs of living, let alone health insurance. Ghetto dwellers have a notoriously low income and high criminality rate. Single mothers work 2 jobs to support their children etc etc. There are PLENTY of people in a bad situation through no fault of their own.
What you are talking about is that those who DESERVE free healthcare can't get it simply because you are more worried those the UNDESERVING might just get it also. Personally i believe in treating 10 people too many rather than ONE person too little. That is simple humanity. Yet you would sacrifice those who deserve free healthcare for the sake of depriving the exploiters also. I think that's just plain MEAN.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sgtdmski Just look at the education system. For every dollar of tax money spent, only 38 cents makes it to the classroom meaning the teachers and students. 62 cents, almost two-thirds is eaten up by the bureaucracy. That is why I know that government management of healthcare will be the same. I also now because I have to deal with medicaid and medicare, and if you think that the insurance companies and HMOs are corrupt, you ain't seen nothing yet.
dmk |
Well i agree that ALL bureucracy tends to be inefficient. However things are changing. Just the fact that everything can be tracked better NOW than EVER in the HISTORY of mankind will mean REVOLUTIONARY CHANGE in the efficiency of bureucracies. So what may have been impossible for centuries is NOW POSSIBLE. I know it is on a smaller scale, but i can go to ANY DOCTOR in denmark and he'll have my medical transcipts on his desk in seconds. He can send my prescription DIRECTLY to the pharmacy of my choice, and i can pick it up using my ID card. It leaves very little room for iefficiency and corruption.
Don't discard a good principle simply because you assume ( falsely) that it cannot be implemented. It most certainly CAN.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sgtdmski And you have the so-called COMMON MAN who finds that it is easier to sit at home and receive government handouts rather than work. The same COMMON MAN that will use their food stamp cards to buy other people groceries in exchange for cash so that they can buy cigarettes and alcohol or other drugs. For every bad rich person their is a bad COMMON MAN. So let's be fair, if we are to judge the rich by the few bad examples, lets judge the COMMON MAN by the same standards.
dmk |
Who the hell is talkin about government handouts? We are talking about people being able to go to a doctor and get healthy without having to count your nickels and dimes to see if you can afford it. Do not equate free healthcare with public handouts. A lazy bum gains NOTHIHNG from free healthcare. The ONLY PEOPLE WHO GAIN ARE THE SICK PEOPLE. And as far as i am concerned that is PERFECT TARGETING
Quote:
Originally Posted by sgtdmski No, it also hurts the very basic concept on which this country was founded - EQUALITY. Not to mention the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If you tax the rich too much, there actions are simple they work less to make less. Do you think that Bill Gates would have invented Microsoft if he knew that the government would take more than half of what he made for doing nothing, NO. As a result computers would probably still be the size of a room and the COMMON MAN would probably not be even able to afford one.
dmk |
Well you know as well as i do that RICH people are MORE EQUAL than poor people. That's not rhetoric. Money talks, and a rich american is far more likely to receive justice, better treatment than a poor man.
The EQUALITY that the founding fathers referred to was not about equality in TAXES. It was equality in terms of OPPORTUNITIES and JUSTICE. Every person should have the SAME OPPORTUNITIES as every other man, and EVERY MAN should be the same in the eyes of the law.
TO tax a rich man more heavily than a poor man is merely an understanding of WHO CAN AFFORD IT.
Also your contention that Bill Gates wouldn't have created Microsoft if he knew he was gonna get taxed heavily is just plain ridiculous. FIne so he would have had 40 billion instead of 60 billion. SO you're saying he would have been like "fuck that dude, i aint working for a measly 40 billion. in fact i would rather sit at home living on a measly welfare cheque and food stamps".
Social security does NOT hinder personal ambition. Nor do higher taxes on the rich prevent poor people from wanting to get rich. Trust me, as a poor man, i would not mind the added taxes if only i could get RICH. Free healthcare and free education never stopped me from working 22 hour shifts to earn money to travel. Free healthcare and free education never stopped me from realizing ANY ambition. I don't know how you can claim that these things will kill all ambition
Quote:
Originally Posted by sgtdmski People talk about the poor as if they were a fixed group they are not. During the 1980's more people moved from the bottom 1/5 in income to the top 1/5 than ever before. Cutting everyone's taxes is ethical. Criminal is punishing those who succeed for the simple fact that they succeed.
dmk |
You need to stop looking at taxation as a PUNISHMENT. Dammit if you knew your tax dollars were going to ensure that you, your children and your family could have BASIC SECURITY GAURANTEED it is not a PUNISHMENT. It is a SERVICE.
I wish that mankind was generous enough to take care of its own, but it is obvious that rich people aren't good at relieving themselves of their money for the benefit of others. I'm sure everybody wants to keep everything to themselves. However as a member of society you have a civic responsibility to ensure the wellbeing of your fellow man ( isn't that what all religions preach?) Taxes ENSURE that, at a fractional cost to you. And yet you will not part with it simply because you assume that all that don't have money DESERVE to not have money?
CUtting taxes is not ethical in the LEAST. It's just stupid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sgtdmski Socialism is a fools paradise because only a fool would embrace being a slave.
dmk |
Socialism is not slavery. I can assure you that the average scandinavian has MORE REPRESENTATION in the democratic system quite simply because everybody has the same health, the same education and the same life chances as anybody else. However in America you really just gotta be rich to matter. That's not democratic.. That's just awful.
Socialism isn't slavery.. it is security and freedom.