Trying to understand the Tea Party

Starfall

Gern Blansten wrote:

I consider myself a fiscal conservative and as a conservative (and a CPA) I say that a single payer/universal system is the way to go as far as delivering health care. It is the most efficient and eliminates the multiple profit layers that our current system has....and guess what....it already exists.....medicare

Actually you're far from being the only conservative that says so. The noted NYT columnist David Brooks actually admitted that single payer was the most cost efficient system.
Furthermore, if you survey the conservatives in all the social democratic countries from Canada to Denmark, NOT ONE OF THEM are willing to give up their single payer healthcare system. NOT ONE.

_

Interesting NPR story this morning about the Tea Party:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125917175&sc=17&f=1001

Starfall

inmytree wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

why the overgeneralization?
There are laws on the books that make a lot of sense. anything that stops you from your right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...you don't have to want all laws abolished, just ones that don't fit that formula. but go ahead with your follow up, I will bite on your leading question

I was just curious...thus I asked a question...

I wonder how wearing a helmet stops you from your right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...I'm guessing you're unhappy with wearing a helmet...as if it's such a horrible travesty...fyi...S. Carolina does not require you to wear a helmet...I get the sense this is of paramount importance to you...so if your in the market to relocate...

Hey, if he wants to live in a country where the government doesn't interfere with his rights at all, where it doesn't tax him, he can own as many guns as he wants, he can travel anywhere without having to show a driver's license or any such feeble documentation... where private ownership reigns supreme and the government is non-existent.... is there any such libertarian paradise anywhere in the world?

Actually... it turns out that there is. It's called Somalia.

So, would I rather live in a nanny state like Sweden or in a tea party state like Somalia? Ah, choices, choices.

Starfall

scb wrote:

Starfall wrote:

aerial wrote:

BACK TO THE Tea Party question .....we want less government in our personal lives...

I don't think you'll find anyone to disagree with you there. We liberals don't want government involved in our personal lives either.

It's not their business to tell me who I can love, who I can talk to, who I should vote for, who I should listen to, who I can associate with, and it's certainly not any of their business to spy on my phone calls and my emails.

Don't forget: It's also none of their business to tell us what we can and can't do with our bodies.

Well, they CAN tell us to wear seatbelts or to get essential vaccinations... although I do get your point about choice.

FiveB247x

Funny how if you put things into practical terms where they do exist, some ideas and philosophy sound turn out to be completely and utterly ridiculous.

Starfall wrote:

Hey, if he wants to live in a country where the government doesn't interfere with his rights at all, where it doesn't tax him, he can own as many guns as he wants, he can travel anywhere without having to show a driver's license or any such feeble documentation... where private ownership reigns supreme and the government is non-existent.... is there any such libertarian paradise anywhere in the world?

Actually... it turns out that there is. It's called Somalia.

So, would I rather live in a nanny state like Sweden or in a tea party state like Somalia? Ah, choices, choices.

mikepegg44

scb wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

inmytree wrote:

are you advocating abolishing all laws or just the ones that annoy you...?

why the overgeneralization?
There are laws on the books that make a lot of sense. anything that stops you from your right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...you don't have to want all laws abolished, just ones that don't fit that formula. but go ahead with your follow up, I will bite on your leading question

The problem, as I believe I said and you ignored before, is that this is not black and white. There is a huge gray area and it's open to interpretation. It's not obvious where the balance lies. You have been completely unclear about where you draw that line and why, opting instead to just ignore the attempt at balance and make overgeneralizing accusations of a government takeover of your rights.

thats not true, I said that when something I do directly infringes on your right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That is exactly it. When my behavior infringes on your RIGHTS, not your priviledges, not your entitlements, your rights as dictated by the constitution of the united states. I already said it and I don't think i need to say it again. Because it wasn't directly in response to you, you have assumed I am ignoring you, I am not, I have already said it.
When I steal something from you, it is infringing on those rights, when I don't wear my own seatbelt it is not an infringement upon your rights.
As far as your argument about healthcare costs from kids not wearing helmets...that argument doesn't hold water. First off, I don't think that healthcare is the responibility of government, but that is a different argument all together. So to say it costs the taxpayers money actually goes to further my point that the government needs to get the hell out of everyday lives. It should cost the family, and only the family money and the fact that it doesn't drives me crazy.

