Debate discussion

36 views
Politics > Glenn Beck Urges Listeners to Leave Churches That Preach Social Justice (Evil of religion?)

Comments Showing 1-45 of 45 (45 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Dan (new)

Dan Wow, what a douchebag. Do these people even read the Bible? Don't they realize that Jesus is basically a communist? Man, I guess to Glen Beck religion is all about compassion, so long as it's not directed towards other people.


message 2: by Dan (new)

Dan The same people who get upset that the cashier at Target says "happy holidays."


message 3: by Maurice (new)

Maurice Whitehurst (PhilosophyJones) | 74 comments Glenn Beck said, you can not value something that has been given. You must work for it for it to have value to the person. (paraphrase)

I wonder if GB meant that about life? Or is he suggesting he had a hand in his birth.

"To speak in totalities without knowing the whole is senseless."

MW


message 4: by Maurice (new)

Maurice Whitehurst (PhilosophyJones) | 74 comments "A culture without absolutes is a mob."

MW


message 5: by Vїllaїп (new)

Vїllaїп (lost_machina) | 59 comments I don't get what people have against Glenn Beck.
He wants the best for the American people. Some might disagree with what the best is, but the point is, he cares.
He stresses that this country is in fucking big trouble, and there is no easy way out. Too many people are admitting that we're in trouble, but are only offering solutions that are 'quick-fixes', and only end up getting us in bigger ditches.
He wants less government, and for the American people to stick to the constitution. Come on, can't we at least agree that the Founding Fathers had some good ideas?
Dan and Xox, you guys are smart, but you can never look past the religious part of anything. As soon as you guys see the word 'Church', you go nuts. Can't you guys look at the other parts of Glenn Beck's ideas and see that he's not some evil, brain-washed idiot like you think every religious person is?
I do not believe in God. I am an atheist. But I am smart enough to recognize when someone wants to help our country, and am willing to put aside our differences and listen to his side. Haven't you to realized that you're pretty much doing everything you accuse the Christians of doing, just the other way around? Preaching hate?


message 6: by Anna (new)

Anna Banana | 48 comments Glenn Beck is an idiot, any sane person can see that. Not only is he mixing politics and religion, he is now also telling people to give shit about those who need them, leave those churches that raise funds for the poor and generally just piss on it all, and only care about themselves and, well, Glenn Beck.


message 7: by Vїllaїп (new)

Vїllaїп (lost_machina) | 59 comments Damn it Xox what the hell did I just say?
You went over and hunted down the most religious episode he's ever done, and claim that it represents all of his views, that this is all he talks about.
I do not agree with him here. And it is wrong for him to believe that all atheists opt for a socialist government. I, personally, want the government out of my life. The Constitution never was made to let the government have as much power as it has now. Though I'll admit the world has changed, and we cannot follow the Constitution word for word, it is pretty clear that the Founding Fathers wanted to give the majority of the power to the states.

Okay, Xox, let me get this straight, as I can NEVER figure out what you want. What do you think needs to change about the government currently? What do you think we need more/less of? Do you think Obama is leading, or at least trying to lead us in a good direction? Do you believe in a socialist or capitalist government?


message 8: by Anna (new)

Anna Banana | 48 comments It is obvious to you and me. I could dig up some more stupid stuff that he said, for a laugh.

Believe it or not, but I actually do that sometimes. I also sometimes confuse him with Pad Robertson, but it's an easy mistake of two idiots.


message 9: by Monkey (new)

Monkey Man The Pervy Sage wrote: "He wants less government, and for the American people to stick to the constitution. Come on, can't we at least agree that the Founding Fathers had some good ideas?."

The "founding fathers" formed a government. How can you say they wanted LESS government? If they wanted less, they would have advocated anarchy. As it is, they made a system that not only created rules, but a system to create MORE rules.

The best idea? Article One of the United States Constitution, section 8, clause 18:
“The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

You don't like it? Vote. But the creators of the constitution gave congress the power to make more laws. Glenn Beck is wrong on the "Our founding fathers wanted less government" and so are you.


message 10: by Vїllaїп (new)

Vїllaїп (lost_machina) | 59 comments I was talking about Glenn Beck, in 2010, in the first part.

And if you really want me to rephrase the second part, fine. Way back then, with the Founding Fathers, they created a small government, that gave the majority of the power to the individual states. They wanted to keep it that way, because if the government gains too much power, bad things happen. Since then, most of the power has been taken away from the states and given to a central government. (I apologize if my vocab isn't completely accurate, but hopefully you get what I mean.)

