"If you take government money, you should expect to be told what to do."

[Iggy]

"If you take government money, you should expect to be told what to do." We heard this quite a lot from the left while Obama was dictating to banks and car companies what they can pay their employees, what their policies should be, what they should do for corporate transportation and even who should be hired or fired.

The liberals don't see anything wrong with this. They don't see it as the power grab it is. To them it is just logical.

I wonder whether they'll agree that its logical when they find themselves forced into government health care and bureaucrats start telling them they can't have butter or that they have to limit their sugar intake. Maybe they'll outlaw certain activities that might cause injury because of the burden that will be put on Obamacare.

After all, if you're taking government money, its only logical that the government should be able to tell you what to do.

[DRS]

Why you can just tax certain behaviours

[curtis123]

...and if the government takes MY money?

[Iggy]

...and if the government takes MY money?

Point well made. I agree fully.

[JudasGoat]

yeah, it's especially 'rich' that they have that midset while forcing some people to take their money.

[zantax]

"If you take government money, you should expect to be told what to do." We heard this quite a lot from the left while Obama was dictating to banks and car companies what they can pay their employees, what their policies should be, what they should do for corporate transportation and even who should be hired or fired.

The liberals don't see anything wrong with this. They don't see it as the power grab it is. To them it is just logical.

I wonder whether they'll agree that its logical when they find themselves forced into government health care and bureaucrats start telling them they can't have butter or that they have to limit their sugar intake. Maybe they'll outlaw certain activities that might cause injury because of the burden that will be put on Obamacare.

After all, if you're taking government money, its only logical that the government should be able to tell you what to do.


I can't get partisan on this one, I fully expect republicans to side with liberals on this to contain costs. And from the polling I have seen there must have been quite a few of them that believed the people that took bail-outs lost their autonomy. We're going to be getting it from both sides.

[DRS]

This also ignores fact that bailout money when to the few who went hat in hand verses health care which is offered to everyone.

Now corporate welfare and welfare for the person should have the same strings attached

[johnrocks]

I really think so and it is getting this way,that's the scary part. They herd people onto Medicare and then say "you have a choice, if you don't like it then pay cash" and then slowly but surely over times rules and regulations set in depriving us of more and more.

[CaughtInTheMiddle]

i'm not for bailouts, but, just playing devil's advocate for a second, if a entity takes government money (car company, bank or union for that matter), should the government just hand them the money and walk away?

[johnrocks]

This also ignores fact that bailout money when to the few who went hat in hand verses health care which is offered to everyone.

Now corporate welfare and welfare for the person should have the same strings attached

You seriously don't think strings will be attached to health care? I know,I know, your in Canada and you love it but seriously, no restrictions? At all?

[zantax]

This also ignores fact that bailout money when to the few who went hat in hand verses health care which is offered to everyone.

Now corporate welfare and welfare for the person should have the same strings attached


Are you trying to claim it won't happen? It's already happening, trans-fat ban anyone? Tobacco taxes? Discussion of soda and junk food taxes? Now add on a very expensive UHC program as added incentive to cut costs and you think it won't get worse?

[johnrocks]

i'm not for bailouts, but, just playing devil's advocate for a second, if a entity takes government money (car company, bank or union for that matter), should the government just hand them the money and walk away?

Shouldn't give it to them at all but there should be bailing wire type strings attached if it is given to them,lol.

[DRS]

You seriously don't think strings will be attached to health care? I know,I know, your in Canada and you love it but seriously, no restrictions? At all?

Like I said you can tax certain behaviours

[zantax]

i'm not for bailouts, but, just playing devil's advocate for a second, if a entity takes government money (car company, bank or union for that matter), should the government just hand them the money and walk away?


The terms should be in the loan agreement up front. If it's in the contract and you sign it, fine, coming in and adding restrictions after the fact is criminal.

[DRS]

Are you trying to claim it won't happen? It's already happening, trans-fat ban anyone? Tobacco taxes? Discussion of soda and junk food taxes? Now add on a very expensive UHC program as added incentive to cut costs and you think it won't get worse?

I already said you can tax certain behaviours

Do not private insurance companies charge you more if you are engaged in certain risky behaviours?

[Iggy]

i'm not for bailouts, but, just playing devil's advocate for a second, if a entity takes government money (car company, bank or union for that matter), should the government just hand them the money and walk away?

The government shouldn't hand them money in the first place. There is no free lunch. Everything government does has strings attached for the benefit of expanding power for those in power.

There should be no bailouts, welfare, corporate welfare, government health care or any other form of payment that gives politicians the edge in denying freedom to any entity or individual.

[johnrocks]

Like I said you can tax certain behaviours

Which is interfering with my rights even though I don't have the "free to choose" health insurance. Why should I pay a $2 tax on soda for example if I choose not to have the health care? You stated it was a choice. Are you now stating that my "choice" will have to be, do what govt. tells me or move? Pay the $2 tax or quit drinking soda? How does that jive with the "Land of the Free"?

[nebcon]

yeah, it's especially 'rich' that they have that midset while forcing some people to take their money.

I think we need to bury the idea that it's their money in the first place once and for all.

[johnrocks]

I already said you can tax certain behaviours

Do not private insurance companies charge you more if you are engaged in certain risky behaviours?

Mutual of Omaha doesn't tax all 300 million of us.

[Iggy]

I already said you can tax certain behaviours

Do not private insurance companies charge you more if you are engaged in certain risky behaviours?

You sign a contract when you get involved with a private insurance company that states what it covered for what price. You know what you're getting, going in.

