LMP737
Posts: 5230
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

Re: Trump's Tax Plan

Fri May 05, 2017 4:27 pm

BobPatterson wrote:
Can you provide examples of industries in the USA where this is the case?

I'm particularly interested in learning about industries offering career fields, not businesses hiring part-time or entry-level workers.


You want examples? Here's one for you. My sister in law works in the home decor industry. In the four years she has worked for one particular company she has had one real vacation along with a few long weekends here and there. For the most part though it's ten to twelve hour days, going in on her days off and even when she has a day off getting phone calls from clients.
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
BMI727
Posts: 11300
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

Re: Trump's Tax Plan

Sat May 06, 2017 5:15 am

Kiwirob wrote:
Because there will always be people less fortunate than me

Then give them your money. Face it, your support for government social programs has nothing to do with the people less fortunate than you but rather the people more fortunate than you because you want some of their stuff.

Kiwirob wrote:
Because a slave doesn't have the freedom to pack up and leave whenever thay want to.

A relationship with the government is mandatory also, but if it makes you feel better you can think of it as merely indentured servitude. Work the first few hours of every day to earn the ability to make money in the rest of it.

Dutchy wrote:
Bollucks. You are missing the point. Facts are just facts, but it can lead to the wrong conclusions, as it is with this case.

That's not the same as "counter-factual" and the reality is that you just don't want to believe what the facts show. Granted that is quite common among liberals, but nonetheless is an issue.

Dutchy wrote:
But let me give American society a compliment: I admire the risk-taking and how much more easy it is to valorize knowledge. In Europe, we are much more risk-adverse, which indeed hinders innovation.

But we are told that a strong social safety net means more risk taking. Perhaps you were scammed?

Dutchy wrote:
So there is no absolute need for government at all.

There is a practical need unless you want to hire your own air force.

Dutchy wrote:
You say you are against all kind of taxations,

I never said that. In fact I told you exactly what sort of tax I think is best.

Dutchy wrote:
Living in a group, we are a group animal, means that you automatically give up some freedoms in favor of the group. So I could argue exactly the opposite. Could you give us your train o thought about this?

There is nothing wrong with being in and acting as part of groups and I never said otherwise. People had groups long before they ever had governments or laws. But all of those groups but one are voluntary. People can join and leave schools, corporations, religious groups, clubs, etc. at will. Government is the only one where individuals do not get their choice and therefore it must be as limited as possible.

Dutchy wrote:
In a democracy, people decide. So most people are in favor of this system.

Then you don't need a law to make your welfare systems work. All the people who like it will participate freely.

Dutchy wrote:
If people were objecting to paying taxes, then they would vote into power those people whom radically would slash taxes and governmental task with that. In Europe they don't, so the people must agree with it.

You're arguing for tyranny of the majority, which runs counter to human rights. If you're one of three people on a bridge and there's a 2-1 vote to toss you over the side, do you believe that's okay?

Dutchy wrote:
The funny thing is, you are more for the tyranny - to use that world once - of banks and economy.

Economics are a tyrant over all of us because we are all subject to the laws of physics. Banks are optional, but I find them useful and presumably many others do as well.

Dutchy wrote:
You said it yourself, certain courses at universities should be priced more because there are fewer job opportunities available, so more risk to the banks, so more interest and the object is to steer students away from those courses which you perceive less economical relevant.

I've already been through school, so the object from my perspective is to keep the government from 1) feeding a bubble that will have a huge detrimental effect on the economy like the housing crisis and 2) keep the government from wasting my tax dollars.

Secondly, don't confuse the freedom to do something with the means to do it on a large, or any, scale. I'm free to buy a Ferrari, but that doesn't mean I can demand someone else fund it. Likewise, freedom of speech doesn't mean I'm entitled to a radio station.

Third, what I perceive as economically relevant is really unimportant. It's the businesses hiring computer science majors instead of gender studies graduates who perceive certain courses as more or less economically relevant.

Dutchy wrote:
And there you go again "violate people's rights". So a bit of taxation isn't violating people's rights, but lots is?

No, any taxation violates people's rights, but it is a necessary evil and for that reason should be minimized.

tommy1808 wrote:
And where are your legal prostitutes with health insurance and full employee protections?

I'm fine with legalizing prostitution and the market will set what their pay and benefits will be.

tommy1808 wrote:
Wrong. Again. No surprise coming from you... if you have a way out of the system, you don´t need income.

How long can you survive without food or water?

tommy1808 wrote:
That is your point of view and yours only, and there is no logical way to arrive at that point in a generally acceptable way.

Sure there is. Plenty of people have an income that does not include money coming from government benefits and the same for healthcare, particularly before the government broke the system.
tommy1808 wrote:
On the other way it is very easy to argue that the government has to provide for my living,

They have to allow you to live, but you don't get to demand the property of others to do so.

tommy1808 wrote:
That is taxpayers money wasted.... most Prisons, certainly in Prison nation USA, are also wasted tax payers money.

I agree in a lot of cases.

tommy1808 wrote:
Having them run by private companies is effectively theft, since even if the prison is considered needed, providing them with profit is no government task. Talk about entitlements....

The government cannot do anything cheaply and having contractors (who often compete with each other) can often be more cost effective, even with profits.

tommy1808 wrote:
It is, because people living there decide it is.

Again, you believe that decisions by the majority should be forced upon everyone?

tommy1808 wrote:
If you don´t like to live in a country where the vast majority of people think that is the governments job, why don´t you pack up and leave instead of trying to force a minority opinion onto them?

Nothing stops the people who believe in a benefits system from setting one up without the force of law behind it. If so many people think it's a great idea, there's no reason to make it law anyway.

Also, in my last post I posed four questions and you only even attempted to answer just one. Your ideas are so intellectually bankrupt that they cannot hold up under any scrutiny, or you're just a charlatan. Maybe both.

LMP737 wrote:
Ah yes, that conservative value of "I got mine so screw you".

It's actually "I got some so what do you provide to me that makes it a good investment for me to give you some of it?"

LMP737 wrote:
Of course someone with this attitude is ignoring the fact that something catastrophic could happen in their life.

No it doesn't, but I am not so vain as to think that something catastrophic happening to me is catastrophic to everyone. In fact not that many people would be affected, ranging from catastrophic to minor inconvenience, so it makes no sense that everyone would be expected to invest when only a few will see any return.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 3194
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Trump's Tax Plan

Sat May 06, 2017 9:11 am

@BMI727 it comes all down to what you think should be the role of the government. You do believe that a government is needed, so you do think taxes are needed, you do think the majority can decide what taxes should be imposed, what should be funded and what not. Which is all fine, I just don't subscribe to that point of view and academic comparisons between systems show which system is more successful for its people in general. But as with all system, no system is perfect, so every system has its drawbacks. One problem is the risk averseness in north European societies, but I still much prefer this system over the American one, because it is much more fair.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 10717
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Re: Trump's Tax Plan

Sat May 06, 2017 2:34 pm

BMI727 wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:
Because there will always be people less fortunate than me

Then give them your money. Face it, your support for government social programs has nothing to do with the people less fortunate than you but rather the people more fortunate than you because you want some of their stuff.


As I have said I put in a lot more than I take out, I don't have a problem with that, later on the tables will turn or I get cancer, lucky for me I won't be throuwn under the bus, as I live in a decent place where the govt works for people rather than corporations and the 1 percenters

BMI727 wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:
Because a slave doesn't have the freedom to pack up and leave whenever thay want to.

A relationship with the government is mandatory also, but if it makes you feel better you can think of it as merely indentured servitude. Work the first few hours of every day to earn the ability to make money in the rest of it.


Which is what everyone in a functional society does, it must be horrible for you knowing that everyday you are paying for people less fortunate than you are, I'm surprised you haven't moved to to Sudan or Somalia where you could live a life free of government intervention.
 
Hillis
Posts: 1305
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 6:19 pm

Re: Trump's Tax Plan

Sat May 06, 2017 3:34 pm

BMI727 wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:
Because there will always be people less fortunate than me

Then give them your money. Face it, your support for government social programs has nothing to do with the people less fortunate than you but rather the people more fortunate than you because you want some of their stuff.

Kiwirob wrote:
Because a slave doesn't have the freedom to pack up and leave whenever thay want to.

A relationship with the government is mandatory also, but if it makes you feel better you can think of it as merely indentured servitude. Work the first few hours of every day to earn the ability to make money in the rest of it.

Dutchy wrote:
Bollucks. You are missing the point. Facts are just facts, but it can lead to the wrong conclusions, as it is with this case.

That's not the same as "counter-factual" and the reality is that you just don't want to believe what the facts show. Granted that is quite common among liberals, but nonetheless is an issue.

Dutchy wrote:
But let me give American society a compliment: I admire the risk-taking and how much more easy it is to valorize knowledge. In Europe, we are much more risk-adverse, which indeed hinders innovation.

But we are told that a strong social safety net means more risk taking. Perhaps you were scammed?