Oh, and just to point out what happens when government gets too much power, take a look over at Cuba.


message 11: by Monkey (new)

Monkey Man Now you're advocating states rights? So you are for the south in the Civil War?

The Pervy Sage wrote: "if the government gains too much power, bad things happen. "

Bad things like what? The national highway system? Civil Rights? The Post Office?

This isn't Cuba. False equivalencies won't work. Different form of government, so you can't compare the two.


message 12: by Dan (new)

Dan Way back then, with the Founding Fathers, they created a small government, that gave the majority of the power to the individual states. They wanted to keep it that way

What is your basis for this claim that the Founding Fathers wanted the federal government to have less power and the states more? Because Glenn Beck says so?

because if the government gains too much power, bad things happen.

You know that the federal government and state governments are both governments, right? If you take power from state governments and give it to the federal government, bad things happen, but if you do the opposite, good things happen? Because then power is in the hands of the government, instead of the government?

Since then, most of the power has been taken away from the states and given to a central government.

Like what?

Oh, and just to point out what happens when government gets too much power, take a look over at Cuba.

This is idiotic. Cuba is also communist, and has been under a trade embargo with the United States since 1963. Your "government = bad" viewpoint is pathetically over-simplistic.


message 13: by Dan (new)

Dan This is worth reading:

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/a...

"If the Members actually listen, they may notice that the document they are hearing is nationalistic, not state-oriented; concerned with giving Congress power, not taking it away; forward-looking, not nostalgic for the past; aimed creating a new government that can solve new problems, not freezing in place an old one that must fold its hands while the nation declines."


message 14: by Lauren (new)

Lauren (djinni) | 7365 comments Mod
"The "founding fathers" formed a government. How can you say they wanted LESS government? If they wanted less, they would have advocated anarchy. As it is, they made a system that not only created rules, but a system to create MORE rules."

This is no necessarily "if a then b." The government was formed to keep the states from being picked off by larger empires, to create security. Do you know your history? They hardly agreed on government at all, that's why there was such a battle over Federalist and anti-Federalist ideas. They created a government with an amendment system because they knew circumstance would change in ways they could not foresee, and that government need to be able to evolve. Not to encourage large government, but to make sure it always stays relevant.


message 15: by Vїllaїп (new)

Vїllaїп (lost_machina) | 59 comments @ Monkey: States rights, yes. Slavery, no.

Like the government controlling more then they should control, and taking fundamental rights away like free speech.

@Dan
History text books?

Then you don't mind whichever one the majority of the power goes to?

Okay, one for example. Before the Civil War, states could separate from the USA if they wanted to. After the war ended, it was decided by the North that states could not separate from the country. This right was taken away by federal government.

Okay, guys, just so you know, I don't know nearly enough to actually make very strong arguments, as you can see. I'm younger than you think, don't keep up with politics very much, and history isn't my forte. Most of my arguments are based off stuff my father reads then tells me, Fox News, and other
things I've really just heard in history classes.

I know. I can already hear the 'then get the hell off this thread if you don't know what you're talking about!!'. But what Glenn Beck says makes sense to me, and mostly democratic views just don't. Why the hell would anyone want a socialist government? I do have an opinion, even if I can't express it too well.

Anyway, that's my little half-assed way of saying you guys win, though I think your opinions suck. :)


message 16: by Lauren (new)

Lauren (djinni) | 7365 comments Mod
"Before the Civil War, states could separate from the USA if they wanted to. After the war ended, it was decided by the North that states could not separate from the country. This right was taken away by federal government."

Where is your documentation of this?

"I don't know nearly enough to actually make very strong arguments, as you can see. I'm younger than you think, don't keep up with politics very much, and history isn't my forte. Most of my arguments are based off stuff my father reads then tells me, Fox News, and other
things I've really just heard in history classes."

Then this is a good place for you. It'll beat some of that Fox news out of you.

fyi, democracy isn't fucking socialism.

"Anyway, that's my little half-assed way of saying you guys win, though I think your opinions suck. :) "

We would have a lot more respect for you if you were open minded. We don't care that you don't know what you're talking about or if you're conservative, if you were willing to listen to us for a bit and learn something other than what your parents and Fox news wants you to think. Why are you handing yourself over to them so willingly?


message 17: by Dan (new)

Dan History text books?

Then you don't mind whichever one the majority of the power goes to?


I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.

Before the Civil War, states could separate from the USA if they wanted to.

According to what? Before the Civil War, had any state ever attempted -- successfully, no less -- to secede from the union? No. The Civil War wasn't a matter of states being "allowed" to leave the union; the north fought to preserve the union, and the south fought to leave it. They lost.

Why the hell would anyone want a socialist government?