Completely different situation.

[CaughtInTheMiddle]

The terms should be in the loan agreement up front. If it's in the contract and you sign it, fine, coming in and adding restrictions after the fact is criminal.

Okay, what should be the terms from the government side (for giving companies money)?

[CaughtInTheMiddle]

The government shouldn't hand them money in the first place. There is no free lunch. Everything government does has strings attached for the benefit of expanding power for those in power.

There should be no bailouts, welfare, corporate welfare, government health care or any other form of payment that gives politicians the edge in denying freedom to any entity or individual.

Yeah, I agree that there should be no bailouts. But since there have been by both Bush and now Obama, what terms should there be? It would seem crazy to just hand the money to companies that are already screwing up.

[zantax]

Okay, what should be the terms from the government side (for giving companies money)?

They shouldn't be getting government(the peoples) money, they should go bankrupt and allow a better run company to take over their market share. But if you insist on giving them money I don't see any reason the terms should be any more onerous then what you would find in a loan contract from a private bank or investor.

[DRS]

Mutual of Omaha doesn't tax all 300 million of us.

And if you tax the behavior not all 300 million will pay the higher tax

[DRS]

You sign a contract when you get involved with a private insurance company that states what it covered for what price. You know what you're getting, going in.

Completely different situation.

You choose to smoke you pay the tax because you choose to smoke

[Blemonds]

...and if the government takes MY money?If giving us money allows the government to tell us what to do, then when it takes our money, we should be able to tell them where to go

[zantax]

Yeah, I agree that there should be no bailouts. But since there have been by both Bush and now Obama, what terms should there be? It would seem crazy to just hand the money to companies that are already screwing up.

You answered your own question, it is insane to hand money to the people who already proved they are screw ups, so the first thing that has to be done is to remove the board and the executives. Of course, if you make that a condition of the loan, you won't get any takers.

[RickRhetoric]

With the exception of the 50 percent of Americans who do not pay income taxes (mostly Democrats), no one takes any "government" money. Tax payers are forced to give money to the government. So when they get any money from the government, it was their money in the first place.

[johnrocks]

And if you tax the behavior not all 300 million will pay the higher tax

Oh, I get it,like I said, ALL 300 million will pay the $2 tax on the soda but I'm "free to choose" rather to do that or not and I'm "free to choose" if I want the health care govt. is providing "free" to everyone. Is that what your trying to state?

[animalnut]

This administration will probably find a way to cover their wealthy supporters by offering them the healthcare they will receive, NOT the healthcare the peasants will be under.

As the months roll on, Obama will continue to change the texture of America. He will continue to apologize, and he will continue to reward his monied backers.

[CaughtInTheMiddle]

They shouldn't be getting government(the peoples) money, they should go bankrupt and allow a better run company to take over their market share. But if you insist on giving them money I don't see any reason the terms should be any more onerous then what you would find in a loan contract from a private bank or investor.

Yes, I'm against bailouts.

So, if it were your personal money, you would just hand them a zillion dollars, write up a standard loan contract, and walk away? To companies that should already be bankrupt.

[tguns]

And if you tax the behavior not all 300 million will pay the higher tax

So, government should tax behavior it deems “unfit”?

[DRS]

Oh, I get it,like I said, ALL 300 million will pay the $2 tax on the soda but I'm "free to choose" rather to do that or not and I'm "free to choose" if I want the health care govt. is providing "free" to everyone. Is that what your trying to state?

You are free to choose wether you drink the soda or not

[DRS]

So, government should tax behavior it deems “unfit”?

If that behavior is costing the government money then why not?

If my lifestyle is going to cost my insurance money they raise the price of being in the plan

[johnrocks]

And Canada isn't "free", their "tax Freedom Day" wasn't until June 6th while ours was April 13 and we have a military,a war and foreign aid involved, yet our total tax burden is 28.2% while Canada's is 42.6% according to The Tax Foundation and The Frasier Institute. Nothing is "free".

[johnrocks]

You are free to choose wether you drink the soda or not

I hope Iggy doesn't get on me for this and it's not meant to be rude but your perception of freedom and economics astounds me.

[zantax]

Yes, I'm against bailouts.

So, if it were your personal money, you would just hand them a zillion dollars, write up a standard loan contract, and walk away? To companies that should already be bankrupt.


There's no getting around the fact that I wouldn't loan them the money in the first place, but were I forced to, like I said, I'd replace the entire board and the top executives and renegotiate every single contract. Then I'd start looking for buyers.

[Iggy]

If that behavior is costing the government money then why not?

If my lifestyle is going to cost my insurance money they raise the price of being in the plan
The government has no business being involved in it to begin with. Its that simple. If they don't force everyone onto their health rationing plan, then there's no need to punish anyone with higher taxes or by trying to run their lives.

The Declaration of Independence warns us of this type of behavior and the Constitution prohibits it.

[johnrocks]

In other words,whatever the government does is ok, your "free" to not buy the **** or move.

[DRS]

The government has no business being involved in it to begin with. Its that simple. If they don't force everyone onto their health rationing plan, then there's no need to punish anyone with higher taxes or by trying to run their lives.

The Declaration of Independence warns us of this type of behavior and the Constitution prohibits it.

If a large amount of Americans did not want this then there should not have been not enough votes to get Obama in nor all the Senators and Congresmen that will vote and pass this.

[Iggy]

In other words,whatever the government does is ok, your "free" to not buy the **** or move.

Soviet citizens were always free to criticize their government. They'd just have to go to the gulag afterward.