Dutchy wrote:
So there is no absolute need for government at all.

There is a practical need unless you want to hire your own air force.

Dutchy wrote:
You say you are against all kind of taxations,

I never said that. In fact I told you exactly what sort of tax I think is best.

Dutchy wrote:
Living in a group, we are a group animal, means that you automatically give up some freedoms in favor of the group. So I could argue exactly the opposite. Could you give us your train o thought about this?

There is nothing wrong with being in and acting as part of groups and I never said otherwise. People had groups long before they ever had governments or laws. But all of those groups but one are voluntary. People can join and leave schools, corporations, religious groups, clubs, etc. at will. Government is the only one where individuals do not get their choice and therefore it must be as limited as possible.

Dutchy wrote:
In a democracy, people decide. So most people are in favor of this system.

Then you don't need a law to make your welfare systems work. All the people who like it will participate freely.

Dutchy wrote:
If people were objecting to paying taxes, then they would vote into power those people whom radically would slash taxes and governmental task with that. In Europe they don't, so the people must agree with it.

You're arguing for tyranny of the majority, which runs counter to human rights. If you're one of three people on a bridge and there's a 2-1 vote to toss you over the side, do you believe that's okay?

Dutchy wrote:
The funny thing is, you are more for the tyranny - to use that world once - of banks and economy.

Economics are a tyrant over all of us because we are all subject to the laws of physics. Banks are optional, but I find them useful and presumably many others do as well.

Dutchy wrote:
You said it yourself, certain courses at universities should be priced more because there are fewer job opportunities available, so more risk to the banks, so more interest and the object is to steer students away from those courses which you perceive less economical relevant.

I've already been through school, so the object from my perspective is to keep the government from 1) feeding a bubble that will have a huge detrimental effect on the economy like the housing crisis and 2) keep the government from wasting my tax dollars.

Secondly, don't confuse the freedom to do something with the means to do it on a large, or any, scale. I'm free to buy a Ferrari, but that doesn't mean I can demand someone else fund it. Likewise, freedom of speech doesn't mean I'm entitled to a radio station.

Third, what I perceive as economically relevant is really unimportant. It's the businesses hiring computer science majors instead of gender studies graduates who perceive certain courses as more or less economically relevant.

Dutchy wrote:
And there you go again "violate people's rights". So a bit of taxation isn't violating people's rights, but lots is?

No, any taxation violates people's rights, but it is a necessary evil and for that reason should be minimized.

tommy1808 wrote:
And where are your legal prostitutes with health insurance and full employee protections?

I'm fine with legalizing prostitution and the market will set what their pay and benefits will be.

tommy1808 wrote:
Wrong. Again. No surprise coming from you... if you have a way out of the system, you don´t need income.

How long can you survive without food or water?

tommy1808 wrote:
That is your point of view and yours only, and there is no logical way to arrive at that point in a generally acceptable way.

Sure there is. Plenty of people have an income that does not include money coming from government benefits and the same for healthcare, particularly before the government broke the system.
tommy1808 wrote:
On the other way it is very easy to argue that the government has to provide for my living,

They have to allow you to live, but you don't get to demand the property of others to do so.

tommy1808 wrote:
That is taxpayers money wasted.... most Prisons, certainly in Prison nation USA, are also wasted tax payers money.

I agree in a lot of cases.

tommy1808 wrote:
Having them run by private companies is effectively theft, since even if the prison is considered needed, providing them with profit is no government task. Talk about entitlements....

The government cannot do anything cheaply and having contractors (who often compete with each other) can often be more cost effective, even with profits.

tommy1808 wrote:
It is, because people living there decide it is.

Again, you believe that decisions by the majority should be forced upon everyone?

tommy1808 wrote:
If you don´t like to live in a country where the vast majority of people think that is the governments job, why don´t you pack up and leave instead of trying to force a minority opinion onto them?

Nothing stops the people who believe in a benefits system from setting one up without the force of law behind it. If so many people think it's a great idea, there's no reason to make it law anyway.

Also, in my last post I posed four questions and you only even attempted to answer just one. Your ideas are so intellectually bankrupt that they cannot hold up under any scrutiny, or you're just a charlatan. Maybe both.

LMP737 wrote:
Ah yes, that conservative value of "I got mine so screw you".

It's actually "I got some so what do you provide to me that makes it a good investment for me to give you some of it?"

LMP737 wrote:
Of course someone with this attitude is ignoring the fact that something catastrophic could happen in their life.

No it doesn't, but I am not so vain as to think that something catastrophic happening to me is catastrophic to everyone. In fact not that many people would be affected, ranging from catastrophic to minor inconvenience, so it makes no sense that everyone would be expected to invest when only a few will see any return.


BMI, you're such an example of everything that is wrong and that is evil in this nation. You care only for yourself. Others are merely objects in your way to get where you want to go. You are void of human empathy and compassion. You would gladly sacrifice others, and probably literally, if it got you ahead. You are the modern Republican Party personified.

It would be funny if it weren't so tragic.
B737-100, B737-200, B737-300, B737-500, B737-700, B737-800, B737-900, B727, B-707 DC-10, MD-11, 763, 764, 777, 757-200, 757-300, A-319, A-320, A-321, A-300, ERJ-145, ERJ-170, ERJ-175, ERJ-190, CRJ-100, CRJ-200, DASH-2, DASH-3, DASH-8, BAE-146
 
LMP737
Posts: 5230
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

Re: Trump's Tax Plan

Sat May 06, 2017 4:21 pm

BMI727 wrote:
[

It's actually "I got some so what do you provide to me that makes it a good investment for me to give you some of it?"


No it doesn't, but I am not so vain as to think that something catastrophic happening to me is catastrophic to everyone. In fact not that many people would be affected, ranging from catastrophic to minor inconvenience, so it makes no sense that everyone would be expected to invest when only a few will see any return.


Says a lot about someone when they seem to be more upset about someone getting health insurance on their dime than say a couple trillion dollars spent on a war based on a lie. Or billions in cost overruns at the DOD, farm subsidies, etc, etc. What return did you get on that? Being the person that I am I'm a bit more upset about things like that than say people getting healthcare.

Oh, and good job proving my point that "Screw you I got mine" is a conservative value. Of course people with this mindset haven't gotten it through their head that it's much more likely that they will have the rug pulled out from them than join that top 1%.
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
BMI727
Posts: 11300
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

Re: Trump's Tax Plan

Sat May 06, 2017 8:53 pm

Dutchy wrote:
it comes all down to what you think should be the role of the government.

The role of the government is to protect the human rights of the individual; including and especially against fellow citizens, whether one or a vast majority.

Kiwirob wrote:
As I have said I put in a lot more than I take out, I don't have a problem with that,

Then why are you so adamant that it be done via taxation rather than voluntary?

Kiwirob wrote:
later on the tables will turn or I get cancer, lucky for me I won't be throuwn under the bus,

You can accomplish exactly the same by buying health insurance. Or just paying doctors to treat whatever condition you do come down with.

Kiwirob wrote:
Which is what everyone in a functional society does, it must be horrible for you knowing that everyday you are paying for people less fortunate than you are,

Yes, and nobody can adequately explain what the return on that investment it. I'm perfectly capable of freely contributing to whatever cause I feel is worthwhile and don't need the government to do it for me.

Kiwirob wrote:
I'm surprised you haven't moved to to Sudan or Somalia where you could live a life free of government intervention.

If you'd actually read what I've posted you wouldn't be because you'd see that I am in no way an anarchist. I'm all for effective government, but it should be effective at doing what it should be doing and that's all.

But you won't care what I actually said because you don't have a reasonable rebuttal against the argument I'm actually making, only the ones I'm not. You're just another in a long line of leftists who do nothing but dodge questions and ignore facts to avoid any inconvenient conclusions.

Hillis wrote:
Others are merely objects in your way to get where you want to go.

Some are. Other people are vitally important and play a key role in any success. The vast majority are completely neutral bystanders. This is true for every person since the beginning of time and figuring out who is in which group is not a government task.

Hillis wrote:
It would be funny if it weren't so tragic.

There's nothing tragic about it. It created the wealthiest economy the world has ever known.

LMP737 wrote:
Says a lot about someone when they seem to be more upset about someone getting health insurance on their dime than say a couple trillion dollars spent on a war based on a lie. Or billions in cost overruns at the DOD,

First, read my reply from up the thread and you'll see that's not true.

Secondly, the numbers (if you actually care to look at them) clearly show that entitlement programs, including healthcare, are much more the problem than defense spending. Between 1972 and 2011 the total GDP of the US grew at an annualized rate of 2.7%. Government spending grew by 3.4%. Entitlement spending as a whole grew at a 4.8% clip and the subset of healthcare grew at 5.7%. And what about the DoD money sucking boogeyman? Just 2.0%.

LMP737 wrote:
Oh, and good job proving my point that "Screw you I got mine" is a conservative value. Of course people with this mindset haven't gotten it through their head that it's much more likely that they will have the rug pulled out from them than join that top 1%.

