Romney: Individual Mandate "Is A Tax"

[Scott_Lafrance]

Great post!

The only thing I would add is that it is also a noble goal to make health care and insurance afforadable to all. This is where people get carried away and want to force others to pay for / work for free with out regards to the economic realities of the situations.

This is a noble goal, but it is not even addressed in the ACA. The “cost saving” measures are going to have the net effect of putting doctors out of business, which reduces the supply of healthcare, which drives up the cost of healthcare.

 

[stinkcat_14]

You think the Leftist cares? Since when do Leftists ever care about anything but themselves?

The wars in IRAQ and Afganistan were also imposed on those who didn’t want them as well. And what is totally immoral is we borrowed money to pay for them. Those who are stuck with the bill were never even asked if they wanted a war. Liberals are not the only selfish ones. Fighting a war and making another generation pay for it is about as selfish as you can get.

 

[austenbosten]

The wars in IRAQ and Afganistan were also imposed on those who didn’t want them as well. And what is totally immoral is we borrowed money to pay for them. Those who are stuck with the bill were never even asked if they wanted a war. Liberals are not the only selfish ones. Fighting a war and making another generation pay for it is about as selfish as you can get.

We’re not talking about the wars, we are talking about socialized healthcare…perhaps you are commenting on the wrong thread.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

You think the Leftist cares? Since when do Leftists ever care about anything but themselves?

They worship their ideology more fervently then actual religious beliefs.

Progressivism IS A RELIGION and the Caesar is their god.

 

[austenbosten]

They worship their ideology more fervently then actual religious beliefs.

Progressivism IS A RELIGION and the Caesar is their god.

Thank you…I thought I was the only one who thought that. :clapping:

 

[stinkcat_14]

We’re not talking about the wars, we are talking about socialized healthcare…perhaps you are commenting on the wrong thread.

You are saying that there are some things that it is ok to force people to pay for? How is that acceptable for a free society?

 

[austenbosten]

You are saying that there are some things that it is ok to force people to pay for? How is that acceptable for a free society?

Cause there is a big difference, we didn’t go to war to impose anything on anyone. In case you forgot…we were attacked on 9/11.

 

[scipio337]

The wars in IRAQ and Afganistan were also imposed on those who didn’t want them as well. And what is totally immoral is we borrowed money to pay for them. Those who are stuck with the bill were never even asked if they wanted a war. Liberals are not the only selfish ones. Fighting a war and making another generation pay for it is about as selfish as you can get.

At least there were Democrats who voted for both AUMFs. Iraq passed in the House 296-133, and in the Senate 77-23, both bipartisan votes.

Sincerely, an Iraq vet.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

You are saying that there are some things that it is ok to force people to pay for? How is that acceptable for a free society?

The idea of “force” and “free and civil society” are mutually incompatible.

 

[He_Man]

The wars in IRAQ and Afganistan were also imposed on those who didn’t want them as well. And what is totally immoral is we borrowed money to pay for them. Those who are stuck with the bill were never even asked if they wanted a war. Liberals are not the only selfish ones. Fighting a war and making another generation pay for it is about as selfish as you can get.

In fairness, the executive branch is actually tasked with the defense of the country and the discretionary use of the armed forces as commander in chief. We can debate whether or not a particular engagement or war was a good idea or not, but constitutionally speaking, it all falls within his purview as President, as spelled out clearly in the constitution.

Attempting to nationalize the nation’s healthcare or even being involved peripherally is not a power or tasked respponsibility found anywhere on paper. It’s like comparing apples and oranges.

 

[meltzerboy]

You think the Leftist cares? Since when do Leftists ever care about anything but themselves?

I’ve often heard the same about the Right. Without so-called Leftists (I prefer the word liberals), we would never have had social programs that have benefited millions of people, such as Social Security, Medicare, the GI Bill, Veterans benefits, disability insurance, child labor laws, civil rights and other nondiscrimination legislation, just to name a few. Traditionally, liberals are the ones who have always tried to help people in need, while conservatives have been more interested in maintaining the status quo and their own elite power and wealth by means of corporate greed. The millionaires of society are largely conservatives.