mikepegg44

scb wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

inmytree wrote:

are you advocating abolishing all laws or just the ones that annoy you...?

why the overgeneralization?
There are laws on the books that make a lot of sense. anything that stops you from your right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...you don't have to want all laws abolished, just ones that don't fit that formula. but go ahead with your follow up, I will bite on your leading question

The problem, as I believe I said and you ignored before, is that this is not black and white. There is a huge gray area and it's open to interpretation. It's not obvious where the balance lies. You have been completely unclear about where you draw that line and why, opting instead to just ignore the attempt at balance and make overgeneralizing accusations of a government takeover of your rights.

right, you are entitled to your opinion, I was just giving you MY INTERPRETATION. I was telling you where the balance lies for ME and how I would like it to be. Funny that in a thread starting with trying to understand you simply just want to argue instead of actually try to understand what I am talking about.

mikepegg44

Starfall wrote:

inmytree wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

why the overgeneralization?
There are laws on the books that make a lot of sense. anything that stops you from your right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...you don't have to want all laws abolished, just ones that don't fit that formula. but go ahead with your follow up, I will bite on your leading question

I was just curious...thus I asked a question...

I wonder how wearing a helmet stops you from your right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...I'm guessing you're unhappy with wearing a helmet...as if it's such a horrible travesty...fyi...S. Carolina does not require you to wear a helmet...I get the sense this is of paramount importance to you...so if your in the market to relocate...

Hey, if he wants to live in a country where the government doesn't interfere with his rights at all, where it doesn't tax him, he can own as many guns as he wants, he can travel anywhere without having to show a driver's license or any such feeble documentation... where private ownership reigns supreme and the government is non-existent.... is there any such libertarian paradise anywhere in the world?

Actually... it turns out that there is. It's called Somalia.

So, would I rather live in a nanny state like Sweden or in a tea party state like Somalia? Ah, choices, choices.

lol ... whatever man, I am not saying that I don't want to pay taxes, I pay them every year, I am not saying government serves no purpose, but to take it to that extreme is obnoxious. Warlords infringe on the rights of somali's everyday, that is what the government should be there to protect us from, not simple things like choosing to wear a fucking seatbelt or not...

mikepegg44

scb wrote:

How is failing to put your child in a car seat anything but neglect??

I am not saying that all kids should be running around the back of a god damn suv, you are not really following so I am going to just stop talking about it. It is clear to me that short of talking about it in person you aren't going to see what I am trying to say and it seems as though you are deliberately missing the point. It isn't anymore neglect to do that than it is to smoke around kids in the car with the windows up in my mind, but yet one is legal and the other isn't....why the line? Shouldn't we just stay out of it in general. Is it really no more of a risk? I would rather err on the side of not enough regulation than too much. Seems like you would rather go the other way, that is fine, I just happen to disagree.

scb wrote:

I see your point about the iPhones, but I don't know if you see mine. For one thing, you really have no idea who purchased the phones or pays for the plan. There are plenty of kids who receive phones & coverage as part of their fathers', grandparents', adult siblings', or whoever's plans. I don't think you should judge when you don't really know the facts.

i have ALL their financial information in front of me when I meet with people. Thanks for assuming I have no idea where this stuff comes from. Which is why I said PURCHASED!!!!!!
The fact is this small example is part of the bigger problem for me in that people know they are going to be taken care of so instead of cutting costs where they can to be able afford the things they "need" they buy things like ihones for their kids instead of just going with the phone that comes with the plan. She is free to buy those things for her kids, I am not saying there should be a law against it, I am saying this is a problem with society in general. we think it is our right to live like our neighbors even though we cannot afford it. That is the problem I have with how much government is involved with the daily lives of people.

mikepegg44

FiveB247x wrote:

Funny how if you put things into practical terms where they do exist, some ideas and philosophy sound turn out to be completely and utterly ridiculous.

