Socialist...it's a word Conservatives like to throw around. Take healthcare for example. Lawmakers (yes even Conservative Lawmakers) think nothing of using taxpayer supported health, dental, and vision care for themselves and there families many times each year. They don't call it a "socialist" program when they need it to mend there broken leg, or when there children need braces for there teeth. However...let someone introduce a law letting John Q Public have access to a few crumbs of taxpayer supported healthcare, and guess what: It becomes a SOCIALIST program, a program so evil, it threatens to undermine the very fabric of our fine country, and turn it into the SOVIET UNION! Which begs 2 questions:
1. If taxpayer supported healthcare is so evil, why do our fine Conservatives keep using it??
2. Why is this program only "Socialist" when the public wants it, and not when lawmakers want it?
Hmmmmmmmmm.....😲😲😲
27 Jan 12
Originally posted by bill718You know when you go to the toilet and you have that sticky poo that costs half a toilet role to wipe away?
Socialist...it's a word Conservatives like to throw around. Take healthcare for example. Lawmakers (yes even Conservative Lawmakers) think nothing of using taxpayer supported health, dental, and vision care for themselves and there families many times each year. They don't call it a "socialist" program when they need it to mend there broken leg, or when ther ...[text shortened]... ialist" when the public wants it, and not when lawmakers want it?
Hmmmmmmmmm.....😲😲😲
Well, what you deposit in the toilet is exactly the same as a conservative.
You shouldn't expect faeces to form educated opinions.
27 Jan 12
Originally posted by bill718Stop being a socialist!! ðŸ˜
Socialist...it's a word Conservatives like to throw around. Take healthcare for example. Lawmakers (yes even Conservative Lawmakers) think nothing of using taxpayer supported health, dental, and vision care for themselves and there families many times each year. They don't call it a "socialist" program when they need it to mend there broken leg, or when ther ...[text shortened]... ialist" when the public wants it, and not when lawmakers want it?
Hmmmmmmmmm.....😲😲😲
27 Jan 12
Originally posted by shavixmirApparently socialists only have this problem. I have no such issues. 😛
You know when you go to the toilet and you have that sticky poo that costs half a toilet role to wipe away?
Well, what you deposit in the toilet is exactly the same as a conservative.
You shouldn't expect faeces to form educated opinions.
27 Jan 12
1 edit
Originally posted by bill718First,welcome back, Bill! 🙂
I apologize deeply for my lack of correct grammer. Now that we have that cleared up, would anyone care to answer my questions?
As for your questions, I'm sorry if this sounds harsh, but they are little more than meaningless tautologies built on strawmen.
However, to humor you:
1. If taxpayer supported healthcare is so evil, why do our fine Conservatives keep using it??
If something that you or your family needs is free or cheap and available, you would be stupid not to take it, even if you believe philosophically that the government should not provide it. I didn't think stimulus checks we all got a few years ago were a very good idea, but you can bet your bottom dollar I cashed mine when I got it. Am I supposed to sacrifice the best interests of my family to make some obscure political point that nobody will notice anyway? Come on, Bill. Come back to us, man.
2. Why is this program only "Socialist" when the public wants it, and not when lawmakers want it?
I'm sorry. I really am. I read that question 10 times and I just can't figure out what you're looking for. The question presupposes that programs are "socialist" when the public wants it and that it is not when lawmakers want it? What does that mean? Where did you get this basis for the question? I'd love to try to answer it, but can you please clarify a circumstance when an otherwise socialist program was considered not to be such because the lawmakers wanted it?
27 Jan 12
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76Watching the GOP candidates constantly call President Obama a "socialist" and the droves of their ignorant followers who follow suit, how can call his question srawman?
First,welcome back, Bill! 🙂
As for your questions, I'm sorry if this sounds harsh, but they are little more than meaningless tautologies built on strawmen.
However, to humor you:
1. If taxpayer supported healthcare is so evil, why do our fine Conservatives keep using it??
If something that you or your family needs is free or cheap a rwise socialist program was considered not to be such because the lawmakers wanted it?
PS: Your answers were quite interesting, considering you chastised Buffett for donating tens of billions of his stock holdings to charity. And he didn't even personally gain from that.
27 Jan 12
Originally posted by bill718A conservative assumes that everyone is looking out for themselves. So in addition to going out and getting a job and working hard and assuming that everyone else will do the same-- they also cash the checks. Even if they shake their heads over the government's foolishness -- they and only they are responsible for their well-being, so naturally they take the money.
Socialist...it's a word Conservatives like to throw around. Take healthcare for example. Lawmakers (yes even Conservative Lawmakers) think nothing of using taxpayer supported health, dental, and vision care for themselves and there families many times each year. They don't call it a "socialist" program when they need it to mend there broken leg, or when ther ...[text shortened]... ialist" when the public wants it, and not when lawmakers want it?
Hmmmmmmmmm.....😲😲😲
A socialist looks out for himself, too, and so cashes the check. But then he spends so much time looking at others and trying to decide who should do what when and how and for how much that he hasn't got time to do any actual work. So he has to lobby Congress to make sure that enough wealth is distributed away from people who actually serve customers (and so get rich) to himself to that he can live comfortably.
27 Jan 12
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperI did not chastise Buffett "for donating tens of billions of his stock holdings to charity." I chastise Buffett for "for donating tens of billions of his stock holdings to charity" and, out of the other side of his mouth, screaming about how the government needs more money and people should pay more taxes.
Watching the GOP candidates constantly call President Obama a "socialist" and the droves of their ignorant followers who follow suit, how can call his question srawman?
PS: Your answers were quite interesting, considering you chastised Buffett for donating tens of billions of his stock holdings to charity. And he didn't even personally gain from that.
In any case, there is no comparison between accepting government medical services that your family needs and taking the extraordinary step of removing tens of billions of dollars from US jurisdiction. Moreover, a bit part of Buffett's recent message is this "matching contribution" thing he did with Congressmen's contributions. If you want to lead by example, dealing the most significant individual blow to the US Treasury in US history is not exactly a shining example for his philosophy.
27 Jan 12
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76We've covered this. Even for someone as wealthy as Buffett, one single person's taxes is a drop in the bucket relative to total tax revenues and the national debt.
I did not chastise Buffett "for donating tens of billions of his stock holdings to charity." I chastise Buffett for "for donating tens of billions of his stock holdings to charity" and, out of the other side of his mouth, screaming about how the government needs more money and people should pay more taxes.
In any case, there is no comparison between acceptin ow to the US Treasury in US history is not exactly a shining example for his philosophy.
I also confronted you with Republicans who are in the bottom 50% who say we should "expand the tax base" but don't volunteer to contribute. You say they're not being hypocrites. I agree, but then I don't have a double standard based on party affiliation.
Do you really think Buffet thinks his tax-matching challenge to Congress is will lower the debt? Once again, it won't make a substantive difference. He's drawing attention to the issue, nothing more.
He knows the ONLY thing that will generate a (meaningful) amount of revenue is if the tax code is changed so that ALL top earners such as himself and Romney contribute more.