If you're on my rug what are you doing while you're standing there that justifies me not pulling it out and putting it somewhere else?
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 3194
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Trump's Tax Plan

Sat May 06, 2017 9:31 pm

@BMI727 the problem is that I, among others, am talking the moral side of society and you keep talking about return on investment for the individual. That will never ever match, but let me give it a shot anyhow.

Everyone, rich or poor, benefits from a stable society, and in order to do that everyone needs to be included and the way to do that is to give everyone the same opportunities, not just the happy few. As far as the richest society goes, I have heard a speech from a professor of modern America history, that the GDP growth per person was less in America than in The Netherlands (or Europe, can't remember), since the '70 (or even perhaps even earlier), but since the population growth was more in America, its economy grew faster. America was quite successful since WWII till the '70ish. Strong government and lots of entitlements and strong unions. Then the neo-conservative came with their overwhelming faith in the marked forces.

As for government, sure no one will argue that we need an incompetent and inefficient government. So that is not the issue.

You are talking about human rights, well the universal declaration on human rights http://www.un.org/en/universal-declarat ... an-rights/

May I draw your attention to article 25:
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

Article 26:
(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance, and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

So you are actually arguing against the universal declaration on human rights.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
Hillis
Posts: 1305
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 6:19 pm

Re: Trump's Tax Plan

Sat May 06, 2017 9:41 pm

Image
B737-100, B737-200, B737-300, B737-500, B737-700, B737-800, B737-900, B727, B-707 DC-10, MD-11, 763, 764, 777, 757-200, 757-300, A-319, A-320, A-321, A-300, ERJ-145, ERJ-170, ERJ-175, ERJ-190, CRJ-100, CRJ-200, DASH-2, DASH-3, DASH-8, BAE-146
 
BMI727
Posts: 11300
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

Re: Trump's Tax Plan

Sat May 06, 2017 10:06 pm

Dutchy wrote:
@BMI727 the problem is that I, among others, am talking the moral side of society

Stop because morals are a personal matter, not one for the government to be involved in.

Dutchy wrote:
Everyone, rich or poor, benefits from a stable society,

The vast majority of what that takes can be provided privately.

Dutchy wrote:
I have heard a speech from a professor of modern America history, that the GDP growth per person was less in America than in The Netherlands (or Europe, can't remember), since the '70 (or even perhaps even earlier), but since the population growth was more in America, its economy grew faster. America was quite successful since WWII till the '70ish. Strong government and lots of entitlements and strong unions. Then the neo-conservative came with their overwhelming faith in the marked forces.

He probably left out how much of that Dutch growth was done with American money. Second, the American economy succeeded in spite of those things, not because of it. When the US was pretty much the only major, developed economy that wasn't soundly devastated by war success didn't require being particularly great. As you note, "till the '70ish" America grew fat and happy and once the rest of the world got to its feet the competition showed how complacent America had grown. Third, the American economy of the 1950s was actually quite mediocre and the growth really took off in the wake of tax cuts during the early 1960s.

Dutchy wrote:
May I draw your attention to article 25:

I'm curious as to how you got there without seeing Article 17. You don't get to violate someone else's rights to bankroll the exercise of yours.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 3194
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Trump's Tax Plan

Sat May 06, 2017 10:57 pm

BMI727 wrote:
[Stop because morals are a personal matter, not one for the government to be involved in.

Bollocks. The government is also about morals, shared values etc. What else could you call LGTB right protection, abortion laws, euthanasia etc. You might not be willing to talk about it, but that is the clash here.

BMI727 wrote:
The vast majority of what that takes can be provided privately.

Yes, but not as effectively as a government and not so unbiased.

BMI727 wrote:
He probably left out how much of that Dutch growth was done with American money. Second, the American economy succeeded in spite of those things, not because of it. When the US was pretty much the only major, developed economy that wasn't soundly devastated by war success didn't require being particularly great. As you note, "till the '70ish" America grew fat and happy and once the rest of the world got to its feet the competition showed how complacent America had grown. Third, the American economy of the 1950s was actually quite mediocre and the growth really took off in the wake of tax cuts during the early 1960s.

What American money, the Marshall plan you mean? That programm ran from 1948 - 1952. The economic output of The Netherlands was in 1947 at pre WWII levels. So don't overestimate Amerivcan influence on that. But for argument saken, take the period 1970-now, no American money was given to The Netherlands during that period.

BMI727 wrote:
I'm curious as to how you got there without seeing Article 17. You don't get to violate someone else's rights to bankroll the exercise of yours.


Taxes aren't in opposition to Article 17.2 -> (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property. It is not abritrarily. But it all fails because you believe in taxes anyway, you can't claim all those things. And conviniantly you don't react to Article 25/26. Do you agree with it or not?
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
User avatar
BobPatterson
Posts: 2639
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2015 7:18 am

Re: Trump's Tax Plan

Sun May 07, 2017 2:53 am

BMI727 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
@BMI727 the problem is that I, among others, am talking the moral side of society

Stop because morals are a personal matter, not one for the government to be involved in.


Stop. You must make a choice. Moral government or immoral government.

There is no such thing as an amoral government.

There are of course shades of morality and immorality.
Facts are fragile things. Treat them with care. Sources are important. Alternative facts do not exist.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 6163
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Trump's Tax Plan

Sun May 07, 2017 7:11 am

BobPatterson wrote:
BMI727 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
@BMI727 the problem is that I, among others, am talking the moral side of society

Stop because morals are a personal matter, not one for the government to be involved in.


Stop. You must make a choice. Moral government or immoral government.


If you like him believe that morals and human rights beyond life (only if no one else has to do something for it) and property (only if no one else has to do something for it) are made up and can be ignored, you can of course want a government that ignores thinking about moral and be in deed amoral, beyond protecting his life and his property.
Only if he believed that, he should give his property back to the natives..... somehow stealing from them was just fine.

Best regards
Thomas
Times are changing: 70 years ago the USA went to war to defeat the Nazis, now they elect them to run their country.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 3194
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Trump's Tax Plan

Sun May 07, 2017 8:47 am

Ah, even Yes, ministers gives an answer to everything, even this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OB-WCX6ndow

22h15 is about raising taxes and the blow to freedom. The whole episode is quite brilliant.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
LMP737
Posts: 5230
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

Re: Trump's Tax Plan

Sun May 07, 2017 4:25 pm

BMI727 wrote:


If you're on my rug what are you doing while you're standing there that justifies me not pulling it out and putting it somewhere else?


Like I said before, the fact that you are more upset people getting health insurance than things like Iraq, DOD cost over runs etc, etc says a lot about you.

P.S. Let us know when you are signing up for Medicare.
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
BMI727
Posts: 11300
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

Re: Trump's Tax Plan

Mon May 08, 2017 11:36 am

Dutchy wrote:
The government is also about morals, shared values etc.

No it isn't, but I know what you're getting at. You want the government to take what you think is moral and what you're values are (i.e. shared by you and people who agree with you) and make them policy enforced on everyone. You're hardly alone in this, many people believe the government should do that, but every last one of you was wrong. In this way, you're exactly no different than the Westboro Baptists or ISIS.

Dutchy wrote:
What else could you call LGTB right protection, abortion laws, euthanasia etc. You might not be willing to talk about it, but that is the clash here.

Abortion is a different matter, but the government has an obligation to treat everyone equally. Private entities do not as long as they do not violate the rights of other people.

Dutchy wrote:
Yes, but not as effectively as a government and not so unbiased.

You're right. In the vast majority of cases private industry can work more effectively than the government and do so with a heavy bias towards what works for the most people.

Dutchy wrote:
What American money, the Marshall plan you mean? That programm ran from 1948 - 1952. The economic output of The Netherlands was in 1947 at pre WWII levels. So don't overestimate Amerivcan influence on that. But for argument saken, take the period 1970-now, no American money was given to The Netherlands during that period.

What's your point? Do you think that things thirty years prior don't play a big role in economic development? That's an interesting thing considering how much the left loves to believe that Reagan broke everything. (Never mind that none of them can seem to figure out how and with what policies...)

Dutchy wrote:
Taxes aren't in opposition to Article 17.2 -> (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property. It is not abritrarily. But it all fails because you believe in taxes anyway, you can't claim all those things. And conviniantly you don't react to Article 25/26. Do you agree with it or not?

It's the basic idea of one person's right to swing their fist ending at another person's face, or at their property in this instance. That UN declaration is written backwards: Real human rights are negative rights (i.e. things that people cannot take from you) rather than positive rights (i.e. things people must give you). The latter are not really useful because you'd have to violate someone else's rights to get them.
BobPatterson wrote:
Stop. You must make a choice. Moral government or immoral government.

There is no such thing as an amoral government.

The only morals that the government should care about are protecting individuals' rights.

tommy1808 wrote:
Only if he believed that, he should give his property back to the natives..... somehow stealing from them was just fine.