Starfall wrote:

Hey, if he wants to live in a country where the government doesn't interfere with his rights at all, where it doesn't tax him, he can own as many guns as he wants, he can travel anywhere without having to show a driver's license or any such feeble documentation... where private ownership reigns supreme and the government is non-existent.... is there any such libertarian paradise anywhere in the world?

Actually... it turns out that there is. It's called Somalia.

So, would I rather live in a nanny state like Sweden or in a tea party state like Somalia? Ah, choices, choices.

what is practical about me saying quit telling me to wear a god damn seatbelt and putting me in a region where warlords control and infringe on the rights of people everyday? The somali refugees I deal with everyday would spit in your face for saying that, and that is the truth.

FiveB247x

Because it is not practical - it is the idea that the individual want/need is more important than what's best for the group want/need. Now I know this goes back to the mention of ideals, morality, etc.. but the individual's responsibilities in society have accountability to the greater group involved... ie sum of the whole.

A very simple example which not to get into a side debate at all about this subject matter but, when kids don't get vaccines because their parents are afraid for reason x or y. Then at some point one of these kids get sick and an outbreak starts and effect everyone.

Lastly, people don't leave war-ridden, impoverished nations because it's a great place. They obviously love their home, culture and all that goes with it, but the original poster and my comments were directed at the state of affairs - not the people and that's a clear distinction you seemed to miss.

mikepegg44 wrote:

what is practical about me saying quit telling me to wear a god damn seatbelt and putting me in a region where warlords control and infringe on the rights of people everyday? The somali refugees I deal with everyday would spit in your face for saying that, and that is the truth.

mikepegg44

FiveB247x wrote:

Because it is not practical - it is the idea that the individual want/need is more important than what's best for the group want/need. Now I know this goes back to the mention of ideals, morality, etc.. but the individual's responsibilities in society have accountability to the greater group involved... ie sum of the whole.

A very simple example which not to get into a side debate at all about this subject matter but, when kids don't get vaccines because their parents are afraid for reason x or y. Then at some point one of these kids get sick and an outbreak starts and effect everyone.

Lastly, people don't leave war-ridden, impoverished nations because it's a great place. They obviously love their home, culture and all that goes with it, but the original poster and my comments were directed at the state of affairs - not the people and that's a clear distinction you seemed to miss.

mikepegg44 wrote:

what is practical about me saying quit telling me to wear a god damn seatbelt and putting me in a region where warlords control and infringe on the rights of people everyday? The somali refugees I deal with everyday would spit in your face for saying that, and that is the truth.

The state of affairs in Somalia are not comparable to what I am saying at ALL. I understood what he was saying, but to equate the two and bring that into the argument was in poor taste at best, and a gross misunderstanding of what I am talking about at worst... What I was saying before about public health risks and private health risks still holds true. My not wearing protective equipment is not the same as my causing an outbreak of an illness that can severely damage someone ELSE.
I agree that an individual's actions add into the sum of the whole, but things that don't affect the whole should not be legislated. I guess we just disagree as to the extent of those things.

FiveB247x

Well we'll just have to agree to disagree about the comparison. I find it neither in poor taste and relevant to the original poster's mention.

Well since you're so hell bent on safety - how about this analogy. Everyone who has either health or is forced to get car insurance (because they drive) has a responsibility to act accordingly because your individual actions do effect the group. In a car for example, your driving effects others - and if you don't wear a seat buckle it can effect others. Let's say you get into an accident and it can effect your insurance.. and if you get hurt - where does your coverage come from? Answer - the pool everyone contributes too. Now I know this is a very basic and generalized example, but you singular actions can and do effect the greater whole. In terms of health insurance - it's the same exact premise.