Well, socialists would want to start a socialist government. But what does this have to do with anything? Are you trying to say that Obama is a socialist, and that he's trying to turn America into a socialist country? Because if that's what you're saying, you really do have no idea what you're talking about.


message 18: by Monkey (new)

Monkey Man Socialist? Like SOCIAL SECURITY? Which the USA already has? The opposite of Socialism isn't Democracy; it's Anarchy. As soon as we all decide to work together for the common good, we are socialists. It's all a matter of degree.

And how, exactly, are your free speech rights being taken away?

You remember the "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" from the Declaration of Independence? How can you have life without health care? Countries with socialized medicine have longer life expectancies.

Pervy Sage, I appreciate that you are young, but DON'T LISTEN TO OTHER PEOPLE, INCLUDING US. Go research anything you hear....


message 19: by Vїllaїп (new)

Vїllaїп (lost_machina) | 59 comments @Lauren: Sorry, I'll correct myself. There actually was no provisions for or against seceding before the Civil War. Still, I think the government made that law because it was afraid of loosing power, and I'm pretty sure if there's no legislation against something, you can do it, right?

I don't think you'll be able to beat a lot out of me, no offense.

...I don't get what you mean by that...

Why, exactly, am I not open minded? Because I stick to my beliefs? I read over what you guys say, carefully. If I don't agree with it doesn't mean I'm being narrow minded. Ok, I do admit the Cuba thing was a bit over simplistic. Ok, I can't give a website for everything I've said because I've heard it from my dad, Fox News or history class. I'll accept something when it makes sense to me.

>< Why do you people act like because I'm young, my brain is mush and vulnerable to brain-washing at every turn? I'm not an idiot. If Bill O'Reilly(sp) compares a McDonald gay advertisement to Al Qaeda, of course I think that's stupid. And, if I see Nancy Polosi on TV saying, "Well, of course we have to pass the bill, so you can know what's in it," I think that's ridiculous. If my mother says that Jesus loves me, I think that's ridiculous too. I'm not a zombie, and I don't follow people blindly.

@Dan

I meant, so you don't mind if the power goes to the states or the central government?

But there was no legislation for or against it, so I'm assuming it was legal.

I never said anything about Obama. I said I don't agree with socialism, and neither does Glenn Beck.

@Monkey

Social security is kind of failing. It's a Ponzi scheme.

Some politicians were planning to propose a bill that would force you to be more polite while debating, and not use words that could inspire violence. This, of course, was a result or the Arizona shooting. Dan and Xox, no offense, you two would be thrown in jail for life.

But how about the liberty that comes after that? The government was forcing us to buy health care, as I understand it.

Easier said than done, really.

@Xox

Just... read the same thing I said to Lauren...


message 20: by Vїllaїп (new)

Vїllaїп (lost_machina) | 59 comments Oh, and this is just me wondering, really. How old do you guys think I am?


message 21: by Vїllaїп (new)

Vїllaїп (lost_machina) | 59 comments So I'm supposed to repeat stupid stuff I learn from idiots like you?


message 22: by Vїllaїп (last edited Jan 26, 2011 06:41PM) (new)

Vїllaїп (lost_machina) | 59 comments Don't screw with me, really.

People like you are freaking annoying.


message 23: by Vїllaїп (new)

Vїllaїп (lost_machina) | 59 comments Because it gets on my nerves.

And you don't think you're not annoying when you rant all the time about how bad religion is like the brain-dead idiot you accuse Christians of being?


message 24: by Vїllaїп (new)

Vїllaїп (lost_machina) | 59 comments ...really? That's your answer?

I never really liked you.

And, if you insist, I'll give you the other reason. It's also annoying when people like you decide to hide behind their computers, and say things to people that you would never say to them if you were standing in front of them. Like when you called that 14(younger, I think) old girl a cock sucker. That's really why I think you're annoying. Because I know if you were face to face with some of the people you argue with online, you wouldn't be able to say any of the stupid insults you dish out on these threads. You should be embarrassed. But somehow, when your typing it and not saying it, it just changes everything with you.


message 25: by Dan (last edited Jan 26, 2011 07:08PM) (new)

Dan Still, I think the government made that law because it was afraid of loosing power, and I'm pretty sure if there's no legislation against something, you can do it, right?

Secession was ruled unconstitutional, not legislated against. States can still secede, but only through "revolution" or in agreement with the other states.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secessio...

I meant, so you don't mind if the power goes to the states or the central government?

I never said that. It would depend on the specific power we're talking about. The point I was making was that your argument, that power should go to state governments instead of the federal government so that the government doesn't have too much power, was asinine.

