Election Day

[momopi]

If Iraq refused to get invaded by US in 2003, do you think US would not invade Iraq in 2003.  If UN disagreed to invade Iraq in 2003, do you think US would not invade Iraq.

The US just set up the government in Iraq...you want them to basically ignore that and keep troops there?  Seems pretty insane to me.

the question is who gave the right to US in 2003 to set up an Iraq Govt?? 

The authorization to use military force for each country is determined by its own government, regardless of opinions from other countries or the UN.  The Iraq Liberation Act (1998) and Iraq Resolution (2002) were both approved by the House, Senate, and signed by the President (Clinton & Bush).

 

[irvinehomeowner]

@Irvinecommuter:

One other thing, if ACA is really a privatized system, then why are public funds being used for it? Liar Loan and I discussed this with you in that thread I posted and you never responded.

 

[Irvinecommuter]

If Iraq refused to get invaded by US in 2003, do you think US would not invade Iraq in 2003.  If UN disagreed to invade Iraq in 2003, do you think US would not invade Iraq.

The US just set up the government in Iraq...you want them to basically ignore that and keep troops there?  Seems pretty insane to me.

the question is who gave the right to US in 2003 to set up an Iraq Govt??

US went in to take out Saddam..I would argue without much justification but based upon the old UN resolution regarding chemical/biological weapon ban.  Remember Colin Powell?

Two questions:
1. Did UN authorize an attack on Iraq in 2003?
2. Did US find chemical/biological weapon?

No on both but there were existing UN resolutions about the use of arms against Iraq if there were biological/chemical weapons.  But of course, the legality of US invasion in 2003 is highly debatable and probably shouldn't be the legal/moral basis for future actions.

I have no idea what that has to do with an agreement signed with the Iraqi government to have US troops leave Iraq by 2011.  Are you saying that Obama should have ignore that agreement and keep troops in Iraq over their objections?

 

[Irvinecommuter]

@Irvinecommuter:

One other thing, if ACA is really a privatized system, then why are public funds being used for it? Liar Loan and I discussed this with you in that thread I posted and you never responded.

Public funds are being used to subsidized premium.  People who buy homes are subsidized in receive tax deductions from home loan mortgages.

Also..why is access to education for general welfare and access to health care not?  I would think that one's health care is more important than access to education.

You still ignore SS and Medicare as federally ran and perfect good systems.  As your increased premiums, you pay extra taxes and fees for both SS and Medicare and you pay property taxes to support things that you may not benefit.

 

[irvinehomeowner]

On an individual basis, one case increases their taxes, the other decreases it... how can you make that comparison?

My tax doesn't go up because someone else is getting a mortgage reduction, but it goes up because someone else is getting Obamacare.

 

[Irvinecommuter]

On an individual basis, one case increases their taxes, the other decreases it... how can you make that comparison?

My tax doesn't go up because someone else is getting a mortgage reduction, but it goes up because someone else is getting Obamacare.

Two sides of the same coin...you are receiving a benefit as a result of buying a house.  That is because the federal and state governments want to encourage homeownership.  I don't see how taxes you don't pay into the general tax fund is not the same as taking money out of those funds to pay for subsidies. 

I don't see how your taxes are going up because someone else is getting Obamacare.

 

[irvinehomeowner]

I disagree that SS and Medicare are "perfect good systems".

We already explained in that other thread about the difference between education and healthcare.

Then why should people with no children have to pay taxes to fund public education?  Why should pacifists pay taxes to fund the military?  Why should I pay for the police and fire department when I have never called them in my life?  We live in a society.  There are social contracts in which people give up certain rights in order to gain the benefits of society.  If you want to go out in the wilderness and live on your own you are welcome to do so but to say that people should not have pay for things that they do not receive direct benefits for is plain selfishness.

Requiring the purchase of a product is not a government tax, nor is it a social contract.  Why do you keep framing it as such?  It is the transfer of wealth from mostly young, poor people to insurance companies.  It's also blatantly in violation of our Constitution.  This can't be said for the other things you mentioned.

1)  To get to equal protection, the SC had to find that the right to public education is a fundamental right.  Which it did.  Otherwise, there is no right to apply.

2)  There was no law of the land, each state had its own laws.  The SC stepped in and said no...public education is a fundamental right and you can't deny people of that right

3)  Brown only dealt with public education, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 1968 are the key legislation that help eliminate segregation.  Guess what Congress used to pass those...that's right the Commerce Clause and interstate commerce.