The basic idea of not legislating things that don't affect everyone doesn't work. It undermines just about everything we have in our society - whether it's a federalist state, programs or policies which effect all involved. Perhaps bloated programs and sometimes questionable morality calls, the majority protecting the minority is one of the key facets of our nation - otherwise we'd simply be what we've been slowly crawling towards - oligarchy (two classes -rich and poor).

mikepegg44 wrote:

The state of affairs in Somalia are not comparable to what I am saying at ALL. I understood what he was saying, but to equate the two and bring that into the argument was in poor taste at best, and a gross misunderstanding of what I am talking about at worst... What I was saying before about public health risks and private health risks still holds true. My not wearing protective equipment is not the same as my causing an outbreak of an illness that can severely damage someone ELSE.
I agree that an individual's actions add into the sum of the whole, but things that don't affect the whole should not be legislated. I guess we just disagree as to the extent of those things.

mikepegg44

FiveB247x wrote:

Well we'll just have to agree to disagree about the comparison. I find it neither in poor taste and relevant to the original poster's mention.

Comparing the plight of people in somalia with the notion that the government is overstepping its boundaries with some laws is not a valid comparison.

Well since you're so hell bent on safety I am not hell bent on safety...it was the example I chose, like I said in a previous post, I wish I had just chosen my pigeon example, because then maybe people would have just understood it and moved on.

Everyone who has either health or is forced to get car insurance (because they drive) has a responsibility to act accordingly because your individual actions do effect the group. In a car for example, your driving effects others - and if you don't wear a seat buckle it can effect others. Let's say you get into an accident and it can effect your insurance.. and if you get hurt - where does your coverage come from? Answer - the pool everyone contributes too. Now I know this is a very basic and generalized example, but you singular actions can and do effect the greater whole. In terms of health insurance - it's the same exact premise.



If I pay my health insurance premiums, I am paying for the coverage. If I am paying my car insurance premiums I am paying for the coverage, so if I get in an accident I am covered. I don't understand how it costs everyone money? It costs the company that is selling me a service money.

The basic idea of not legislating things that don't affect everyone doesn't work. It undermines just about everything we have in our society -
How? You are misinterpreting my point maybe...anything that effects other people should be legislated, we just have a different idea of what those things are maybe[/i}

FiveB247x

You are missing and confusing the point about the Somalia reference. It was used as an example of a nation which has corruption, crime, loose or no regulation and free enterprise. That is not a reflection on all Somalian's any more the US fighting a war in Iraq means that our entire nation is for it. You're making a clear and mistaken leap about the two.

In terms of the car insurance example - your car insurance isn't merely coverage for you in the simplest terms, your premiums (if unused) go to the pool which pay out others in need. That's how insurance works. So if everyone draws out of the pool, the insurance company is screwed and everyone's premiums go up...and this is one of the many of the reasons we see health insurance so f'ed up.

mikepegg44 wrote:

FiveB247x wrote:

Well we'll just have to agree to disagree about the comparison. I find it neither in poor taste and relevant to the original poster's mention.

Comparing the plight of people in somalia with the notion that the government is overstepping its boundaries with some laws is not a valid comparison.

Well since you're so hell bent on safety I am not hell bent on safety...it was the example I chose, like I said in a previous post, I wish I had just chosen my pigeon example, because then maybe people would have just understood it and moved on.

Everyone who has either health or is forced to get car insurance (because they drive) has a responsibility to act accordingly because your individual actions do effect the group. In a car for example, your driving effects others - and if you don't wear a seat buckle it can effect others. Let's say you get into an accident and it can effect your insurance.. and if you get hurt - where does your coverage come from? Answer - the pool everyone contributes too. Now I know this is a very basic and generalized example, but you singular actions can and do effect the greater whole. In terms of health insurance - it's the same exact premise.

If I pay my health insurance premiums, I am paying for the coverage. If I am paying my car insurance premiums I am paying for the coverage, so if I get in an accident I am covered. I don't understand how it costs everyone money? It costs the company that is selling me a service money.