According to what you are saying, there is no issue with the fact that the rights of natives were treated as non-existent since you believe they are all made up anyway.

It's also noteworthy that you still have attempted to provide answers to none of the questions I posed previously, including which of Reagan's policies have murdered the middle class.

LMP737 wrote:
Like I said before, the fact that you are more upset people getting health insurance than things like Iraq, DOD cost over runs etc, etc says a lot about you.

Did you read nothing of what I wrote up the thread?

If you had, you would know that I posted several specific, concrete things I believe DoD should implement in order to perform their job more effectively and efficiently. Also, you would know that being more upset about about government expenditures on healthcare than defense actually makes perfect sense considering that the numbers show that the former is both larger and growing faster than the latter.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
tommy1808
Posts: 6163
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Trump's Tax Plan

Mon May 08, 2017 12:04 pm

BMI727 wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
Only if he believed that, he should give his property back to the natives..... somehow stealing from them was just fine.

According to what you are saying, there is no issue with the fact that the rights of natives were treated as non-existent since you believe they are all made up anyway.


YOU pretend to think those rights are Inalienable, so YOU have to put your hand where your mouth is and return that property. If you don´t, you only proof conclusively that you don´t care about property rights in the least, but only hold that position for selfish reasons. So, anything you write about human rights is entirely bogus, thank you for clearing that up.

So now everyone in this forum knows that you are even more immoral than anyone assumes anyways.

It's also noteworthy that you still have attempted to provide answers to none of the questions I posed previously, including which of Reagan's policies have murdered the middle class.


Since you keep forgetting that google doesn´t exists in Europe since the state of human rights isn´t as disgusting as it is in the US and constantly keep bringing it up, you probably just have forgotten.
The root cause of all the US problems is debt, the root cause of your debt is Reagan, the biggest Debt culprit outside of war in US history.

best regards
Thomas
Times are changing: 70 years ago the USA went to war to defeat the Nazis, now they elect them to run their country.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 3194
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Trump's Tax Plan

Mon May 08, 2017 1:54 pm

BMI727 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
The government is also about morals, shared values etc.

No it isn't, but I know what you're getting at. You want the government to take what you think is moral and what you're values are (i.e. shared by you and people who agree with you) and make them policy enforced on everyone. You're hardly alone in this, many people believe the government should do that, but every last one of you was wrong. In this way, you're exactly no different than the Westboro Baptists or ISIS.


Geee, really ISIS? Government is also about morals. They enforce them, most laws are about morals. So you might think they are not morals, is quite irrelevant. And since you wrote that most people think this way, well who are you that only you are right and the majority is so wrong?

BMI727 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
What else could you call LGTB right protection, abortion laws, euthanasia etc. You might not be willing to talk about it, but that is the clash here.

Abortion is a different matter, but the government has an obligation to treat everyone equally. Private entities do not as long as they do not violate the rights of other people.

Don't quite get what you are getting at. Either you don't answer the question, or if you treat abortion as a moral subject, then you acknowledge that government is about morals.

BMI727 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
Yes, but not as effectively as a government and not so unbiased.

You're right. In the vast majority of cases private industry can work more effectively than the government and do so with a heavy bias towards what works for the most people.

You say I am right, but then say exactly the opposite to me.

BMI727 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
What American money, the Marshall plan you mean? That programm ran from 1948 - 1952. The economic output of The Netherlands was in 1947 at pre WWII levels. So don't overestimate Amerivcan influence on that. But for argument saken, take the period 1970-now, no American money was given to The Netherlands during that period.

What's your point? Do you think that things thirty years prior don't play a big role in economic development? That's an interesting thing considering how much the left loves to believe that Reagan broke everything. (Never mind that none of them can seem to figure out how and with what policies...)

No, but don't overrate the Marchall plan and also what it did for the American industry. Europe doesn't owe its current level of development to America. It is innovative in itself. That is your American bias talking.

BMI727 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
Taxes aren't in opposition to Article 17.2 -> (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property. It is not abritrarily. But it all fails because you believe in taxes anyway, you can't claim all those things. And conviniantly you don't react to Article 25/26. Do you agree with it or not?

It's the basic idea of one person's right to swing their fist ending at another person's face, or at their property in this instance. That UN declaration is written backwards: Real human rights are negative rights (i.e. things that people cannot take from you) rather than positive rights (i.e. things people must give you). The latter are not really useful because you'd have to violate someone else's rights to get them.

Again, your opinion, no absolute here. And you do not answer the question. And furthermore, you have to make a choise, either you are ok with the concept taxes or not. You cannot continue to argue both ways.

BMI727 wrote:
BobPatterson wrote:
Stop. You must make a choice. Moral government or immoral government.

There is no such thing as an amoral government.

The only morals that the government should care about are protecting individuals' rights.

So the government is about morels? Then the question is which ones, so you express an opinion here, not a fact.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
tommy1808
Posts: 6163
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Trump's Tax Plan

Mon May 08, 2017 2:46 pm

Dutchy wrote:
So the government is about morels? Then the question is which ones, so you express an opinion here, not a fact.


In his world property is basically the only right, life is only a right if you have property.

best regards
Thomas
Times are changing: 70 years ago the USA went to war to defeat the Nazis, now they elect them to run their country.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 3194
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Trump's Tax Plan

Mon May 08, 2017 2:50 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
So the government is about morels? Then the question is which ones, so you express an opinion here, not a fact.


In his world property is basically the only right, life is only a right if you have property.

best regards
Thomas


Our friend BMI727 is quite extreme in his opinions but is also inconsequent if it doesn't suit him. Such a shame he doesn't give into that then we could have a debate where the boundaries are.

I think I give up to explain it, it is quite a lost cause.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 3194
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Trump's Tax Plan

Mon May 08, 2017 4:14 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
So the government is about morels? Then the question is which ones, so you express an opinion here, not a fact.


In his world property is basically the only right, life is only a right if you have property.

best regards
Thomas


Our friend BMI727 is quite extreme in his opinions but is also inconsequent if it doesn't suit him. Such a shame he doesn't give into that then we could have a debate where the boundaries are.

I think I give up to explain it, it is quite a lost cause.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
LMP737
Posts: 5230
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

Re: Trump's Tax Plan

Mon May 08, 2017 7:39 pm

BMI727 wrote:

If you had, you would know that I posted several specific, concrete things I believe DoD should implement in order to perform their job more effectively and efficiently. Also, you would know that being more upset about about government expenditures on healthcare than defense actually makes perfect sense considering that the numbers show that the former is both larger and growing faster than the latter.


You didn't say that though. What you said was Do you? Why the hell should I pay for your healthcare? What return do I see on my investment if I pay for you to get a band-aid or a bypass? I'm sure someone thinks it's important that you're healthy. They should pay the bill for it. No where did you say you were upset. Basically what you said was it doesn't help me so why should I care.

For me it's much more upsetting the money spent in Iraq and DOD cost overruns. Why, because our little misadventure there has cost lives and will have far reaching consequences. Some of which have yet to be seen. As for DOD overruns where do you think some of the money used to cover them comes from? It gets pulled from operational budgets. In other words equipment doesn't get the maintenance it should be and personnel don't get the training they should. Which can lead to fatalities.
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
Hillis
Posts: 1305
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 6:19 pm

Re: Trump's Tax Plan

Mon May 08, 2017 9:55 pm

LMP737 wrote:
BMI727 wrote:


If you're on my rug what are you doing while you're standing there that justifies me not pulling it out and putting it somewhere else?


Like I said before, the fact that you are more upset people getting health insurance than things like Iraq, DOD cost over runs etc, etc says a lot about you.

P.S. Let us know when you are signing up for Medicare.


Add to BMI727's list of outstanding personality traits that of being amoral, at best.
B737-100, B737-200, B737-300, B737-500, B737-700, B737-800, B737-900, B727, B-707 DC-10, MD-11, 763, 764, 777, 757-200, 757-300, A-319, A-320, A-321, A-300, ERJ-145, ERJ-170, ERJ-175, ERJ-190, CRJ-100, CRJ-200, DASH-2, DASH-3, DASH-8, BAE-146
 
salttee
Posts: 1314
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:26 am

Re: Trump's Tax Plan

Mon May 08, 2017 10:40 pm

Dutchy wrote:
I think I give up to explain it, it is quite a lost cause.

This must have been your first experience debating a tunnel visioned libertarian (a redundancy.)

There's nothing to be gained in such a debate and nothing to be learned after the first few points are dealt with; it's all the same after that.
As if you were talking to a two dimensional person living in a three dimensional world.
 
User avatar
BobPatterson
Posts: 2639
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2015 7:18 am

Re: Trump's Tax Plan

Mon May 08, 2017 10:49 pm

BMI727 wrote:
Why the hell should I pay for your healthcare? What return do I see on my investment if I pay for you to get a band-aid or a bypass? I'm sure someone thinks it's important that you're healthy. They should pay the bill for it.