[DRS]

In other words,whatever the government does is ok, your "free" to not buy the **** or move.

Yep pretty much

[johnrocks]

Yep pretty much

If I live to be a thousand, I'll never understand that mindset or accept it.

[tguns]

If that behavior is costing the government money then why not?

If my lifestyle is going to cost my insurance money they raise the price of being in the plan

Because it’s an authoritarian ideology, it’s the antithesis of individuality and it contradicts the ideals on which this country was founded.

If my lifestyle is going to cost my insurance money they raise the price of being in the plan

Your insurance company is not a governing body, no valid comparison can be made between the two.

[johnrocks]

If a large amount of Americans did not want this then there should not have been not enough votes to get Obama in nor all the Senators and Congresmen that will vote and pass this.

That's not why those idiots are in office.

[Iggy]

If a large amount of Americans did not want this then there should not have been not enough votes to get Obama in nor all the Senators and Congresmen that will vote and pass this.

They were lied to. The majority of people didn't vote for this. They were duped. Obama's dropping poll numbers are evidence.

[zantax]

Yep pretty much

So, if the government does a study that shows people that go to church regularly results in a healthier lifestyle, they should be able to make going mandatory or at least fine you for not going or tax activity that takes place on Sunday morning that aren't church related?

I strongly suspect you are only on board with the things you agree are bad for you. Having sex outside of marriage is a giant health risk, time to tax sex outside of marriage or just tax single people?

[CaughtInTheMiddle]

I'd replace the entire board and the top executives and renegotiate every single contract. Then I'd start looking for buyers.

Socialist


;)

[tguns]

If I live to be a thousand, I'll never understand that mindset or accept it.

You have already understood that mindset, it was the same attitude you held of your parents when you were a child…..absolute dependence.

[Iggy]

If I live to be a thousand, I'll never understand that mindset or accept it.

Its a nanny mentality. Government is nanny and has to take care of us because we're all too stupid or too lazy to do it ourselves.

[zantax]

Socialist


;)

Lol, yeah that's fair, insist I tell you what I would do if I was forced to do something that's socialist and then claim I am a socialist when I do.

[DRS]

If I live to be a thousand, I'll never understand that mindset or accept it.

It also prevents me from getting angry about things and I also never believe politicians, they may have noble intentions but they are human

[johnrocks]

They were lied to. The majority of people didn't vote for this. They were duped. Obama's dropping poll numbers are evidence.

What he stated is why we need a clear choice at election time if we are to be stuck with only two parties. All Obama had to do is holler "change" and that did the trick, McCain was a War hero but made a lousy nomination, he voted the way Bush wanted him to,98% of the time, I remember that commercial.

[DRS]

So, if the government does a study that shows people that go to church regularly results in a healthier lifestyle, they should be able to make going mandatory or at least fine you for not going or tax activity that takes place on Sunday morning that aren't church related?

I strongly suspect you are only on board with the things you agree are bad for you. Having sex outside of marriage is a giant health risk, time to tax sex outside of marriage or just tax single people?

No you can tax adulters too

[johnrocks]

It also prevents me from getting angry about things and I also never believe politicians, they may have noble intentions but they are human

I'm not angry with you or anyone, I know my brand of politics hasn't had a seat at the table in at least 100 years,lol.

[DRS]

Its a nanny mentality. Government is nanny and has to take care of us because we're all too stupid or too lazy to do it ourselves.

No no it is simply the world is what it is, things go through cycles, trust me if big business did not want this you would not be happening, they see this as a way to lower their healthcare costs and improve their bottom line so they pay for the people to get elected who will help them.

[Iggy]

What he stated is why we need a clear choice at election time if we are to be stuck with only two parties. All Obama had to do is holler "change" and that did the trick, McCain was a War hero but made a lousy nomination, he voted the way Bush wanted him to,98% of the time, I remember that commercial.

What we need is someone whose policies actually differ from that of the left's. There was virtually no difference between McCain and Obama on most of their policies. Unfortunately, we're stuck with a Republican party that is hell-bent on trying to woo the same mind-numbed leftists and nanny-state limp noodles that the Dems appeal to.

[zantax]

I'm not angry with you or anyone, I know my brand of politics hasn't had a seat at the table in at least 100 years,lol.

And I admit to being a fringe right winger. :drool:

[Iggy]

It also prevents me from getting angry about things and I also never believe politicians, they may have noble intentions but they are human

Maybe you'll care if they start taxing apathy.

[DRS]

I'm not angry with you or anyone, I know my brand of politics hasn't had a seat at the table in at least 100 years,lol.

No I am just talking angry in general, I see people read newspapers or see ads or listen to talk radio and get angry about things and to me it seems pointless

[johnrocks]

No no it is simply the world is what it is, things go through cycles, trust me if big business did not want this you would not be happening, they see this as a way to lower their healthcare costs and improve their bottom line so they pay for the people to get elected who will help them.

I agree with that,they have politicians in their back pocket, I bet you my front row seat in Hades that the bill Obama signs will even make insurance companies happy.

[zantax]

No I am just talking angry in general, I see people read newspapers or see ads or listen to talk radio and get angry about things and to me it seems pointless

yeah, it's not like anger ever motivated political change or anything.

[zantax]

I agree with that,they have politicians in their back pocket, I bet you my front row seat in Hades that the bill Obama signs will even make insurance companies happy.

Maybe initially it will, my bet is they will be pretty sad in the long run.

[Iggy]

yeah, it's not like anger ever motivated political change or anything.Or built a country.

[DRS]

Maybe you'll care if they start taxing apathy.