But there was no legislation for or against it, so I'm assuming it was legal.

What is this in reference to? If you're going to respond to specific things in people's posts, please copy and paste what you're responding to into your post, and put in italics, as I have done here and as others do. That way I know what you're talking about. I cannot magically tell what you're thinking about while you type.

I never said anything about Obama. I said I don't agree with socialism, and neither does Glenn Beck.

That is dishonest. When Glenn Beck talks about how he "doesn't agree with socialism," it's in the context of calling Obama a socialist. Are you seriously trying to say that your comment about socialism, in a paragraph about Glenn Beck, had nothing to do with Glenn Beck's favorite so-called socialist, Barack Obama, but instead was just a non-sequitur? You just happened, by sheer coincidence, to mention your opinion of socialism, apropos of nothing? I like pizza!

Some politicians were planning to propose a bill that would force you to be more polite while debating, and not use words that could inspire violence.

What bill? Can you verify this story? Or is this more of Glenn Beck's invented nonsense?

Dan and Xox, no offense, you two would be thrown in jail for life.

For what? For being impolite on Goodreads? The imaginary bill that never got passed, or even proposed, was going to legislate what people could say on Goodreads? Never mind that a. this bill is probably pure invention or gross exaggeration, b. it never would have passed and c. if it passed it would have instantly been thrown out by the Supreme Court.

But how about the liberty that comes after that? The government was forcing us to buy health care, as I understand it.

This isn't quite accurate. For one thing, not everyone would be "forced" to buy health coverage. For example, depending on who you work for, your employer might be required to provide you with health care, as many employers do. And if you had to but didn't want to buy health care for yourself, you'd simply have to pay a fine, which is, compared to the cost of health care, pretty nominal.

I will be the first to admit that the bill is imperfect. A better solution would be a universal, single-payer system. But a bill like that could never pass, because too many people -- like Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, etc. -- call it "socialism." Now, many, many other countries have this system, such as Canada, England, France, Germany, etc., and they also have higher life expectancies than we do, lower infant mortality rates, and lower per capita health care costs. And no one would say these are "socialist" countries. But that never stopped Glenn Beck. Socialism is the bogeyman of American politics.

The purpose of the bill is not to make everyone buy insurance; it's to provide universal coverage. Some of the most important provisions of the bill are the ones that make it illegal for health insurance companies to deny you coverage for pre-existing conditions, or drop you when you get sick. The problem is, there are only a few ways to do this, each with a different consequence:

1. A single-payer system. This won't pass because too many people think it's "socialism."

2. Simply make dropping people, denying coverage, etc. illegal and don't add anything else to the bill. In this case, a ton of people would drop their coverage, since you can simply go without health insurance until the day you really need it and then go buy it, since the insurance companies can no longer deny you coverage. If this happened, insurance rates would skyrocket, and almost no one could afford coverage at all.

3. Pass the above regulations, but also require everyone to get insurance. This increases the risk pool, which allows insurance companies to provide coverage without having to increase rates 10- or 100-fold.

I don't think the Obama plan is the best possible option, but it's probably the best option Congress could possibly pass in the current environment, where ignorance and hysterical paranoia are held up as virtues.


message 26: by Vїllaїп (new)

Vїllaїп (lost_machina) | 59 comments "Secession was ruled unconstitutional"

What was unconstitutional about it, if there were no provisions for or against it?

"It would depend on the specific power we're talking about."

Like which ones? Now I'm just curious, BTW...

"What is this in reference to? If you're going to respond to specific things in people's posts, please copy and paste what you're responding to into your post, and put in italics, as I have done here and as others do. That way I know what you're talking about. I cannot magically tell what you're thinking about while you type."

I was responding to stuff in order of your paragraphs, so the second one....

"That is dishonest. When Glenn Beck talks about how he "doesn't agree with socialism," it's in the context of calling Obama a socialist. Are you seriously trying to say that your comment about socialism, in a paragraph about Glenn Beck, had nothing to do with Glenn Beck's favorite so-called socialist, Barack Obama, but instead was just a non-sequitur? You just happened, by sheer coincidence, to mention your opinion of socialism, apropos of nothing? I like pizza!"

Actually, no, it isn't. Though I don't usually agree with Obama, I was mostly talking about George Sorros.

"This isn't quite accurate. For one thing, not everyone would be "forced" to buy health coverage. For example, depending on who you work for, your employer might be required to provide you with health care, as many employers do. And if you had to but didn't want to buy health care for yourself, you'd simply have to pay a fine, which is, compared to the cost of health care, pretty nominal."

...So, your employer is being forced to provide you with health-care coverage?