You have two essential problems. I will pass up commenting much about the first, which is your lack of empathy for your fellow man. It is pretty obvious that "my brother's keeper" or "do unto others....." are concepts foreign to your philosophy. You are, of course, far from being alone in this and I do not intend, by pointing this out, to be personal criticism.

The other basic problem that you have is in considering health insurance to be an "investment." It is not. It is an expense to purchase a kind of immunity from casualty loss.

There are indeed some forms of insurance that are, at least in part, investments. Life insurance that guarantees payment to beneficiaries, and builds loan or cash retirement values is an investment (although a portion of premiums may be expensed annually).

But there are many forms of casualty insurance (health care being one form) that are expenses, not investments. With health insurance your premium cost disappears each year and never builds an accrued balance. Pure expense.

The same goes for automobile accident and liability insurance, homeowner's fire and liability insurance, and other forms of insurance. Zero residual balance at the end of the premium period.

In most places you cannot escape purchasing homeowner's insurance if you have a mortgage on your property.

In the USA, in States with No-Fault auto insurance requirements you cannot, if you own a car, escape payment into an insurance pool of one form or another.

Everyone in the class being covered MUST purchase insurance.

It is absolutely just as rational for a State (Massachusetts) to require that all citizens be covered by health insurance, and it is perfectly rational for the Federal Government to enact laws making health insurance mandatory throughout the nation. In this case the class is everyone.

Health insurance is a form of casualty insurance and not an investment. Payments are made to cover actual losses and also to try to prevent losses. Zero account balance at the end of the premium period.

Period.
Facts are fragile things. Treat them with care. Sources are important. Alternative facts do not exist.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 6163
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Trump's Tax Plan

Tue May 09, 2017 5:20 am

BobPatterson wrote:
In the USA, in States with No-Fault auto insurance requirements you cannot, if you own a car, escape payment into an insurance pool of one form or another.

Everyone in the class being covered MUST purchase insurance..


Since i have been there with him:

- being forced to buy insurance violates his property rights
- being required to keep is car road safe violates his property rights
- not being allowed to dump used motor oil in his garden is violating his property right
- if he injures or kills a third party, and doesn´t have enough money to pay for it, jail time means justice is appropriately served.
- if the injured victim doesn´t have health insurance, and he can´t pay for it either, the hospital should let them die and he just gets more prison time, because insurance or universal healthcare requirements are so evil that dead people, even unnvolved 3rd party dead people, are an acceptable price.

best regards
Thomas
Times are changing: 70 years ago the USA went to war to defeat the Nazis, now they elect them to run their country.
 
BMI727
Posts: 11300
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

Re: Trump's Tax Plan

Fri May 12, 2017 11:58 am

tommy1808 wrote:
YOU pretend to think those rights are Inalienable, so YOU have to put your hand where your mouth is and return that property.

If I buy into your ideas about human rights why should I feel bad for the natives or believe that they were wronged in any way?

For the record, the tribes should be compensated and I agree with giving them additional sovereignty vs. other groups (e.g. letting them run casinos, etc.). The problem with simply returning what was taken from the natives is that the people who were actually wronged are all long gone.

tommy1808 wrote:
The root cause of all the US problems is debt, the root cause of your debt is Reagan, the biggest Debt culprit outside of war in US history.

You haven't provided a shred of evidence to support that view. In fact, there is ample evidence to indicate that your stance is diametrically wrong.

How can you be so sure that Reagan murdered the middle class when 1) During the Reagan era the most losses to the middle class were due to people moving up, not down and 2) You can't name a single Reagan policy that contributed to it or explain how it wrecked the middle class.

Also, if I buy into your premise that human rights are all just made up then why should I be outraged about any injustice? Explain to me why I should consider the Holocaust to be wrong at all, let alone perhaps the worst thing to happen in human history. Why shouldn't I look at something like Jim Crow laws with an attitude other than "better them than me"?

Dutchy wrote:
Geee, really ISIS?

Just like ISIS. They have their views on the right way for people to live life and seek to set up a government that will enforce those views. Just like you do.

Dutchy wrote:
Don't quite get what you are getting at

That the government should stay out of people's private business and people like you should stop using the government to try and make people live how you want them to live.

Dutchy wrote:
And furthermore, you have to make a choise, either you are ok with the concept taxes or not. You cannot continue to argue both ways.

No I don't have to make a choice. I've told you exactly what the right way to handle it is and can argue it however I like. The only reason you think I cannot argue both ways is that you can't make a reasonable counterargument against anyone who isn't an anarchist.

tommy1808 wrote:
In his world property is basically the only right, life is only a right if you have property

No it isn't, but you cannot take someone else's property to maintain your life.

Dutchy wrote:
Such a shame he doesn't give into that then we could have a debate where the boundaries are.

I've told you, repeatedly, exactly where the boundaries are.

Dutchy wrote:
I think I give up to explain it, it is quite a lost cause.

You should give up, because you're wrong.

LMP737 wrote:
You didn't say that though.

Actually I did, if only you made the effort to read it.

LMP737 wrote:
Basically what you said was it doesn't help me so why should I care.

Yeah pretty much. Of course it goes the other way too, there are many people in this country who get nothing from me.

LMP737 wrote:
As for DOD overruns where do you think some of the money used to cover them comes from? It gets pulled from operational budgets. In other words equipment doesn't get the maintenance it should be and personnel don't get the training they should. Which can lead to fatalities.

I'm well aware of that, which is why I addressed that in my previous post.

BobPatterson wrote:
It is pretty obvious that "my brother's keeper" or "do unto others....." are concepts foreign to your philosophy.

Not at all. Being my brother's keeper is one thing, being an obese-janitor-halfway-across-the-country's keeper is another. But then he probably has a brother.

BobPatterson wrote:
The other basic problem that you have is in considering health insurance to be an "investment." It is not. It is an expense to purchase a kind of immunity from casualty loss.

You can look at it either way, but my point stands just the same. Why would I insure against a loss that doesn't affect me? If someone else's car suffers hail damage or they hit a deer I don't suffer a loss, so why would I buy insurance against that loss?

Likewise, I suffer no loss if some random person somewhere in the country has a heart attack so why would I pay for insurance against that loss?
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 3194
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Trump's Tax Plan

Fri May 12, 2017 1:02 pm

BMI727 wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
YOU pretend to think those rights are Inalienable, so YOU have to put your hand where your mouth is and return that property.

If I buy into your ideas about human rights why should I feel bad for the natives or believe that they were wronged in any way?

For the record, the tribes should be compensated and I agree with giving them additional sovereignty vs. other groups (e.g. letting them run casinos, etc.). The problem with simply returning what was taken from the natives is that the people who were actually wronged are all long gone.

tommy1808 wrote:
The root cause of all the US problems is debt, the root cause of your debt is Reagan, the biggest Debt culprit outside of war in US history.

You haven't provided a shred of evidence to support that view. In fact, there is ample evidence to indicate that your stance is diametrically wrong.

How can you be so sure that Reagan murdered the middle class when 1) During the Reagan era the most losses to the middle class were due to people moving up, not down and 2) You can't name a single Reagan policy that contributed to it or explain how it wrecked the middle class.

Also, if I buy into your premise that human rights are all just made up then why should I be outraged about any injustice? Explain to me why I should consider the Holocaust to be wrong at all, let alone perhaps the worst thing to happen in human history. Why shouldn't I look at something like Jim Crow laws with an attitude other than "better them than me"?

Dutchy wrote:
Geee, really ISIS?

Just like ISIS. They have their views on the right way for people to live life and seek to set up a government that will enforce those views. Just like you do.

Dutchy wrote:
Don't quite get what you are getting at

That the government should stay out of people's private business and people like you should stop using the government to try and make people live how you want them to live.

Dutchy wrote:
And furthermore, you have to make a choise, either you are ok with the concept taxes or not. You cannot continue to argue both ways.

No I don't have to make a choice. I've told you exactly what the right way to handle it is and can argue it however I like. The only reason you think I cannot argue both ways is that you can't make a reasonable counterargument against anyone who isn't an anarchist.

tommy1808 wrote:
In his world property is basically the only right, life is only a right if you have property

No it isn't, but you cannot take someone else's property to maintain your life.

Dutchy wrote:
Such a shame he doesn't give into that then we could have a debate where the boundaries are.

I've told you, repeatedly, exactly where the boundaries are.

Dutchy wrote:
I think I give up to explain it, it is quite a lost cause.

You should give up, because you're wrong.

LMP737 wrote:
You didn't say that though.

Actually I did, if only you made the effort to read it.

LMP737 wrote:
Basically what you said was it doesn't help me so why should I care.

Yeah pretty much. Of course it goes the other way too, there are many people in this country who get nothing from me.

LMP737 wrote:
As for DOD overruns where do you think some of the money used to cover them comes from? It gets pulled from operational budgets. In other words equipment doesn't get the maintenance it should be and personnel don't get the training they should. Which can lead to fatalities.