The basic idea of not legislating things that don't affect everyone doesn't work. It undermines just about everything we have in our society -
How? You are misinterpreting my point maybe...anything that effects other people should be legislated, we just have a different idea of what those things are maybe[/i}

_

mikepegg44 wrote:

thats not true, I said that when something I do directly infringes on your right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That is exactly it. When my behavior infringes on your RIGHTS, not your priviledges, not your entitlements, your rights as dictated by the constitution of the united states. I already said it and I don't think i need to say it again. Because it wasn't directly in response to you, you have assumed I am ignoring you, I am not, I have already said it.
When I steal something from you, it is infringing on those rights, when I don't wear my own seatbelt it is not an infringement upon your rights.

Okay, let's review this again... 1. You said there should not be regulation unless something infringes upon the rights of others. 2. I said that whether or not something infringes on the rights of others is not black and white; there's a huge, debatable, gray area where we have to find balance and make judgements about where to draw the line. I asked where you draw the line. 3. You repeated #1, saying you draw the line at the point where something infringes upon the rights of others.

4. So now I guess I'll repeat #2: It's not obviously clear where the point is at which something infringes upon someone else's rights vs. where no one's rights are infringed upon. This is the part that falls into the gray area and is debatable. Just because you think something infringes upon the rights of others and thinks something else doesn't, doesn't mean that everyone else sees it the same way or that your opinion is necessarily true. You have to more clearly define the point at which you believe this infringement happens. What you have said thusfar is basically meaningless when it comes to answering this question.

Here's another way to put it: You have acted as the Legislative branch and created a law (that no one shall do anything that infringes upon the rights of others). I am asking you to now act as the Judicial branch and interpret how that law should be applied in the real world.

mikepegg44 wrote:

As far as your argument about healthcare costs from kids not wearing helmets...that argument doesn't hold water. First off, I don't think that healthcare is the responibility of government, but that is a different argument all together. So to say it costs the taxpayers money actually goes to further my point that the government needs to get the hell out of everyday lives. It should cost the family, and only the family money and the fact that it doesn't drives me crazy.

How exactly does this argument not hold water? This conversation started, I believe, because you said people were losing their freedom by being made to pay more for healthcare. Here is a clear, factual example of another scenario in which people are being made to pay more for healthcare. How is this NOT, by your own logic, a loss of freedom as well??

And you can't say it's not a loss of freedom because the taxpayers shouldn't be paying for healthcare. (And if you think you can, you'll have to apply that equally to your own example with the healthcare bill as well as my example with the helmets.) That's irrlevant. They ARE paying for it. And they are paying more because people don't wear helmets.

It's not that I can't see your point; I can. But why can't you understand the other side? And why can't you admit that this is a gray area - not a black and white issue where you're necessarily right?

_

mikepegg44 wrote:

scb wrote:

The problem, as I believe I said and you ignored before, is that this is not black and white. There is a huge gray area and it's open to interpretation. It's not obvious where the balance lies. You have been completely unclear about where you draw that line and why, opting instead to just ignore the attempt at balance and make overgeneralizing accusations of a government takeover of your rights.

right, you are entitled to your opinion, I was just giving you MY INTERPRETATION. I was telling you where the balance lies for ME and how I would like it to be. Funny that in a thread starting with trying to understand you simply just want to argue instead of actually try to understand what I am talking about.

I'm not trying to argue with this question. I AM trying to understand - but you're not providing enough information.

_

mikepegg44 wrote:

scb wrote:

How is failing to put your child in a car seat anything but neglect??

I am not saying that all kids should be running around the back of a god damn suv, you are not really following so I am going to just stop talking about it. It is clear to me that short of talking about it in person you aren't going to see what I am trying to say and it seems as though you are deliberately missing the point. It isn't anymore neglect to do that than it is to smoke around kids in the car with the windows up in my mind, but yet one is legal and the other isn't....why the line? Shouldn't we just stay out of it in general. Is it really no more of a risk? I would rather err on the side of not enough regulation than too much. Seems like you would rather go the other way, that is fine, I just happen to disagree.

I know you're not saying all kids should be running around in the back of SUVs. I'm not following what you ARE saying because you're not really answering my questions.

But I think your comments above provide a basis to move forward. You ask why the line where smoking in the car isn't regulated but car seats are, and whether it's really more of a risk.

Well, for one thing, in many places it actually is NOT legal to smoke in cars with kids. I think this further points to the giant gray area.

That aside, as you alluded to, the level of risk is a primary factor in drawing the line with this kind of regulation. And, yes, it is more of a risk for children to ride in cars without car seats than to ride in cars where someone is smoking.

mikepegg44 wrote:

scb wrote:

I see your point about the iPhones, but I don't know if you see mine. For one thing, you really have no idea who purchased the phones or pays for the plan. There are plenty of kids who receive phones & coverage as part of their fathers', grandparents', adult siblings', or whoever's plans. I don't think you should judge when you don't really know the facts.

i have ALL their financial information in front of me when I meet with people. Thanks for assuming I have no idea where this stuff comes from. Which is why I said PURCHASED!!!!!!
The fact is this small example is part of the bigger problem for me in that people know they are going to be taken care of so instead of cutting costs where they can to be able afford the things they "need" they buy things like ihones for their kids instead of just going with the phone that comes with the plan. She is free to buy those things for her kids, I am not saying there should be a law against it, I am saying this is a problem with society in general. we think it is our right to live like our neighbors even though we cannot afford it. That is the problem I have with how much government is involved with the daily lives of people.

Do you really have the receipts for the actual iPhone in front of you? Maybe I'm just not understanding what exactly you do. What do you do again?

Also, you ignored my point about how cutting this cost wouldn't enable anyone to pay for medical care or insurance anyway.

_

FiveB247x wrote:

Well we'll just have to agree to disagree about the comparison. I find it neither in poor taste and relevant to the original poster's mention.

Well since you're so hell bent on safety - how about this analogy. Everyone who has either health or is forced to get car insurance (because they drive) has a responsibility to act accordingly because your individual actions do effect the group. In a car for example, your driving effects others - and if you don't wear a seat buckle it can effect others. Let's say you get into an accident and it can effect your insurance.. and if you get hurt - where does your coverage come from? Answer - the pool everyone contributes too. Now I know this is a very basic and generalized example, but you singular actions can and do effect the greater whole. In terms of health insurance - it's the same exact premise.

The basic idea of not legislating things that don't affect everyone doesn't work. It undermines just about everything we have in our society - whether it's a federalist state, programs or policies which effect all involved. Perhaps bloated programs and sometimes questionable morality calls, the majority protecting the minority is one of the key facets of our nation - otherwise we'd simply be what we've been slowly crawling towards - oligarchy (two classes -rich and poor).

mikepegg44 wrote:

The state of affairs in Somalia are not comparable to what I am saying at ALL. I understood what he was saying, but to equate the two and bring that into the argument was in poor taste at best, and a gross misunderstanding of what I am talking about at worst... What I was saying before about public health risks and private health risks still holds true. My not wearing protective equipment is not the same as my causing an outbreak of an illness that can severely damage someone ELSE.
I agree that an individual's actions add into the sum of the whole, but things that don't affect the whole should not be legislated. I guess we just disagree as to the extent of those things.

I think one of the biggest problems in this world (and especially in this country) is the general failure to recognize the extent to which the actions of the individual affect the world outside that individual. I agree that people/corporations/whoever should be free to do what they will if it does no harm to anyone/anything else. But we, as a society, have been conditioned to bury our heads in the sand and not see the ways in which our actions affect others. I don't think it's malicious... just ignorant... and we are all "guilty" of it in some way. But as members of a larger group, I believe we have an obligation to do our best to learn how our actions affect others and remove or mitigate harm.

mikepegg44

SCB,

Do i need to go into every situation where something may or may not be legislated in my view?

ultimately that is the line to me. whether you like it or not, that is the answer. measuring the purpose of the law and deciding whether or not it is protecting you from me, or is it protecting me from myself.

what is 2+2

me: it is four

right, but you keep ignoring my question, what is 2+2

me: it is four.

The answer isn't going to change,

I understand why someone would want these laws, just don't agree with it