Mind explaining single-payer? xD Sorry.


message 27: by Vїllaїп (new)

Vїllaїп (lost_machina) | 59 comments "Throw un-backable accusations at me get you no where.

I'm not easily insulted.

You are still an idiot, and that is self-evidence.

Try to come back with something better."

So, you're telling me that you would call a fourteen year-old that she's a cocksucker, to her face?

Just correcting a statement you made, no worries.

And I suppose you'd tell me I'm an idiot to my face, too?

...Well, the only 'insults' you seem to 'accept' as 'good insults' are your own, so would you like me to copy and paste?


message 28: by Vїllaїп (new)

Vїllaїп (lost_machina) | 59 comments Why won't you answer me, Xox?

It's a harmless question, you don't have to keep dodging it.


message 29: by Vїllaїп (last edited Jan 26, 2011 07:57PM) (new)

Vїllaїп (lost_machina) | 59 comments Take a look up at post 42...

I always find this funny. People will tell me not to listen to the 'religious idiots' because they're hopelessly brainwashing me, and then helpfully direct me to a different channel or website, that somehow isn't brainwashing me now because you think what they're saying is 'right'.

Isn't that a little screwed up? Even in the slightest?


message 30: by Vїllaїп (new)

Vїllaїп (lost_machina) | 59 comments xD I'm not continuing this argument. It's pointless if you keep on dodging questions and don't even try to make sense.

But, I'd like to see you to call the next 14 year-old who does not agree with you a cocksucker. Or 12 year-old an idiot. And if you do, you deserve to come back to seventh grade, because that's what we call each other, not what grown men should be calling kids in middle school who happen to have a different opinion.


message 31: by Monkey (new)

Monkey Man The Pervy Sage wrote: "@Monkey
Social security is kind of failing. It's a Ponzi scheme."


Not the point. It is socialist. And it is American. American government contains socialist policies.

And it's failing because it's been gutted. If we TAXED the rich like we did back in Dwight Eisenhower's day, it would be working fine.


message 32: by Vїllaїп (last edited Jan 26, 2011 08:43PM) (new)

Vїllaїп (lost_machina) | 59 comments Just because America has some socialist policies does not mean it is a socialist government.

Do you know why it's been gutted? To pay off the massive debt we owe other countries! Over 14 trillion dollars! And I don't think that even includes interest. Isn't being 14 trillion dollars in debt enough to prove that our government really just doesn't know how to handle money? Why should we give it more?


message 33: by Dan (last edited Jan 26, 2011 10:42PM) (new)

Dan What was unconstitutional about it, if there were no provisions for or against it?

I don't know. Read the court's decision if you want to know. I don't know why they ruled the way they did, I just know that they ruled that way. It was in the 1870's or 80's, I believe.

There doesn't have to be a specific provision explicitly forbidding something in the Constitution in order for that thing to be unconstitutional. If that were the case, we wouldn't need a Supreme Court. In the few pages of the Constitution it is impossible to describe in detail every instance of unconstitutional behavior, nor is it possible for those writing the Constitution and its amendments to foresee every possible situation that might involve Constitutional law. The Constitution contains, instead, broad categories of rights to be protected and actions to be prohibited, and so on. The Supreme Court (and any lower court) interprets the Constitution to apply it to a specific situation.

Like which ones? Now I'm just curious, BTW...

Which powers should belong to the states and which to the federal government? Well I'm not going to go through and list them all. You'd have to ask me. But for example, most if not all environmental regulation should fall under federal authority, because environmental damage doesn't respect state borders and affects people in the whole country (and whole world). States need the power (but not exclusively) to levy taxes, because each state has its own demographics and challenges, and therefore its own budget constraints and priorities.

As a general rule I do tend to lean more towards federal than state government simply because we're a more interconnected nation than we once were. Information, goods and people cross state lines more often and more easily than ever before, and there are a lot of problems that I think are easier to solve once as a nation rather than 50 times in a row.

Actually, no, it isn't. Though I don't usually agree with Obama, I was mostly talking about George Sorros.

Wait, what? You're calling George Soros a socialist? Are you kidding me? Do you even know who George Soros is, other than the person that Conservatives have currently chosen as their villain, because Conservatives find it easiest to foster hatred towards a villain rather than develop good ideas?

George Soros is a businessman. He's an investor in the stock market. He is the picture of a capitalist. His life would not be possible in a socialist country. Yes, he is a philanthropist and donates money to liberal rather than conservative causes, but this hardly makes him a socialist. He is the exact opposite of a socialist. He is someone who engages in capitalism more successfully than almost anyone in the world.