I'm well aware of that, which is why I addressed that in my previous post.

BobPatterson wrote:
It is pretty obvious that "my brother's keeper" or "do unto others....." are concepts foreign to your philosophy.

Not at all. Being my brother's keeper is one thing, being an obese-janitor-halfway-across-the-country's keeper is another. But then he probably has a brother.

BobPatterson wrote:
The other basic problem that you have is in considering health insurance to be an "investment." It is not. It is an expense to purchase a kind of immunity from casualty loss.

You can look at it either way, but my point stands just the same. Why would I insure against a loss that doesn't affect me? If someone else's car suffers hail damage or they hit a deer I don't suffer a loss, so why would I buy insurance against that loss?

Likewise, I suffer no loss if some random person somewhere in the country has a heart attack so why would I pay for insurance against that loss?


You are being hypocritical. And that is the basic problem. You argue that I want other people to live their lives the way I want them to, taxation for the common good, but on the other hand, you argue that some taxes are ok, for the military for instance or justice or jails or thinks like that. You could argue that you want the rest of us to live the life you set out for us, are you like ISIS then?
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
User avatar
BobPatterson
Posts: 2639
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2015 7:18 am

Re: Trump's Tax Plan

Fri May 12, 2017 5:28 pm

BMI727 wrote:
BobPatterson wrote:
It is pretty obvious that "my brother's keeper" or "do unto others....." are concepts foreign to your philosophy.

Not at all. Being my brother's keeper is one thing, being an obese-janitor-halfway-across-the-country's keeper is another. But then he probably has a brother.

BobPatterson wrote:
The other basic problem that you have is in considering health insurance to be an "investment." It is not. It is an expense to purchase a kind of immunity from casualty loss.

You can look at it either way, but my point stands just the same. Why would I insure against a loss that doesn't affect me? If someone else's car suffers hail damage or they hit a deer I don't suffer a loss, so why would I buy insurance against that loss?

Likewise, I suffer no loss if some random person somewhere in the country has a heart attack so why would I pay for insurance against that loss?


It's hard to believe that someone can be so willfully obtuse, but sometimes we just have to face the facts.

When you buy health insurance you are buying protection against the chance that YOU might have a heart attack. So is the "random person somewhere in the country". Both of you are part of an insurance pool that pays claims whenever any member of the pool has a heart attack. The larger the pool the more spread out is the risk, and the premium cost of the insurance is lowered.

You might try to game the system by not buying insurance (unless you are compelled to do so). The problem is that your "brothers" are not going to allow you to go without critical emergency care. We are going to pay for your selfishness whether you or we like it or not. When you or someone else calls for the ambulance one will come and you will receive at least basic emergency care.

You need to pay for your share of the costs of universal health coverage. There is no free lunch. If you are a pauper or too poor to pay the full cost of insurance, your "brothers" will help you.

Rejoice and be glad. Welcome to the family.
Facts are fragile things. Treat them with care. Sources are important. Alternative facts do not exist.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 3194
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Trump's Tax Plan

Sat May 13, 2017 4:51 pm

Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
User avatar
BobPatterson
Posts: 2639
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2015 7:18 am

Re: Trump's Tax Plan

Sat May 13, 2017 6:29 pm

Dutchy wrote:


Thank you for posting the Michael Moore video. A lot of people would benefit from seeing it.

What impressed me very much was his demeanor as he delivered his message.

Over the years I have been turned off by Moore's "attitude" as he expressed opposition to things in/about our society. It was often very difficult to hear or receive his message because he came across as an ugly messenger.

Same thing happens here. Loud, shrill, hate-filled messengers lose the audience except, perhaps, for kindred ugly spirits.
Facts are fragile things. Treat them with care. Sources are important. Alternative facts do not exist.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 3194
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Trump's Tax Plan

Sat May 13, 2017 11:27 pm

BobPatterson wrote:
Dutchy wrote:


Thank you for posting the Michael Moore video. A lot of people would benefit from seeing it.

What impressed me very much was his demeanor as he delivered his message.

Over the years I have been turned off by Moore's "attitude" as he expressed opposition to things in/about our society. It was often very difficult to hear or receive his message because he came across as an ugly messenger.

Same thing happens here. Loud, shrill, hate-filled messengers lose the audience except, perhaps, for kindred ugly spirits.


His analysis is right, he presents it quite aggressively though, I can understand that puts you off. May I recommend to you the program he did, something like: Trump country, in which he tried to bridge the gap between himself and Trump supporters, he tries to understand him. Or something like: Moore invades..... in which he tried to get all the best ideas from the rest of the world to America, because on many parameters, America isn't number one anymore. Of course, he is a socialist, but what is wrong with that :D. That's why I liked this clip, most of the world, we try to take care of each other, in America, it is every man for himself of which BMI727 is an extreem example.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
User avatar
BobPatterson
Posts: 2639
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2015 7:18 am

Re: Trump's Tax Plan

Sun May 14, 2017 2:48 am

Dutchy wrote:
..... most of the world, we try to take care of each other, in America, it is every man for himself.........


You have an erroneous perception about the United States, and about Americans generally.

Sure, we have our share of kooks and me-only people. But, when you travel around this country and actually talk to people, they turn out, in the main, to be warm hearted and generous.

I'm glad you brought this up. It made me check Wikipedia for possible data: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Giving_Index

The only surprise to me is that Myanmar/Burma ranks number one in the world and we are only second in the ranking.

I found another ranking, polling also done by Gallup but in 2013, in which Myanmar was #1, the UK #2 and the USA #13. But the USA was #1 in the poll linked to above for 2013.

I don't know the methodology differences, if any.

What I'd really like to see is a ranking where religious donations are not part of the equation. I think it would make a great difference in rankings.
Facts are fragile things. Treat them with care. Sources are important. Alternative facts do not exist.
 
BMI727
Posts: 11300
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

Re: Trump's Tax Plan

Sun May 14, 2017 5:26 am

Dutchy wrote:
You are being hypocritical. And that is the basic problem. You argue that I want other people to live their lives the way I want them to, taxation for the common good, but on the other hand, you argue that some taxes are ok, for the military for instance or justice or jails or thinks like that.

There is nothing hypocritical about it. You just want to argue with an anarchist because that's the only argument you can win. Do you think that doctors are hypocrites when they administer medication?

BobPatterson wrote:
When you buy health insurance you are buying protection against the chance that YOU might have a heart attack. So is the "random person somewhere in the country". Both of you are part of an insurance pool that pays claims whenever any member of the pool has a heart attack. The larger the pool the more spread out is the risk, and the premium cost of the insurance is lowered.

Now you're talking about something different. Again, this illustrates that universal health insurance violates the property rights and right to free association of citizens. A citizen should be free to join, or not join, any risk pool they wish, even if it is a risk pool of one.

Furthermore, how can you think that single payer could be anything other than a disaster when the system is specifically based on contributions being completely divorced from risk?

BobPatterson wrote:
The problem is that your "brothers" are not going to allow you to go without critical emergency care.

That's what needs to change. Healthcare providers should have no obligation to provide care to everybody, or even anybody, based on their ability to pay or anything else. If they want to make it their policy to treat anyone who shows up and price their services accordingly that's fine. Healthcare providers must not be forced to treat anyone at their doors and must not be compensated if they choose to do so.

BobPatterson wrote:
Rejoice and be glad. Welcome to the family.

It's a family where most of the members are screw ups who won't move out of the basement. Cut them off.

But, when you put it that way it becomes clear what American liberals are or at least aspire to be: Kardashians.

BobPatterson wrote:

I'm all for reforming the criminal justice system, though I don't believe that everyone who ends up in jail just doesn't know better. And I'm all for exploiting public lands to the greatest extent possible for the taxpayer.

But that underscores the fact that welfare heavy nanny states are parasitic. They can only be successful when there is a vast bankroll to feed on, like Norway and Saudi Arabia floating on oil or Sweden building a modern economy in a more open system and then chipping away at it.

Dutchy wrote:
May I recommend to you the program he did, something like: Trump country, in which he tried to bridge the gap between himself and Trump supporters, he tries to understand him.

That's a pretty easy thing to do considering that the most conservative Trump has done is stick an "R" next to his name. Liberals look pretty dumb criticizing Trump as if he's not one of them.

Dutchy wrote:
That's why I liked this clip, most of the world, we try to take care of each other, in America, it is every man for himself of which BMI727 is an extreem example.

Taking care of each other is a good thing to do, but it shouldn't be government policy to force people to do so.

BobPatterson wrote:
What I'd really like to see is a ranking where religious donations are not part of the equation.

Why should those not be part of the equation?
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
User avatar
BobPatterson
Posts: 2639
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2015 7:18 am

Re: Trump's Tax Plan

Sun May 14, 2017 5:54 am

BMI727 wrote:
BobPatterson wrote:
What I'd really like to see is a ranking where religious donations are not part of the equation.