No that will not bother me as I am not apathatetic I just refuse to let myself get angry over things

In the 90's Americans wanted health care reform and it failed but it did not go away now it is back and has a better chance of passing,maybe it passes and 40 or 50 years from now it is overhauled who knows life goes on.

[DRS]

I agree with that,they have politicians in their back pocket, I bet you my front row seat in Hades that the bill Obama signs will even make insurance companies happy.

I'm not sure about, if they mandate everyone must have insurance but there is not a cheaper government alternative or regualtions on how much they can charge you will see the insurance companies throwing him a ticker tape parade right after they start jacking rate

If they have to compete with cheaper insurance you probably see them overhaul their entire programs in an attempt to compete

[johnrocks]

Maybe initially it will, my bet is they will be pretty sad in the long run.

They love being in bed with government, why I can sit here in my shorts and chat with you all day because of the residual income from Medicare Supplements, it doesn't mean I support it, I'm just not going to pass on the low hanging fruit. Insurance companies,AMA,Trial Lawyers,AARP and other special interest goups are all at the trough crafting legislation and the ones who will suffer is us. I detest corporatism as much as I do big govt.,seriously,I do, the way it's set up isn't capitalism,it's crony capitalism,fascism,imho.

[johnrocks]

I'm not sure about, if they mandate everyone must have insurance but there is not a cheaper government alternative or regualtions on how much they can charge you will see the insurance companies throwing him a ticker tape parade right after they start jacking rate

If they have to compete with cheaper insurance you probably see them overhaul their entire programs in an attempt to compete

It'll be like Medicare, the people going to the Govt. plan that is 80/20 with a deductible and buy supplemts from ins. companies to fill the caps so they won't have any out of pocket expense. Well,except for the higher taxes and insurance premiums both.

[CaughtInTheMiddle]

Lol, yeah that's fair, insist I tell you what I would do if I was forced to do something that's socialist and then claim I am a socialist when I do.

You guys have the same attitude, regarding the bailouts, that the libs have regarding Iraq. Both sides want to stick their head in the sand and say it's wrong and we'd never do it. Well, guess what? Both mistakes have been made. So they both must be managed correctly from this point forward. That's OUR money they're tossing around. The worst thing they can do now is to dish it out to ****ty companies and turn their back. That would be compounding the first mistake. In my line of work, I get in bad trades all the time. It's how you handle those that determines if you're successful or not.

[toreyj01]

You answered your own question, it is insane to hand money to the people who already proved they are screw ups, so the first thing that has to be done is to remove the board and the executives. Of course, if you make that a condition of the loan, you won't get any takers.
Obama did this with GM and the Cons here went nuts.

[tguns]

Obama did this with GM and the Cons here went nuts.

Rightly so.

[CaughtInTheMiddle]

Rightly so.

So, now that Bush's and Obama's bailouts have gone out, would you just wait and see how it turns out, make changes in the companies receiving money or micro-manage those companies?

[ExDem]

"If you take government money, you should expect to be told what to do." We heard this quite a lot from the left while Obama was dictating to banks and car companies what they can pay their employees, what their policies should be, what they should do for corporate transportation and even who should be hired or fired.

The liberals don't see anything wrong with this. They don't see it as the power grab it is. To them it is just logical.

I wonder whether they'll agree that its logical when they find themselves forced into government health care and bureaucrats start telling them they can't have butter or that they have to limit their sugar intake. Maybe they'll outlaw certain activities that might cause injury because of the burden that will be put on Obamacare.

After all, if you're taking government money, its only logical that the government should be able to tell you what to do.


I wonder if they would feel the same way if welfare recipients had to start being drug tested?

[conphu1]

"If you take government money, you should expect to be told what to do." We heard this quite a lot from the left while Obama was dictating to banks and car companies what they can pay their employees, what their policies should be, what they should do for corporate transportation and even who should be hired or fired.

The liberals don't see anything wrong with this. They don't see it as the power grab it is. To them it is just logical.

I wonder whether they'll agree that its logical when they find themselves forced into government health care and bureaucrats start telling them they can't have butter or that they have to limit their sugar intake. Maybe they'll outlaw certain activities that might cause injury because of the burden that will be put on Obamacare.

After all, if you're taking government money, its only logical that the government should be able to tell you what to do.

If you borrow money from a bank, don't they also have rules that you have to follow?

[zantax]

If you borrow money from a bank, don't they also have rules that you have to follow?


Yes and they are clearly spelled out in the loan agreement you sign before you take the money. If they try and come back and add rules later you tell them to go get bent.

[DRS]

Yes and they are clearly spelled out in the loan agreement you sign before you take the money. If they try and come back and add rules later you tell them to go get bent.

And what if they say we want our money back or that which you bought with it?

[DRS]

I wonder if they would feel the same way if welfare recipients had to start being drug tested?

Why would that be a problem?

[johnrocks]

Why would that be a problem?

You must not have witnessed the threads on this issue,lol.

[zantax]

And what if they say we want our money back or that which you bought with it?

Then they can demand immediate repayment, AKA recalling the loan, but they can't tell you how much to pay in bonuses or fire anyone.

[johnrocks]

If you borrow money from a bank, don't they also have rules that you have to follow?

I don't think anyone is stating that there are or should be no rules,only that if you don't like the rules of the game with govt.,your options are pretty limited. I got fed up with A T &T and switched to Comcast with a phone call, it's not that simple switching governments, I wish it was.:whistle:

[Guvnah]

If giving us money allows the government to tell us what to do, then when it takes our money, we should be able to tell them where to go

In theory, that happens at the voting booth.