...So, your employer is being forced to provide you with health-care coverage?

I don't know all the details but, yes, in some instances employers will be required to provide health insurance for their employees. Many employers already do this and, really, with or without this legislation, companies of a certain size wouldn't survive if they didn't provide health care, because no one would work for them.

Mind explaining single-payer? xD Sorry.

Single-payer care is a system where a single entity pays the cost of everyone's health care, and that single entity is (although theoretically it doesn't have to be) the government. So, in a democracy, where the government is "of the people, by the people, and for the people," it means essentially that we all collectively are paying for everyone's health care.

There are a number of reasons this is a good idea. For one, it's proven to work better than our system. A lot of countries have this system, and their people are healthier than we are. A few years ago the World Health Organization ranked the U.S. health care system 37th or 38th in the world. I don't know what the most recent ranking is, but I can't imagine it's much different, especially considering that since then the number of people without insurance has increased. This should shame us as a nation. Americans should consider this a travesty, but not enough do. So, if our health care system is terrible, we should look at what works elsewhere. This system works.

Another reason it's a good idea is that it's moral. I think that health care should be a basic right. You can't predict who will get sick, who will get cancer, who will get hit by a car, etc. Everyone should have the right to health care when they need it. If you see that a person has fallen down, you should help them up. It's the right thing to do. If we as a nation see that some of us are inevitably going to get cancer, going to break our legs, going to catch a disease, then we should help those who need it, by providing health care for all. It's the right thing to do.

Another argument is that America is changing. It used to be that with a high school diploma you could get a job in a unionized factory that you would keep for your whole life. And this job would provide you with health insurance. This is no longer the case. The average American changes jobs several times, sometimes to radically different fields. This means that a lot of Americans go through stretches of time where they are either between jobs, in school to train for a new career, or newly hired and not yet qualified for their new company's insurance program. If you rely on your job for your health insurance, you will inevitably have periods where you have no insurance. You cannot guarrantee that you will only get sick or injured when you do have insurance, and not when you don't.

This situation, where people switch careers repeatedly, is in part an inevitable consequence of the free market system and in part a consequence of various American trade, economic and labor policies. These policies represent a deal that the government has made with us (i.e. a deal we've made with ourselves): we will lose job security, but our economy will grow faster and larger. It is only fair that we give people security where we can. Also, I think it could help innovation. The fear of losing health care is a major reason that people sometimes don't quit a job when they want to get into a new career, go back to school, start a business, etc. If people had guaranteed health care, through thick and thin, they'd be more free to do these things, which means they'd be more free to innovate. Innovation is what drives our economy.

There's also another economic argument for it. You may have noticed that over the years jobs have been going overseas. This is because it's cheaper for companies to move jobs overseas. One of the big costs for American companies is employee health care. Even if they're not required by law to provide health care for their employees, many companies are required to do so under union contracts, or "required" to do so because all the other companies do it, and no one will work for the one company that doesn't. To give an example, American car companies have a lot of factories in Canada. This isn't because Canadians can work for ten cents an hour (they won't), but because Canada has single-payer health care, so the car companies save money by not having to pay their employees' insurance.

Yes, if the government pays for health care, that means taxes pay for it, and taxes may have to increase to finance it. But you pay for your health care one way or another, whether you buy your own insurance, you pay your taxes, or your company takes some of the money that would go to your salary and instead uses it to pay your health care. The money starts in your pocket and ends up in the doctor's. Who cares how it gets there? If single-payer is overall the most cost-effective system (as it is in many other countries), then I don't think it matters that on the way from your pocket to the doctor's the money touches the government's hands for a few minutes.

These are just some of the reasons single-payer is a good idea. I have yet to hear a reason that it's a bad idea that hasn't been a lie or a distortion. Generally, the only reason people think it's a bad idea is that it's "socialist." But then, so are roads, fire departments, police departments, public schools, environmental protections, national parks and the military.


message 34: by Monkey (new)

Monkey Man The Pervy Sage wrote: "Just because America has some socialist policies does not mean it is a socialist government.

Yes it does. Socialism, democracy, authoritarianism, etc. are not absolutes; they are on a sliding scale. the U.K. has the National Health Service, completely socialized national medicine. Are THEY socialist? Many scandinavian countries follow the Socialist Democracy model. You have to stop thinking in black-or-white terms.

Do you know why it's been gutted? To pay off the massive debt we owe other countries! Over 14 trillion dollars! And I don't think that even includes interest. Isn't being 14 trillion dollars in debt enough to prove that our government really just doesn't know how to handle money? Why should we give it more? "

So, if your child spills his food all over the table, then that proves he can't handle food so you shouldn't give him any more? The government represents the people. It IS the people. If you don't like what it is doing RUN FOR OFFICE AND FIX IT!