 

[stinkcat_14]

In fairness, the executive branch is actually tasked with the defense of the country and the discretionary use of the armed forces as commander in chief. We can debate whether or not a particular engagement or war was a good idea or not, but constitutionally speaking, it all falls within his purview as President, as spelled out clearly in the constitution.

Attempting to nationalize the nation’s healthcare or even being involved peripherally is not a power or tasked respponsibility found anywhere on paper. It’s like comparing apples and oranges.

One can debate whether a particular use of force is reasonable or unreasonable. What is not up for debate is the morality of making a future generation pay for it. I don’t think anyone can argue that is moral.

 

[austenbosten]

I’ve often heard the same about the Right. Without so-called Leftists (I prefer the word liberals), we would never have had social programs such as Social Security, Medicare, the GI Bill, Veterans benefits, disability insurance, child labor laws, just to name a few. Traditionally, liberals are the ones who have tried to help people in need, while conservatives have been more interested in maintaining the status quo and their own elite power and wealth by means of corporate greed.

Oh brother…why are so many of my Jewish brothers Leftists I love how you reveal your utter biasness and contempt in this comment.

Leftists are for every good program and idea, and Conservatives are for holding onto power and greed? Do you have any idea how thoughtless and immature that ridiculous generalization is?

 

[meltzerboy]

Oh brother…why are so many of my Jewish brothers Leftists I love how you reveal your utter biasness and contempt in this comment.

Leftists are for every good program and idea, and Conservatives are for holding onto power and greed? Do you have any idea how thoughtless and immature that ridiculous generalization is?

I was responding to your comment, which was quite generalized, and my comment happens to be closer to the truth of the matter than your own. Name some social programs that were formulated by conservatives. (Nixon and George H.W. Bush were not conservatives.)

 

[He_Man]

One can debate whether a particular use of force is reasonable or unreasonable. What is not up for debate is the morality of making a future generation pay for it. I don’t think anyone can argue that is moral.

Now I agree with that. We just finished paying off all our debt, so I am with you on this.

 

[austenbosten]

I was responding to your comment, which was quite generalized, and my comment happens to be closer to the truth of the matter than your own. Name some social programs that were formulated by conservatives. (Nixon and George H.W. Bush were not conservatives.)

No it’s not generalized. Because Leftists do not have as much compassion for their fellow man as Conservatives do. The statistics prove it my friend. Arthur C. Brooks, professor at Syracuse University conducted a survey and he found that, although liberal families’ incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

The reason I say that Leftists don’t care, is because it’s easy for anyone to say that someone else should do something to help people, it is another thing to do it yourself. Rarely do I see Leftists ever donate time to charity unless of course it was pushing a law, or doing something either for animals or the environment. I have yet to meet a Leftist who volunteers to help people.

Also social programs does not mean compassion. Adolf Hitler instituted social programs, Benito Mussolini instituted social programs, Joseph Stalin instituted social programs, Mao Zedong instituted social programs…I can go on and on. Those men weren’t compassionate, the followers of them weren’t compassionate. Social programs does not entail that one has compassion. It entails that one believes in the state above that of the individual and it is truly sad that you obviously see this to be true. :sad_yes:

 

[meltzerboy]

No it’s not generalized. Because Leftists do not have as much compassion for their fellow man as Conservatives do. The statistics prove it my friend. Arthur C. Brooks, professor at Syracuse University conducted a survey and he found that, although liberal families’ incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

The reason I say that Leftists don’t care, is because it’s easy for anyone to say that someone else should do something to help people, it is another thing to do it yourself. Rarely do I see Leftists ever donate time to charity unless of course it was pushing a law, or doing something either for animals or the environment. I have yet to meet a Leftist who volunteers to help people.

Also social programs does not mean compassion. Adolf Hitler instituted social programs, Benito Mussolini instituted social programs, Joseph Stalin instituted social programs, Mao Zedong instituted social programs…I can go on and on. Those men weren’t compassionate, the followers of them weren’t compassionate. Social programs does not entail that one has compassion. It entails that one believes in the state above that of the individual and it is truly sad that you obviously see this to be true. :sad_yes:

I am talking mainly about liberal and conservative politicians. Of course there are conservatives among the working and middle classes who contribute to charitable causes, sometimes directly devoting their time as well as their money. Compassion is not based on politics. The social programs I referred to: Social Security, Medicare, the GI Bill, nondiscrimination legislation based on race and gender, child labor laws, and so on are those that have benefited the lives of countless people, and they are hardly comparable to the social programs of Stalin and Hitler. Government can be either a constructive or destructive force in the lives of its people: it’s not an all black-and-white situation. The conservative philosophy is one of rugged individualism: sink or swim according to one’s own efforts and the reliance on family and charity from strangers, as well as allowing the marketplace to function unfettered by regulatory oversight. In its own way, conservatism can be a noble enterprise, but it is not always the most feasible solution to the social and economic plight of people. Have social programs been excessive and gone astray at times? Certainly they have. But they have also oftentimes been necessary measures, and I believe our country would have been much the poorer without many of them. A final point: when I say conservative, I am referring to Conservative Democrats as well as Conservative Republicans. It is not the major-party label but the social and economic philosophy of conservatism I am describing.

 

[austenbosten]

I am talking mainly about liberal and conservative politicians. Of course there are conservatives among the working and middle classes who contribute to charitable causes, sometimes directly devoting their time as well as their money. Compassion is not based on politics. However, it is also the case that more wealthy conservatives do not devote their time and money toward helping others. The social programs I referred to: Social Security, Medicare, the GI Bill, nondiscrimination legislation based on race and gender, child labor laws, and so on are those that have benefited the lives of countless people, and they are hardly comparable to the social programs of Stalin and Hitler. Government can be either a constructive or destructive force in the lives of its people: it’s not an all black-and-white situation. The conservative philosophy is one of rugged individualism: sink or swim according to one’s own efforts and the reliance on family and charity from strangers, as well as allowing the marketplace function unfettered by regulatory oversight. In its own way, conservatism can be a noble enterprise, but it is not always the most feasible solution to the social and economic plight of people. Have social programs been excessive and gone astray at times? Certainly they have. But they have also oftentimes been necessary measures, and I believe our country would have been much the poorer without many of them. A final point: when I say conservative, I am referring to Conservative Democrats as well as Conservative Republicans. It is not the major-party label but the social and economic philosophy of conservatism I am describing.

Let me ask you a question, so if all you believe is true, then would you agree with this statement I am guessing?

“As things stand today, the trade unions in my opinion cannot be dispensed with. On the contrary, they are among the most important institutions of the nation’s economic life. Their significance lies not only in the social and political field, but even more in the general field of national politics. A people whose broad masses, through a sound trade-union movement, obtain the satisfaction of their living requirements and at the same time an education, will be tremendously strengthened in its power of resistance in the struggle for existence”.

 

[meltzerboy]

Let me ask you a question, so if all you believe is true, then would you agree with this statement I am guessing?

I know this is a trick question. Without looking up the statement, I would guess it was uttered by either Lenin, Trotsky, or Marx. Yes, I would agree with it; but I also agree with the spirit of capitalism. I think a hybrid kind of social capitalism would probably serve us better than the type of capitalism espoused currently by big corporations and greedy politicians. In sum, I don’t believe a capitalist economy should be given free reign when it infringes upon the civil liberties of the people.

 

[austenbosten]

I know this is a trick question. Without looking up the statement, I would guess it was uttered by either Lenin, Trotsky, or Marx. Yes, I would agree with it; but I also agree with the spirit of capitalism. I think a hybrid kind of social capitalism would probably serve us better than the type of capitalism espoused currently by big corporations and greedy politicians. In sum, I don’t believe a capitalist economy should be given free reign when it infringes upon the civil liberties of the people.

You are correct it was a trick question,

Sadly my friend the person who you agreed with was not Lenin or Marx. It was in fact Adolf Hitler who wrote that in his book Mein Kampf. He also believed in a hybrid socio-capitalist economic model.

I’m not doing this to point you out and declare you as some evil Nazi traitor(I’m sure you are a terrific guy in real life) I’m simply pointing out that your beliefs are morally stained and even though you can rip the swastikas and sickles and hammers off of a product…it still doesn’t make it right.

No single corporation has ever been responsible for the deaths of millions, governments have. No single corporation has infringed upon someone’s civil liberties…Coca Cola sure hasn’t I don’t remember Ebay infringing my civil liberties…but I do know my government has infringed my civil liberties and governments of the past have infringed on people’s liberties.