[DRS]

You must not have witnessed the threads on this issue,lol.

I have no problem with the idea if you take government money to live off, you should have to show you are not doing things to keep you from working and should not be involved in illegal behaviours. I no problem with the idea of either going to school or doing community service.

[johnrocks]

In theory, that happens at the voting booth.
If my rights are ceded to a vote of the majority! Is that what this nation has crumbled to, rights and freedoms being voted on?

[DRS]

Then they can demand immediate repayment, AKA recalling the loan, but they can't tell you how much to pay in bonuses or fire anyone.

Like the people who came hat in hand had been showing they were any better making descisions to run the business

[Talk2Bill]

...and if the government takes MY money?

it is so weird to me. the fed takes X amount from a given state.... and then sends back (x-y) and calls that giving the state money. And they then take powers and authority from the state. they STEAL money from the state and use it and leverage to force its will on the state totally usurping the 10th Amendment.

now that is the kind of loan i want! I want to take BILLIONS from people pay back MILLIONS and still have a wide range of power over the people. And threaten them: if you do not pay it I will use force to get it and then if they refuse to follow my rules I will just stop giving them ANY of their money back to them.

[johnrocks]

I have no problem with the idea if you take government money to live off, you should have to show you are not doing things to keep you from working and should not be involved in illegal behaviours. I no problem with the idea of either going to school or doing community service.

You seem to be in the minority here among liberals,maybe it's time for a new poll.;)

[conphu1]

I don't think anyone is stating that there are or should be no rules,only that if you don't like the rules of the game with govt.,your options are pretty limited. I got fed up with A T &T and switched to Comcast with a phone call, it's not that simple switching governments, I wish it was.:whistle:

I should think that just like a bank, if you don't like the rules negotiate. If you can't come to an agreement, then look elsewhere or file for bankruptcy.

[johnrocks]

Like the people who came hat in hand had been showing they were any better making descisions to run the business

Then you should be on our side since 60% of our health care is directly provided to the American people by government.

[DRS]

You seem to be in the minority here among liberals,maybe it's time for a new poll.;)

I am not a liberal or a conservative, I just realize there are certain realities in life

[johnrocks]

I should think that just like a bank, if you don't like the rules negotiate. If you can't come to an agreement, then look elsewhere or file for bankruptcy.

That's what can be done with free markets,can't do any of that with a govt. bureaucrat.

[conphu1]

That's what can be done with free markets,can't do any of that with a govt. bureaucrat.

Are you talking about the "negotiating" aspect I mentioned?

[Guvnah]

Yeah, I agree that there should be no bailouts. But since there have been by both Bush and now Obama, what terms should there be? It would seem crazy to just hand the money to companies that are already screwing up.

"What terms SHOULD there be?"

Loan/bailout is already done. Terms are (or should) already be stipulated. If there are no terms, the recipients got lucky, and our government is stupid.

In my mind, the gamut of terms is unlimited. The grantor can ask for whatever he wants. The recipient can accept, reject, or ask for different terms. Once it is complete, once it is signed by both parties, that's it. No chages (unless the terms allow for changes, as do most credit cards I have agreed to accept, for example -- they can change rates on me if they first notify me.)

None of us knows the details of the terms attached to the bailouts. Pretending to have some valid grounds for commenting on those terms is just mental masturbation.

[johnrocks]

I am not a liberal or a conservative, I just realize there are certain realities in life

lol, ok then. Your right about this being a reality,it doesn't mean I'm not going to go down without kicking and screaming. It really is going to help me though,more low hanging fruit like Medicare Supplements, I don't know why I bitch about it,other than the fact I think it's far better to have free markets than either corporatism or statism and the worse, a marriage between the two like what's happening.

[DRS]

Then you should be on our side since 60% of our health care is directly provided to the American people by government.

It is not a question of taking side it is a matter of facing realities, many Canadians did not like the idea of the bailouts, but when Europe and the Us were doing the Conservative government here was forced to go along for two reasons, one they are a minority and the other parties were going to bring them down if they did not, the other was they had to keep Canadian companies competitive.

The same thing I see with healthcare, US companies have to compete with other companies in countries where their healthcare costs are lower.

[johnrocks]

Are you talking about the "negotiating" aspect I mentioned?

That and the rest. I don't know how I can negotiate with govt., I've done just that ting with private entities though.

[jwil59]

...and if the government takes MY money?

Well.............We already know the answer to that Curtis.

They suck

[johnrocks]

It is not a question of taking side it is a matter of facing realities, many Canadians did not like the idea of the bailouts, but when Europe and the Us were doing the Conservative government here was forced to go along for two reasons, one they are a minority and the other parties were going to bring them down if they did not, the other was they had to keep Canadian companies competitive.

The same thing I see with healthcare, US companies have to compete with other companies in countries where their healthcare costs are lower.

Hey, I opposed ALL bailouts,one of two reasons I didn't vote for that schmuck that was running against Obama. I think that the coupling of health insurance with employment is one of the stupidest things to come out of the 20th century,there are better alternatives than that or govt.,imho.

[Guvnah]

So, if the government does a study that shows people that go to church regularly results in a healthier lifestyle, they should be able to make going mandatory or at least fine you for not going or tax activity that takes place on Sunday morning that aren't church related?

I strongly suspect you are only on board with the things you agree are bad for you. Having sex outside of marriage is a giant health risk, time to tax sex outside of marriage or just tax single people?

Actually, the question was taxing behavior, not fining you or forcing you.