4)  Really, why can the government tell a guy running a burger shop that he has to serve black people?  Or that his store has to have certain health standards?  Why can the government tell people to pay a little extra money out of their paycheck in order to fund medicare and social security?  Why can the government mandate that employers pay money into a workers' compensation fund?  Because they affect the commerce of this county.

1)  Did the finding of education as a fundamental right give Congress the authority to require the purchase of private education?  No, it did not.

2)  It doesn't matter that each state had, and still does have, its own education laws.  The Equal Protection clause is specific about applying to state laws.  Calling something a fundamental right does not grant Congress unbridled authority to impose commerce on people against their will.

3)  Public education is not subject to the Commerce Clause.  Obamacare on the other hand is.  Your history lesson on de-segregatation is fine and dandy but it really has no bearing on this discussion.

4)  Can the government tell a black guy he needs to buy a burger from a burger shop?  Why or why not?

And my opinons:

Just want to give my opinion on these:

Then why should people with no children have to pay taxes to fund public education?

This falls under the preamble of welfare... providing something for society such that they can provide for themselves. Whether or not you have kids, as you've said, should not be an issue. I believe public schools are also largely supported by state/local tax.

Why should pacifists pay taxes to fund the military?

To me, the military is not offense... it's defense. Which is also covered under the preamble of provide for a common defense. Attack a pacifist at home, he will still try to defend himself.

Why should I pay for the police and fire department when I have never called them in my life?

Just because you never called them, doesn't mean you're not using their services. This also falls under common defense and the preambles of establishing justice, insuring domestic tranquility and securing the blessings of liberty. And again, these services are mainly state and local.

It's not about paying for things you won't use, it's about at what level these payments are made, what type of service it is... and who will be administering those services.

Other than military, the things you mention are state/local... and more so... they are still *public* entities. That's a larger part of the issue as Liar Loan is saying, because the federal government is going to use *public" funds for *private* services.

It sounds like you prefer "big" government... why?

A good education can lead to someone paying for their own healthcare, but if you don't need to pay for your own healthcare, what motivation do you have? This is the Welfare State mentality.

Don't give them a fish, teach them to fish.

And again, I'm not totally against public healthcare programs, just not at the Fed level, funded with Fed taxes.

 

[Irvinecommuter]

A good education can lead to someone paying for their own healthcare, but if you don't need to pay for your own healthcare, what motivation do you have? This is the Welfare State mentality.

Don't give them a fish, teach them to fish.

And again, I'm not totally against public healthcare programs, just not at the Fed level, funded with Fed taxes.

What motivation to do or not to do what?  To not get sick?

Allowing people to have access to good healthcare is a societal issue.  You want people to come in early on so that illnesses and conditions don't get worse for both societal and economic reasons.  It also generates more productivity in that people can get good care and return to work rather than hobbling along until it's too late.  It also allows for people who are chained to their jobs because it provides benefits to leave that job and pursue jobs and careers more to their interests.

Again...it's not a federal program.  It's a state program...only states who are too lazy or otherwise politically motivated defer to the federal government.  Federal funds are good enough for your mortgage deduction but not good enough for people to obtain affordable health care?

 

[irvinehomeowner]

I don't see how your taxes are going up because someone else is getting Obamacare.

Really? So there won't be an increase in my taxes to pay for ACA?

Well... Obamacare away then!

Isn't that like saying smaller lots are better?

 

[Irvinecommuter]

I don't see how your taxes are going up because someone else is getting Obamacare.

Really? So there won't be an increase in my taxes to pay for ACA?

Well... Obamacare away then!

Isn't that like saying smaller lots are better?

Where do you see an increase in your taxes to pay for ACA?  And even if there is an increase...why is okay to pay for your mortgage tax deductions and not for health care premiums?

 

[irvinehomeowner]

What motivation to do or not to do what?  To not get sick?

You seem to not grasp the concept of Welfare State.

Allowing people to have access to good healthcare is a societal issue.

And the Fed should not be involved. Let society take care of society, not government.

You want people to come in early on so that illnesses and conditions don't get worse for both societal and economic reasons.  It also generates more productivity in that people can get good care and return to work rather than hobbling along until it's too late.  It also allows for people who are chained to their jobs because it provides benefits to leave that job and pursue jobs and careers more to their interests.

There is the other side of this, as explained by LL but I'll let you go re-read it.

Again...it's not a federal program.  It's a state program...only states who are too lazy or otherwise politically motivated defer to the federal government.  Federal funds are good enough for your mortgage deduction but not good enough for people to obtain affordable health care?

Federal (ie public) funds should not be used for private programs.

My mortgage deduction is not benefiting the bank, it's benefiting me. Under ACA, the insurance companies are now getting both privatized and public funding under the guise of "social benefit".

 

[irvinehomeowner]

Where do you see an increase in your taxes to pay for ACA?  And even if there is an increase...why is okay to pay for your mortgage tax deductions and not for health care premiums?

http://obamacarefacts.com/obamacare-taxes/

Is someone else directly paying for my mortgage tax deduction? I know what you are trying to get at here but at the individual level, reducing my taxes benefits me first. Increasing my taxes for ACA doesn't.

 

[Irvinecommuter]

What motivation to do or not to do what?  To not get sick?

You seem to not grasp the concept of Welfare State.

Allowing people to have access to good healthcare is a societal issue.

And the Fed should not be involved. Let society take care of society, not government.

You want people to come in early on so that illnesses and conditions don't get worse for both societal and economic reasons.  It also generates more productivity in that people can get good care and return to work rather than hobbling along until it's too late.  It also allows for people who are chained to their jobs because it provides benefits to leave that job and pursue jobs and careers more to their interests.

There is the other side of this, as explained by LL but I'll let you go re-read it.

Again...it's not a federal program.  It's a state program...only states who are too lazy or otherwise politically motivated defer to the federal government.  Federal funds are good enough for your mortgage deduction but not good enough for people to obtain affordable health care?

Federal (ie public) funds should not be used for private programs.

My mortgage deduction is not benefiting the bank, it's benefiting me. Under ACA, the insurance companies are now getting both privatized and public funding under the guise of "social benefit".

No...I get it the concept of welfare state.  Basically people who are poor are lazy and dependent while people who are relatively wealthy and well-to-do are self-motivated and hardworking.  I just don't believe its reality.  Again, what negative motivation results from ACA?

You want society to take care of itself?  Really, cuz we tried that, it's called the 1890s and the 1930s.  You can also go to China to see how society takes care of itself. 

Wait...I thought your objection was that public funds shouldn't be used?  So you would be okay that the US imposes a single-payer system like the UK or Germany?  I would love that.  You don't think your bank benefits from a mortgage tax subsidy...seriously most people wouldn't be able to afford a home without the tax subsidy.

 

[Irvinecommuter]

Where do you see an increase in your taxes to pay for ACA?  And even if there is an increase...why is okay to pay for your mortgage tax deductions and not for health care premiums?

http://obamacarefacts.com/obamacare-taxes/

Is someone else directly paying for my mortgage tax deduction? I know what you are trying to get at here but at the individual level, reducing my taxes benefits me first. Increasing my taxes for ACA doesn't.

You don't think reducing a person's health care premium benefits that person first?  I mean that person can actual afford the premiums and have health insurance.  In fact, ACA much more benefits the individual than the tax deduction because 1) you may not have enough taxes to deduct and 2) you don't see benefit of the deduction until the time you pay taxes. 

Also...I'm talking about your taxes specifically.  How is the ACA increasing your taxes?

I feel like this basically a "it's okay for me but really bad for other people argument."  Money for project that doesn't benefit me is pork barrel but funding for projects that do benefit me is necessary and proper.

 

[irvinehomeowner]

You want society to take care of itself?  Really, cuz we tried that, it's called the 1890s and the 1930s.  You can also go to China to see how society takes care of itself. 

Now you're reaching.

You are going to compare 100 years ago to now? I would hope as a society we have advanced enough to learn how to take care of ourselves without gov't intervention using taxpayer money. And comparing us to China too (maybe you're talking about the population of Irvine )?

Isn't the whole idea of democracy to reduce reliance on gov't and lower taxation?

This goes back to a very local example I always bring up, there was a measure to tax homeowners to pay for IUSD shortfalls, even going so far as having teachers say they will lose their jobs if it doesn't get voted for... it didn't pass. But local businesses and residents ponied up the money to pay for these shortfalls, "saving" those jobs.

That's society taking care of society... willfully, without taxation.

 

[Irvinecommuter]

You want society to take care of itself?  Really, cuz we tried that, it's called the 1890s and the 1930s.  You can also go to China to see how society takes care of itself. 

Now you're reaching.

You are going to compare 100 years ago to now? I would hope as a society we have advanced enough to learn how to take care of ourselves without gov't intervention using taxpayer money. And comparing us to China too (maybe you're talking about the population of Irvine )?

Isn't the whole idea of democracy to reduce reliance on gov't and lower taxation?

This goes back to a very local example I always bring up, there was a measure to tax homeowners to pay for IUSD shortfalls, even going so far as having teachers say they will lose their jobs if it doesn't get voted for... it didn't pass. But local businesses and residents ponied up the money to pay for these shortfalls, "saving" those jobs.

That's society taking care of society... willfully, without taxation.

No...I'm pretty sure pretty will do the same now.  In fact, go look at impoverish areas throughout this country and you tell me how people are being taken care of.  We just through one of the biggest economic collapses in global history in large part because a small fraction of people were trying to benefit without any consideration for potential consequence and effects on other. 

China is actually the perfect example of modern society without government intervention would work.  Even China realizes that the free hand of the market is not very good in promoting social harmony.

That's great that Irvine can support its local school but what would Santa Ana do?  What about Compton, Riverside, Fresno, or 98% of the US that do not have a upper middle class population?  The first day of my daughter's Kindergarten class, parents were lined up trying to give the teachers school supplies and asking if they could volunteer or give more.  Do you think that happens in less well-to-do school district? 

As I always tell Libertarians, live outside of your bubble and world.  You live in a society and there are a lot of people who are suffering.  Those people have the same work ethics, motivations, and aspirations as you do, they just got dealt a much tougher hand to begin with. 

Honestly, I can live with the Gordon Gekkos of the world...I understand who they are and they are honest about who they are.  I am annoyed at people who pretend that somehow they are morally superior than other and that the world will be fine if we just left everyone alone.  It's basically a cop-out for being selfish.

 

[irvinehomeowner]

@IC:

I understand your argument but it is flawed. You are increasing almost everyone's taxes to decrease that person's individual cost when they probably could afford it on their own anyways.

If I spent enough money at a store to earn a discount, that makes sense. But if that same store charges me more so that someone else who doesn't even shop at that store can also get a discount, how is that fair?

This even goes back to all these TARP, HARP, CRAP programs. Why bail them out? Let the market figure itself out.

 

[irvinehomeowner]

Well maybe I'm an optimist... and if the gov't stopped taxing me $1 so they can keep .90 and just spend .10 on the impoverished, I can spend that whole $1 on them directly.

Until their is more accountability and transparency at the gov't level, our tax dollars will never be optimized to take care of society's "problems". Instead, we inefficiently enable welfare mentality and then people like you think it's because the gov't isn't doing enough.

I think we both want the same things, but we just don't agree on the methods.

 

[Irvinecommuter]

@IC:

I understand your argument but it is flawed. You are increasing almost everyone's taxes to decrease that person's individual cost when they probably could afford it on their own anyways.

If I spent enough money at a store to earn a discount, that makes sense. But if that same store charges me more so that someone else who doesn't even shop at that store can also get a discount, how is that fair?

This even goes back to all these TARP, HARP, CRAP programs. Why bail them out? Let the market figure itself out.

Really...you think that most people could afford insurance but choose not to buy it?  Really?  Do you ever consider not paying for insurance for your family?

The subsidies only  apply to those making below 400% of the federal poverty line and the premium are more than 9.5% of your income.   

This is not a store!  It's about people's health!  The fact that other people are healthy and get good treatment benefits you both directly and indirectly.  The waiter that serves you dinner can actually get treatment for his bronchitis rather than coughing into your food.

Insurance is basically the ACA, everyone pays premium so that the cost of care is spread out among the many.  If you participate in a group plan and someone gets sick, your premiums go up! 

 

[irvinehomeowner]

As I always tell Libertarians, live outside of your bubble and world.  You live in a society and there are a lot of people who are suffering.  Those people have the same work ethics, motivations, and aspirations as you do, they just got dealt a much tougher hand to begin with. 

Honestly, I can live with the Gordon Gekkos of the world...I understand who they are and they are honest about who they are.  I am annoyed at people who pretend that somehow they are morally superior than other and that the world will be fine if we just left everyone alone.  It's basically a cop-out for being selfish.

I don't think you are fully grasping what I'm saying.

The gov't use of a dollar is highly inefficient. I'm not saying that we should leave everyone alone, but that we should do it directly rather than through gov't. You bring up China, but culturally they have a different mentality, so that's not a good example.

I run across so many people who are charitable and want to give and if the gov't would get out of the way and stop taxing them so much, they would have more to spend directly on those who need it.

I believe that people will always take care of people... you don't need the gov't to take your money and keep some of it to show you how.