As for the debt, simple fix: quit giving half our money to the military. I'm not an isolationist, but 1 Peace Corps Volunteer would do more good than 1000 soldiers. Teach. Educate. Share. Cheap and effective.


message 35: by Vїllaїп (new)

Vїllaїп (lost_machina) | 59 comments "I don't know. Read the court's decision if you want to know. I don't know why they ruled the way they did, I just know that they ruled that way. It was in the 1870's or 80's, I believe."

I'll try to hunt it down, somewhere. What was it called? Texas something?

And I know that the Constitution doesn't contain too many specifics; if it did, it would be hard to rule on cases that involved the internet. They made it vague because they knew that technology would progress.

"Which powers should belong to the states and which to the federal government? Well I'm not going to go through and list them all. You'd have to ask me. But for example, most if not all environmental regulation should fall under federal authority, because environmental damage doesn't respect state borders and affects people in the whole country (and whole world). States need the power (but not exclusively) to levy taxes, because each state has its own demographics and challenges, and therefore its own budget constraints and priorities."

That makes sense. But do you think the government should control more of our lives?

"Wait, what? You're calling George Soros a socialist?"

Well, kinda. Here, I'm guess I'm a bit confused... He wrote this book: “Underwriting Democracy: Encouraging Free Enterprise And Democratic Reform Among the Soviets and in Eastern Europe” Not sure exactly what that means. Capitalism, with no democracy, with democratic reform?

"Do you even know who George Soros is, other than the person that Conservatives have currently chosen as their villain, because Conservatives find it easiest to foster hatred towards a villain rather than develop good ideas?"

Are you saying he's a good guy? “It is sort of a disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out,” He said that. And history can tell us that people who think like that really, really mess things up.

He also said this in a 2008 interview:
Soros: “I think this is a great opportunity to finally deal with global warming and energy dependence. The US needs a cap and trade system with auctioning of licenses for emissions rights. I would use the revenues from these auctions to launch a new, environmentally friendly energy policy. That would be yet another federal program that could help us to overcome the current stagnation.

SPIEGEL: Your proposal would be dismissed on Wall Street as “big government.” Republicans might call it European-style “socialism.”

Soros: That is exactly what we need now. I am against market fundamentalism. I think this propaganda that government involvement is always bad has been very successful — but also very harmful to our society.


"I don't know all the details but, yes, in some instances employers will be required to provide health insurance for their employees."

It's impossible to know all the details. That thing was huge.

My point is, they're still being forced to buy health insurance.

------

But nobody wants more taxes.

With the debt that we're in, I don't think most of our tax money should be going to that.

As I said before, our government has proven time and time again that they really can't handle money. Why should we give them more money?


message 36: by Monkey (new)

Monkey Man The Pervy Sage wrote: "As I said before, our government has proven time and time again that they really can't handle money. Why should we give them more money?"

So you don't want the post office, the national highway system, the Food and Drug Administration, the FBI, the Department of Education... The list goes on and on of programs, funded by taxes, that work.

How, exactly, do you think the government will protect and help us if we don't pay taxes? Do you think government programs (see above) should be for free?

As I said before, if the USA raises taxes on the rich to 1945 levels and CUTS MILITARY SPENDING their debt problem is solved.

But the rich tea-party "bomb 'em if they don't love us" idiots won't go for that, now will they?


message 37: by Vїllaїп (new)

Vїllaїп (lost_machina) | 59 comments Did I ever say that we should completely eliminate taxes? No. I said that we shouldn't be taxed more. There's a difference.

But, you see, the problem is, this isn't 1945.

I don't get how people can get angry at the rich for not wanting to give their hard earned money to the government!


message 38: by Dan (last edited Jan 27, 2011 08:47AM) (new)

Dan Pervy,

I'll try to hunt it down, somewhere. What was it called? Texas something?

Texas v. White. Here's the Wikipedia article. I don't know where Supreme Court decisions are archived online, but it shouldn't be too hard to find if you want to read the actual decision.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v....

But do you think the government should control more of our lives?

No. But I don't think that providing health care, regulating business, etc., counts as "[controlling] more of our lives." The government doesn't really control any of my life. I mean, they set the speed limits, forbid me from murdering people and so on, but they don't control my life. I do what I want, I go where I want. I have to respect some basic rules, that's all.

Not sure exactly what that means. Capitalism, with no democracy, with democratic reform?

I haven't read the book. It sounds like it's about encouraging both capitalism and democracy in former Soviet states.