In essence the government does essentially what you are describing. It makes churches tax exempt. It gives us a tax deduction for money we give to churches. "Churchgoing" (at least indirectly) has been recognized as a positive influence on society and has enjoyed broad tax benefits right from the beginning.

[DRS]

Hey, I opposed ALL bailouts,one of two reasons I didn't vote for that schmuck that was running against Obama. I think that the coupling of health insurance with employment is one of the stupidest things to come out of the 20th century,there are better alternatives than that or govt.,imho.

Europe would have done it anyways and the Canadians may have done so the US was left without a choice.

But the US govt does have duty to help try and keep things competitive I just think they should have taken the bailout money spent it on health care and thus taken that large monkey off the backs of the auto companies.

[Creefer]

Actually, the question was taxing behavior, not fining you or forcing you.

In essence the government does essentially what you are describing. It makes churches tax exempt. It gives us a tax deduction for money we give to churches. "Churchgoing" (at least indirectly) has been recognized as a positive influence on society and has enjoyed broad tax benefits right from the beginning.

Just because "that's the way it's been for a while" or "I'm not gonna get angry because it's just the way it is" doesn't make the situation right, constitutional, or acceptable to many. It's a pretty poor argument, in fact.

[DRS]

Actually, the question was taxing behavior, not fining you or forcing you.

In essence the government does essentially what you are describing. It makes churches tax exempt. It gives us a tax deduction for money we give to churches. "Churchgoing" (at least indirectly) has been recognized as a positive influence on society and has enjoyed broad tax benefits right from the beginning.

Up here we are starting to see another tax deduction too, that for those parents who put their children into sports programs

[Guvnah]

And what if they say we want our money back or that which you bought with it?

You have a signed contract, and no court (currently) would allow them to do that (as long as you are keeping up your end of the contract.)

[johnrocks]

Europe would have done it anyways and the Canadians may have done so the US was left without a choice.

But the US govt does have duty to help try and keep things competitive I just think they should have taken the bailout money spent it on health care and thus taken that large monkey off the backs of the auto companies.

Why do we have to take the same path,that path didn't make us the largest economy in the history of mankind,that path isn't why our ancestors fled the old country, why can't we try actual free market capitalism? Wanta see my plan?

[bitterclinger84]

"If you take government money, you should expect to be told what to do."

I just had a thought. Don't the senators and representatives technically take OUR money? So why don't they seem to think that we can tell them what to do? What's good for the goose...

[conphu1]

That and the rest. I don't know how I can negotiate with govt., I've done just that ting with private entities though.

Well what can you do? If you can't negotiate with the government, or other sources, an entity has no choice than to file for bankruptcy. GM appears to be inching out of their situation to the point of paying back the government. Whatever they're doing seems to be working. Unfortunately in order for them to be doing this, more of their work force has to be unemployed. At least for now until they get more and more on the road to profitability and can start to expand in a more responsible manner.

[Guvnah]

Originally Posted by Guvnah
In theory, that happens at the voting booth.


If my rights are ceded to a vote of the majority! Is that what this nation has crumbled to, rights and freedoms being voted on?

Easy, there... Take a breath.

I was not commenting on voting your rights away.

My statement was in response to someone asking if we get to tell politicians where to go if we don't like them.

[DRS]

Why do we have to take the same path,that path didn't make us the largest economy in the history of mankind,that path isn't why our ancestors fled the old country, why can't we try actual free market capitalism? Wanta see my plan?

There was not such a thing as the global market we now have back then

With all those free trade agreements over the years, it created a competition with other countries

[CaughtInTheMiddle]

"What terms SHOULD there be?"

Loan/bailout is already done. Terms are (or should) already be stipulated. If there are no terms, the recipients got lucky, and our government is stupid.

In my mind, the gamut of terms is unlimited. The grantor can ask for whatever he wants. The recipient can accept, reject, or ask for different terms. Once it is complete, once it is signed by both parties, that's it. No chages (unless the terms allow for changes, as do most credit cards I have agreed to accept, for example -- they can change rates on me if they first notify me.)

None of us knows the details of the terms attached to the bailouts. Pretending to have some valid grounds for commenting on those terms is just mental masturbation.

Yeah, I know it's done. I was asking for personal opinions. Message board and all.

[Guvnah]

Just because "that's the way it's been for a while" or "I'm not gonna get angry because it's just the way it is" doesn't make the situation right, constitutional, or acceptable to many. It's a pretty poor argument, in fact.

I was only stating what currently happens. Not commenting on whether it was right or wrong, or whether I agree with it. The post I was responding to was essentially asking "Is that where we're going?", and I am pointing out that we're already there.

[DRS]

You have a signed contract, and no court (currently) would allow them to do that (as long as you are keeping up your end of the contract.)

Right you were already poor to begin and needed money if you still are poor how are you going to afford the lawyer or court fees to fight?

[johnrocks]

Well what can you do? If you can't negotiate with the government, or other sources, an entity has no choice than to file for bankruptcy. GM appears to be inching out of their situation to the point of paying back the government. Whatever they're doing seems to be working. Unfortunately in order for them to be doing this, more of their work force has to be unemployed. At least for now until they get more and more on the road to profitability and can start to expand in a more responsible manner.

I think I must have misunderstood you,, when I say I can't negotiate with govt. like I can with a private entity, I mean I can't pick up a phone and negotiate a different price with say, a public clinic like I've actually seen done with private health clinics.

[johnrocks]

Easy, there... Take a breath.

I was not commenting on voting your rights away.