Why should those not be part of the equation?


I'd like to see data expressed two ways:

1. Donations to religious institutions/causes.

2. Donations to secular institutions/causes.

The reason I'd like to see the breakdown is that I think that, in the United States, much or most of the religious charitable deductions are not applied to worthwhile humanistic purposes (aiding the poor, hungry, enrichment of education, support of the Red Cross, etc.).

In the case of my family, a considerable portion of our charitable giving is by way of my wife's tithing to her church. I know for a fact that her church has a dismal record for charitable acts in the community. The money ends up being spent for church staff and buildings and for "support of missions". Their mission should be (first) to provide succor to those in the local community. I'd like to know how large that problem is nationally.

Quite honestly, I think religions should not be rewarded with tax exemptions for property or hiring/training of staff, or for expenses not directly related to true charity to others.

As for the other points that you responded to, I see no sense in continuing to discuss them with someone so obviously lacking in social conscience.
Last edited by BobPatterson on Sun May 14, 2017 5:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
Facts are fragile things. Treat them with care. Sources are important. Alternative facts do not exist.
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 6774
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

Re: Trump's Tax Plan

Sun May 14, 2017 5:57 am

BMI727 wrote:
That's what needs to change. Healthcare providers should have no obligation to provide care to everybody, or even anybody, based on their ability to pay or anything else. If they want to make it their policy to treat anyone who shows up and price their services accordingly that's fine. Healthcare providers must not be forced to treat anyone at their doors and must not be compensated if they choose to do so.

And this is the core of your false and erroneous beliefs. You can say "Gravity should not exist" all you want in order to justify a fake universe and the laws that control it, but it is meaningless blathering because that is not what is real.

And what is real is that we do not allow people to die and pile up on our streets. When someone shows up on the hospital doorstep they will be treated. And for many reasons, among them are the hospital has no idea if they will compensated (for the most part they are) and it is not treating someone could lead to a wider crisis.

So you can beg your case (and it is begging, as if you were on a street corner with a cup in your hand asking for people to agree with your idea that gravity should not exist) but is a false and flawed premise and has been abandoned due to it being factually wrong and fatally flawed.

But don't worry, as I have said before in other posts, there is no need for you to respond, this post is not for you. I may be speaking to you but am not trying to convince you of anything or trying to change you. This post is for everyone else reading this thread, so they can better understand the failures and core flaws in what you posit.

Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
 
BMI727
Posts: 11300
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

Re: Trump's Tax Plan

Sun May 14, 2017 6:20 am

BobPatterson wrote:
Quite honestly, I think religions should not be rewarded with tax exemptions for property or hiring/training of staff, or for expenses not directly related to true charity to others.

Separation of church and state is a two way street.
BobPatterson wrote:
As for the other points that you responded to, I see no sense in continuing to discuss them with someone so obviously lacking in social conscience.

Your social conscience is your business, and the same goes for the other 300 million people in America. If you want to make poor economic decisions, that's your business, but don't try to drag everyone else along with you.

Governmental relationships necessarily apply to everyone and for that reason should be as shallow as possible. Entering into a deeper relationship with any entity should be a matter of choice and not dictated by others.
Tugger wrote:
And this is the core of your false and erroneous beliefs. You can say "Gravity should not exist" all you want in order to justify a fake universe and the laws that control it, but it is meaningless blathering because that is not what is real.

Gravity is a physical law, bad healthcare policy is not. Actually, physical laws are why economics exists and why such policies don't work.

Tugger wrote:
And what is real is that we do not allow people to die and pile up on our streets. When someone shows up on the hospital doorstep they will be treated.

That is a matter for healthcare providers, or people with the capital to pay healthcare providers, to determine.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 3194
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Trump's Tax Plan

Sun May 14, 2017 7:45 am

BMI727 wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
You are being hypocritical. And that is the basic problem. You argue that I want other people to live their lives the way I want them to, taxation for the common good, but on the other hand, you argue that some taxes are ok, for the military for instance or justice or jails or thinks like that.

There is nothing hypocritical about it. You just want to argue with an anarchist because that's the only argument you can win. Do you think that doctors are hypocrites when they administer medication?


Yes there is, you use anarchistic arguments, yet you are not a self-proclaimed anarchist. And that is the basic problem. You can not so strongly advocate things the government must or mustnot do, as you don't advocate total anarchism, so there is a lot of room nuance, but not in your head, you just talk in absolute, and that puts me off, quite greatly. I say it again, you have an opinion, nothing more than that. So then there is no point to talk to you.


BobPatterson wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
..... most of the world, we try to take care of each other, in America, it is every man for himself.........


You have an erroneous perception about the United States, and about Americans generally.

Sure, we have our share of kooks and me-only people. But, when you travel around this country and actually talk to people, they turn out, in the main, to be warm hearted and generous.

I'm glad you brought this up. It made me check Wikipedia for possible data: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Giving_Index

The only surprise to me is that Myanmar/Burma ranks number one in the world and we are only second in the ranking.

I found another ranking, polling also done by Gallup but in 2013, in which Myanmar was #1, the UK #2 and the USA #13. But the USA was #1 in the poll linked to above for 2013.

I don't know the methodology differences, if any.

What I'd really like to see is a ranking where religious donations are not part of the equation. I think it would make a great difference in rankings.


I know Americans donate a lot, including time. I actually tried to volunteer my time - one day ;-) - to help out in New Orleans after Catrina. But I was talking about the way the country works, volunteering and donating money doesn't reach everyone, so there are a lot of cracks in system to fall through.

Myanmar is a very Buddhist nation, so I m not surprised at all.

An another note, it is based on a survey, why do you believe this?
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
LMP737
Posts: 5230
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

Re: Trump's Tax Plan

Sun May 14, 2017 3:18 pm

BMI727 wrote:
You can look at it either way, but my point stands just the same. Why would I insure against a loss that doesn't affect me? If someone else's car suffers hail damage or they hit a deer I don't suffer a loss, so why would I buy insurance against that loss?

Likewise, I suffer no loss if some random person somewhere in the country has a heart attack so why would I pay for insurance against that loss?


Then don't buy insurance. While you are at it stop paying taxes, of any kind.
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
User avatar
Francoflier
Posts: 4171
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2001 12:27 pm

Re: Trump's Tax Plan

Sun May 14, 2017 4:46 pm

BMI727 wrote:
No it doesn't, but I am not so vain as to think that something catastrophic happening to me is catastrophic to everyone. In fact not that many people would be affected, ranging from catastrophic to minor inconvenience, so it makes no sense that everyone would be expected to invest when only a few will see any return.


BMI727 wrote:
You can look at it either way, but my point stands just the same. Why would I insure against a loss that doesn't affect me? If someone else's car suffers hail damage or they hit a deer I don't suffer a loss, so why would I buy insurance against that loss?


lol. You either don't understand the fundamental concept of insurance, or refute its purpose altogether...

I hope you are not insured for anything. No car insurance (other than third party), no medical insurance, no household insurance, nothing... Because if you are, then you're one hell of a hypocrite.
I'll do my own airline. With Blackjack. And hookers. In fact, forget the airline.
 
User avatar
BobPatterson
Posts: 2639
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2015 7:18 am

Re: Trump's Tax Plan

Sun May 14, 2017 7:24 pm

Dutchy wrote:

I know Americans donate a lot, including time. I actually tried to volunteer my time - one day ;-) - to help out in New Orleans after Catrina. But I was talking about the way the country works, volunteering and donating money doesn't reach everyone, so there are a lot of cracks in system to fall through.

Myanmar is a very Buddhist nation, so I m not surprised at all.

An another note, it is based on a survey, why do you believe this?


First, the poll/survey questions:

"Gallup asked people which of the following three charitable acts they had undertaken in the past month:

helped a stranger, or someone they didn’t know who needed help?
donated money to a charity?
volunteered your time to an organisation?"

Second, I try very hard not to "believe" things. It is better to ask "Why do you accept the results?" or "Why do or don't you think data presented represent reality?".

You are, of course, asking why I "trust" the Gallup polling results in this instance, while I refuse to trust the results of the survey carried out by Reporters Without Borders.

The Gallup poll is conducted in accord with generally accepted rigor, samples national populations, does not delve into political biases, and is simple.

The RWB survey invites participation only from within a select group that is prone to biases of several kinds. It essentially surveys the attitudes of news gatherers, not of national populations making judgements about their freedoms. The questions posed are many and complex. Weighting factors used in an algorithm allow for manipulation of a very complex dataset, all of which remains hidden.

Third, I indicated that two Gallup Poll results, ostensibly based on the same dataset, ranked the USA #2 in one case and #13 in another.

Just one reason I try not to hold to "beliefs".
Facts are fragile things. Treat them with care. Sources are important. Alternative facts do not exist.
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 10717
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Re: Trump's Tax Plan

Sun May 14, 2017 7:32 pm

BMI727 wrote:
That's what needs to change. Healthcare providers should have no obligation to provide care to everybody, or even anybody, based on their ability to pay or anything else. If they want to make it their policy to treat anyone who shows up and price their services accordingly that's fine. Healthcare providers must not be forced to treat anyone at their doors and must not be compensated if they choose to do so.