Are you saying he's a good guy?

I don't know if he's a good guy. I just know he's not a socialist.

He also said this in a 2008 interview:
Soros: “I think this is a great opportunity to finally deal with global warming and energy dependence. The US needs a cap and trade system with auctioning of licenses for emissions rights. I would use the revenues from these auctions to launch a new, environmentally friendly energy policy. That would be yet another federal program that could help us to overcome the current stagnation.


What's wrong or socialist about this? We can quibble over the specifics, but we do need to address emissions and develop a cleaner energy policy. Cap and trade is certainly not socialist -- it's a way of harnessing the power of the free market to reduce emissions, and would raise funds to invest in clean energy.

I can see how the quote can be manipulated to make it seem that what he's saying is that we need "socialism," but I don't think that's what he's saying. He's simply saying that certain problems require government involvement, and that government involvement is not inherently bad.

My point is, they're still being forced to buy health insurance.

And as I pointed out, in a country where the fear of socialism can be whipped up at the drop of a hat, this is the only way to expand coverage without making health insurance prohibitively expensive.

But nobody wants more taxes.

Of course no one wants to pay more taxes. No one wants to pay any taxes at all. But you know what else people want? They want services, the things taxes pay for. They want roads, and firefighters and police. They want hospitals and schools. They want clean air and water. They want safe borders. They want safe food and medicine. And so on. What people want is magic: they want there to be a way to decease taxes and get more services. It's not possible, but conservatives like to treat the free market as if it's magic. There is no magic. If you want something, you have to pay for it, one way or another.

With the debt that we're in, I don't think most of our tax money should be going to that.

You don't think most of our money should be going to what? Health care? Paying down the debt?

Most of our tax money goes to non-discretionary (i.e. mandatory) spending: Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, debt interest, etc. Roughly 60% of the budget goes to that. Of the rest (discretionary spending, the part of the budget people usually talk about, because it's negotiable) more than half goes to the military. To quote the song "Big Business" by Dilated Peoples, "If more than half the budget goes to military spending, less than half goes to whatever it's defending."

As I said before, our government has proven time and time again that they really can't handle money. Why should we give them more money?

As Monkey pointed out, there are a number of government programs that work well. You know who can't handle money? Everybody. Wall Street has recently proven that they can't handle money. American consumers have proven time and time again that they can't handle money. So maybe we should just get rid of money altogether, yeah?


message 39: by Lauren (new)

Lauren (djinni) | 7365 comments Mod
"I don't get how people can get angry at the rich for not wanting to give their hard earned money to the government! "

And what makes you think it was hard-earned? What kind of dick deserves any money at all if he can look at the masses of poor people and be content to keep his money?


message 40: by Monkey (new)

Monkey Man and they GOT their money in the first place because of government-regulated markets creating the stability necessary for economic growth (thank you FDIC), an educated, healthy workforce (dept. of Education, FDA) and a stable society (FBI, ATF, coast guard) and trade protection (patent office, trade laws) etc...

so PAY UP!


message 41: by Diana (new)

Diana It's not for you decide what rich people do with their money. A lot of rich people donate millions to charities.


message 42: by Dan (new)

Dan It's not for you decide what rich people do with their money.

Actually, it is. We live in a democracy, and a certain portion of people's income and wealth is taxed. This includes, but is not limited to, rich people. And we all decide, by electing executives and representatives and by voting on ballot initiatives, what to do with that money.

If you're going to argue that there should be no taxes whatsoever -- and, consequently, no government and no law -- then you are welcome to make that argument. But if you're willing to accept that we need government and laws, then you have to admit that we need taxes, and the issue becomes a debate on the structure of the tax code, which is a different debate altogether. In this case, simply saying "that's my money" is a hollow platitude that doesn't explain why one specific tax structure is acceptable but another is not.


message 43: by Monkey (new)

Monkey Man Diana wrote: "It's not for you decide what rich people do with their money. A lot of rich people donate millions to charities."

If you benefit from the roads, army, FBI, FDA, etc. PAY UP!

You think it should all be for free? How does that work?


message 44: by Diana (last edited Jan 29, 2011 08:35PM) (new)

Diana Monkey wrote: "Diana wrote: "It's not for you decide what rich people do with their money. A lot of rich people donate millions to charities."

If you benefit from the roads, army, FBI, FDA, etc. PAY UP!

You t..."


That's what people pay taxes for.


message 45: by Monkey (new)

Monkey Man Yep. Businesses benefit from trade deals negotiated by the government. So they should pay up.

It's not enough just to rely on charity. Societies have entered into a social contract, and it's not free.


back to top