My statement was in response to someone asking if we get to tell politicians where to go if we don't like them.

lol,sorry, my "radar" jammed two posts in a row.:doh:

[johnrocks]

There was not such a thing as the global market we now have back then

With all those free trade agreements over the years, it created a competition with other countries

How's that free markets? Free markets wouldn't have an "agreement", that's nothing but a fancy name politicians put on more govt. managed trade. Tell me how a free market system would or would not work for the vast majority please. Tell me how you define free markets too if you don't mind.

[Guvnah]

Right you were already poor to begin and needed money if you still are poor how are you going to afford the lawyer or court fees to fight?

But I'm not poor. And even if I were, that's immaterial here.

If a lender demanded payment in full contrary to the terms of my loan contract, I would sue, and I would demand my legal costs be covered by the lender when I won. That's how it works in the USA.

No court (in the USA today) would allow a lender to demand payment in full (or even a change in terms) contrary to the terms of the contract.

[aep1974]

Like I said you can tax certain behaviours

OK, fine, we'll go with that one.

You think the government has the right to tax BEHAVIOR????

That's a good one. And what of when they start taxing a behavior that you get particular enjoyment out of?

Just as believing the government is authorized to grant rights necessitates that you must believe that they also have the right to TAKE AWAY rights, if you believe that the government has the right to tax behavior, then you have to agree that the government will one day take it too far like they always do, and take away our rights.

[DRS]

How's that free markets? Free markets wouldn't have an "agreement", that's nothing but a fancy name politicians put on more govt. managed trade. Tell me how a free market system would or would not work for the vast majority please. Tell me how you define free markets too if you don't mind.

You set up trade agreements with other countries that do not subscribe to the same ideals as the US may have had. You are competing in the global markets, NAFTA was Reagans

Now I am looking at building cars, I look at several things first are there countries that have trade agreements that are not going to cost me money to do business with the US

I look at which country will it be cheaper for me to do business in, factoring that I will have to provide certain things like wages and healthcare since they are already standard in the industry

I am going to look at taxation rates and I am going to look at the education levels of the people I will be hiring

[DRS]

But I'm not poor. And even if I were, that's immaterial here.

If a lender demanded payment in full contrary to the terms of my loan contract, I would sue, and I would demand my legal costs be covered by the lender when I won. That's how it works in the USA.

No court (in the USA today) would allow a lender to demand payment in full (or even a change in terms) contrary to the terms of the contract.

How backed up are courts you may eventually win but in the meantime you will suffer.

[DRS]

OK, fine, we'll go with that one.

You think the government has the right to tax BEHAVIOR????

That's a good one. And what of when they start taxing a behavior that you get particular enjoyment out of?

Just as believing the government is authorized to grant rights necessitates that you must believe that they also have the right to TAKE AWAY rights, if you believe that the government has the right to tax behavior, then you have to agree that the government will one day take it too far like they always do, and take away our rights.

IF that behaviour is costing the government money then should they tax the behaviour or raise the income tax of everyone else?

[johnrocks]

You set up trade agreements with other countries that do not subscribe to the same ideals as the US may have had. You are competing in the global markets, NAFTA was Reagans

Now I am looking at building cars, I look at several things first are there countries that have trade agreements that are not going to cost me money to do business with the US

I look at which country will it be cheaper for me to do business in, factoring that I will have to provide certain things like wages and healthcare since they are already standard in the industry

I am going to look at taxation rates and I am going to look at the education levels of the people I will be hiring

NAFTA wasn't free market. I'm not explaining myself here well so I will instead ask, did you see my plan for a health policy here? It was pretty detailed.

[conphu1]

I think I must have misunderstood you,, when I say I can't negotiate with govt. like I can with a private entity, I mean I can't pick up a phone and negotiate a different price with say, a public clinic like I've actually seen done with private health clinics.

Understood! ;)

[DRS]

NAFTA wasn't free market. I'm not explaining myself here well so I will instead ask, did you see my plan for a health policy here? It was pretty detailed.

Your idea of the free market is long gone

Free trade was suppose to be based on free markets without tariffs

[johnrocks]

Your idea of the free market is long gone

Free trade was suppose to be based on free markets without tariffs

I agree, should I raise the white flag of surrender?

[DRS]

I agree, should I raise the white flag of surrender?

Maybe just look at things in a different way inside the new realities

For instance certain ideas still work, the first plans the govt here put forth to help the economy was tax cuts instead bailouts

[johnrocks]

Maybe just look at things in a different way inside the new realities

I really am a realist, I just choose to speak out for things like free markets as opposed to more govt., I critique and conform my professional life to the realities of what happens, I don't mind taking the low hanging fruit government offers, I just think it's ignorant and there is a better,more efficient and yes,fair way of doing things than govt., imho anyway.

[DRS]

I really am a realist, I just choose to speak out for things like free markets as opposed to more govt., I critique and conform my professional life to the realities of what happens, I don't mind taking the low hanging fruit government offers, I just think it's ignorant and there is a better,more efficient and yes,fair way of doing things than govt., imho anyway.

I am a believer in hard work and slow and steady wins the race most people are not and when things are not moving fast enough they want intervention, that often invites the government in.

[Guvnah]

How backed up are courts you may eventually win but in the meantime you will suffer.

You sure seem like one negative-viewpoint dude.

You have a negative example for anything.

Have at it. Enjoy living in sack cloth in an ash pile like Job lamenting his misfortunes.

In the mean time, the system works for me.

[johnrocks]

I am a believer in hard work and slow and steady wins the race most people are not and when things are not moving fast enough they want intervention, that often invites the government in.