Wow you really went full retard with this comment, I now believe you to be one of the most vile and disgusting human beings I've ever come across.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 3194
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Trump's Tax Plan

Sun May 14, 2017 7:45 pm

BobPatterson wrote:
The RWB survey invites participation only from within a select group that is prone to biases of several kinds. It essentially surveys the attitudes of news gatherers, not of national populations making judgments about their freedoms. The questions posed are many and complex. Weighting factors used in an algorithm allow for manipulation of a very complex dataset, all of which remains hidden.


RSF is an organization which measures the freedom of the press, not the freedoms of the general population. Perhaps that is the fact you didn't realize?
So the question is, how are you going to measure that? I think it is perfectly reasonable to ask the experts in the field because it is indeed too complex for the general public to make a judgment of. Experts can and you can validate such a questionnaire. I am not a scientist, so I don't know the ins and outs of academic research, but because this is a quite sensitive subject, as you have shown yourself not to accept the results, I don't think they really could afford not to make a scientific proof measurement.
If you truly want to know, just e-mail them and ask for the questionnaire and perhaps the dataset is also public. But I cannot accept that you just say, I don't believe them without anything backing that up and you made no effort to convince us, that's just biased so it is perfectly understandable that I say, in one instance you accept it and one other you don't.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 9088
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: Trump's Tax Plan

Sun May 14, 2017 8:06 pm

BobPatterson wrote:
I'm glad you brought this up. It made me check Wikipedia for possible data: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Giving_Index

The only surprise to me is that Myanmar/Burma ranks number one in the world and we are only second in the ranking.

I found another ranking, polling also done by Gallup but in 2013, in which Myanmar was #1, the UK #2 and the USA #13. But the USA was #1 in the poll linked to above for 2013.

I don't know the methodology differences, if any.

What I'd really like to see is a ranking where religious donations are not part of the equation. I think it would make a great difference in rankings.


Since I've been earning money I've been giving some to a few associations, although I think the state should do more so that I wouldn't have to give anything. In truth it's already happening since I get 75% of what I give back in tax deductions.

I don't give to anything religious related, even if I have a good opinion on it and if they are known to not proselytize, like the Secours Catholique (Caritas).

In France people give more of their time than their money, I think.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
tommy1808
Posts: 6163
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Trump's Tax Plan

Mon May 15, 2017 6:13 am

BMI727 wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
YOU pretend to think those rights are Inalienable, so YOU have to put your hand where your mouth is and return that property.

If I buy into your ideas about human rights why should I feel bad for the natives or believe that they were wronged in any way?

For the record, the tribes should be compensated and I agree with giving them additional sovereignty vs. other groups (e.g. letting them run casinos, etc.). The problem with simply returning what was taken from the natives is that the people who were actually wronged are all long gone.


You don´t buy into my ideas, you claim to have your own. Which you have, it is called greed.

Your statement proves beyond a doubt that you don´t believe what you say you do, but just argue in favor of your own selfish desires. Painfully clear since you have no problem living on and from stolen property without any remove of the human rights violations you are committing. Knowing that you have was stolen and still keeping it makes you no better than the thief himself.

It is also telling that your lame travesti of an excuse is that the original owners are dead, many of them murdered by the people that stole your property of today.There are people that would have inherited all of that, so, put your hand where your mouth is and return the stolen property.

You are, by far, the biggest hypocrite in this forum.

best regards
Thomas
Times are changing: 70 years ago the USA went to war to defeat the Nazis, now they elect them to run their country.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 3194
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Trump's Tax Plan

Mon May 15, 2017 7:40 am

A nice piece of American good salesmanship, scroll to the last segment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=voMtHigbU9Y
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
User avatar
BobPatterson
Posts: 2639
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2015 7:18 am

Re: Trump's Tax Plan

Mon May 15, 2017 8:55 am

tommy1808 wrote:
It is also telling that your lame travesti of an excuse is that the original owners are dead, many of them murdered by the people that stole your property of today.There are people that would have inherited all of that, so, put your hand where your mouth is and return the stolen property.


Oh, c'mon. I doubt that you can point to an acre of ground anywhere that wasn't "stolen" by some group during conquest of another group.

Where in Europe can you find evidence that Homo sapiens did not steal land from Home neanderthalensis?

Why are not all Europeans today either Pict or Celt or Viking or Huns or.....whatever?

Stealing land has always been a human cottage industry.
Facts are fragile things. Treat them with care. Sources are important. Alternative facts do not exist.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 6163
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Trump's Tax Plan

Mon May 15, 2017 9:04 am

BobPatterson wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
It is also telling that your lame travesti of an excuse is that the original owners are dead, many of them murdered by the people that stole your property of today.There are people that would have inherited all of that, so, put your hand where your mouth is and return the stolen property.


Oh, c'mon. I doubt that you can point to an acre of ground anywhere that wasn't "stolen" by some group during conquest of another group.


I don´t have to, since i think human rights, therefore property rights, are man made and we can arbitrarily decide "starting now". He says that property is a right that can´t be violated......

Where in Europe can you find evidence that Homo sapiens did not steal land from Home neanderthalensis?


Where do you have evidence that it was stolen and didn´t change hands through marriage. After all we know they did interbreed....

Stealing land has always been a human cottage industry.


Oh, no doubt it has been.

best regards
Thomas
Times are changing: 70 years ago the USA went to war to defeat the Nazis, now they elect them to run their country.
 
User avatar
BobPatterson
Posts: 2639
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2015 7:18 am

Re: Trump's Tax Plan

Mon May 15, 2017 9:17 pm

BMI727 wrote:
BobPatterson wrote:
The other basic problem that you have is in considering health insurance to be an "investment." It is not. It is an expense to purchase a kind of immunity from casualty loss.

You can look at it either way, but my point stands just the same. Why would I insure against a loss that doesn't affect me? If someone else's car suffers hail damage or they hit a deer I don't suffer a loss, so why would I buy insurance against that loss?

Likewise, I suffer no loss if some random person somewhere in the country has a heart attack so why would I pay for insurance against that loss?


After mentioning in another thread that I used to work for Human Events newsletter (1959-1963) I visited their current website and found it hard to believe what I was seeing. I was not aware that Ann Coulter is a star columnist there. I read a number of her columns and can now better understand why Berkeley finds her unpalatable.

Her columns about health insurance sound so very much like you that I'd like to ask:

Are you a fan or habitual reader of Ann Coulter?

Do you read Human Events often?

Human Events: http://humanevents.com
Facts are fragile things. Treat them with care. Sources are important. Alternative facts do not exist.
 
BMI727
Posts: 11300
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

Re: Trump's Tax Plan

Tue May 16, 2017 1:00 am

LMP737 wrote:
Then don't buy insurance.

I buy insurance, but only for things I care about losing.

Francoflier wrote:
lol. You either don't understand the fundamental concept of insurance, or refute its purpose altogether...

I hope you are not insured for anything. No car insurance (other than third party), no medical insurance, no household insurance, nothing... Because if you are, then you're one hell of a hypocrite.

There's nothing hypocritical about it. Where did I refute the idea of insurance as a whole? This is all pretty simple, let me break it down for you:
1. Insurance is an economic transaction that should be entered voluntarily by all parties. Forcing people to buy insurance of a particular type is a violation of basic liberties.
2. Insurance premiums should be paid by the party that stands to suffer the loss, e.g. you pay the premium to insure your house, not your neighbor's house.
3. Any insurance system where the premiums are not connected to the level of risk is doomed to failure.

Kiwirob wrote:
Wow you really went full retard with this comment, I now believe you to be one of the most vile and disgusting human beings I've ever come across.

Really? Then please explain what makes you so damn awesome that you should have the power to demand other people pay you just to share this earth with you. What wonderful things do you do to justify demanding the property of others?

tommy1808 wrote:
Your statement proves beyond a doubt that you don´t believe what you say you do, but just argue in favor of your own selfish desires. Painfully clear since you have no problem living on and from stolen property without any remove of the human rights violations you are committing. Knowing that you have was stolen and still keeping it makes you no better than the thief himself.

The parties that have been wronged for the most part simply don't exist. If they can prove a claim in court they should absolutely be compensated by the government. And, since we're on the subject, the government has continued doing that sort of thing to this day.

By the way, have you figured out which of Reagan's policies murdered the middle class yet?

tommy1808 wrote:
I don´t have to, since i think human rights, therefore property rights, are man made and we can arbitrarily decide "starting now".

Then tell me why the Holocaust was bad.

BobPatterson wrote:
Are you a fan or habitual reader of Ann Coulter?

No, she's an awful bitch.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: AA777, casinterest, Dutchy, Thunderboltdrgn and 3 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos