[Individual]

Here's a favorite argument of mine, see how it works out in your mind and then try it on someone. Remember there is no logical fallacy if we all agree that stealing is immoral. This is from another forum that I posted some time ago.......


Liberal Progressive Democrats, Ignorant or Immoral?
After the period of time I've been here I've come to one of two conclusions, It's what I do, find denominators. In the forums I've visited I have found LPDs stating they are for government programs to help those that are less fortunate, which is admirable if it is true. I think most of us step up to the plate as Americans when our fellow man is in dire straits. Some here will suggest that only 'they' are on the side of good.

Now if you have the capacity to determine where help is needed then why do you have a problem delivering that solution on your own? Why do you think the government needs to be involved? Because you can stand in line at the grocery store and donate to most charities, or spend 5 minutes online and you could donate to any charity or organization you so choose. Anything from the Red Cross to United Way or the Homeless Shelter or the SPCA. IS it that you are stupid or ignorant? DO you really not know which organizations need help? You do know that you can start your own charity rather simply by visiting a CPA and filing out some paperwork?

SO if you are not stupid and are capable of sending funds to any charity of your choice or forming one of your own, then you would be immoral to force other free people to do it in your name. Isn't that what you are doing in fact, immorally taking(by force if needed)money from one person and then pretending it came from you or your group? That's what it looks like when you force another to contribute against their will and then the leaders of your group take credit for it, in your name. Immorality at it's peak and definitely not freedom loving people.

I'm only left with two conclusions on the issue of government assistance in the realm of welfare or social spending programs, either LPDs are ignorant or immoral. Which is it? Because I've laid out the options that are available to you with todays technology and I cannot come up with another option at the base. Unless you think you are more ignorant than the politicians you elected as the leaders of your group? I wouldn't guess that for most LPD that I've run into, there are some though.

.........I can apply this to any number of LPD programs and seeing that 69 million people voted for BO, why don't they pool their resources and start their own damn healthcare system? Blue Cross has 100 million customers and many would switch to the BO Plan if it looked good, wouldn't they?

My latest addition would be to question why don't the politicians that support this healthcare system give up the one they currently use in favor of the one they are going to IMMORALLY FORCE people to use? Yeah you heard me, if you don't have health insurance the Obama Administration plans on penalizing you by charging you a $1000.00 fine, and for those that refuse to pay they will see jail time under the IRS Code 7201 and 7203, which means up to 5 years in prison and a $250,000 fine. This story came via the AP two days ago but some of here knew it all along because we pay attention to details when the devil is in them.
Note again I asked a question about being ignorant or immoral, not a statement.

Why are you unwilling to start your own Corporation that provides health insurance?

Mods, since this is my first posting of an original topic please feel free to move this if I happen to have misplaced it.

[FallenRaptor]

Liberal Progressive Democrats

Wrong forum. Try the liberalism or political circus forums instead.

[Zyx]

why don't they pool their resources and start their own damn healthcare system?

That is exactly what they are doing.

If you do not like our electoral system then go to Iraq.

[Individual]

Actually they aren't. They are taking revenue from the 'haves' and giving to the 'have-nots'.

When I give to the SPCA I don't take money from my neighbors by force or coercion and then give it to the SPCA.

As for the wrong forum.... socialized medicine is socialism

[Zyx]

They are taking revenue

No, you pay taxes. No one is taking your money, you're paying it.

If you don't want to pay taxes then we toss you in the prison, yes. Society isn't 'free.' If you don't like it, move.

In the mean time, the majority votes for how the monies will be spent. If you disagree, don't vote and move.

[Individual]

Very few people pay taxes voluntarily seeing there is a gun to their head or the threat of being imprisoned, both are immoral acts so we're starting to narrow this down a little.

"Society isn't free"?? what the hell does that mean? Are you being led by the nose to think that government is supposed to provide everything because you are incapable or unwilling to provide for yourself? I'll answer the next remark you make by stating that there is a difference between 'social welfare' and 'general welfare', even though stupid brainwashed idiots don't understand the difference.

Democracy is majority rules and at last check this country is a Republic.... do you understand that? It means 'rule of law' not 'mob rule'.
http://www.wimp.com/thegovernment

[ingliz]

do you understand that? It means 'rule of law' not 'mob rule'.

1. A Representative or Senator sponsors a bill.

2. The bill is referred to Committee.

3. The Committee either rejects it, sends it to sub-committee, or moves it on in the legislative process.

4. Sub-Committee Review - optional

5. Mark up, amendments in sub-committee

6. Reporting a bill, the full committee reviews the sub committee's review, gives its own recommendations, and votes on them

7. Publication of the Committee Report

8. It is placed on the Legislative Calendar to be debated on the floor

9. Debate for and against the bill proceeds before the full House and Senate according to strict rules of consideration and debate.

10. Bills are amended and voted on

11. Bills approved in one chamber are sent to the other.

12.The other, Senate or House, then follows the same procedure and can pass it, revise it, or revise it so thoroughly as to suggest their own.

13.The bills from both Houses are reconciled if needs be by a joint committee, called a Conference Committee, as both Houses must approve the same bill. The Conference Committee report must be approved by both Houses or the bill dies.

14. Presidents sign the bills into Law.

Presidents can veto billls, but a quorum of 2/3 of the members of both Houses can override this and force them into law.

The Supreme Court tests their constitutionality.

How your Laws are made

Who is advocating mob rule? The law is you pay your taxes.


*Edited to add a few steps I had missed*

[SecretSquirrel]

there is no need to hurl insults and obscenities to advance the cause of liberty, Individual. Please calm down.

[Zyx]

Very few people pay taxes voluntarily seeing there is a gun to their head or the threat of being imprisoned, both are immoral acts so we're starting to narrow this down a little.

The 'founding fathers' covered this with their infamous quotation: "If men were angels, we wouldn't need government."

I'll answer the next remark you make by stating that there is a difference between 'social welfare' and 'general welfare',

What does it matter if there is a difference? See ingliz's post, we elect politicians to do our laws for us. These politicians can propose any law so long as it doesn't go against the constitution. This was the intent of the constitution. This is what a Republic is. If you disagree with Republics, the freedom to propose laws in the foreground of a constitution, then go somewhere else. It is not complicated.

[TheRedMenace]

Now if you have the capacity to determine where help is needed then why do you have a problem delivering that solution on your own? Why do you think the government needs to be involved?

Because there aren't enough charitable people. If enough people were donating to charity to provide everyone with the essentials then there would be no need for welfare. But there isn't.

Because you can stand in line at the grocery store and donate to most charities, or spend 5 minutes online and you could donate to any charity or organization you so choose. Anything from the Red Cross to United Way or the Homeless Shelter or the SPCA. IS it that you are stupid or ignorant? DO you really not know which organizations need help?

The problem is that they don't get enough donations to help everyone.

[Individual]

Red Menace, Did you know that Americans gave over 300 Billion dollars to charity in the years 2009 2008? Each year this country gives in charitable contributions more than any other. But you are making a point for immorality if you believe or are making an argument for this healthcare scheme being a charity that will force one group to provide for another. Then I've already explained that Blue Cross, which has 100 million customers is a Corporation and if the idea is to provide insurance for people, why not form your own Corporation and provide the services you feel you and others need? Or start your own version of a religious charity or a Red Cross type charity, I mean if you really feel that this is important for the country, the solution is very simple and requires no immoral act on your part.

To the comments about voting for elected representatives I say that I voted and my vote is not counted. I voted for Ron Paul and my vote was not counted in the last election, then Electors (people appointed by politicians) vote for President, not the people and popular vote. In my local district my vote isn't counted either as I cannot vote for who I want, I can only vote for the people that are o the ballot via the primary process, there you have no direct representation in our government.

Then I too watched this video in third grade.....

Zxy, Note the Founders did not have healthcare schemes when they put pen to parchment 230+ years ago, they also didn't have income taxes, wonder why? Then there are cases where income taxes have been ruled unConstitutional too. And your point of being unConstitutional I give you this following point that people will be forced against their will to have health insurance.... that is unConstitutional. Next thing they'll say I have to buy Nike shoes or something???

ANd Zxy,
"The 'founding fathers' covered this with their infamous quotation: "If men were angels, we wouldn't need government.""
The above quote has nothing to do with the need for government, government is there to protect Individual rights, healthcare is a good not a right.

JAIL FOR NO INSURANCE UNDER PELOSI BILL

The nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation reported that the House version of the healthcare bill specifies that those who don't buy health insurance and do not pay the fine of about 2.5 percent of their income for failing to do so can face a penalty of up to five years in prison!

The bill describes the penalties as follows:

IRS CODE to be enforced when you fail to comply

* Section 7203 — Misdemeanor willful failure to pay is punishable by a fine of up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year.

* Section 7201 — Felony willful evasion is punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years." [page 3]

That anyone should face prison for not buying health insurance is simply incredible.

And how much will the stay-out-of-jail insurance cost? The joint committee noted that "according to a recent analysis by the Congressional Budget Office, the lowest-cost family non-group plan under HR 3962 (the Pelosi bill) would cost $15,000 by 2016."

Obama's bill provides only subsidies to help pay this enormous sum after families making about $45,000 have paid 8 percent of their income for insurance and after those earning a household income of about $65,000 have kicked in 12 percent.

The Joint Committee on Taxation noted that, although the Senate Finance Committee version of the bill did not include criminal penalties, "The House Democrats' bill, however, contains no similar language protecting American citizens from civil and criminal tax penalties that could include a $250,000 fine and five years in jail."

Remember that simply buying catastrophic insurance, which may be all the young uninsured family needs, does not constitute having adequate insurance under the Obama bill. It has to be total, all inclusive insurance for one to avoid the penalties in the legislation. That is because Obama wants to use these premiums from the currently uninsured to subsidize his program.

So Pelosi is requiring Americans to pay these steep premiums, or a fine of 2.5 percent of their income for not doing so, or, potentially, go to prison!

Anyone who is familiar with the U.S. prison system can attest to the large number of people incarcerated for similar white collar offenses. That the House bill would treat failure to carry health insurance or pay the fine as tax evasion or willful nonpayment is amazing!

And where is the constitutional basis for requiring everyone to buy insurance? It is OK for a state to make drivers pay for automobile insurance. Driving is not a right, it is a privilege, and the state may regulate it by demanding insurance. Banks can require homeowners to buy insurance as a condition of their lending. But how does the federal government get the right to require a family to buy health insurance or face a civil penalty and, failing that, to face either a criminal fine or jail?

The tough penalties in the House bill are designed to keep insurance companies from opposing the bill. It was the relaxation of these penalties in the Senate Finance Committee version of the legislation that led the companies to reverse field and come out in opposition to the legislation. The insurance companies want to see their coffers swell when tens of millions of new customers are required to buy insurance. The more draconian the penalties for failing to pay them large sums of money to pad their bottom lines, the better.

The more you read this bill, the worse it gets.

[Individual]

As a side note I'll let you all know now that if this is passed the way the Pelosi Bill is crafted, I will be incarcerated for refusing to carry insurance and for refusing to pay the fine. Now you can say you knew a guy once that stood up for the principles of freedom and liberty. You can also hang your hat on your principles of immorality and forcing people to do things against their will.

آزادی

[Zyx]

I will be incarcerated

Good news.

Zxy, Note the Founders did not have healthcare schemes when they put pen to parchment 230+ years ago, they also didn't have income taxes, wonder why?

As a matter of fact, I do not wonder why.

The Founders had explicitly avoided putting laws in the constitution. They made a legislative branch, though. And checks and balances in case that branch were too overbearing. They did not believe that they had the foresight of all time, but most assuredly they'd call you a traitor for opposing the system as it was deemed to run.

To your complaints over who you can vote for, you should realize that the Founders never intended that you'd vote for anyone at all (see the history of the electoral college.) So please, be quiet.

[Individual]

It won't be good news to the charities I give to or the homeless people that I feed and clothe but nice to see your immorality come to the surface.

And they made the Legislative Branch a difficult place to pass laws if you consider at one time the Senate was comprised of appointees by each state legislature, no direct elections of Senators and there was a 67 vote rule on filibuster too.

They avoided laws because they knew that rights lay with the Individual, then the States, and what was left fell on the Federal Government.

But I digress, we're talking about the simple points of certain peoples ignorance or immorality and so far you've shown your hand seeing you know absolutely nothing about me and the good I do for my fellow Americans, but you'd wish me ill by putting me in jail. We have nothing further to discuss as people like you don't rate in my world.

[Zyx]

seeing you absolutely nothing about me

people like you don't rate in my world.

Doesn't make any sense.

---

And they made the Legislative Branch a difficult place to pass laws if you consider at one time the Senate was comprised of appointees by each state legislature, no direct elections of Senators and there was a 67 vote rule on filibuster too.

What does this matter?

They made laws possible and they made the constitution tenable.

You don't have a point. You are merely saying that because you disagree with a law, the rest of us should disagree with it. The problem is that, that sentiment is not in the Constitution. We can have laws and this health care is just a law. If you disagree with lawmaking, then get out of the nation (or go to jail.)

[Bella]

آزادی

Azadi Are you Persian?

[Individual]

You cannot pass a law that is unConstitutional.

Then find me the Framer that believed in force and coercion... and to think they stood against that type of oppression risking they're lives in the process. Coming full circle.

Bella, the translator says that means 'freedom'. My friends in Iran confirmed this for me when we were going over the protest videos coming through from Iran recently. Does it mean something different to your knowledge? Just checked and Azadi Tower and Azadi Square help confirm what I knew. Freedom.

[Zyx]

Then find me the Framer that believed in force and coercion

You propose lawlessness.

[Individual]

Your rights end at the tip of my nose and mine at the tip of yours. There is no lawlessness in that and government serves to prosecute those that would violate those rights.

Then one of them mentioned something about 'once they realize they can vote things for themselves' it would all go to pot.

[Northern-Anarchist-X]

Your rights end at the tip of my nose and mine at the tip of yours. There is no lawlessness in that and government serves to prosecute those that would violate those rights.

Then one of them mentioned something about 'once they realize they can vote things for themselves' it would all go to pot.

That is essentially lawlessness. The principle of liberty and tolerance are human custom: social organizations necessitate these, even pre-civilizational ones. The state is a group of associations imposed from above on specific geographic regions.

If there were no law, most people would not resort to a bloodbath: if it were so, no social organizations could have been formed in the first place.

Rather, the accumulation of power lent itself to the state, which lent itself to the prosecution of power-interests.