I can agree with that,you just seem resigned to what happens,happens or cynical though DRS, I'm sure your a grat guy and I mean that, I just can't wrap my mind around advocating or even accepting so much govt, though.;)

[Guvnah]

Originally Posted by DRS
I am a believer in hard work and slow and steady wins the race most people are not and when things are not moving fast enough they want intervention, that often invites the government in.


I can agree with that,you just seem resigned to what happens,happens or cynical though DRS, I'm sure your a grat guy and I mean that, I just can't wrap my mind around advocating or even accepting so much govt, though.;)

In fact, it seems to me that the "what-happens--happens" attitude is the biggest invitation to government intervention here.

[DRS]

I can agree with that,you just seem resigned to what happens,happens or cynical though DRS, I'm sure your a grat guy and I mean that, I just can't wrap my mind around advocating or even accepting so much govt, though.;)

I do not advocate for it, and I do not let it bother me either

I look at my granfather, he gets mad at the government all the time and it does him no good, he is also funny because when he was rich he was the ultimate conservative and when all his money got spent he turned into the ultimate socialist.

I just look on the bright side of any issue, I would like to see what would happen here if the Conservatives got a majority, they tend to think in terms of dealing with a situation before it happens in some cases instead of trying to fix the mess after.

The only real blunder they made here on the provincial level was paid for a highway to be built then sold it rather reap the long term income of it being used.

[johnrocks]

In fact, it seems to me that the "what-happens--happens" attitude is the biggest invitation to government intervention here.

Sad but true.

[aep1974]

IF that behaviour is costing the government money then should they tax the behaviour or raise the income tax of everyone else?

A strawman question as I can't think of a situation where a behavior would cost the government money. Give me an example and I will address it.

[Guvnah]

A strawman question as I can't think of a situation where a behavior would cost the government money. Give me an example and I will address it.

Any targeted tax break costs the government money. If the tax break is for a behavior (or a choice) then the behavior costs the government money.

Examples:

Home ownership.

Going to college.

Getting married.

Giving charitable donations.

Installing energy-star rated home improvements.

Buying your first house in 2009.

And there are behaviors that cost the government money for health care coverage through medicare/madicaid. Smoking. Getting AIDS. Overeating. Abusing drugs. Etc.

There are behaviors (crimes) that cost the government money for incarceration of those convicted of those behaviors.

That's probably enough examples for now...

[aep1974]

Any targeted tax break costs the government money. If the tax break is for a behavior (or a choice) then the behavior costs the government money.

Examples:

Home ownership.

Going to college.

Getting married.

Giving charitable donations.

Installing energy-star rated home improvements.

Buying your first house in 2009.

And there are behaviors that cost the government money for health care coverage through medicare/madicaid. Smoking. Getting AIDS. Overeating. Abusing drugs. Etc.

There are behaviors (crimes) that cost the government money for incarceration of those convicted of those behaviors.

That's probably enough examples for now...

Home ownership and getting married are behaviors? Well, color me shocked....I wouldn't have put them in that category.

Let ME give YOU an example so you can understand what I'm talking about. We can all agree that smoking is a behavior, right? So, I guess your first thought would be, 'A ha! There's a behavior that's taxed!' Not so fast. Cigarettes are taxed as a product. The behavior of smoking is not taxed separately. Do smokers have to enter a code into a machine or computer every time they light up to transmit that information to the government so that they can be taxed, or some such other assinine imposition? No. Why not? Because it's assinine!!!

It is assinine to tax behavior!

[Guvnah]

Home ownership and getting married are behaviors? Well, color me shocked....I wouldn't have put them in that category.


Consider yourself enlightened. You wouldn't, but I did.

Any action is a behavior.


Let ME give YOU an example so you can understand what I'm talking about. We can all agree that smoking is a behavior, right? So, I guess your first thought would be, 'A ha! There's a behavior that's taxed!' Not so fast. Cigarettes are taxed as a product. The behavior of smoking is not taxed separately. Do smokers have to enter a code into a machine or computer every time they light up to transmit that information to the government so that they can be taxed, or some such other assinine imposition? No. Why not? Because it's assinine!!!

It is assinine to tax behavior!

Well I didn't answer a question about how to tax behavior. I just provided some examples to a specific question you asked (namely, list behaviors that cost the government money.) I limited my response to that. You took issue with some examples, but apparently not with others.

I understand your point that we often cannot tax the behavior itself, but only the materials involved in executing the behavior, but that's not always the case. Consider fines or penalties for violating (behavior!) laws or regulations. (Let's not split hairs about the difference between "tax" and "fine". The government is still assessing and collecting it either way.) Consider tolls or fees for using (behavior!) government-supplied roads or products or services.

Your point notwithstanding, the purpose of taxing tobacco is to tax the behavior, even if it TECHNICALLY does not do that precisely. True, someone who does not smoke but buys cigarettes pays the tax, therefore it is not THEIR smoking that is getting taxed. But by and large it effectively taxes the smoker and not those who do not smoke. I think yours is a fine line that you're trying to draw. It makes for a great semantic argument, but little else.

[ChaosControl]

Since the government takes my money, the stupid scumbags in DC need to listen to me. I'll start by telling them they are all fired and that I'm shutting down all government operations effective immediately.

[Colorado Mom]

Government has NO money. Government has no assets.

It is all ALWAYS the PEOPLE'S money.

It is only a steward of our money. Yes, the money is from the people, for the people and by the people!

They are failing at managing our money and they are stealing our money. I owe the government NOTHING.